Report to the Ranking Minority 

Member, Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO 

January 2004 LAW ENFORCEMENT

Information on 

Timeliness of Criminal 

Fingerprint 

Submissions to the 

FBI 

GAO-04-260 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-260.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Laurie 

Ekstrand, 202-512-8777, ekstrandl@gao.gov.

Highlights of GAO-04-260, a report to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

Appropriations, U.S. Senate 

January 2004

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Information on Timeliness of Criminal 

Fingerprint Submissions to the FBI 

IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints is important to local and state law 

enforcement not only for updating national databases but also for obtaining 

an individual’s criminal history and, at times, for obtaining positive 

identification of arrestees. For a recent 8-month period (October 2002 

through May 2003) that GAO reviewed, law enforcement agencies wanted a 

response from the FBI for 78 percent of the approximately 5.3 million sets of 

criminal fingerprints submitted to IAFIS. The extent to which these 

responses were used to either positively identify arrestees or obtain criminal 

history records is unknown. However, the FBI provided GAO with examples 

of how IAFIS responses prevented the premature release of individuals who 

had used false names at arrest and were wanted in other jurisdictions. 

Law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the FBI’s goal of 

paperless processing of criminal fingerprints, although there is room for 

substantial improvement. The percentage of criminal fingerprints submitted 

electronically by state repositories to the FBI increased from 45 percent in 

1999 to 70 percent in 2003. Also, for the recent 8-month period GAO 

reviewed, the overall average submission time for criminal fingerprints was 

40 days (an average that encompasses both paper and electronic 

submissions)—whereas, before IAFIS, average submission times were much 

higher (e.g., 118 days in 1997). Although much progress has been made, 

many jurisdictions lack automation and have backlogs of paper fingerprint 

cards to be processed, in part because of competing priorities and resource 

constraints. 

Numerous efforts have been made to help improve the timeliness of criminal 

fingerprint submissions to IAFIS. To facilitate electronic processing, federal 

technical and financial assistance has encouraged law enforcement agencies 

to purchase optical scanning (Livescan) equipment for taking fingerprints 

and to establish automated systems compatible with FBI standards. GAO 

noted that the need for quick, fingerprint-based identifications—positively 

linking individuals to relevant criminal history records—is becoming 

increasingly important. Reasons for such importance are the mobility of 

criminals (many of whom have multistate records), the growing incidence of 

identity theft or identity fraud, the significance of homeland security 

concerns, and increasing demands stemming from background checks 

required for employment or other noncriminal justice purposes. 

Atlanta Police Department Employee Demonstrates Use of a Livescan Machine 

By positively confirming 

identifications and linking relevant 

records of arrests and 

prosecutions, fingerprint analysis 

provides a basis for making 

fundamental criminal justice 

decisions regarding detention, 

charging, bail, and sentencing. In 

1999, the FBI implemented the 

Integrated Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System (IAFIS)—a 

computerized system for storing, 

comparing, and exchanging 

fingerprint data in a digital format. 

The FBI’s goal under IAFIS is to 

ultimately achieve paperless 

processing and to provide a 

response within 2 hours to users 

who submit criminal fingerprints 

electronically. Maximizing the 

benefits of rapid responses under 

IAFIS depends largely on how 

quickly criminal fingerprints are 

submitted by local and state law 

enforcement agencies. Concerns 

have been raised that, after arrests 

are made by some local or state 

law enforcement agencies, periods 

of up to 6 months may elapse 

before the criminal fingerprints are 

submitted for entry into IAFIS. 

GAO examined (1) the importance 

of IAFIS processing to local and 

state law enforcement agencies, (2) 

the progress these agencies have 

made toward the goal of paperless 

fingerprint processing, and (3) 

efforts being made to improve the 

timeliness of criminal fingerprint 

submissions. 

GAO is making no 

recommendations in this report. 
Page i GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

IAFIS Processing of Criminal Fingerprints Is Important for 

Updating and Providing Complete Criminal History Information 

and Can Provide Positive Identification of Arrestees 8

Progress Has Been Made in Achieving Paperless Fingerprint 

Processing, with Many Factors Influencing Progress 13

Various Efforts Are Under Way to Improve the Timeliness of 

Criminal Fingerprint Submissions to IAFIS 21

Concluding Observations 26

Agency Comments 27

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29 

Objectives 29

Scope and Methodology 29

Data Reliability 30

Appendix II National Criminal History Improvement Program 

Grant Funding for AFIS/Livescan (Fiscal Years 1999-

2003) 31 

Table 

Table 1: National Criminal History Improvement Program Grant 

Funding Received by the States for AFIS/Livescan 

Activities (Fiscal Years 1999 -2003) 31

Figures 

Figure 1: Flowchart of Manual and Electronic Submission 

Processes 6

Figure 2: Examples of Arrestees Held Pending Positive 

Identification from IAFIS 10

Figure 3: Examples of Arrestees Released before Positive 

Identification from IAFIS 12 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Figure 4: Average Number of Days between the Date of Arrest and 

the Date That the Criminal Fingerprints Were Received by 

the FBI or Entered Into IAFIS (for Specific Periods in 

1993, 1995, 1997, and 2003) 14

Figure 5: Percentage of the Total Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Received by the FBI That Were Submitted Electronically 

(1999-2003) 16

Figure 6: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil Fingerprint 

Submissions Received by the FBI (1992-2002) 25

Abbreviations 

AFIS automated fingerprint identification system 

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics 

CJIS Criminal Justice Information Services 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System 

NCHIP National Criminal History Improvement Program 

SEARCH The National Consortium for Justice Information and 

 Statistics 

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-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

January 27, 2004 

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Dear Senator Byrd: 

An effective criminal justice system must be able to accurately identify 

persons who violate the law. For decades, fingerprint analysis has been 

the most widely used method for positively identifying arrestees and 

linking them with any previous criminal record. Timely analysis of 

criminal fingerprint records by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 

as well as by local and state law enforcement agencies, plays an important 

role in enabling criminal justice administrators—including police officers, 

prosecuting attorneys, and judges—to know the extent of an arrested 

person’s previous criminal record as a basis for making fundamental 

decisions about detention, charging, bail, and sentencing. 

This report responds to your request that we review various issues 

regarding the timeliness of criminal fingerprint submissions by local and 

state law enforcement to the FBI for inclusion in the Integrated Automated 

Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Implemented in July 1999, IAFIS 

was designed to improve the speed and accuracy of the fingerprint 

identification process. A full set of fingerprints is taken when a suspect is 

booked by the arresting law enforcement agency. Jurisdictionally, 

approximately 94 percent of the nation’s felony and serious misdemeanor 

crime arrests are handled by nonfederal authorities. Copies of fingerprints 

taken as a result of an arrest at the local or state level are submitted to the 

state’s central repository and, in turn, to the FBI for entry into IAFIS. 

You expressed particular concerns that after arrests are made by some 

local or state law enforcement agencies, periods of up to 6 months may 

elapse before the arresting agencies submit criminal fingerprints for entry 

into IAFIS. As agreed with your office, this report addresses the following 

questions: 

• Why is IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints important to local and 

state law enforcement agencies? 

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

• What progress have local and state law enforcement agencies made 

toward the FBI’s goal of achieving electronic (paperless) fingerprint 

processing after an arrest has been made, and what factors have 

influenced this progress? 

• What efforts are being made to improve the timeliness of criminal 

fingerprint submissions from local and state law enforcement agencies? 

To address these questions, we visited the FBI’s Criminal Justice 

Information Services Division (Clarksburg, WV), which manages IAFIS. 

We interviewed FBI officials and reviewed available statistics, studies, and 

other information about the issues. Also, we contacted the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS), which administers a federal grant program to help 

states automate criminal history records. Further, we discussed the 

fingerprint issues with representatives of the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Major County 

Sheriffs’ Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and 

SEARCH.1

 Also, we discussed these issues with (and analyzed statistics or 

other information maintained by) local and state law enforcement 

agencies in five states—Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, and New 

Mexico. We selected these states to reflect a range of factors or 

considerations—volume of fingerprint submissions, the “age” of such 

submissions (i.e., the average amount of time from the date of arrest to 

when the fingerprints were entered into IAFIS), and the level of 

automation in the state’s criminal justice information system, as well as to 

encompass different geographic areas of the nation. We conducted our 

work from March through December 2003 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. More details about the scope 

and methodology of our work are presented in appendix I. 

IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints is important to local and state 

law enforcement agencies not only for updating national criminal records 

databases but also for obtaining an individual’s complete criminal 

history—and, at times, for obtaining positive identification of arrestees. 

The importance of IAFIS to law enforcement agencies is apparent in the 

 1

SEARCH (the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics), a nonprofit 

membership organization created by and for the states, is dedicated to improving the 

criminal justice system and the quality of justice through better information management, 

the effective application of information and identification technology, and responsible law 

and policy. 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

high number of requests for information from the system. For the recent 8-

month period we studied (October 2002 through May 2003), law 

enforcement agencies wanted a response from the FBI for 78 percent of 

the approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprint sets submitted. The 

extent to which law enforcement agencies used these IAFIS responses to 

either positively identify arrestees or obtain the arrestees’ criminal history 

records is unclear. Law enforcement officials in the five states we visited 

told us that their agencies typically do not use IAFIS for identifying 

arrestees; rather, the officials noted that the primary purpose of fingerprint 

submissions is to update IAFIS databases. However, the FBI provided us 

examples of actual cases in which IAFIS responses to law enforcement 

agencies prevented the premature release of arrested individuals who had 

used false names and were wanted in other jurisdictions. 

Local and state law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the 

FBI’s goal of electronic (paperless) processing of criminal fingerprints in 

the IAFIS environment, although there is room for substantial 

improvement. For the recent 8-month period we studied (October 2002 

through May 2003), the overall average submission time for criminal 

fingerprints was 40 days (an average that encompasses both manual 

(paper) and electronic submissions)—whereas prior to the 

implementation of IAFIS, average submission times were significantly 

higher (e.g., 118 days in 1997). Also, since the implementation of IAFIS, the 

number of fingerprints submitted electronically by state agencies as a 

percentage of total criminal fingerprints received by the FBI has increased 

annually. And, for a large number of criminal fingerprints, local and state 

law enforcement agencies have demonstrated the ability to make 

submissions to IAFIS the same day as the date of the arrest. However, for 

many jurisdictions, delays in submitting fingerprints to IAFIS have been 

attributable to various factors, including lack of automation, competing 

priorities and resource constraints, backlogs of paper fingerprint cards to 

be processed, and other factors. In practice, large portions of the lengthy 

submission times associated with paper fingerprint cards probably 

represent inactivity, or “holding,” rather than actual “processing.” 

Numerous efforts have been made to help improve the timeliness of 

criminal fingerprint submissions from law enforcement agencies to IAFIS. 

In recent years, federal technical and financial assistance has focused on 

encouraging law enforcement agencies to purchase optical scanning 

(Livescan) equipment for taking fingerprints and for states to establish 

state-level computerized fingerprint identification systems compatible 

with FBI standards to facilitate electronic submission of criminal 

fingerprints to IAFIS. The FBI has provided states with network 
Page 4 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

connections, promoted the benefits of IAFIS to local and state law 

enforcement at national conferences, and provided states with other 

technical assistance. In each of the five states we visited, the practices or 

plans for extending automation capabilities appeared to be based on 

practical or cost-benefit considerations, such as giving priority to placing 

Livescan equipment with local law enforcement agencies serving the most 

populous areas. Also, BJS has provided federal grants to help states 

purchase needed equipment and computer systems that provide electronic 

transmission of criminal fingerprints to IAFIS. In addition, to help mitigate 

competing workload demands stemming from increasing volumes of 

fingerprints submitted for civil or noncriminal justice purposes, such as 

employment background checks, the National Crime Prevention and 

Privacy Compact Council is considering a need to broaden the authority of 

private companies to process such fingerprints.2

Historically, before the invention of automated fingerprint identification 

systems, paper fingerprint cards were used by law enforcement agencies 

to report arrest information to state repositories and to the FBI. The 

process was time-consuming, given that the local arresting agency mailed 

the fingerprint cards to the state repository, which mailed the information 

to the FBI—and, in return, the FBI’s response (based on a search of 

national records) would be mailed back to the state repository, which 

would then mail the information to the local arresting agency. Automation 

offered the potential to reduce submission and processing times from 

weeks (or longer) to hours. According to the FBI, prior to IAFIS 

implementation, a 6-month turnaround time for responses from the 

national level was not unusual—whereas, under IAFIS, for criminal 

fingerprints submitted electronically, the system can provide a response 

within 2 hours. 

IAFIS is a national, computerized system for storing, comparing, and 

exchanging fingerprint data in a digital format. As mentioned previously, 

most fingerprint data stem from arrests made by local and state law 

 2

The Compact Council, a 15-member entity composed of federal and state officials, is 

responsible for promulgating rules and procedures governing use of the Interstate 

Identification Index for noncriminal justice purposes. The Interstate Identification Index is 

an “index-pointer” system maintained by the FBI to facilitate the interstate exchange of 

criminal history records. The Council administers the National Crime Prevention and 

Privacy Compact (also known as the Interstate Identification Index, or Triple I, Compact), 

which was established with passage of the Crime Identification and Technology Act of 

1998. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

enforcement agencies, which take the suspect’s fingerprints manually 

(using ink and paper cards) or electronically (using Livescan equipment). 

Then, a copy of the fingerprints is forwarded (by mail or electronically) to 

the applicable state repository and, in turn, to the FBI for processing in 

IAFIS, which is the world’s largest biometric database (see fig. 1). In 

practice, a combination of both manual and electronic methods is used in 

submitting fingerprints to the FBI. For example, local law enforcement 

agencies may take fingerprints manually on paper cards and mail them to 

the state repository, and the state may then convert them to an electronic 

format before forwarding them to the FBI. Alternatively, some local law 

enforcement agencies with Livescan equipment forward fingerprints 

electronically to state repositories, which—because they do not yet have 

electronic transmission capability—print out paper copies of the 

fingerprints and mail them to the FBI. 
Page 6 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Figure 1: Flowchart of Manual and Electronic Submission Processes 

Note: This flowchart is representative of the manual and electronic submission processes. There can be many processing nuances that cause deviations from the depicted flow. 

a

Personal data searches are based on information such as first and last name, date of birth, and Social Security numbers.

For both paper and electronic criminal fingerprint submissions, law 

enforcement agencies can indicate on the submission whether they want 

Suspect is 

fingerprinted 3 

times on paper 

fingerprint 

cards.

Paper submission is 

manually compared with 

fingerprints on file. If there 

is a match, records are 

updated and a response is 

provided to the arresting 

agency.

In some states a fingerprint

technician confirms automated 

electronic fingerprint data and 

reviews fingerprints for quality. If 

there is a match, records are 

updated and a response is 

provided to the arresting agency.

Two fingerprint 

cards are mailed or 

sent by courier to 

the state criminal 

history repository.

State criminal history 

repository enters card 

data and runs name 

and fingerprint checks 

through the state 

automated fingerprint 

identification system.

One card sent to 

FBI. FBI screens 

and reviews all 

paper fingerprint 

submissions.

New record is 

created, and a 

response is 

provided to the 

arresting agency.

New record is 

created, and a 

response is 

provided to the 

arresting agency.

Yes

No

Is

previous

record

found?

IAFIS conducts 

personal dataa

search. If no 

match is found, 

IAFIS searches 

for fingerprint 

match.

Cards given to 

digital scanning 

contractors, who 

scan cards and 

enter data into 

IAFIS.

FBI fingerprint 

examiners 

compare the 

fingerprints of any 

potential matches.

FBI sends a 

response to the 

arresting agency.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

8 9

Paper fingerprint card submission process

Source: GAO.

0100101

1001001

0101010

1001001

0100101

Suspect is 

fingerprinted on 

a Livescan 

machine.

Electronic fingerprint data 

are sent to the state 

criminal history repository 

and name and fingerprint 

checks are run through 

the state automated 

fingerprint identification 

system.

Electronic 

fingerprint data 

sent to FBI.

IAFIS conducts 

personal dataa

search. If no 

match is found, 

IAFIS searches for 

fingerprint match.

FBI fingerprint 

examiners 

compare the 

fingerprints of any 

potential matches.

FBI provides a 

response to the 

state repository, 

which forwards the 

response to the 

arresting agency.

Yes

No

Is

previous

record

found?

0100101

1001001

0101010

1001001

0100101

0100101

1001001

0101010

1001001

0100101

Electronic fingerprint submission process

1 2 3 4 0100101

1001001

0101010

1001001

0100101

5 6 7
Page 7 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

the FBI to provide them with the results of searching the fingerprints 

against the IAFIS database. If the agency does want a response and IAFIS 

finds a match, the FBI provides the submitting agency with the individual’s 

FBI identification number, which the agency can use to retrieve the 

related criminal history record.3

 If no match is found, then the FBI creates 

a new FBI identification number for the individual and adds the 

fingerprints to the IAFIS database. 

Nationally, there is no standard requirement regarding the types or 

categories of criminal offenses for which fingerprints must be taken by 

local and state law enforcement agencies, nor is there any standard time 

frame requirement (after the arrest) for submitting the fingerprints to state 

criminal history repositories. However, according to FBI officials, virtually 

all states require the fingerprinting of persons arrested for serious 

offenses. Also, according to FBI officials, the time frame requirement for 

submitting the fingerprints to criminal history repositories varies among 

the states—generally ranging from a specific number of hours or days to a 

nonspecific standard such as “promptly” or “without undue delay.” 

Because complete information is integral to the capability of IAFIS to 

provide accurate identification and criminal history services, the FBI 

encourages all law enforcement agencies to submit criminal fingerprints to 

IAFIS. Except for arrests related to crimes against children, there is no 

federal statutory requirement for state criminal history repositories to 

submit criminal fingerprints to the FBI.4

 However, in accordance with FBI 

guidance, all states voluntarily submit fingerprints for criterion offenses—

that is, any offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 

year (generally felonies and serious misdemeanors). 

 3

Agencies submitting fingerprints to IAFIS electronically can use the FBI identification 

number to retrieve an individual’s criminal history from the Interstate Identification Index 

system, which includes warrant flags for the National Crime Information Center subject 

records. (According to the FBI, approximately 60 percent of all warrants have an FBI 

identification number.) If requested, the FBI can also electronically provide a copy of an 

individual’s record of arrest and prosecution (rap sheet), which provides the individual’s 

name, date of birth, physical description, criminal history, and a notification of whether or 

not the individual has any outstanding arrest warrants. For fingerprints submitted on paper 

cards, the FBI will mail a copy of the rap sheet to the submitting law enforcement agency, 

if a response is requested. 

4

Fingerprints must be submitted for individuals violating the Jacob Wetterling Crimes 

Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Program, 42 U.S.C. 14071, and 

the National Child Protection Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 5119. 
Page 8 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

FBI policy calls for the submissions to be made through a designated 

agency (the respective state’s criminal history repository) rather than 

directly from local agencies to the FBI. Centralized submissions from each 

state are intended to help ensure that the states’ repositories are complete 

and that all agencies adhere to technical and quality standards. There are 

no established time frame criteria or requirements for the submission of 

fingerprints from the states to the FBI. 

Ultimately, IAFIS was intended to eliminate the need for contributing law 

enforcement agencies to prepare and mail paper fingerprint cards to the 

FBI for processing and thereby improve the speed and accuracy of the 

fingerprint identification process. That is, the FBI’s goal is to achieve 

electronic (paperless) processing of all fingerprint data—and to provide a 

response within 2 hours to users who submit criminal fingerprints 

electronically. Maximizing the benefits of rapid responses under IAFIS 

depends largely on how quickly criminal fingerprints are submitted by 

local and state law enforcement agencies after arrests are made. 

IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints is important to local and state 

law enforcement agencies not only for updating national criminal records 

databases but also for obtaining an individual’s complete criminal 

history—and, at times, for obtaining positive identification of arrestees 

and for immediate warrant notification. It is not unusual for arrested 

persons to use someone else’s name or an alias and have false 

identification documents. Also, many offenders are extremely mobile, 

committing crimes in more than one state. According to the FBI, an 

estimated 31 percent of criminal fingerprints processed by the Bureau 

involve multistate offenders—that is, offenders who have been arrested in 

more than one state. 

The importance of IAFIS to law enforcement agencies is apparent in the 

high number of requests for information from the system. Overall, law 

enforcement agencies submitting criminal fingerprints generally want to 

know the results of searching the fingerprints against IAFIS databases. For 

the recent 8-month period we studied (October 2002 through May 2003), 

law enforcement agencies wanted a response from the FBI for 78 percent 

IAFIS Processing of 

Criminal Fingerprints 

Is Important for 

Updating and 

Providing Complete 

Criminal History 

Information and Can 

Provide Positive 

Identification of 

Arrestees 
Page 9 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

of the approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprint sets submitted.5 With 

the search results, law enforcement agencies can positively identify an 

arrestee and obtain an arrestee’s criminal history record. This information 

can be used by various justice system officials as a basis for making 

fundamental decisions about detention, charging, bail, and sentencing. For 

the remaining 22 percent of submissions, law enforcement agencies did 

not request a response from the FBI; rather, the fingerprints were 

submitted to update IAFIS databases. 

The extent to which law enforcement agencies use IAFIS responses to 

either positively identify arrestees or obtain an arrestee’s criminal history 

record is unclear. Law enforcement officials in the five states we visited 

told us that their agencies generally do not use IAFIS for a quick 

identification response because (1) local or state law enforcement 

agencies usually can identify the arrested individuals, most of whom are 

repeat offenders, and (2) all states currently have their own automated 

fingerprint identification systems or belong to regional automated 

fingerprint identification systems that can positively identify arrestees. 

Instead, these officials noted that submitting fingerprints is important for 

updating IAFIS databases so that future inquirers receive complete 

information. 

Furthermore, law enforcement officials in the states we visited noted that 

in those cases where a quick identification response is needed from IAFIS 

but the arresting agency does not have access to Livescan equipment that 

can electronically submit fingerprints, the FBI allows agencies to fax 

fingerprints to the FBI for processing. According to the FBI, these fax 

requests for rapid fingerprint identification account for less than 1 percent 

of the total number of fingerprints received. 

In any event, there are instances where quick identification responses 

from IAFIS are important. In designing IAFIS, the FBI estimated that the 

system would “prevent the release of the 10,000 to 30,000 fugitives freed 

each year because of the extended delays in establishing their true 

identities and warrant status.”6

 More recently, in response to our inquiry, 

 5

These data are based on all criminal fingerprint submissions entered into IAFIS from 

October 2002 through May 2003 for arrests made since the implementation of IAFIS on July 

28, 1999. The data include criminal fingerprint submissions that arrived at the FBI in either 

hard copy or electronic format. 

6

Eric C. Johnson, SEARCH Technical Bulletin (Issue Number 2), “From the Inkpad to the 

Mousepad: IAFIS and Fingerprint Technology at the Dawn of the 21st Century,” 1998. 
Page 10 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

FBI officials could not confirm this estimate or provide data on the extent 

to which IAFIS has prevented the inappropriate release of fugitives. 

However, as examples, the FBI provided us summary information 

regarding two actual cases where quick identification responses from 

IAFIS prevented the release of individuals who gave false names when 

they were arrested and were wanted fugitives from another jurisdiction 

(see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Examples of Arrestees Held Pending Positive Identification from IAFIS 

Source: FBI. 

Georgia

In Columbus, Georgia, on January 12, 2003, an individual was arrested for manufacturing, selling, and distributing drugs. As part of 

the booking process, the individual's fingerprints were submitted electronically to the FBI for processing in IAFIS. Within 7 minutes 

of receiving the submission, the FBI determined that the individual 

• had used a false name at the time of the arrest in Georgia;

• was wanted by the Cleveland, Ohio, Police Department since April 1999 in connection with a homicide charge; and 

• was also wanted by the FBI since February 2000 for flight to avoid confinement (with a notation advising to use caution).

The FBI notified the arresting and the wanting agencies of the identification. On March 20, 2003, the subject was extradited to 

Cleveland, Ohio. The subject was prosecuted for aggravated murder. He was found not guilty and released. (The subject is 

currently incarcerated in Ohio for an unrelated drug charge.)

Michigan

In Monroe, Michigan, on December 17, 2002, an individual was arrested for resisting arrest and obstructing an officer. As part of 

the booking process, the individual's fingerprints were submitted electronically to the FBI for processing in IAFIS. Within 20 minutes 

of receiving the fingerprint submission, the FBI determined that the individual 

• had used a false name at the time of the arrest in Michigan;

• had a criminal history in Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, and Texas that included prior arrests for aggravated rape of a child, 

• was on parole after serving time for the rape of a child; and 

• was wanted in Austin, Texas, since July 2002 for a parole violation.

The FBI notified the arresting and the wanting agencies of the identification. The individual was extradited to Texas and is currently 

incarcerated for violating parole. He will not be eligible for parole until 2011.

possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, carrying a firearm without a permit, forgery, theft, 

criminal trespassing, assault, and car prowling; 
Page 11 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

As contrasting examples, the FBI also provided us summary information 

regarding two actual cases where the arresting agencies released 

individuals from custody before making fingerprint submissions or 

receiving the IAFIS responses, which indicated that the released persons 

had used false names and were wanted fugitives from another jurisdiction 

(see fig. 3). The frequency of such incidents—that is, cases where a local 

or state law enforcement agency releases an arrestee from custody and 

subsequently receives an IAFIS identification response showing crossjurisdictional criminal history and outstanding warrants—is not known. 
Page 12 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Figure 3: Examples of Arrestees Released before Positive Identification from IAFIS 

Source: FBI. 

The capability of being able to quickly obtain positive identification of 

arrestees is becoming increasingly important—not only because many 

offenders have multistate records but also because of identity theft or 

identity fraud, which has been characterized by law enforcement as the 

fastest-growing type of crime in the United States.7

 Furthermore, 

 7

U.S. General Accounting Office, Identity Fraud: Prevalence and Cost Appear to Be 

Growing, GAO-02-363 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2002) and Identity Theft: Greater 

Awareness and Use of Existing Data Are Needed, GAO-02-766 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 

2002). 

Illinois

In Plainfield, Illinois, on October 30, 2002, an individual was arrested for resisting a peace officer. The individual's fingerprints were 

not submitted to the FBI for IAFIS processing until 18 days after the date of the arrest. Before submission of the fingerprints, the 

individual was released. Within 34 minutes of receiving the fingerprints, the FBI determined that the individual

• had used a false name at the time of the arrest in Illinois;

• had a criminal history that included previous arrests for aggravated assault, unlawful use of a weapon, possession of cocaine, 

 

• was wanted in Indianapolis, Indiana, since October 2000 for a sex offense against a child.

The FBI notified the arresting and the wanting agencies of the identification. The individual was still at large as of November 2003.

Washington

In Tacoma, Washington, on October 31, 2002, an individual was arrested for possession of stolen property. The individual's 

fingerprints were not submitted to the FBI for IAFIS processing until 19 days after the date of the arrest. Before submission of the 

fingerprints, the individual was released. Within 2 hours of receiving the fingerprints, the FBI determined that the individual

• had used a false name at the time of the arrest in Washington;

• had a criminal history that included possession of a controlled substance, possession with the intent to deliver a controlled

 

• was wanted in Racine, Wisconsin, since June 2002 for a homicide.

The FBI notified the arresting and the wanting agencies of the identification. On May 22, 2003, the subject was spotted in Racine, 

Wisconsin, and was subsequently arrested. The subject was convicted and is currently incarcerated in Waupun, Wisconsin.

possession of marijuana, possession of a controlled substance, violation of a bail bond, and failure to appear; and

substance, obstructing an officer, eluding a traffic officer by operating a motor vehicle, and jumping bail; and
Page 13 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

homeland security concerns add to the importance of quick positive 

identification capability. For example, in June 2002 congressional 

testimony, we noted that, in addition to using identity theft or identity 

fraud to enter the United States illegally and seek job opportunities, some 

aliens have used fraudulent identification documents in connection with 

serious crimes, such as narcotics trafficking and terrorism.8

 Also, during 

our current review, the Chairman of the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police’s Criminal Justice Information Systems Committee told us 

that the electronic processing of fingerprint data is the most important 

component of the criminal justice information system and that the 

timeliness of submission and how long it takes to enter fingerprints into 

the automated system is an issue that could have serious consequences. 

Although obstacles remain, much progress has been made in electronic 

processing, as discussed in the following section. 

Local and state law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the 

FBI’s goal of electronic (paperless) processing of criminal fingerprints in 

the IAFIS environment, although there is room for substantial 

improvement. For the recent 8-month period we studied (October 2002 

through May 2003), the overall average submission time for criminal 

fingerprints was 40 days—whereas prior to the implementation of IAFIS, 

average submission times were significantly higher (e.g., 118 days in 1997). 

Also, since the implementation of IAFIS, the number of fingerprints 

submitted electronically by state agencies as a percentage of total criminal 

fingerprints received by the FBI has increased annually. And for a large 

number of criminal fingerprints, local and state law enforcement agencies 

have demonstrated the ability to make submissions to IAFIS the same day 

as the date of the arrest. However, for many jurisdictions, delays in 

submitting fingerprints to IAFIS have been attributable to various factors, 

including lack of automation, competing priorities and resource 

constraints, backlogs of paper fingerprint cards to be processed, and other 

factors. In practice, large portions of the lengthy submission times 

associated with paper fingerprint cards probably represent inactivity, or 

“holding,” rather than actual “processing.” 

 8

U.S. General Accounting Office, Identity Fraud: Prevalence and Links to Alien Illegal 

Activities, GAO-02-830T (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2002). 

Progress Has Been 

Made in Achieving 

Paperless Fingerprint 

Processing, with 

Many Factors 

Influencing Progress 
Page 14 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Nationally, since the implementation of IAFIS in July 1999, the overall 

timeliness of criminal fingerprint submissions has improved. For the 

approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprints entered into IAFIS from 

October 2002 through May 2003—a total that encompasses both paper 

fingerprint card and electronic submissions—the average submission time 

was about 40 days after the date of arrest. In contrast, figure 4 shows that 

before the implementation of IAFIS, the average number of days from 

arrest to when the FBI received the fingerprints was about two or three 

times longer than 40 days. 

Figure 4: Average Number of Days between the Date of Arrest and the Date That the 

Criminal Fingerprints Were Received by the FBI or Entered Into IAFIS (for Specific 

Periods in 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2003) 

Notes: Each of the four data points represents a weighted average (mean) in days for specific periods 

of time within the respective year for criminal fingerprint submissions from the 50 states and the 

District of Columbia. Data from other years were not available for analysis. Also, the FBI’s information 

systems do not have data regarding the amount of time that elapsed from the date of arrest to the 

date the fingerprints were received by state criminal history repositories. Thus, we could not 

determine what portions of the submission times were associated with processing by the arresting 

law enforcement agencies and the state criminal history repositories, respectively. 

Data for 1993, 1995, and 1997 are based on the FBI’s sampling of all criminal fingerprint submissions 

received by the FBI for the respective time periods. Submission times were calculated using the date 

of arrest and the date the fingerprint data arrived at the FBI. The 1993 mean (81.1 days) covers May 

21 through June 23, 1993; the 1995 mean (75.6 days) covers January 9 through February 28, 1995; 

and the 1997 mean (117.6 days) covers July 14 through November 14, 1997. The FBI performed its 

analyses of submission times as staff were available; therefore, the analyses do not cover equivalent 

periods of time. 

Nationally, the Average 

Time for Submitting 

Criminal Fingerprints Has 

Improved since 

Implementation of IAFIS 

Mean (in days)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

81.1

75.6

117.6

40.2

Source: GAO analysis of FBI data.

Implementation 

of IAFIS

July 28, 1999
Page 15 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

The 2003 data are based on all criminal fingerprint submissions entered into IAFIS from October 

2002 through May 2003 for arrests made since the implementation of IAFIS on July 28, 1999. The 

data include criminal fingerprint submissions that arrived at the FBI in either hard copy or electronic 

format. Submission times were calculated using the date of arrest and the date the fingerprint data 

were entered into IAFIS. The mean submission time for the 2003 data was 40.2 days. 

Despite improvements in average submission times since the 

implementation of IAFIS, some criminal fingerprint requests continued to 

reflect large lag times before being submitted. For example, of the 

approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprint submissions entered into 

IAFIS from October 2002 through May 2003, about 535,000 (or 10 percent) 

were entered more than 90 days after the date of arrest. And, of this 

percentage, over one-half were entered into IAFIS more than 150 days 

after the date of arrest. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Justice noted 

that while our use of the term “entered into IAFIS” accurately measures 

the end of local and state processing, it should not be construed to 

represent the point in time when the fingerprint record was physically 

entered into the IAFIS database. The department noted that the time 

intervals presented in this report—computed by the FBI’s Criminal Justice 

Information Services (CJIS) Division—were measured at the time the 

fingerprint records were received electronically by IAFIS. The 

Department added that the type of fingerprint submission, priority, 

workload, and time of day would influence the actual time the records 

were processed and entered into the IAFIS database. According to FBI 

officials, the agency has a goal of processing electronic fingerprint 

submissions and sending a response within 2 hours of receipt. For fiscal 

year 2002, the FBI reported that it responded to 90.3 percent of the 

electronic criminal submissions within 2 hours of receipt. Thus, the end of 

state processing and the actual entry of the fingerprints into the system are 

within hours of each other in most cases. 

Since the implementation of IAFIS in July 1999, the number of fingerprints 

submitted electronically by state agencies as a percentage of total criminal 

fingerprints received by the FBI has increased annually. As figure 5 shows, 

for example, 45 percent of criminal fingerprint submissions received by 

the FBI in 1999 from state central repositories were electronic; whereas, in 

the first 4 months of 2003, 70 percent of such criminal fingerprint 

submissions were electronic. According to FBI data as of April 2003, 42 

states and the District of Columbia were routinely submitting some 

portion of their criminal fingerprints to the FBI electronically. 

Electronic Criminal 

Fingerprint Submissions 

from State Agencies Have 

Increased since the 

Implementation of IAFIS 
Page 16 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Figure 5: Percentage of the Total Criminal Fingerprint Submissions Received by the 

FBI That Were Submitted Electronically (1999-2003) 

Note: The percentages represent electronic submissions from state repositories to the FBI. Although 

totals are not readily quantifiable, state repositories received paper fingerprint cards from some local 

law enforcement agencies and then digitally scanned the cards for electronic transmission to the FBI. 

a

The 1999 data cover the period July 28 through December 31, 1999. 

b

The 2003 data cover the 4-month period January through April 2003. 

Additional states soon may have the capability to submit criminal 

fingerprints electronically. For instance, two of the five states we visited in 

summer 2003 (Connecticut and Nevada) had not begun routinely 

submitting criminal fingerprints to the FBI electronically but expected to 

do so in the future. Specifically, officials from Nevada said that their state 

was developing such capability and anticipated that it would be available 

by the end of 2003. Similarly, officials from Connecticut said that their 

state was upgrading technology to provide electronic submission 

capability by the end of 2004. 

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999a 2000 2001 2002 2003b

45

51

57

64

70

Source: FBI data.
Page 17 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

For a large number of criminal fingerprints, local and state law 

enforcement agencies have demonstrated the ability to make submissions 

to IAFIS the same day as the date of the arrest. Of the approximately 5.3 

million criminal fingerprints entered into IAFIS from October 2002 through 

May 2003, over 1.5 million (29 percent) were entered on the same day as 

the date of the arrest.9

 Such same-day submissions are achievable when 

the entire process is electronic, with law enforcement taking fingerprints 

using Livescan devices that transmit the fingerprints electronically to the 

state criminal history repository—which, in turn, transmits the fingerprints 

electronically to the FBI.10 Electronic processing allows for the fastest 

submission of fingerprints to IAFIS and supports the FBI’s goal of 

paperless processing of criminal fingerprint data.11

The Atlanta Police Department’s electronic fingerprint process illustrates 

how quickly fingerprint data can be submitted to IAFIS. The Atlanta Police 

Department takes criminal fingerprints using Livescan devices and 

forwards the fingerprint data electronically to the Georgia Crime 

Information Center. After processing the fingerprint data, the Georgia 

Crime Information Center transmits the fingerprint data via its computer 

systems directly to IAFIS. According to FBI data for the period January 

through May 2003, the Atlanta Police Department submitted a total of 

7,895 sets of criminal fingerprints. Of this total, 46 percent were entered 

into IAFIS the same day as the date of the arrest. And 95 percent of the 

 9

There were 1,527,205 of 5,266,393 fingerprints entered into IAFIS on the same day as the 

date of arrest. The FBI’s data were not amenable to calculating the average number of 

hours from the time the fingerprints were taken to when the fingerprints were entered into 

IAFIS. 

10While 70 percent of the criminal fingerprint submissions to IAFIS were made 

electronically during the period we reviewed, only 29 percent of the submissions were 

entered into IAFIS the same day as the date of arrest. Many fingerprints were likely taken 

on paper cards by the arresting agency and mailed to the state criminal repository, where 

they were then converted to an electronic format for submission to IAFIS. 

11While characterizing the 29 percent figure as progress under IAFIS, FBI officials had no 

specific data for comparing pre-IAFIS periods. The officials noted that prior to IAFIS 

implementation, the number of criminal fingerprints received by the FBI on the same day 

as the date of arrest was not tracked. 

Over One-Fourth of 

Criminal Fingerprints Were 

Entered into IAFIS the 

Same Day as the Date of 

Arrest for the Period We 

Analyzed 
Page 18 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

total criminal fingerprint submissions for this period were entered within 1 

day after the date of the arrest.12

As mentioned previously, most criminal fingerprints are not entered into 

IAFIS the same day as the date of arrest and may reflect time lags of 90 

days or more. For many jurisdictions, time lags in submitting fingerprints 

are attributable to various factors, including a lack of automation, 

competing priorities and resource constraints, and backlogs of paper 

fingerprint cards to be processed. Given these circumstances, large 

portions of lengthy submission times associated with paper fingerprint 

cards probably represent inactivity, or “holding,” rather than actual 

“processing.” 

The most significant factor causing delays in criminal fingerprint 

submissions is lack of electronic processing capability. Generally, law 

enforcement agencies that serve large populations have access to 

technology that allows electronic capture and transmission of criminal 

fingerprint data. For example, the most recent local law enforcement data 

collected by BJS (in a July 2000 survey) indicated that a majority of police 

departments serving populations of 50,000 or more reported they regularly 

used digital imaging technology for fingerprints, and a majority of sheriffs’ 

offices serving populations of 100,000 or more reported they regularly 

used such technology. However, the BJS report also indicated that law 

enforcement agencies in less populated areas may have to use paper 

fingerprint cards and manual processes. As a result, the BJS report noted 

that, overall, only 11 percent of all police departments nationwide and 27 

percent of all sheriffs’ offices reported they regularly used digital imaging 

technology for fingerprints.13

 12The remaining 5 percent of the criminal fingerprint submissions were entered into IAFIS 

from 2 to 98 days after the date of arrest. No information was readily available to indicate if 

these fingerprints were taken manually and then converted to electronic format at the state 

criminal history repository or were taken electronically using Livescan devices. Downtime 

of equipment and human error are also plausible reasons for delays in submission of some 

fingerprints. 

13The data are based on a July 2000 survey of a nationally representative sample of local 

police departments and sheriffs’ offices in the United States. See BJS, Local Police 

Departments 2000 (NCJ 196002), January 2003, and BJS, Sheriffs’ Offices 2000 (NCJ 

196534), January 2003. 

Most Submission Time 

Lags Are Attributable to a 

Lack of Automation and 

Various Other Factors 
Page 19 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Also, given competing priorities and resource constraints, local law 

enforcement agencies may not always see an urgent need to voluntarily 

submit paper fingerprint cards quickly, particularly if the arrestee is a 

repeat offender whose identity is already known. A representative of the 

National District Attorneys Association told us that, given the staff time 

and other costs involved, law enforcement agencies on a tight budget may 

not submit fingerprints quickly without a good reason to do so, even 

though submission would add to the national database. Local law 

enforcement agencies that use manual processes may hold fingerprint 

cards until a number are collected and then mail the batch to the state 

criminal history repository.14 For example, according to Missouri State 

Highway Patrol officials, some local agencies mail batches of paper 

criminal fingerprints cards every other week to the state criminal history 

repository. 

Broader perspectives on submission time frames are presented in an 

August 2003 BJS report. Basing its conclusions on a survey (conducted in 

January through July 2002) of state criminal history repository 

administrators, BJS reported wide variances among states regarding 

submission of paper fingerprint cards.15 For example, whereas Livescan 

fingerprint data often were received by repositories within 1 day or less 

after the arrest (sometimes only hours), one state’s repository reported 

receiving paper fingerprint cards 7 to 30 days (on average) after the date of 

arrest, another repository reported receiving cards up to 90 days after 

arrest, and another reported an average submission time of 169 days. 

During our review, FBI officials told us that their data systems cannot 

track the time from the date of arrest to when fingerprints (either paper or 

electronic) arrive at the state repositories for processing. Therefore, we 

could not determine what portion of submission times was attributable to 

the submitting law enforcement agency versus the state criminal history 

repository. 

In its August 2003 report, BJS also indicated that 26 states reported they 

had backlogs (as of year end 2001) in processing criminal fingerprint 

 14Similarly, FBI officials said that various state repositories periodically batch-mail 

fingerprint cards to the Bureau. 

15BJS, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001 (NCJ 200343), August 

2003. 
Page 20 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

cards.16 Generally, the size and “age” of such backlogs, according to a BJS 

survey, largely are a function of resources available for processing the 

fingerprint cards. One state noted, for instance, that because of a lack of 

funding to pay contract staff responsible for data entry and clerical 

functions associated with fingerprint card processing, it had a backlog of 

7,500 cards in the latter part of 2001, but the backlog was eliminated in 

June 2002 after state funds were reinstated. Law enforcement officials we 

contacted also said that their jurisdictions lacked the necessary personnel 

to quickly process fingerprint submissions. For example, Missouri State 

Highway Patrol officials said that the agency has had several fingerprint 

technician positions vacant over the last several years, resulting in a 

backlog of unprocessed fingerprint cards. 

Poor-quality fingerprints, inaccurate or incomplete textual information, 

and other technical aspects of submissions are additional factors that can 

delay entry of fingerprint data into IAFIS. According to FBI officials, about 

5 to 6 percent of criminal fingerprint submissions are initially rejected for 

these reasons. Local and state law enforcement officials we contacted told 

us that it generally is not possible to resubmit fingerprints that were 

rejected for poor quality because the individuals may no longer be in 

custody. However, these officials said they generally resubmit fingerprints 

that were rejected because of inaccurate or incomplete textual 

information.17 FBI officials told us that when significant rejection patterns 

occur, the FBI works with the submitting law enforcement agencies to 

address the causes. 

Finally, as discussed in the following section, the timeliness of criminal 

fingerprint submissions can be affected by an increasing workload 

associated with the processing of “civil” fingerprints—that is, fingerprintbased background checks conducted for employment or other 

noncriminal justice purposes. 

 16Criminal fingerprint cards are not forwarded to the FBI until the state criminal history 

repository has processed them. State-level processing includes such steps as identification, 

transmission of responses to the submitting law enforcement agencies, and update or 

creation of computerized criminal history records. 

17Data were not available for us to determine what percentage of rejected fingerprints was 

later resubmitted to the FBI. 
Page 21 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

In recent years, to encourage law enforcement agencies to submit criminal 

fingerprints electronically to IAFIS, the FBI has provided states with 

network connections, promoted the benefits of IAFIS at national 

conferences, and provided states with other technical assistance. In each 

of the five states we visited, the practices or plans for extending 

automation capabilities appeared to be based on practical or cost-benefit 

considerations, such as giving priority to placing Livescan equipment with 

local law enforcement agencies serving the most populous areas. Also, BJS 

has provided states with federal grants to help automate criminal 

fingerprint submissions. According to the local and state officials we 

contacted, continuation of federal technical and funding assistance is 

essential for achieving further improvements in the timeliness of criminal 

fingerprint submissions. In addition, to help mitigate competing workload 

demands stemming from increasing volumes of fingerprints submitted for 

civil or noncriminal justice purposes, such as employment background 

checks, the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council is 

considering a need to broaden the authority of private companies to 

process such fingerprints. 

Although the FBI continues to accept paper submissions, the FBI’s goal is 

to achieve a completely paperless system, with all fingerprints being 

submitted electronically. In 1998, to help achieve this goal, the FBI 

provided IAFIS network connections to each state through the CJIS Wide 

Area Network. These network connections provide each state with a link 

to support a fully automated fingerprint submission process, including 

electronic access to IAFIS. 

To further support the automation of criminal fingerprint submissions, the 

FBI has participated in various national conferences conducted by 

organizations such as the International Association for Identification, the 

National Sheriffs’ Association, and the International Association of Chiefs 

of Police. The FBI has also hosted two national conferences on IAFIS and 

has provided technical assistance to various local and state law 

enforcement agencies through workshops and site visits. 

Local and state law enforcement officials we contacted expressed a need 

for these initiatives to continue in the future. For example, Georgia Bureau 

of Investigation officials said that continued training by the FBI is essential 

to improve the quality of fingerprints and the timeliness of submissions. 

Also, Missouri State Highway Patrol officials said that previous FBI 

technical training has been valuable and that further training is still 

needed. 

Various Efforts Are 

Under Way to 

Improve the 

Timeliness of 

Criminal Fingerprint 

Submissions to IAFIS 

FBI Initiatives and State 

Efforts Support the 

Automation of Criminal 

Fingerprint Submissions 
Page 22 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

In the five states we visited, the plans or practices for extending 

automation capabilities appeared to be based on practical or cost-benefit 

considerations. Generally, to allocate Livescan equipment, priority 

placements were made to local law enforcement agencies serving the most 

populous areas. For example, according to Georgia Bureau of 

Investigation officials, 88 percent of the state’s felony and serious 

misdemeanor offense arrests in 2002 occurred within the geographic 

jurisdictions of agencies that had access to Livescan machines. New 

Mexico Department of Public Safety officials told us that the nine Livescan 

machines available to law enforcement agencies in New Mexico are used 

to record fingerprints for about 65 percent of the criminal arrests in the 

state. 

Under the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP)—a 

grant program administered by BJS and designed to ensure that accurate 

records are available for use in law enforcement—states can receive funds 

to improve their ability to electronically provide criminal fingerprints to 

the FBI. NCHIP funds support a broad range of activities and programs to 

facilitate the electronic transfer of criminal fingerprints to the FBI, such as 

(1) ensuring compatibility of state criminal history and arrest records 

systems with FBI records systems, (2) establishing records management 

systems to improve the quality and completeness of criminal history and 

arrest information maintained by the state and provided to the FBI, and (3) 

providing training and hosting conferences and seminars for local and 

state criminal justice officials on issues related to improvements in and 

automation of criminal history and arrest records.18

According to BJS data for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, 44 states and the 

District of Columbia received a total of $31 million in NCHIP grants to 

improve local law enforcement and state criminal history repository 

access to electronic fingerprint transmission technology and IAFIS (see 

app. II). For instance, Georgia Bureau of Investigation officials said that 

the state used NCHIP funding in 1999 to provide smaller law enforcement 

agencies a cost-effective approach to electronically submit fingerprints. 

The funds were used, for example, to purchase card-scanning equipment 

 18For the full range of programs and activities for which states can use NCHIP funds, see 

BJS, National Criminal History Improvement Program – Fiscal Year 2003 Program 

Announcement. 

National Criminal History 

Improvement Program Has 

Provided Federal Funds 

for States to Automate 

Criminal Fingerprint 

Submissions 
Page 23 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

to digitally convert paper fingerprint cards for electronic transmission to 

the state repository. 

On the other hand, local and state law enforcement officials we contacted 

said that fingerprints are not all submitted electronically because states 

still lack funding to purchase, operate, and maintain the necessary 

equipment. The officials said that law enforcement agencies generally do 

not resist the idea of converting to an electronic process but are limited 

financially in their capabilities to do so. For example, Missouri State 

Highway Patrol officials said that an obstacle to additional automation has 

been funding. According to these officials, while NCHIP is making funding 

available for purchasing Livescan machines, some local law enforcement 

agencies cannot afford the ongoing network and maintenance costs 

needed to support an automated system. In commenting on a draft of this 

report, the BJS Director indicated that NCHIP funds can and have 

frequently been used by the states for the maintenance of automated 

fingerprint systems. The Director added that if local agencies are not 

receiving funds for maintenance, it is probably because the state has not 

requested NCHIP funds for that purpose or has set its own priorities for 

which localities will receive such support. 

Generally, according to FBI officials, there is a continuing need for (1) 

additional Livescan devices; (2) the upgrade of automated fingerprint 

identification systems at the state level that are compatible with IAFIS; 

and (3) research for fingerprint imaging, Livescan, and other automated 

systems that will ensure interoperability of state and FBI systems. 

However, the FBI officials noted that given the budget problems that many 

states are now experiencing and the high cost of Livescan machines, 

investment in this technology may not be a priority for the states. 
Page 24 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

State and FBI officials told us that the timeliness of criminal fingerprint 

submissions can be slowed by an increasing workload associated with the 

processing of fingerprint submissions for civil or noncriminal justice 

purposes, such as employment background checks.19 The numbers of 

criminal fingerprint submissions and civil fingerprint submissions to the 

FBI have increased annually in most years since 1992. As figure 6 shows, 

during 1996 to 2002, the number of criminal fingerprint submissions was 

exceeded by the number of civil fingerprint submissions in 5 of the 7 

years. For example, in the most recent year (2002), criminal fingerprint 

submissions totaled 8.4 million, whereas civil fingerprint submissions 

totaled 9.1 million. 

 19The term “noncriminal justice purposes” refers to 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. 

Proposed Rule to Give 

Broader Authority to 

Private Contractors for 

Processing Fingerprints 

for Noncriminal Justice 

Purposes 
Page 25 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Figure 6: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil Fingerprint Submissions Received 

by the FBI (1992-2002) 

The growth in civil fingerprint submissions is partly attributable to, among 

other factors, federal legislation that encouraged states to enact statutes 

authorizing fingerprint-based national searches of criminal history records 

of individuals seeking paid or volunteer positions with organizations 

serving children, the elderly, or the disabled.20 More recently, another 

factor has been homeland security concerns. For instance, because of the 

relatively unfettered access that taxicabs have to city infrastructure, 

including the airport, the Atlanta Police Department has begun running 

fingerprint-based criminal history background checks on all of the city’s 

approximately 3,500 taxicab drivers. 

To help mitigate workload demands, some states have begun awarding 

contracts to private companies to provide civil fingerprinting services. 

Currently, private companies are involved in the collection of fingerprints 

 20National Child Protection Act of 1993, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5119). See U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Fingerprint-Based Background Checks: Implementation of the 

National Child Protection Act of 1993, GAO/GGD-97-32 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 15, 1997). 

Fingerprint submissions (in millions)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Criminal fingerprint submissions

Civil fingerprint submissions

Source: FBI data.

5.1

3.6

4.5

3.6

4.9

4.0

5.3

4.5

5.5

5.7

6.9

6.0

6.1

5.9

6.8

6.5

8.0

6.6

8.0

7.5

9.1

8.4
Page 26 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

but do not have the legal authority to access criminal history information 

or make fitness determinations for employment. However, since February 

2003, the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council—the 

15-member entity (composed of state and federal officials) that 

administers the use and exchange of criminal history records for 

noncriminal justice uses—has been working to develop a rule to provide 

such authority. That is, the proposed rule would enable state and federal 

government agencies to contract with private companies to not only 

collect fingerprints but also have access to criminal history information 

and make fitness determinations for employment. According to the FBI, 

the rule is anticipated to be finalized by the middle of calendar year 2004 

and will incorporate appropriate guidelines and controls. 

Local and state law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the 

FBI’s goal of electronic (paperless) processing of criminal fingerprints in 

the IAFIS environment. For example, all states have either established or 

are working to establish interoperability between their state automated 

fingerprint identification systems and IAFIS that allows for the electronic 

submission of criminal fingerprints to the FBI. However, there is still room 

for substantial improvement. Gaps exist in law enforcement agencies’ 

access to Livescan technology. Given budget and other resource 

constraints at all levels of government, it may be unrealistic to expect that 

100 percent electronic processing and submission eventually will be 

achieved for all jurisdictions. Smaller law enforcement agencies, for 

example, may have difficulty justifying the cost of operating or 

maintaining Livescan equipment and a telecommunications linkage to the 

state’s central repository. 

For local agencies without access to Livescan equipment and for state 

agencies that cannot currently submit fingerprints electronically to IAFIS, 

the potential may exist for improving the timeliness of processing and 

submitting paper fingerprint cards. The “potential” rests on reducing the 

time that criminal fingerprints are waiting, or being held for processing, 

which is likely to be a resource issue. Theoretically, for example, these 

cards could be processed and mailed forward on a daily basis rather than 

held for batch processing. Additionally, the processing of noncriminal 

fingerprints could be handled by contractors, which could free up law 

enforcement personnel to process criminal fingerprints in a more timely 

manner. Ultimately, such decisions may involve unique circumstances and, 

thus, perhaps are best left to agency-by-agency determinations. 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 27 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Overall, the effect of less than universal electronic processing is unclear. 

In many cases, for instance, a same-day or quick response from the FBI 

may not be needed. On the other hand, although such instances are not 

readily quantifiable, there are cases where a local or state law enforcement 

agency has released an arrestee from custody and subsequently received 

an IAFIS identification response showing cross-jurisdictional criminal 

history or outstanding warrants. In the absence of electronic processing, 

the number of such instances may be partly mitigated by the manual 

procedure whereby law enforcement can directly fax fingerprints to the 

FBI. However, the effectiveness of this exception-basis procedure depends 

largely on officers having sufficient experience to recognize a need for 

expedited manual processing. 

Federal technical and funding assistance continues to support ongoing 

efforts to make additional progress in the automation of fingerprint 

submissions. The need for positive, fingerprint-based identifications—

providing linkages to complete criminal history records—is not likely to 

diminish in the foreseeable future, given that significant numbers of 

arrestees have multistate criminal histories, the incidence of identity theft 

or identity fraud is growing, and homeland security concerns and 

noncriminal justice demands are increasing. 

On December 9, 2003, we provided a draft of this report for review and 

comment to the Department of Justice. In its written comments, dated 

January 7, 2004, Justice said the report was accurate and provided some 

technical clarifications, which we incorporated in this report where 

appropriate. 

Also, one Justice component (BJS) commented that the draft report 

presented a narrow description of the role of NCHIP in upgrading the 

ability of states to provide fingerprints electronically to the FBI. 

Specifically, the BJS Director noted that the allowable uses for NCHIP 

funds extended far beyond the purchase of Livescan machines and 

covered the continuum from fingerprint capture through the transmission 

of the images to the FBI. We added additional information to the 

applicable report section to reflect this perspective. 

Further, the BJS Director commented that much progress has been made 

in the automation of criminal fingerprint submissions under NCHIP. 

According to the Director, NCHIP performance measures calculated and 

tracked as part of the administration and oversight of the program indicate 

that 

Agency Comments 
Page 28 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

• The number of arresting agencies reporting arrests electronically to 

the state criminal history repositories has increased significantly, from 

493 agencies in 1997 to 2,594 agencies in 2001. 

• Arrest information is reaching state criminal history repositories 

faster, with submission times from the arresting agency to the state 

agency dropping from an average of 14 days in 1997 to 11 days in 2001. 

• State repositories are processing arrest information faster, with 

average times to post arrest data into the criminal history record 

dropping from 32 days in 1995 to 13 days in 2001. 

• State criminal history backlogs of unprocessed fingerprint cards 

dropped from an estimated 711,000 in 1997 to an estimated 354,300 in 

2001. 

The Director noted that these statistics are based on data collected for BJS 

in biennial surveys conducted by SEARCH. Because of our reporting time 

frames, these specific statistics were not included in the data reliability 

assessments described in appendix I. 

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, the 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 were Amy Bernstein, 

Michele Fejfar, Ann H. Finley, Jason Kelly, George Quinn, Deena Richart, 

and Jason Schwartz. 

Sincerely yours, 

Laurie E. Ekstrand 

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

Methodology 

Page 29 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

At the request of the Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on 

Appropriations, we addressed the following questions regarding the 

submission of criminal fingerprints by local and state law enforcement 

agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for processing by the 

Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS): 

• Why is IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints important to local and 

state law enforcement agencies? 

• What progress have local and state law enforcement agencies made 

toward the FBI’s goal of achieving electronic (paperless) fingerprint 

processing after an arrest has been made, and what factors have 

influenced this progress? 

• What efforts are being made to improve the timeliness of criminal 

fingerprint submissions from local and state law enforcement agencies? 

To address these questions, we visited the FBI’s Criminal Justice 

Information Services Division (Clarksburg, WV), which manages IAFIS. 

We interviewed FBI officials and reviewed available statistics, studies, and 

other relevant information. We analyzed FBI data by state on criminal 

fingerprint submission volumes and times for fingerprints entered into 

IAFIS from October 2002 through May 2003. Our analysis focused on 

criminal fingerprint submissions for arrests made since the 

implementation of IAFIS on July 28, 1999, and covered both automated 

and manual (paper) submissions. We also obtained the FBI’s reports of 

criminal fingerprint submission times in 1993, 1995, and 1997, and the total 

numbers of criminal and civil fingerprints submitted annually during 1992 

through 2002. 

Also, we obtained funding amounts from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

officials regarding the amount of National Criminal History Improvement 

Program (NCHIP) grant funding awarded in fiscal years 1999 through 2003 

to the states and the District of Columbia for use in automating fingerprint 

processes. 

Further, we discussed the fingerprint submission issues with 

representatives of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 

National Sheriffs’ Association, the Major County Sheriffs’ Association, the 

National District Attorneys Association, and SEARCH (the National 

Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Objectives 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 30 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

Also, we discussed the fingerprint submission issues with (and analyzed 

any statistics or other information maintained by) state law enforcement 

agencies (e.g., state police department and judicial system 

representatives) in five states—Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, 

and New Mexico. We selected these states to reflect a range of various 

factors or considerations—that is, the volume of fingerprint submissions, 

the “age” of such submissions (i.e., the average amount of time from when 

the fingerprints were taken to when they were entered into IAFIS), and 

level of automation in the state’s criminal justice information system, as 

well as to encompass different geographic areas of the nation. 

Further, in each of the five states, we discussed the fingerprint submission 

issues with relevant local agencies (e.g., city police department or county 

sheriff’s office) in at least one local jurisdiction. Generally, for travel cost 

reasons (among other considerations), the local jurisdictions selected 

were located in or near the respective state’s capital. 

To assess the reliability of the FBI’s October 2002 through May 2003 

criminal fingerprint submission data, we (1) reviewed existing 

documentation related to the data sources, (2) electronically tested the 

data to identify obvious problems with completeness or accuracy, and (3) 

interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. 

To assess the reliability of (1) the FBI’s reports of criminal fingerprint 

submission times in 1993, 1995, and 1997; (2) the total numbers of criminal 

and civil fingerprints submitted annually during 1992 through 2002; and (3) 

the percentages of electronic fingerprint submissions, we interviewed 

knowledgeable agency officials about the data and reviewed existing 

documentation related to the data sources. To assess the reliability of the 

results of the BJS surveys of local law enforcement, sheriff’s offices, and 

state criminal history repository administrators, we reviewed existing 

documentation related to the data sources. To assess the reliability of the 

BJS NCHIP grant funding amounts and the FBI estimate of multistate 

offenders, we interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. We determined 

that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

Data Reliability 
Appendix II: National Criminal History 

Improvement Program Grant Funding for 

AFIS/Livescan (Fiscal Years 1999-2003) 

Page 31 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

This appendix summarizes Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data 

regarding National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) grant 

funding received by states and the District of Columbia for automated 

fingerprint identification system (AFIS) and Livescan activities in fiscal 

years 1999 through 2003 (see table 1). According to BJS, the dollar 

amounts in table 1 are based on actual amounts awarded and the proposed 

AFIS/Livescan activities listed in grant applications from the states and the 

District of Columbia. A BJS official told us that some of the 12 states that 

received no grant funding for AFIS/Livescan activities during this time

period did receive NCHIP funding for such activities in the earlier years of 

the program, beginning in 1995. 

Table 1: National Criminal History Improvement Program Grant Funding Received by the States for AFIS/Livescan Activities 

(Fiscal Years 1999 -2003) 

State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 

Alabama $401,582 $85,000 $76,875 $90,000 $107,760 $761,217 

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Arizona 0 121,721 0 0 0 121,721 

Arkansas 0 0 0 0 10,800 10,800 

California 0 0a 0 0 0 0 

Colorado 242,676 0 0 0 0 242,676 

Connecticut 0 176,000 139,500 0 76,050 391,550 

Delaware 0 0 224,000 0 0 224,000 

District of Columbia 0 0 68,000 102,100 0 170,100 

Florida 0 0 0 156,000 141,920 297,920 

Georgia 1,583,528 301,240 94,783 0 351,634 2,331,185 

Hawaii 0 488,640 275,000 215,675 354,000 1,333,315 

Idaho 63,000 0 0 120,000 0 183,000 

Illinois 305,000 456,680 1,082,000 0 63,920 1,907,600 

Indiana 280,000 0 200,000 511,200 925,000 1,916,200 

Iowa 89,500 0 0 0 0 89,500 

Kansas 0 0 0 0 229,000 229,000 

Kentucky 288,000 0 0 0 289,000 577,000 

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Maine 120,000 0 0 130,000 0 250,000 

Maryland 0 0 181,170 0 251,111 432,281 

Massachusetts 186,000 372,149 442,550 0 0 1,000,699 

Michigan 34,314 0 0 0 0 34,314 

Minnesota 275,000 0 0 0 0 275,000 

Appendix II: National Criminal History 

Improvement Program Grant Funding for 

AFIS/Livescan (Fiscal Years 1999-2003) 
Appendix II: National Criminal History 

Improvement Program Grant Funding for 

AFIS/Livescan (Fiscal Years 1999-2003) 

Page 32 GAO-04-260 Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions 

State 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Missouri 0 0 409,973 86,235 0 496,208 

Montana 0 67,500 21,213 0 275,000 363,713 

Nebraska 120,000 40,200 0 124,620 0 284,820 

Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 

New Hampshire 150,000 0 25,000 0 0 175,000 

New Jersey 731,034 930,651 459,763 0 211,412 2,332,860 

New Mexico 173,747 257,080 31,680 80,000 55,000b597,507 

New York 443,069 170,483 143,131 22,954 0 779,637 

North Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 349,546 349,546 

Ohio 205,000 0 0 0 54,913 259,913 

Oklahoma 140,000 0 400,000 428,000 300,000 1,268,000 

Oregon 0 431,400 0 0 0 431,400 

Pennsylvania 0 0 160,000 0 0 160,000 

Rhode Island 406,800 336,400 220,000 284,950 342,855 1,591,005 

South Carolina 112,350 105,000 40,000 71,500 0 328,850 

South Dakota 135,000 138,322 130,000 0 396,775 800,097 

Tennessee 0 0 360,652 0 0 360,652 

Texas 0 0 0 0 2,270,000 2,270,000 

Utah 0 0 0 19,200 0 19,200 

Vermont 82,000 0 114,415 70,557 98,863 365,835 

Virginia 327,080 0 225,489 475,990 650,054 1,678,613 

Washington 125,000 220,473 190,000 0 150,000 685,473 

West Virginia 0 60,000 0 270,000 273,972 603,972 

Wisconsin 540,060 0 251,720 597,000 145,200 1,533,980 

Wyoming 0 168,146 105,883 137,322 77,064 488,415 

National totals $7,559,740 $4,927,085 $6,072,797 $3,993,303 $8,450,849 $31,003,774 

Source: BJS. 

a

The data do not reflect an additional $739,302 California requested in fiscal year 2000 to install 

Livescan machines in courthouses. 

b

Fiscal year 2003 NCHIP funding for the state of New Mexico is to be awarded in fiscal year 2004. 

(440192) 
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