Law Enforcement: Information on Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions to the FBI
Published: 2004-01-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 checksrequired for employment or other noncriminal justice purposes.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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?
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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  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.
For both paper and electronic criminal fingerprint submissions, law  enforcement agencies can indicate on the submission whether they want  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. 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. 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).
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.
section_title: IAFIS Processing of Criminal Fingerprints Is Important for Updating and Providing Complete Criminal History Information and Can Provide Positive Identification of Arrestees
paragraphs: 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  of the approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprint sets submitted. 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.” More recently, in response to our inquiry,  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).
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 cross- jurisdictional criminal history and outstanding warrants—is not known.
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. Furthermore,  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. 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.
section_title: Progress Has Been Made in Achieving Paperless Fingerprint Processing, with Many Factors Influencing Progress
paragraphs: 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.”
subsections: section_title: Nationally, the Average Time for Submitting Criminal Fingerprints Has Improved since Implementation of IAFIS
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Electronic Criminal Fingerprint Submissions from State Agencies Have Increased since the Implementation of IAFIS
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Over One-Fourth of Criminal Fingerprints Were Entered into IAFIS the Same Day as the Date of Arrest for the Period We Analyzed
paragraphs: 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. 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. Electronic processing allows for the fastest  submission of fingerprints to IAFIS and supports the FBI’s goal of  paperless processing of criminal fingerprint data.
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  total criminal fingerprint submissions for this period were entered within 1  day after the date of the arrest.
section_title: Most Submission Time Lags Are Attributable to a Lack of Automation and Various Other Factors
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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. 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  cards. 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. 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, fingerprint- based background checks conducted for employment or other  noncriminal justice purposes.
section_title: Various Efforts Are Under Way to Improve the Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions to IAFIS
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: FBI Initiatives and State Efforts Support the Automation of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: National Criminal History Improvement Program Has Provided Federal Funds for States to Automate Criminal Fingerprint Submissions
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: Proposed Rule to Give Broader Authority to Private Contractors for Processing Fingerprints for Noncriminal Justice Purposes
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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  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.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: 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
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Objectives
paragraphs: 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?
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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).
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.
section_title: Data Reliability
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix II: National Criminal History Improvement Program Grant Funding for AFIS/Livescan (Fiscal Years 1999-2003)
paragraphs: Appendix II: National Criminal History  Improvement Program Grant Funding for  AFIS/Livescan (Fiscal Years 1999-2003)
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.