CONTINUING CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS IMPROVEMENT EVALUATION:
FINAL 1994-1998 Report

April 1999  NCJ  179768
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director

Note to readers of the ASCII version:
This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. 
A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format 
(.wk1) and the full report including tables and graphics in
.pdf format are available from: 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cchrie98.htm.





Acknowledgments. This report was prepared by Queues Enforth 
Development, (Q.E.D.) Inc.  The project director of the report was 
James M. Tien, Ph.D, Vice President; other authors include Michael F. 
Cahn, Vice President, and Robin C. Neray, Senior Analyst.  The 
Federal project monitor was Carol G. Kaplan, Chief, Criminal History 
Improvement Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Report of work performed under BJS Cooperative Agreements #95-
RU-RX-K002 and #98-RU-VX-K003 awarded to Q.E.D., 432 
Columbia Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141-1048.  Contents of 
this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Copyright/1999 by Queues Enforth Development, Inc. 
The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes any person to reproduce, 
publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted 
material in this publication with the exception of those items indicating 
they are copyrighted or printed by any source other than Q.E.D.

Foreword

Since 1995, with support from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 
Queues Enforth Development, Inc. (Q.E.D.) has been evaluating the impact 
of three federal programs on state criminal history records; the BJS-funded 
Criminal History Records Improvement (CHRI) Program, the BJS-funded 
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), and the five-
percent set-aside of the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
Enforcement Assistance Program, funded by the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance.

This report brings Q.E.D.’s evaluation findings current through 1998 and 
addresses the extent to which the efforts funded under the records 
improvement programs have brought the states closer to meeting the 
mandates of the federal statutes concerning the quality and uses of criminal 
history records.

In the course of their evaluation, Q.E.D. has analyzed over 1,500 federally 
funded criminal history records improvement activities undertaken by the 
states.  State responses to questions on data quality and improvement 
strategies, and user perceptions of record accessibility, timeliness and utility 
are reported herein.  The evaluation findings identify areas of progress, 
including promising approaches for continued records improvement.
BJS hopes that the information contained in this report will inform state 
officials about records improvement initiatives across the nation and assist 
them in their future planning efforts.

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director


Highlights

1. Making the Case

The importance of accurate and complete criminal history records to a 
smoothly functioning and secure society cannot be overstated.  These 
records are critical to decision making at virtually every juncture in the 
criminal justice system, and beyond. 

Police officers, prosecutors, defenders, judges, and other court officials, 
corrections officers, probation officers, and parole officers depend on 
timely, complete, consistent, and accurate criminal history information. 
This information provides the glue for holding together a coordinated 
and effective criminal justice system.  Moreover, criminal justice 
records are being accessed increasingly for official purposes outside the 
criminal justice system, including establishing qualifications for 
employment, volunteer programs, and professional licensing.

Each state maintains criminal history records in a central repository, 
coordinating and providing them in response to requests from legitimate 
users.  Repositories process hundreds of thousands of fingerprint and 
arrest records from local arresting agencies, identify offenders, process 
disposition reports, and attempt to match disposition reports to arrests 
in their databases.

Federal, state, and local criminal justice officials have long recognized 
problems in the quality of criminal history records.  This issue was first 
widely discussed in 1967, with publication of the Report of the 
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of 
Justice, which noted that these records were frequently inaccurate, 
incomplete, and inaccessible. 

Over the past three decades, numerous workshops have been held and 
reports published on the quality of such records, and strategies have 
been devised for improving them.  Further, federal and state statutes 
have increased the importance of criminal history records in such areas 
as eligibility to buy firearms, felony convictions of illegal aliens, 
sentencing guidelines, employment, and licensing.  Federal agencies–in 
particular, the former Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the 
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
(BJS)–have funded state programs designed to enhance data quality.  
Key efforts include the BJS-funded Criminal History Records 
Improvement (CHRI) program, the BJA-funded Byrne 5% set-aside 
program, and the National Criminal History Improvement Program 
(NCHIP).

In 1995, BJS, in conjunction with BJA, authorized Queues Enforth 
Development (Q.E.D.) Inc., to continue the BJA-funded Criminal 
History Records Improvement Evaluation (CHRIE) effort. 
Q.E.D’s current project, entitled “Continuing Criminal History Records 
Improvement Evaluation” (C-CHRIE), assesses the CHRI program, the 
Byrne 5% set-aside program, and the NCHIP through 1998.  Findings 
in this report point to areas where progress in records improvement has 
been substantial, as well as those requiring greater effort, and identify 
promising approaches for improving data quality.  Justice Department 
officials should find the report useful in assessing how federal funds are 
being spent; state officials can use it to find out what’s going on in other 
states.

Federally Funded Programs

The CHRI, Byrne 5% set-aside, and NCHIP programs seek to improve 
the quality of criminal history records. In 1989, the US Attorney 
General recommended using $9 million of Anti-Drug Abuse Act 
Discretionary Funds in each of fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1992 to 
fund the CHRI program.  The three overall objectives of this program 
are to:

* enhance state criminal history records to accurately identify convicted 
felons;
* meet the new FBI/BJS voluntary reporting standards for identifying 
such individuals; and
* improve quality and timeliness of criminal history records 
information.

An amendment to the Crime Control Act of 1990 required that states 
spend at least five percent of their annual Edward Byrne Memorial 
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance formula grant funds–
ordinarily intended for initiatives to control violent and drug-related 
crime–on improving quality of criminal history records.  This amounts 
to a total of approximately $156 million from fiscal years 1992-98.  The 
objectives of the Byrne 5% program are similar to those of the CHRI 
program–specifically, to:

* enhance completeness of criminal history records, especially 
including final disposition of all felony arrest offenses;
* fully automate all criminal justice histories and fingerprint records;
* improve frequency and quality of criminal history reports to the FBI;
* improve state record systems and sharing with the Attorney General 
of all records described above, in order to implement the Brady Act; 
and
* improve state record systems and sharing with the Attorney General 
of all records described above, in order to implement the National Child 
Protection Act.

Three key federal statutes were also enacted–the Brady Handgun 
Violence Prevention Act of 1993, the National Child Protection Act of 
1993, and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994; these three have led 
to certain pertinent actions.

* First, the Brady Act–in an effort to identify ineligible prospective 
firearm purchasers–requires establishing a National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System (NICS), to be contacted by dealers before 
they sell any firearm.  States are to make criminal history records 
available to NICS through the Interstate Identification Index (III), a 
decentralized index-pointer system maintained by the FBI, and 
containing personal identifiers of offenders and “pointers” to states that 
maintain criminal history records on these offenders.  (NICS checks can 
also access records maintained by the FBI.)  NICS, which became 
operational on November 30, 1998, also includes limited data on 
persons other than felons who are ineligible to purchase firearms.  (Of 
the $100 million appropriated for Brady in Fiscal Year 1995, BJS 
transferred $6 million to the FBI for NICS development.)

* Second, the National Child Protection Act (NCPA) of 1993 requires 
that records of child abuse be transmitted to the FBI’s national records 
system and encourages states to adopt legislation requiring background 
checks on individuals before they assume responsibility for the care of 
children, the elderly, or the disabled.  In the context of NCPA, 
background checks are restricted to prospectively disqualified care 
providers, but state legislation varies and may have a broader scope, 
including the performance of routine background checks of many 
categories of potential employees, volunteers, and licensees.

* Third, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and the Lautenberg 
Amendment of 1996 added the eighth and ninth firearm ineligibility 
categories–namely, persons who are “subject to a civil restraining order 
arising out of domestic or child abuse” and those convicted of 
“domestic violence misdemeanors.”  The seven other categories of 
persons ineligible to purchase firearms under the Gun Control Act are: 
people under indictment for or convicted of a felony, fugitives from 
justice, unlawful drug users or addicts, mental defectives, illegal aliens, 
those dishonorably discharged from the military, and those who have 
renounced US citizenship.

To implement these statutes, BJS established the National Criminal 
History Improvement Program (NCHIP); from its inception through 
fiscal year 1998, the program has awarded $206 million to fund state 
activities in records improvement.  

NCHIP implements grant provisions of these statutes and thereby 
improves the nation’s public safety by:

* facilitating accurate and timely identification of people ineligible to 
purchase a firearm;
* ensuring that people responsible for the care of children, the elderly, 
or the disabled do not have disqualifying criminal records;
* improving access to protection orders and records of people wanted 
for stalking and domestic violence; and
* enhancing the quality, completeness, and accessibility of the nation’s 
criminal history records systems and the extent to which such records 
can be used for criminal justice-related purposes.

More specifically, NCHIP helps states:

* expand and enhance participation in the FBI’s Interstate Identification 
Index (III) and the National Instant Criminal Background Check 
System (NICS);
* meet timetables for achieving criminal history records completeness 
and participating in III, as established for each state by the Attorney 
General;
* improve level of criminal history records automation, accuracy, 
completeness, and flagging; 
* develop and implement procedures for accessing records of people 
other than felons who are ineligible to buy firearms;
* identify–through interface with the National Incident-Based Reporting 
System (NIBRS), as necessary–records of crimes involving use of a 
handgun and/or abuse of children, the elderly, or the disabled;
* identify, classify, collect, and maintain–through interface with the 
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and III, as necessary–
protection orders, warrants, arrests, and convictions of individuals 
violating protection orders (to protect stalking and domestic violence 
victims), and support development of state sex offender registries and 
an interface with a national sex offender registry); and
* ensure that states develop the capability to monitor and assess state 
progress in meeting legislative and program goals.

Common Goals

Many states view the various federal grant programs for improving the 
quality of criminal history records as one large pool of funds.  This 
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to separate “CHRI data quality 
impact” from “Byrne 5% data quality impact” or from “NCHIP data 
quality impact.”  Still, each program plays a synergistic and 
complementary role in improving criminal history records, and as such 
must be part of the overall evaluation.  Fortunately, the substantial 
overlap among goals makes it possible to formulate one set of common 
improvement goals for federally supported criminal history records.  
These six goals make it easy to discern how well federally funded 
activities undertaken by the state align with program goals to:
 
* provide resources to establish the infrastructure for 
improving criminal history records and related systems;

* improve criminal history records quality (completeness, 
accuracy, consistency, timeliness, and accessibility)

* improve interstate, intrastate, and federal criminal history 
records-related reporting; 

* automate systems for creating, storing, and sharing 
criminal history records;

* identify ineligible firearms purchasers; and 

* identify individuals disqualified from caring for children, 
the elderly, or the disabled.

Study Approach

This report is the third major deliverable in a multi-year Q.E.D. effort 
to evaluate the impact of federally funded criminal history records 
improvement programs.  The first and second deliverables, Preliminary 
Assessment and 1994-96 Report, built upon a 1994 Q.E.D. study 
evaluating the Bureau of Justice Statistics-funded Criminal History 
Records Improvement (CHRI) Program. 

To accomplish our study objectives, Q.E.D used the two-pronged 
evaluation approach, conducting both an overall impact evaluation of 
all states and a more focused evaluation of a handful of states.  The 
overall evaluation should benefit Justice Department officials and 
members of Congress (who need to know how well program funds have 
been spent) and individual states committed to improving their current 
criminal history records.  The focused evaluation enables a deeper 
analysis of selected issues.

After reviewing 56 states’ and territories’ NCHIP plans and their 
Criminal Justice Record Improvement (CJRI) plan updates, we 
developed a scaleable classification scheme to categorize the 1,552 
identified record improvement activities.  This scheme categorizes 
activities that mirror the flow of data as they are captured, updated, and 
used throughout the criminal justice system, and identifies funding 
sources and expected and actual schedules, as available.  The scheme is 
designed to accommodate diverse activities and help understand 
relationships among activities, funding sources, and timeframes.
Based on a model we developed and then fed sample state data, we 
examined issues of linking arrests and dispositions, including 
appropriateness of national linkage goals.  We concluded with the 
design of a set of measures which can be used to objectively assess 
overall data quality over time.

The scheme is three-tiered: categories 1-19 constitute what we refer to 
as “Level 1” and are subdivided into 50 more specific Level 2 sub-
categories.  Level 3 is a further sub-division of Level 2, and offers the 
greatest specificity; it contains 171 subcategories which ultimately 
“house” the specific improvement activities.  For example, Level 1. 
System Improvements consists of 1.1 Conduct study/develop plan, 1.2 
Conduct audit, and 1.3 Establish infrastructure.  Continuing the 
example, 1.2 Conduct audit, in turn, consists of 1.2.1 Audit criminal 
history data quality, 1.2.2 Conduct legislative audit, 1.2.3 Audit 
superior court.  In this way, the classification scheme permits a 
consistent comparison of activities across states.

The table below shows the number of activities in each of the 19 Level 
1 categories.  More than half the activities fall into the System 
Improvements and Criminal History Records categories; this is 
understandable, since they reflect the initial two stages of developing an 
effective criminal history records system.  Interestingly, these types of 
activities are as prevalent under NCHIP as they were under CHRI; 
however, fingerprinting-related activities such as AFIS or livescan 
implementation (not funded by CHRI) also prevail.

The number of activities undertaken by a state ranges from two to 63, 
with an average of 28.2 per state.  The variability in number of 
activities indicates that some states engage in a small number of costly 
improvements, while others undertake less-expensive activities.

Activity Categories by Prevalence
 
While both viable and robust enough to permit an expanding C-CHRIE 
effort, the classification scheme is limited in several respects, as with all 
such schemes or taxonomies.  Two limitations merit discussion.

First, the scheme categorizes improvements by choosing the one 
category–from a hierarchical list of categories–that best represents that 
activity.  This approach is somewhat analogous to the Uniform Crime 
Reporting (UCR) system, which captures only the most serious charge 
for each arrest.  Classifying information in this way biases results 
towards those categories at the top of the hierarchy.

Second, activities are not comparable in either cost or benefit and 
should not be weighted as such.  While we count each activity as if all 
activities were equivalent, they are not; thus, an audit activity, while 
critical, is less costly than the purchase of an AFIS system.  However, 
notwithstanding these typical limitations, the classification scheme and 
the resultant findings form a sound basis for understanding the status of 
criminal history records and for funding their improvements.

2. Findings

To evaluate the impact of the three federally funded programs on 
criminal history records improvement, we considered the extent to 
which state efforts have helped accomplish the six common goals. 
While it would be ideal to assert that each goal has or has not been met, 
this is not yet possible.  Improving criminal history records is a lengthy 
process, best assessed with the aid of national aggregate measures, 
which can quantify the state of data quality over time.  Until these 
measures are established (see Remaining Issues, below), an evaluation 
must be based on activities being undertaken by the states. 

Goal 1: Provide Required Resources

Provide resources to establish the necessary infrastructure for 
improving criminal history records and related systems.
By providing ongoing funding since the beginning of the CHRI 
program, the Department of Justice has demonstrated a commitment to 
improving criminal history records.  Between FY 90 and FY 98, the 
federal government awarded a total of $389M–$27M through the CHRI 
program, $156M through the Byrne 5% program, and $206M through 
the NCHIP program.  This represents an annual average of $0.77M in 
federal funds awarded to each state, over the past nine years.  The chart 
below depicts the level of awards over time.


Total Federal Program Awards by Year
 

Specific financial assistance has also been targeted to states at both 
ends of the criminal history records automation spectrum.  “Priority” 
states (Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia) 
each received a supplementary grant of up to $l million in NCHIP funds 
to spend on basic activities to enhance automation of criminal history 
records.  Similarly, the 18 NCHIP “advanced” states, a subset of III 
states, were eligible, under the Advanced State Award Program 
(ASAP), to collectively spend an additional $5 million on extended 
core activities that would enhance the interface of their computerized 
criminal history systems with databases of persons other than felons 
who are ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Finding 1.1:	The establishment of federal programs has helped 
states place a high priority on criminal history records 
improvement.

Byrne 5% and NCHIP program requirements have heightened 
awareness of the importance of improving criminal history records.  As 
part of the Byrne 5% requirement, states must: (1) develop a Criminal 
Justice Records Improvement (CJRI) Plan and update it annually in 
order to expend their 5% funds, (2) convene a multi-agency criminal 
justice records improvement task force and, (3) as part of NCHIP, 
coordinate Byrne 5% and NCHIP funds.  In addition, states have target 
dates for meeting the Attorney General’s timetable for current and 
sharable records as well as dates for III participation, where applicable.  
Further, federal funds have helped leverage state and local funds, 
targeted at improving the quality of criminal history records.
One-third of the states expended more Byrne funds for criminal justice 
records improvement than the federally mandated 5% set-aside–
evidence that states recognize the need for improving criminal history 
records.  Moreover, states indicate that flexibility in the administration 
and use of Byrne 5% funds is helpful: it does not require that all 
projects be equally subsidized and allows the states to put funds to best 
use.

Finding 1.2:	The amount of available federal funds is not 
excessive. 

The question of whether some states may be unable to handle additional 
workloads associated with a large infusion of funding–precipitating a 
so-called “saturation phenomenon”–has been raised; for example, 
between FY 95 and FY 98 states drew down only 36% of their NCHIP 
awards, on average.  There are, however, other possible explanations. 
First, the typical NCHIP-and Byrne- funded activities (e.g., an AFIS 
effort) take considerable time to complete; this is to be encouraged, 
since states may otherwise be unsuccessful in undertaking such major 
efforts and explains why funds are not being spent.  Second, some states 
strategically accumulate their Byrne funds over several years to 
purchase “big ticket” items.  Third, no state has requested to waive 
compliance with the requirement to allocate at least 5% of its Byrne 
funds for improving criminal history records.  Finally, new programs, 
such as the State Identification Systems, come into existence, 
necessitating additional funding.

Finding 1.3:	While there is synergy among the CHRI, Byrne, and 
NCHIP programs, an attempt should be made to improve 
coordination with the newer DOJ initiatives and with other federal 
and state programs that have implications for criminal history.

Byrne 5% and NCHIP funds are coordinated, in the sense that they 
complement each other in related efforts, rather than supplement one 
another in the same efforts.  A state may fund improvement activities in 
the judicial branch with one of these two sources, while activities in the 
executive branch could be underwritten by the other source.  Although 
logically, the Byrne and NCHIP funds could be commingled to 
implement an interface between a courts information system (judicial) 
and a computerized criminal history records system (executive), this 
does not occur because Byrne, unlike NCHIP, requires a match and 
local pass through.  Commingling the two sources would introduce 
complexities in administrative and funds tracking.

CHRI and NCHIP also complement each other in related efforts.  While 
any leveraging of NCHIP and CHRI funds to support the same activity 
is negligible, the two funding sources overlap in the kinds of activities 
they support, namely, those falling into the System Improvements and 
Criminal History Records categories.  Interestingly, these types of 
activities are as prevalent under NCHIP as they were under CHRI, 
implying a continuing need for funding these initiatives.

The difference in allocation of NCHIP and CHRI funds is also 
understandable.  Because the average NCHIP award is much greater 
than the average CHRI award, only 16% of NCHIP-funded activities 
leverage state and/or local funds, compared to over 41% of CHRI-
funded activities.  By the same token, 41% of all activities are partially 
funded by NCHIP, whereas the analogous percentage for CHRI is only 
17%; this can be attributed to the narrower CHRI focus.  

Some state officials feel the greatest barrier to effective coordination of 
the increasing number of records-related programs is institutional.  At 
the federal level, programs are administered by multiple organizational 
units within BJA and BJS; this occurs more disparately at the state 
level, where the respective administrators may be not only in separate 
agencies but even in different branches of government (i.e., executive 
vs. judicial).  As new programs emerge (e.g., State Identification 
Systems, which supports AFIS development) and integration initiatives 
proliferate across agency lines (e.g., Health and Human Services 
programs requiring selective access to criminal history information), it 
will become more crucial than ever to coordinate the various federal 
and state criminal justice programs with federal and state non-criminal 
justice programs.  Organizational changes are being considered at the 
state level to address this need.

Finding 1.4:	The majority of records improvement activities are 
initiated and completed on schedule.  

An overwhelming 75% of activities start on time, and some 70% of 
activities are completed on time, based on an analysis of activities that 
included planned and actual start and completion dates.  This is 
commendable, given myriad possible delays–attributed to contractor 
problems, personnel changes, and political difficulties–not within the 
control of the department implementing the initiatives.  Ongoing 
activities–including training and auditing–comprise 7% of the total.  
Only 19 activities experienced starting lags exceeding two years, while 
only 14 activities experienced completion lags of two years or more.  
The average criminal history records improvement activity takes 2.7 
years to complete.  These statistics should help guide states through 
future planning efforts.

Goal 2: Improve Records Quality

Improve the quality (i.e., completeness, accuracy, consistency, 
timeliness, and accessibility) of criminal history records.

To gain insight into the states’ perspective, we administered a 
questionnaire to state officials, requesting their views on the relative 
importance of data quality issues and data quality improvement 
activities.  We also conducted telephone interviews with 50 users of 
criminal history information in both the criminal justice and non-
criminal justice communities and asked for their views on changes in 
the quality of records between 1992 and 1997.  While our sample is 
limited and somewhat biased–38% of criminal justice users were from 
local law enforcement–we find that these users are generally content 
with records quality; although, to the degree they could recollect, they 
believe that improvements since 1992 have been modest.  Our findings 
indicate that while federal funds have been instrumental in progress 
towards improving the quality of criminal history records, more work 
needs to be done.

Finding 2.1:	The automation of criminal history records systems–
especially their interfaces–has made records available on a more 
timely basis. 

Eighty-eight percent of users interviewed see access to criminal history 
records as either being timely or very timely; 30% perceive that access 
was either more timely or much more timely in 1997, compared to 
1992.  Attribution for the improvement was evenly split between 
improvements in automated systems and in data entry protocol.
Reduction in disposition submission times is one factor contributing to 
the greater timeliness of record accessibility.  Responses to our 
questionnaire indicate that disposition submission times–deemed 
problematic by the states in 1994–are no longer a concern.  Thanks to 
the CHRI emphasis on increased automation of disposition reporting, 
submission times have been successfully reduced.  In cases where there 
is no difficulty linking a disposition to its arrest, the improved 
disposition submission times lead to the timely availability of a 
complete record.  However, the troubling fact that arrest-to-disposition 
linking problems remain suggests that automation alone is insufficient 
to alleviate poor linkage, which is usually a symptom of a more 
structural problem (e.g., pertinent tracking or control numbers not 
entered on the arrest/disposition record).
  
Finding 2.2:	More federal funds are needed to substantially 
improve the quality, and particularly the completeness, of criminal 
history records. 

While availability of federal funds has enhanced quality of criminal 
history records, there is still substantial room for improvement. 
Completeness–the extent to which the criminal history record contains 
available disposition information–remains an acute problem. The 
degree to which arrests in the criminal history database have a final 
disposition was cited by states as being the most critical and most 
problematic issue they face, in both 1994 and 1997.  The past decade 
has witnessed a major increase in automated disposition reporting, but 
states still find it challenging to link dispositions to associated arrests 
and charges.  While automated disposition reporting has accelerated the 
rate at which dispositions are received at the repository, this does not 
necessarily guarantee the linking of a disposition to its corresponding 
arrest.

The linking task can be especially difficult in states where dispositions 
are matched to corresponding charges, since charges can be often 
dropped or modified anytime following an arrest.  One manifestation of 
this linking problem is the increase in suspense files–that is, repository 
files containing dispositions that cannot be linked to arrests.  A 
procedural change, such as implementing unique identifiers, or 
Offender Based Transaction Statistics (OBTS) numbers, should be 
encouraged, since it has been shown to help states alleviate the 
problem.  States should also continue to locate and process disposition 
reports not submitted to the repository–an activity which many states 
have cited as improving the quality of records, and which should be 
implemented on a wider scale. 

States assert that upgrading the AFIS and CCH systems and 
implementing livescan will yield the greatest improvement in data 
quality, and as such, are among the most frequently undertaken 
activities.  Federal funds have played a key role in subsidizing these 
costly initiatives (see Finding 4.2).  The importance of these efforts is 
understandable, since the AFIS and CCH are necessarily the two critical 
components of an efficient repository.  Further, legacy AFIS and CCH 
systems installed in the 1980s need to be replaced with state-of-the-art 
hardware and software.  Livescan, on the other hand, is a newer 
technology that should be fostered, since it improves arrest reporting 
and helps build towards a paperless system.  The timely focus on 
livescan and automated arrest reporting is likely related to the fact that 
automated disposition reporting has made major strides since CHRI, 
allowing more emphasis on the front end of the records process.  
The fact that the average time to complete an improvement activity 
exceeds two-and-one-half years explains why the need for supplemental 
funding can also be expected.

Finding 2.3:	Records are more accessible and more useful as a 
result of improvements to criminal history records.
 
Eighty-five percent of users interviewed feel that records were either 
accessible or very accessible in 1997; 34% feel that they were either 
more or much more accessible in 1997, compared to 1992.  This latter 
low percentage may be due to the fact that local law enforcement–a 
third of the users we interviewed–traditionally has had greatest access 
to the records, and hence no substantial difference is apparent to them.  
The majority attributed the improvement to changes in their automated 
systems, which, as in Goal 5, has been a focal point of federal funds. 
Seventy-nine percent find records information useful or very useful, and 
34% feel it was either more useful or much more useful in 1997, 
compared to 1992.  The predominant reason for increased usefulness 
was seen to be the greater completeness of the information. 

Goal 3: Improve Reporting

Improve interstate, intrastate, and federal criminal history records-
related reporting.

Finding 3.1:	Linking dispositions to their associated arrests poses 
a number of lingering problems.
  
Four issues inherent in linking arrests and their dispositions are:

* The delay in rendering a disposition pursuant to a felony arrest could 
be due to prosecutor or defense postponements, and/or to court 
backlogs.

* The delay in entering a rendered final court disposition could be due 
to a communication delay between the court and the central repository 
and/or processing backlogs at the central repository.

* The long-term difficulty in obtaining dispositions for 100 percent of 
felony arrests could be due to problems in tracking arrest cases through 
the criminal justice system as charges are modified and plea bargaining 
occurs.  Prosecutorial dispositions may also not be readily available to 
the repository.

* The long-term difficulty in entering all rendered final dispositions 
could be due to problems in linking dispositions to appropriate arrests. 

National goals of making arrest-to-disposition linkage raise concern 
about state-to-state comparability and data availability.  A preliminary 
list of questions that should be addressed:

* Is a disposition required for every charge, or is one per arrest enough?  
States which post dispositions for every charge–compared to those that 
post one disposition for each arrest–are at a disadvantage in attempting 
to dispose of an arrest. 

* How does a state determine whether a disposition is linked to an 
arrest (or charge)?  Is there a field indicating that the disposition has 
been received and entered, or is a proxy used, such as the date of entry 
of the disposition?  If neither of these data elements exists, how does 
the state know this information?

* Does the criminal history records database identify disposed 
arrest/charges?  In some states, prosecutorially disposed arrests are not 
consistently reported, if at all, to the repository.

* Does the state expunge old, undisposed arrest records?  There may be 
points in time after which “old” arrests whose dispositions have not yet 
been received by the repository are no longer counted in the arrest base 
against which the degree of linkage is measured.  States that engage in 
this practice would obviously have better arrest/disposition linking 
track records than states that do not. 

Finding 3.2:	Setting realistic standards for linking arrest and 
disposition records remains a challenge.

On average, states continue to view the linking of a disposition to an 
arrest as problematic.  Not only is this troubling for the states, which 
require complete and accurate records to make informed decisions on 
bail setting and sentencing, for example, but also because standards 
helpful in measuring record completeness are difficult to establish.  For 
example, the National Child Protection Act and the Brady Act’s 
Attorney General’s timetable each refers to objectives in linking 
dispositions to their corresponding arrests, but a statistical model we 
formulated showed these to be unrealistic. 
 
Specifically, our model examined the relationship between the average 
percent linkage required and the average elapsed time (in weeks) 
between arrest and disposition linking.  An assumption of even modest 
variability in the elapsed time between arrest and linkage to a 
disposition suggests that a typical objective of having 80% of criminal 
history records be “current and shareable” is in practice unattainable.  
Moreover, our model showed that for that goal to be achievable under 
even a modest variability assumption would require the average elapsed 
time between arrest and disposition linking to be less than 10 weeks.

Finding 3.3:	The infusion of federal program funds has increased 
the ranks of III membership, albeit slowly.
 
In contrast to CHRI and Byrne 5% efforts, a key goal of NCHIP in 
support of NICS is participation in the FBI’s Interstate Identification 
Index (III).  As such, since the start of the program ten states have 
become III members under NCHIP–Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 
Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico and 
West Virginia–bringing the total to 39.

While states report that they do not believe that a major effort in III 
participation will improve data quality, they continue to use federal 
funds to accomplish this goal, suggesting the importance of federal 
funds as an incentive for III participation.  From a records quality 
perspective, joining III should be encouraged, since state-supported 
records are more complete than FBI-supported records.  

Goal 4: Automate Systems

Automate systems for creating, storing, and sharing criminal history 
records.

Finding 4.1:	Federal funds are responsible for major automation 
improvements in criminal history records throughout the states. 

The importance of automation in improving data quality cannot be 
overemphasized; the states obviously concur.  The three highest ranked 
federally funded improvement activities are upgrading CCH software, 
installing livescan, and electronically transmitting dispositions to the 
repository.  Each of these activities falls into the category of 
automation; collectively, they account for over 11% of all activities.  In 
particular, livescan implementation and electronic disposition reporting 
are critical in helping states in their efforts to achieve “data entry at the 
source”–and ultimately a paperless record system.  
In addition, the number of NCHIP-funded flagging activities is up over 
50%, as compared to those funded by CHRI.  This is clearly beneficial, 
and not only for identifying felons.  Eighteen percent of activities focus 
on flagging disqualifying crimes, such as child abuse, which may 
include misdemeanors.

Finding 4.2:	Without federal funding, the states would not have 
achieved their current levels of AFIS and livescan implementation. 

In 1994, states asserted that livescan implementation was the activity 
with the greatest potential for improving criminal records.  Since then, 
federal funds have played a major role in the increased levels of 
livescan implementation.  In addition to improving quality of 
fingerprints, livescan also improves arrest reporting.  Implementation of 
livescan, especially at high-volume arresting agencies and central 
booking sites, should be fostered.  

AFIS-related activities undertaken by 50 states account for over 8% of 
all activities; NCHIP funds half of these.  This level of interest is 
evidence of the rapidly burgeoning pace of AFIS technology.  The large 
number of AFIS-related activities also reflect the greater-than-ever need 
in states to store civilian prints in their AFIS, in response to the 
proliferation of fingerprint-based background checks.  In some states, 
the volume of civilian fingerprint checks surpasses criminal checks.  
As noted earlier, future planning of these initiatives should leverage 
other DOJ funding sources, such as SIS.

Finding 4.3:	Integration of automated justice systems is becoming 
increasingly important in improving data quality. 

While integration poses formidable challenges, it is critical as we move 
toward a paperless system, in which data is entered only once at the 
source (thus reducing the possibility of human error and inconsistent 
data).  Because integration efforts cross agency, and often 
jurisdictional, lines, their success depends on a top-down commitment 
from heads of participating agencies.  Consensus building is also 
needed to overcome “turf” issues and to coordinate resource utilization.  
The most prominent shift towards integration shows up in the increase 
in new prosecutor information systems, coupled with an increase in 
prosecution/repository interface activities.  Traditionally, court 
dispositions have been the funding focus for disposition reporting, and 
rightfully so.  Moreover, in some states prosecutors are elected and may 
not be eager to report cases that are not being prosecuted because their 
constituents would be displeased.  Tracking prosecutorial declinations, 
which will improve completeness of criminal history records, should be 
fostered. 

Goal 5: Identify Ineligible Firearm Purchasers

Identify persons ineligible, for criminal and non-criminal reasons, to 
purchase firearms. 

Finding 5.1:	More firearm sales to ineligible purchasers may occur 
under NICS than during the interim provisions of Brady. 
During the interim provisions of Brady from 1994-1998, all states 
checked their own records when performing firearm eligibility checks.  
Under NICS, however, which began in November 1998, state-level 
checks are performed only by states serving as so-called Points of 
Contact (POCs)–in which case, a federal firearms licensee (FFL) 
contacts the state prior to the sale of a firearm.  Unfortunately, the 
majority of states are not POCs–in which case the FFL contacts the 
FBI, whose criminal records are not as complete as state records.  This 
is particularly an issue in non-POC and non-III states.  Further, NICS 
may not be able to verify certain non-felon information: some state 
repositories may be permitted access to mental health information for 
the purpose of conducting a firearm eligibility check, but that same 
information would be prohibited from being passed on to populate the 
NICS index. 

Another artifact of NICS is the absence of a “cooling-off” period prior 
to the purchase of a firearm.  The interim Brady five-day “waiting 
period” was effectively a “cooling off” period for an individual who 
wished to buy a gun with the intent to harm.  For the state, it was a 
“maximum response” period, since a firearm purchaser did not have to 
wait five days before buying a handgun, but had to allow up to five days 
for the CLEO to check his/her records to determine purchase eligibility.  
Interestingly, even with NICS, there is a feeling in the current federal 
administration that the five-day waiting period should be reinstated to 
allow law enforcement officials more time to check noncomputerized 
records and to help prevent rash acts of violence.

Finding 5.2:	The identification of non-felons ineligible to purchase 
firearms is expected to remain problematic.

As noted earlier, the seven categories of individuals prohibited from 
purchasing a firearm listed in the Gun Control Act, the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act, and the Brady Act are: (i) persons under indictment for or 
convicted of a felony; (ii) fugitives from justice; (iii) unlawful drug 
users or addicts; (iv) mental defectives; (v) illegal aliens; (vi) 
dishonorably discharged; and (vii) citizenship renunciates.  The eighth 
and ninth firearm ineligibility categories–namely, persons who are 
“subject to a civil restraining order arising out of domestic or child 
abuse” and those convicted of “domestic violence misdemeanors”–were 
added as part of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and the 
Lautenberg Amendment of 1996, respectively.

Identifying non-felons ineligible to purchase firearms is challenging 
since non-felon information is not readily available to state criminal 
history record repositories.  Also, the dissemination of mental health 
and drug abuse information raises legal and ethical questions about the 
rights to privacy and presents new security challenges.  It is 
understandable, therefore, that two of the three dominant NCHIP-
funded Advanced State Award Program (ASAP) activities aimed at 
identifying non-felons are establishing access to mental health records 
and establishing access to drug abuse records, undertaken by nine and 
seven states, respectively.  (The third most popular ASAP activity, 
undertaken by 12 states, is incorporating civil protection orders in the 
repository database, as discussed below.)  The challenges include 
determining whether databases maintaining this type of non-criminal 
information exist and, if so, the feasibility and legality of accessing 
them, especially if they belong to private institutions.  New enabling 
statutes may be required to overcome these obstacles.

Two other ineligibility categories present unique implementation 
challenges: subjects of restraining orders and domestic violence 
misdemeanants.  States cannot reliably identify individuals for whom 
Gun Control Act-compliant restraining orders–among the plethora of 
restraining order categories–have been issued.  For this reason, some 
states deny firearms to subjects of all restraining orders.  The challenge 
with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions is that the law is 
retroactive; but domestic violence incidents have historically been 
categorized as assaults, making it difficult to segregate them from other 
criminal history records. 

Goal 6: Identify Disqualified Care Providers

Identify individuals disqualified from caring for children, the elderly, 
and the disabled.

Finding 6.1:	The passage of federal and state legislation has 
precipitated growth in the volume of requests for background 
checks of employees, volunteers and licensees–the challenge is 
how to meet the subsequent demand placed on the resources of 
state repositories.

Although practices (e.g., statutory mandates and regulations concerning 
inquiries) vary from state to state regarding background checks, careful 
planning and explicit procedures are needed to support the high volume 
of such inquiries, which in some cases surpasses that of criminal 
checks.  The volume of civilian fingerprints is now overwhelming AFIS 
storage capacities.  Moreover, the volume of inquiries can be expected 
to increase as states continue to pass laws that increase the scope of 
background checks.  In addition, the Volunteers for Children Act, 
passed as part of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998, 
amends NCPA to authorize qualified volunteer organizations to contact 
authorized state agencies (e.g., the repository) to request national 
criminal fingerprint background checks, in the absence of state 
procedural requirements.

Not surprisingly, the increased volume of fingerprint-based applicant 
background checks has resulted in longer response times in a number of 
states.  Based on our interviews, we noted a heightened frustration on 
the part of agencies waiting for responses.  Obviously, the demand 
placed on state repositories for background checks must be 
appropriately met.

Finding 6.2:	There are problems associated with acquiring and 
interpreting information needed to disqualify prospective care 
providers.

Incomplete records are especially a problem in states that release 
conviction-only data to authorized agencies requesting background 
checks.  For example, if the subject of a background check has been 
arrested and convicted of a disqualifying offense, but the disposition 
has not yet been received at the repository or has not been linked to its 
arrest, the conviction will not appear on the record.  The repository will 
not release any information, and the agency will not know that there has 
been a conviction.  The agency will not even know that there has been 
an arrest, which could otherwise be followed up with the court of 
jurisdiction.  

In addition, agencies requesting background checks do not always know 
if a particular conviction is disqualifying for employment.  Agencies are 
not necessarily qualified to understand the plethora of violation and 
conviction codes contained in the reports they receive.  For example, 
sometimes they cannot distinguish whether a felony violation involved a 
child, and hence whether it is disqualifying. 

3. Remaining Issues

Future evaluation efforts should build on findings in this report, seeking 
closure on outstanding issues and assessing more recent BJS and BJA 
initiatives to further improve criminal history records.  More 
specifically, they should: 

1. Continue to assess the impact of federally funded activities. 

This report’s timeframe precedes the FY 98 NCHIP and Byrne 5% 
awards and many of the CHRI-, Byrne 5%-, and NCHIP-funded 
activities are still in progress.  Moreover, an evaluation of the State 
Identification Systems (SIS) and National Sex Offender Registry 
(NSOR-AP) programs should be initiated.  SIS and NSOR-AP are new 
programs which have yet to be assessed–SIS enhances states’ ability to 
identify offenders by upgrading their information systems and DNA 
analysis capability, and NSOR-AP promotes establishment of a national 
sex offender registry.  Thus, formal monitoring of all federally funded 
activities should be ongoing. 

2. Continue to develop a measures framework.

Measures must continue to be identified, building on the C-CHRIE 
study, in which we develop a framework that incorporates a core set of 
input, process, and outcome measures with which to assess records 
quality, over time.  A related issue is the identification of a set of 
desirable attributes for pertinent records quality measures which, in the 
aggregate, can be used to assess the state of records quality over time.  
As part of the C-CHRIE study, we have identified such attributes as 
understandability, measurability, availability, consistency, validity, 
reliability, stability, accuracy, independence, robustness, and 
completeness. 

3. Create a computer-based simulation model of the criminal history 
records process from arrest-to-disposition linkage. 

Building on the measures framework, a simulation model of the arrest-
to-disposition linkage process should be developed, using actual system 
data from a set of focus states.  Results would shed light on the 
interaction and relevance of measures, as well as their impact on 
national goal setting.  

4. Define a set of pertinent measures to assess the aggregate 
improvement of records quality, over time.  

In partnership with BJS, develop a set of pertinent measures to 
determine the nation’s progress in improving criminal history records.  
These measures should reflect common goals of federally funded 
criminal history records improvement programs, capture progress over 
time, and to the extent possible, have the above-mentioned attributes.  
Once developed and tested–perhaps using the simulation model 
described above–measures should be updated regularly to determine the 
extent to which federal goals are being met, to indicate where 
deficiencies lie, and to point to activities which could mitigate such 
deficiencies.  

5. Expand the assessment of user perceptions about the value of 
criminal history records. 
 
We have learned a great deal about the ultimate usefulness of criminal 
history records by speaking with a small group of records users.  They 
were anxious to share current perceptions of the quality of the records, 
as well as expectations and concerns for the future.  Data quality 
improvement will benefit from interviews with a larger, more diverse 
set of users from both the criminal justice and non-criminal justice 
communities.  Ultimately, user perceptions are key to understanding the 
true value of criminal history records and thus the ultimate success of 
federally funded improvement programs.




Table of Contents
Foreword	iii
Highlights	v
List of Exhibits	xxvii
1. Background	1
1.1 Criminal History Records	2
1.2 Federally Funded Programs	5
1.3 Scope of Report	20
2. Study Approach	21
2.1 Study Considerations	21
2.2 Activity-Based Classification Scheme	28
2.3 Study Conduct	41
3. Current Findings	45
3.1 Background Analysis	45
3.2 Activity-Based Analysis	67
3.3 Goal-Based Analysis	85
4. Additional Issues	131
4.1 Measures Framework	131
4.2 Remaining Issues	142
References	145
Appendix A: Glossary	149
Appendix B: State-by-State Activity Summaries	155





List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1-1  State-Based Criminal History Records System	4
Exhibit 1-2  Federally Funded Efforts: Enabling Legislation	13
Exhibit 1-3  Federally Funded Efforts: Common Goals	17
Exhibit 2-1  Federally Funded Efforts: Program Characteristics	25
Exhibit 2-2  Distribution of Byrne Plan Approval Dates	27
Exhibit 2-3  Improvement-Focused Criminal History Records System	30
Exhibit 2-4  Criminal History Records Improvement Activities: Classification Scheme	31
Exhibit 2-5  C-CHRIE: Study Tasks and Schedule	43
Exhibit 2-6  State Activity Summary: Sample State	44
Exhibit 3-1  Federally Funded Efforts: Funding Levels	57
Exhibit 3-2  Correlation of 1995 State Population with Number of Criminal History Records	59
Exhibit 3-3  Distribution of Criminal History Records Improvement Activity Duration	60
Exhibit 3-4  III Participation and Attorney General’s Timetable	61
Exhibit 3-5  Handgun Purchase Procedure: Brady State	62
Exhibit 3-6  Handgun Purchase Procedure: Brady-Alternative State	63
Exhibit 3-7  Firearm Purchase Procedure: NICS	64
Exhibit 3-8  Data Sources Checked for Firearm Sales Eligibility	65
Exhibit 3-9  Criminal History Records Improvement Activities: Distribution by Level	72
Exhibit 3-10  Level 1 Activities by State	76
Exhibit 3-11  Level 3 Activities: Distribution by Intensity	78
Exhibit 3-12  Level 1 Activities by Jurisdictional Impact	81
Exhibit 3-13  Level 1 Activities by Funding Source	82
Exhibit 3-14  Activity Starting and Completion Lag Times	83
Exhibit 3-15  Intensity of Activity Initiation Over Time	84
Exhibit 3-16  Questions on Data Quality Issues	107
Exhibit 3-17  Rank-Ordered Responses to Questions on Data Quality Issues	108
Exhibit 3-18  Questions on Approaches to Improving Data Quality	109
Exhibit 3-19  Rank Ordered Responses to Questions On Approaches to Improving Data Quality	110
Exhibit 3-20  Changes in State Responses to Questions from 1994 to 1997	111
Exhibit 3-21  III Activities by State and Funding Source	112
Exhibit 3-22  Event Sequence from Arrest to Arrest/Disposition Record Linkage	113
Exhibit 3-23  Issues in Linking Arrest and Disposition Records	114
Exhibit 3-24  Impact Analysis of Average Percent of Arrest Records Within Preceding Five Years 
Containing Dispositions	115
Exhibit 3-25  Livescan Activities by State and Funding Source	116
Exhibit 3-26  AFIS Activities by State and Funding Source	118
Exhibit 3-27  AFIS Vendors by State	121
Exhibit 3-28  Arresting Agencies Interface Activities by State and Funding Source	122
Exhibit 3-29  Prosecution/Repository Interface Activities by State and Funding Source	123
Exhibit 3-30  Flagging Activities by State and Funding Source	124
Exhibit 3-31  Firearm Check Activities by State and Funding Source	126
Exhibit 3-32  ASAP Activities by State and Ineligibility Category	129
Exhibit 3-33  Background Check Activities by State and Funding Source	130
Exhibit 4-1  Input, Process, and Outcome Measures for C-CHRIE	134
Exhibit 4-2  Attributes of Pertinent Data Quality Improvement Measures	141
Exhibit B-1  Alabama	156
Exhibit B-2  Alaska	157
Exhibit B-3  American Samoa	159
Exhibit B-4  Arizona	160
Exhibit B-5  Arkansas	162
Exhibit B-6  California	163
Exhibit B-7  Colorado	165
Exhibit B-8  Connecticut	166
Exhibit B-9  Delaware	168
Exhibit B-10  District of Columbia	170
Exhibit B-11  Florida	171
Exhibit B-12  Georgia	173
Exhibit B-13  Guam	174
Exhibit B-14  Hawaii	175
Exhibit B-15  Idaho	176
Exhibit B-16  Illinois	177
Exhibit B-17  Indiana	178
Exhibit B-18  Iowa	179
Exhibit B-19  Kansas	180
Exhibit B-20 Kentucky	181
Exhibit B-21  Louisiana	182
Exhibit B-22  Maine	183
Exhibit B-23  Maryland	184
Exhibit B-24  Massachusetts	185
Exhibit B-26  Minnesota	187
Exhibit B-27  Mississippi	189
Exhibit B-28  Missouri	190
Exhibit B-29  Montana	192
Exhibit B-30  Nebraska	193
Exhibit B-31  Nevada	195
Exhibit B-32  New Hampshire	196
Exhibit B-33  New Jersey	197
Exhibit B-34  New Mexico	199
Exhibit B-35  New York	201
Exhibit B-36  North Carolina	203
Exhibit B-37  North Dakota	204
Exhibit B-38  Northern Mariana Islands	205
Exhibit B-39  Ohio	206
Exhibit B-40  Oklahoma	208
Exhibit B-41  Oregon	209
Exhibit B-42  Pennsylvania	210
Exhibit B-43  Puerto Rico	212
Exhibit B-44  Rhode Island	213
Exhibit B-45  South Carolina	214
Exhibit B-46  South Dakota	215
Exhibit B-47  Tennessee	216
Exhibit B-48  Texas	217
Exhibit B-49  Utah	218
Exhibit B-50  Vermont	220
Exhibit B-51  Virgin Islands	222
Exhibit B-52  Virginia	223
Exhibit B-53  Washington	224
Exhibit B-54  Wisconsin	226
Exhibit B-55  West Virginia	227
Exhibit B-56  Wyoming	228

1. Background

On May 18, 1995, Queues Enforth Development, Inc. (Q.E.D.) was 
authorized by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in conjunction with 
the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), to continue our effort to 
evaluate the impact of federally funded criminal history records 
improvement programs. 
 
Our current multi-year evaluation effort, entitled C-CHRIE–Continuing 
Criminal History Records Improvement Evaluation–represents the 
continuation of our previously completed, BJA-funded effort, called the 
CHRIE study [Tien and Rich, 1994] which evaluated the Criminal 
History Records Improvement (CHRI) program administered by BJS.  
The focus of the C-CHRIE study is to complete the CHRI evaluation, to 
initiate evaluation of the Byrne 5% set-aside program and the National 
Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP)–funded by BJA and 
BJS, respectively–and to identify promising approaches for improving 
data quality.  As the title suggests, this report updates the CHRI study 
and brings the evaluation findings through calendar year 1998. 

It is not only critical that this effort be considered a continuing 
evaluation, but also that it simultaneously focuses on the three federally 
funded records improvement programs cited above.  In fact, when BJS 
Director Dr. Jan M. Chaiken was asked in early 1996 how long NCHIP 
had been going on, he said, “From our perspective, this program has 
been going on for five or six years.  It started with the BJS CHRI 
program and then transferred over to the Byrne 5% set-aside criminal 
records improvement program, which had a one-year overlap with 
CHRI–now the Byrne program continues to run in tandem with 
NCHIP.” 

From the states’ perspective, some CHRI-initiated activities are now 
funded by Byrne 5% moneys and may eventually be supported by 
NCHIP.  This healthy perspective should be encouraged; federal funds 
should contribute to fundamental long-term improvements in the quality 
of the criminal history records, rather than one-shot, short-term 
activities.  Additionally, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to 
distinguish the impact of one federal program versus that of another 
closely related federal program which may focus on the same activity.  
The situation is further complicated by the fact that most moneys spent 
on records improvement activities have come from the states 
themselves. 

C-CHRIE focuses on the overall impact of federal programs on the 
quality of state criminal history records and on how these efforts have 
brought states closer to meeting the mandates of federal statutes that 
initiated and expanded these programs–namely, the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988, Crime Control Act of 1990, Immigration Act of 1990, 
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, National Child 
Protection Act of 1993, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 
Act of 1994, Violence Against Women Act of 1994, National Stalker 
and Domestic Violence Reduction Act of 1995, and Lautenberg 
Amendment of 1996.  Moreover, the study benefits Justice Department 
officials who need to know how well federal funds are spent, as well as 
state officials, who need to know about successful and innovative 
activities implemented in other states.  Throughout this report, the term 
“states” refers collectively to 56 jurisdictions: the 50 United States, 
American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana 
Islands, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands.

The remainder of this section is organized as follows: Section 1.1 
provides an overview of criminal history records; Section 1.2 details 
federal criminal history records improvement efforts; and Section 1.3 
discusses the scope of the report.  Exhibits are located at the end of the 
section in which they are first referenced and, where appropriate, data 
presented in the exhibits are accompanied by “as of” dates.  For 
clarification of acronyms and/or abbreviations contained in the report, 
refer to the Glossary in Appendix A.

1.1 Criminal History Records

The importance of criminal history records cannot be overstated.  These 
records are used to aid decision making at virtually every juncture in 
the criminal justice system.

Police officers, prosecutors, judges, and other court officials, 
corrections officers, probation officers, and parole officers all depend 
on timely, complete and accurate criminal history information.  
Information provides the glue for holding together the criminal justice 
components as a coordinated system.  Moreover, criminal history 
records are being used increasingly for other, non-criminal justice 
purposes, including employment, volunteer programs, and licensing. 

Each state maintains criminal history records in a central repository. 
Repositories are different–each employs different forms, different 
procedures, different terminologies, and different technologies.  
Understanding and comparing state-to-state differences is one of the 
most challenging aspects of both the CHRIE and C-CHRIE studies.  
Nevertheless, state repositories are alike in a more aggregate sense.  
Each processes fingerprints and arrest records from various local 
arresting agencies; each determines whether the arrestee associated with 
the fingerprints and arrest report is a new arrestee or one who already 
has a record; and each processes disposition reports and attempts to 
correctly match a disposition report to an arrest in its database. 
 
Conceptually, one might consider the process of reporting and updating 
criminal records as a chain, since data and records are passed from 
agency to agency.  Exhibit 1-1 identifies the criminal justice 
components that constitute a state-based criminal history records 
system, the heart of which is typically the central repository, serving 
both as a coordinator of records within a state and as a provider of 
records for legitimate users.

Many factors contribute to the overall quality of criminal history 
records.  Briefly, they include:

* Statutory Issues.  Does the state have statutes specifying 
which criminal justice events must be reported to the 
central repository?  Does it have statutes specifying which 
agencies are responsible for reporting those events, and 
the deadlines by which the events must be reported?

* Policies, Procedures, and Practices.  Does each 
contributing agency have effective policies, procedures, 
and practices that carry out the legislatively mandated 
reporting laws?  Does the central repository have effective 
policies, procedures, and practices for processing the 
records it receives and for responding to requests for 
criminal history information?

* Improvement Plans.  Does the state have an overall 
criminal history records improvement plan?  Does the 
state have an active improvement-related technology 
plan?  Does the state have active firearm purchase 
eligibility and background checking plans?

* Agency Cooperation.  Does the state have one or more 
active multi-agency committees with a data quality 
improvement charter?  Do key agency personnel work 
cooperatively to promote data quality?

* Top-Down Commitment.  Are the heads of participating 
agencies and the state legislature’s leadership visibly 
committed to improving data quality?

* Technological Resources.  Is the degree of automation 
appropriate at the contributing agencies (e.g., case 
management systems with reporting modules that facilitate 
electronic transfer of records to the central repository) and 
the central repository (e.g., Computerized Criminal 
History [CCH] and Automated Fingerprint Identification 
System [AFIS] systems) to ensure complete, accurate, and 
timely reporting?  Are there electronic interfaces that link 
major contributing agencies to the repository?

* Human Resources.  Are staffing levels at contributing 
agencies and the repository appropriate to ensure that 
work can be processed in a timely manner?  Are agency 
personnel sufficiently trained and educated for their tasks? 

This section provides but an overview of criminal history records.  
More complete descriptions are available in Q.E.D.’s final CHRIE 
report [Tien and Rich, 1994] or in the BJS reports listed in the 
References.

Exhibit 1-1  State-Based Criminal History Records System

 
1.2 Federally Funded Programs

Federal and state statutes have heightened the importance of criminal 
history records in areas such as firearm eligibility (e.g., Section 6213(a) 
of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act of 1993, and the Violent Crime Control Act and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994), felony convictions of illegal aliens (e.g., the 
Immigration Act of 1990), and employment licensing (e.g., the National 
Child Protection Act of 1993, as amended). 

Federal, state, and local criminal justice officials have long recognized 
problems associated with the quality of their criminal history records.  
This issue was first widely discussed in 1967, with the publication of 
the Report of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the 
Administration of Justice, which noted that criminal history records 
were frequently inaccurate, incomplete, and inaccessible.  Over the past 
three decades, workshops have been held and reports published on the 
status of criminal history records quality, as well as strategies for 
improving that quality.  As indicated earlier, federal agencies–in 
particular the former Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 
BJA, and BJS–have funded programs at the state level designed 
specifically to enhance data quality. 

From a historical perspective, two major acts were passed in 1968: the 
Gun Control Act, establishing seven categories of individuals 
disqualified from purchasing firearms, which followed on the heels of 
the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. 

Between 1988 and 1998, more than a dozen criminal history-related 
acts were passed amending the Gun Control and Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Acts and enacting the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which until 1998 has been the most 
comprehensive crime bill in the history of the country.  (See Exhibit 1-
2.)  (The passage in 1998 of the Crime Identification and Technology 
Act (CITA) authorizes $250 million in each of FY 99 through FY 03 to 
improve interstate criminal justice identification, information 
communication, and forensics; it is anticipated that the program 
established to carry out mandates of this act will succeed NCHIP and be 
even broader in scope.)  The laws driving criminal history records 
improvement address the identification of persons ineligible to purchase 
firearms and the establishment of procedures for background checks on 
providers of services to children, the elderly, and the disabled.  With 
substantive criminal provisions, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act distinguishes itself by addressing criminal history 
records issues related to domestic abuse and firearms, and the 
registration of sexually violent offenders.  

Exhibit 1-2 shows the relationship between relevant legislation and 
subsequent federal programs.  Some legislation authorizes new 
federally funded programs, such as the Crime Control Act of 1990 and 
the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, which established the 
Byrne 5% Set-Aside Program and NCHIP, respectively.  Others amend 
earlier legislation, increase the scope of a program, and in some cases, 
authorize funding to support an existing program.  This is the case with 
the Lautenberg Amendment–passed in 1996 to amend the Gun Control 
Act–which stipulates that persons convicted of domestic violence 
misdemeanors are prohibited from purchasing a handgun.  The 
amendment not only increased the scope of NCHIP–by requiring the 
identification of domestic violence misdemeanants–but raises questions 
about the challenges in identifying them (versus persons convicted of 
assault) and the law’s constitutionality, since it is retroactive.  These 
and other issues are discussed in greater detail in Section 3.1. 

Other programs are also being introduced, including the $9M, FBI-
funded, BJA-administered State Identification Systems (SIS) Formula 
Grant Program announced in July 1997.  SIS enhances the ability of 
states to identify offenders by upgrading their information systems and 
DNA analysis capability.  The National Sex Offender Registry 
Assistance Program (NSOR-AP), initiated during the writing of this 
report, is a $25 million effort under the NCHIP umbrella.  It promotes 
establishment of a national sex offender registry by helping state 
registries improve the quality of their information and by creating 
appropriate interfaces with the FBI’s national system.  (The SIS and 
NSOR-AP programs are referenced in the report inasmuch as they 
further the improvement and use of criminal records.)

The federal approach to assisting criminal history records improvement 
has been both piecemeal–note the short duration of the CHRI and 
NSOR programs–and strategic–note that the Byrne 5% set-aside is 
ongoing and that efforts are being made to coordinate several programs.  
Moreover, the Brady Act and National Child Protection Act not only 
authorized funding for NCHIP, but they also amend the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act to ensure that Byrne funds are used to 
implement these acts.  In fact, each NCHIP application requires that the 
state demonstrate how the NCHIP award will be coordinated with 
Byrne 5% funds.  

However, a greater effort is needed to leverage other DOJ funding 
sources.  For example, while SIS supports development of automated 
fingerprint identification systems compatible with the FBI’s IAFIS, as 
does NCHIP, the two grants are administered by different agencies and 
may have different individuals administering them–making strategic 
planning difficult.  Similarly, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants 
Program (LLEBG), administered by BJA, provides approximately $500 
million annually to fund units of local government to underwrite 
projects to reduce crime and improve public safety.  Procuring 
equipment and technology, such as livescan for basic law enforcement 
functions, is covered but is also not formally coordinated with NCHIP.  
Part of the problem is that different organizations within DOJ are 
responsible for administering the awards, as are different organizations 
within a given recipient state.  The federal government and states alike 
are aware of these inefficiencies.  

Before detailing their characteristics, it is helpful to summarize the 
goals, funding, and timeframes of the individual federal programs.  The 
CHRI program authorized $27M from 1990-1992, predominantly to 
improve criminal history records quality and reporting.  The Byrne 5% 
set-aside effort, which went into effect in 1992 on the heels of CHRI, 
requires that states set aside at least 5% of their annual Byrne formula 
grant funds–approximately $20M annually for all states–and provide a 
25% match of those funds to improve records quality and reporting, and 
to automate systems.  In addition to these goals, identifying ineligible 
firearm purchasers and disqualified care providers is an integral part of 
NCHIP, which has thus far been authorized at more than $220M and 
spans the period from 1995 to 1999. 

CHRI

Section 6213(a) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 requires the 
Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to 
develop a system for the immediate and accurate identification of felons 
who attempt to purchase firearms.  Pursuant to this mandate, the 
Attorney General appointed a Task Force on Felon Identification in 
Firearm Sales.  In May 1989, the Task Force published in the Federal 
Register its Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying 
Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms [BJS, 1989].  In a related 
effort, Q.E.D. was contracted to undertake a complementary study on 
Identifying Persons, Other Than Felons, Ineligible to Purchase 
Firearms: A Feasibility Study [Tien and Rich, 1990]; this report is 
especially pertinent to the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 
1993.

In his comments on the May 1989 report, then-Attorney General 
Thornburgh noted several obstacles to immediate and accurate 
identification of felons who attempt to purchase firearms.  One 
obstacle: many criminal history records are incomplete, particularly in 
the case’s final disposition, another concerns inaccurate data.  To 
address these data quality issues, as well as to facilitate implementation 
of the felon identification system, the Justice Department embarked on 
a multifaceted effort to improve the quality of state criminal history 
records.  Most important, the Attorney General recommended using $9 
million of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act Discretionary Funds in each of 
Fiscal Years 1990, 1991, and 1992 to fund the CHRI program.
As stated in the CHRI Program Announcement [BJA and BJS, 1990], 
CHRI’s three overall objectives were to:

* enhance state criminal history records to accurately 
identify convicted felons;

* meet the new FBI/BJS voluntary reporting standards for 
identifying such individuals; and 

* improve the quality and timeliness of criminal history 
records information.

Based on these objectives, the CHRI Program Announcement also 
indicated specific activities for which CHRI funds would be allocated.  
As noted earlier, BJA awarded a two-year grant to Q.E.D. in March 
1992 to conduct an evaluation of the CHRI program.  The resultant 
report, Early Experiences With Criminal History Records, published by 
BJA in May 1997, is based on Q.E.D.’s Criminal History Records 
Improvement Program: Evaluation Report, issued in April 1994. 

Byrne 5% Set-Aside

In November 1990, two additional and related statutes were enacted.  
First, the Immigration Act of 1990 requires that states furnish 
conviction records of aliens to the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service within 30 days of conviction.  Second, the Crime Control Act of 
1990 amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 
to require that states spend at least 5% of their annual BJA-
administered Byrne formula grant funds (totaling approximately $131 
million from FY 92 through FY 97) on improving the quality of their 
criminal history records.  Under certain conditions, the states might 
reduce or obtain a waiver from this amount.  Individual exceptions can 
be approved if the BJA Director determines that the quality of a 
particular state’s criminal justice records does not warrant the 5% 
expenditure.  For example, one such criterion requires that 95% of a 
state’s current felony arrest records contain disposition information, if a 
disposition has been reached.  (The feasibility of achieving this and 
other similarly stated national objectives is discussed in Section 3.3.)  
Other criteria for complying with the waiver can be found in the Byrne 
Formula Grant Program Guidance [BJA 1996].  

The Byrne 5% set-aside program is, of course, also the focus of the C-
CHRIE study.  The objectives of the Byrne 5% program are similar to 
those of the CHRI program–specifically:

* to enhance completeness of criminal history records 
especially in regard to the inclusion of final dispositions 
of all felony arrests;

* to automate all criminal justice histories and fingerprint 
records; 

* to improve the frequency and quality of criminal history 
reports to the FBI;

* to improve the state record systems and the sharing with 
the Attorney General of all the records described above, 
as are required for the purposes of implementing the 
Brady Act; and

* to improve the state record systems and the sharing with 
the Attorney General of all the records described above, 
as are required for the purposes of implementing the 
National Child Protection Act. [BJA, 1996].

These last two goals, set forth in the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act and the National Child Protection Act, respectively, 
further amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968. 

Given similar program goals, it is not surprising that the same types of 
data quality improvement activities are being implemented in both the 
CHRI and Byrne programs.  This observation is discussed further in 
Section 3.

Additionally, since 1990, a number of other activities have taken place 
in response to the Attorney General’s recommendations and the above 
described federal legislation, including:

* in February 1991, BJS and the FBI jointly published 
Recommended Voluntary Standards for Improving the 
Quality of Criminal History Record Information [FBI and 
BJS, 1991];

* in March 1991, BJS published results of a comprehensive 
survey of data quality in the 50 states and the District of 
Columbia [SEARCH, 1991];

* in June 1991, BJS and SEARCH convened a national 
conference on improving quality of criminal history 
records [BJS, 1992];

* in December 1991, BJA promulgated guidelines for 
improving quality of criminal history records [BJA, 
1991(b)];

* in January 1992, BJS published an audit guide designed to 
help states assess data quality [SEARCH, 1992(a)];

* in June 1992, BJS published findings of the National Task 
Force on Criminal History Record Disposition Reporting 
[SEARCH, 1992(b)];

* in November 1993, BJS published a comprehensive 
description of criminal history records systems [SEARCH, 
1993];

* in February 1994, BJS and SEARCH convened a national 
conference on criminal history records, with emphasis on 
the Brady Act [SEARCH, 1995];

* in April 1997, BJS published its fourth data quality survey 
of the states [SEARCH, 1997]; and

* in September 1997, BJS published its second survey of 
state procedures related to firearm sales [REJIS, 1997]. 

NCHIP

Three key federal statutes–the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 
of 1993, the National Child Protection Act of 1993, and the Violent 
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994–have initiated three 
actions pertinent to the C-CHRIE effort.  

First, the Brady Act–in an effort to identify ineligible, prospective 
firearm purchasers–requires establishment of a National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System (NICS), to be contacted by firearm 
dealers before selling a firearm.  States are to make criminal history 
records available to NICS through the Interstate Identification Index 
(III), a decentralized index-pointer system maintained by the FBI and 
containing personal identifiers of offenders and “pointers” to states that 
maintain criminal history records on these offenders.  (NICS checks can 
also access records maintained by the FBI.)  The FBI-developed NICS 
became operational on November 30, 1998; its backbone is III, and it 
also includes limited data on persons other than felons who are 
ineligible to purchase firearms.  (Of the $100 million appropriated for 
Brady in FY 95, $6 million was transferred by BJS to the FBI for NICS 
development.)

Second, the National Child Protection Act (NCPA) of 1993 requires 
that records of child abuse be transmitted to the FBI’s national records 
system and encourages states to adopt legislation requiring background 
checks on individuals prior to assuming responsibility for the care of 
children, the elderly, or the disabled.  In the context of NCPA, 
background checks are restricted to prospectively disqualified care 
providers, but state legislation varies and may have a broader scope, 
including the performance of routine checks of backgrounds of many 
categories of potential employees, volunteers, and licensees.
Third, the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 and the Lautenberg 
Amendment of 1996, added the eighth and ninth firearm ineligibility 
categories, respectively–namely, persons who are “subject to a civil 
restraining order arising out of domestic or child abuse” and those 
convicted of “domestic violence misdemeanors.”  The other seven 
categories listed in the Gun Control Act are: (i) persons under 
indictment for or convicted of a felony; (ii) fugitives from justice; (iii) 
unlawful drug users or addicts; (iv) mental defectives; (v) illegal aliens; 
(vi) those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military; 
and (vii) those who have renounced U.S. citizenship.
To implement these statutes, BJS was given the task of establishing the 
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), from its 
inception through FY 98, the program has awarded $206 million to 
fund state activities in records improvement.

The goal of NCHIP [BJS, 1997] is to improve the nation’s public safety 
by:

* facilitating the accurate and timely identification of 
persons who are ineligible to purchase a firearm;
* ensuring that persons with responsibility for the care of 
children, the elderly, or the disabled do not have 
disqualifying criminal records;
* improving access to protection orders and records of 
people wanted for stalking and domestic violence; and
* enhancing the quality, completeness and accessibility of 
the nation’s criminal history records systems and the 
extent to which such records can used and analyzed for 
criminal justice related purposes.

More specifically, NCHIP assists states to:

* expand and enhance participation in the FBI’s Interstate 
Identification Index (III) and the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System (NICS);

* meet timetables for achieving criminal history records 
completeness and participation in the FBI’s Interstate 
Identification Index (III), as established for each state by 
the Attorney General;

* improve the level of criminal history records automation, 
accuracy, completeness and flagging;

* develop and implement procedures for accessing records 
of persons other than felons who are ineligible to purchase 
firearms;

* identify–through interface with the National Incident-
Based Reporting System (NIBRS) where necessary–
records of crimes involving use of a handgun and/or abuse 
of children, elderly or disabled persons;

* identify, classify, collect and maintain–through interface 
with the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and 
the III where necessary–protection orders, warrants, 
arrests and convictions of persons violating protection 
orders (intended to protect victims of stalking and 
domestic violence and to support the development of state 
sex offender registries and their interface with a national 
sex offender registry); and 

* ensure that states develop the capability to monitor and 
assess state progress in meeting legislative and 
programmatic goals.

To ensure that all NCHIP-funded efforts support development of NICS, 
BJS works closely with the FBI, BJA, and the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF).  Funding under NCHIP is available to 
states that are subject to the pre-NICS, interim Brady provision of a 
five-day waiting period (“Brady states”) and to those states that operate 
under an alternative system, pursuant to BATF approval (“Brady-
Alternative states”).  NCHIP hopes to carry out the mandates of the 
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, the National Child 
Protection Act of 1993, and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. 

In actuality, the following three components comprise NCHIP: 

1. The NCHIP priority states (Maine, Mississippi, New 
Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia) are each eligible to 
receive a supplementary grant of up to $l million to spend 
on basic activities such as improving quality of criminal 
history records (with emphasis on automation and 
disposition reporting), increasing participation in the 
FBI’s III, and upgrading accessibility of records for 
presale of handguns and pre-employment checks 
(primarily through records flagging).

2. The NCHIP core states focus on core activities such as 
participation in III; database enhancement; improved 
disposition reporting; records automation; records 
flagging; AFIS/livescan; interface with NIBRS; research, 
evaluation, monitoring, and audits; conversion of juvenile 
records to the adult system; missing dispositions backlog 
reduction; equipment upgrade; training, participation in 
seminars and meetings; and expenditures related to 
presale handgun background checks.

3. The NCHIP advanced states are a subset of III states. 
They are eligible, under the Advanced State Award 
Program (ASAP), to collectively spend an additional $5 
million on extended core activities that would enhance the 
interface of their computerized criminal history systems 
with databases on individuals other than felons who are 
ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Common Goals

Many states view the various federal grant programs for improving the 
quality of criminal history records as one large “pool of funds.”  This 
makes it difficult, if not impossible, to separate the “CHRI data quality 
impact” from the “Byrne 5% data quality impact” from the “NCHIP 
data quality impact.”  Still, each program plays a synergistic and 
complementary role in the improvement of criminal history records, and 
as such, must be part of the overall evaluation.  Fortunately, the 
substantial overlap among goals of the three programs makes it possible 
to formulate a synthesized set of common, federally supported criminal 
history records improvement goals.  These six goals make it easy to see 
the extent to which the federally funded activities undertaken by the 
states are aligned with the program goals

Exhibit 1-3 restates the goals/subgoals of the CHRI, Byrne 5%, and 
NCHIP programs and introduces those of the SIS and NSOR-AP 
programs, matching each goal/subgoal with one or more of six common 
federal criminal history records improvement goals.  The common goals 
are shown to span the goals of the individual programs. 

Goal 1 is implicit in all programs; certainly, planning and establishing 
an infrastructure to support improvement initiatives contribute greatly 
to the success of any program.  As for Goal 6, as noted in Section 3.3, 
while NCHIP focuses on checking backgrounds of prospectively 
disqualified care providers, the states also routinely perform 
background checks on many categories of prospective employees, 
volunteers, and licensees.  

The common goals are not equally weighted: aspects of CHRI, Byrne, 
and NCHIP can be found in the first four goals, whereas the last two 
goals have no basis in CHRI.  Furthermore, the common goals overlap, 
as can be understood from the NCHIP subgoal, “improve the level of 
criminal history records automation, accuracy, completeness, and 
flagging,” which impacts both Goal 1 and Goal 3.  
In Section 3.3, we employ this synthesis as a framework for presenting 
our interim goal-based findings.

Exhibit 1-2  Federally Funded Efforts: Enabling Legislation

Exhibit 1-2 (page 2 of 4)

Exhibit 1-2 (page 3 of 4)

Exhibit 1-2 (page 4 of 4)

Exhibit 1-3  Federally Funded Efforts: Common Goals

Exhibit 1-3 (page 2 of 3)

Exhibit 1-3 (page 3 of 3)
 

1.3 Scope of Report

As the third major deliverable of the C-CHRIE effort, this report 
consists of four major sections and two appendices.  Section 1 describes 
the importance of criminal history records and the emergence of federal 
funding programs intended to help states meet provisions of federal 
statutes pertaining to improvement of criminal history records.

Guided by several critical considerations, our study approach is 
outlined in Section 2.  We present the underpinning of our analytical 
work–a classification scheme based on past, current, and planned state 
and local criminal history records improvement activities. 

Section 3 highlights relevant findings to date.  Background information 
is analyzed, with an emphasis on funding and timetable issues, as well 
as improvement initiatives being undertaken by the states.  Results are 
presented in the context of the common goals.  User perceptions about 
quality of criminal history records, together with issues concerning the 
linkage of arrest and disposition records, are addressed.  

A measures framework is proposed and appropriate measurement 
methods are identified in Section 4.  We conclude with an overview of 
remaining issues. 

Finally, Appendix A provides a glossary of relevant terms and 
Appendix B contains a state-by-state information summary, designed to 
allow states to know what improvement activities are being undertaken 
across the nation. 

2. Study Approach

The study approach is detailed in terms of study considerations, an 
activity-based classification scheme, and study conduct.

2.1 Study Considerations

A number of considerations have shaped our study approach, including 
the goals of the C-CHRIE study, the characteristics of the federal 
programs, several critical implementation issues, and the framework 
within which we have developed our evaluation design.  We address 
each of these considerations below.

C-CHRIE Study Goals

The primary C-CHRIE study goals are to: 

1. assess the impact of the BJS-administered NCHIP effort; 

2. assess the impact of the BJA-administered Byrne 5% set-
aside program;

3. complete the impact assessment of the BJS-administered 
Criminal History Records Improvement (CHRI) program; 
and 

4. identify promising approaches for improving data quality.

To accomplish these goals, we continue the two-pronged evaluation 
approach that was successfully employed in our Criminal History 
Records Improvement Evaluation study–that is, conducting both an 
overall impact evaluation of all states and a more focused evaluation of 
a handful of states.  The impact evaluation benefits Justice Department 
officials, who need to know how well program funds are spent.  Given 
the large sums of federal funds involved in both the NCHIP and Byrne 
5% efforts, Congress is no doubt interested in knowing what was 
accomplished with these funds.  On the other hand, we view the 
individual states as the primary beneficiaries of both the broad impact 
evaluation and the focused evaluation.  As one state official 
appropriately sums it up: “We are very interested in knowing what other 
states are doing to improve their criminal history records.”  

Program Characteristics

In Section 1.2, we highlight the similarity of the goals of the CHRI and 
Byrne 5% programs; understandably then, several activities that they 
fund should overlap.  At the same time, it is important to recognize their 
differences.  Exhibit 2-1 lists a number of key characteristics of each 
program.  As noted in the exhibit, the Byrne 5% program is ongoing 
and is a formula, rather than discretionary, program.  In addition, the 
federal government mandates the “pass-through” of a portion of each 
state’s Byrne funds to its local units of government.  This pass-through 
must equal the ratio of local criminal justice costs to total criminal 
justice costs for the state.  Also required is a 25% cash match in 
nonfederal funds.  The CHRI program stipulates no such requirements.

The program requirements also differ significantly.  For the CHRI 
program, states were simply required to submit a proposal that 
addressed the overall program objectives.  For the Byrne 5% program, 
however, states are required to convene a multi-agency task force, 
assess the status of data quality in the state, identify reasons for under-
reporting, and submit a strategic data quality improvement plan to BJA 
for approval.  These plans are helpful in understanding the process the 
states use to prioritize data quality improvement efforts.

The CHRI and Byrne 5% programs differ most significantly in funding 
focus.  The focus of the CHRI program, as noted in Section 1.2, is on 
the central repositories–specifically, on enhancing the degree of 
automation and on improving disposition reporting.  Consequently, 
most activities which states initiated with CHRI funds center on the 
repository (see Section 3.2).  In contrast, the Byrne 5% program is 
much broader in focus, involving state, county, and local units of 
government. 

In some respects, NCHIP is more like CHRI (it is BJS-administered, it 
is a discretionary program, its awards are not based on state size, and no 
matching funds are required), while more like Byrne 5% in other 
respects (it is moderately broad in funding focus, it must be strongly 
coordinated with the Byrne 5% program, and its total funding level is 
comparable to that of the Byrne 5%).

Although NSOR-AP has a narrow focus–directly targeting the 
improvement of sex offender registries–it nonetheless appropriates $25 
million in FY 98, a sum comparable to the total annual formula funds of 
the more broadly focused Byrne 5% program.  Similarly, the annual 
appropriation of the formula-based SIS program is comparable to that 
of CHRI, which is discretionary. 

Exhibit 2-2 represents distribution of Byrne plans approved over time; 
to date, only the Virgin Islands has not received approval of its Byrne 
plan.  In fact, BJA approved approximately half of the plans by the end 
of Q3 93, and 90% by the end of Q2 95.  Three jurisdictions–Guam, 
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands–did not participate in the CHRI 
program, but are participating in both the Byrne and NCHIP efforts. 
 
Implementation Issues

As with our undertaking of CHRIE and other criminal justice-related 
studies, we have encountered a number of obstacles, or implementation 
issues, conducting the C-CHRIE study.

One issue concerns delays in completion of data quality improvement 
activities.  This was common during the CHRI program; indeed, most 
states applied for extensions to their projects.  At the time of our final 
CHRIE study report in April 1994, some 22 states were still working on 
their CHRI projects.  Delays most frequently occurred if the activity 
involved release of a Request for Proposal (e.g., for conduct of a 
baseline audit) or design and implementation of a computer system 
(e.g., an electronic interface between two computer systems).  
Implementation delays could have posed a threat to the general validity 
of the C-CHRIE study, had we not been sensitive to their existence.  
Recognizing the potential domino effect of a delay in one activity, we 
examine delays in greater detail in Section 3.2.  

More serious than delays in implementation of data quality 
improvement activities is a state’s cancellation of one or more 
activities.  This occurred when, for example, Hawaii intended to use 
NCHIP funds to post data from the Honolulu prosecutor, but the 
activity was canceled because of inadequate resources and the immature 
status of the prosecutor information system.  In another instance, North 
Dakota planned to implement a firearm instant check system to perform 
background checks on potential firearm purchasers, but then chose to 
have the firearms dealers contact the FBI directly when NICS became 
operational.  Sometimes a critical activity costs more than had 
originally been budgeted: one state planned to conduct a baseline audit, 
and with remaining project funds, implement two or three additional 
activities.  However, bids from private contractors proposing to conduct 
the audit were higher than expected, and the other activities could not 
be undertaken.  Still another reason for delays or cancellations is the 
states’ channeling of software programmers to resolve outstanding Y2K 
issues–that is, the software bugs that affect date fields and threaten to 
adversely impact a program’s ability to perform reliably beginning 
January 1, 2000.  In all, however, we have found that fewer than 2% of 
federally funded activities had been canceled.

Another implementation consideration that could have impacted the 
success of our study: changes in state and local personnel involved in 
data quality improvement activities.  In sworn departments, such as law 
enforcement, where personnel are routinely transferred to other 
divisions within the department, this problem can be acute.  Such 
transfers disrupt not only activities but also our assessment, as new 
personnel need to become familiar with the goals and methods of our 
study.  As we are aware of this threat, we routinely strive to establish 
multiple contact points for each activity of concern.

Q.E.D. is aware that delays, cancellations, or even inactivity may be the 
result of a state’s inability to spend the federal funds because it is 
“saturated” and cannot handle the extra workload.  This situation may 
become more problematic as federal moneys are significantly increased, 
with the added $205 million in NCHIP funds and the continuing $20 
million per year of Byrne 5% funding.  This issue is discussed further in 
Section 3.1. 

Finally, from an evaluation perspective, three points should be made on 
the complexity of the study:  

* Inasmuch as delays and cancellations to improvement 
initiatives are potentially disruptive, we are mindful of 
them.  

* The fact that activities are dispersed across many county 
and local agencies obviously increases the difficulty of the 
evaluation–to meet this challenge, we try to work with 
each state’s multi-agency criminal records improvement 
task force.  

* Legislation introduced during the course of our study, 
such as the Lautenberg Amendment which affects the 
federal grant programs, contributes to the study’s 
complexity and increases its scope.

Evaluation Framework

A final C-CHRIE study consideration is the framework within which we 
have developed our evaluation design.  Q.E.D. has conducted 
evaluations of criminal justice programs for over twenty years.  During 
that period, our personnel have also contributed to the evaluation 
literature.  In particular, the evaluation framework advanced by Tien 
[1979; 1990] and used in Q.E.D.’s CHRIE and numerous other studies 
has again guided our current evaluation.  In that approach, the 
characteristics of the program being evaluated influence both the design 
and the conduct of the evaluation.  Hence, the preceding discussions in 
this section and in Section 1 focus on CHRI, Byrne 5%, and NCHIP 
program characteristics.

The application of this evaluation framework to our current effort is 
evidenced throughout this report.  The measures framework developed 
in Section 4.1, for example, is explicitly based on Tien’s work [1979; 
1990]. 

Exhibit 2-1  Federally Funded Efforts: Program Characteristics

Exhibit 2-1 (page 2 of 2)

Exhibit 2-2  Distribution of Byrne Plan Approval Dates


2.2 Activity-Based Classification Scheme

As part of the CHRIE evaluation effort [Q.E.D., 1997], we developed 
an activity-based classification scheme which proved effective in 
understanding the range of activities undertaken by the states and 
identifying data quality improvement strategies.  Because of the nature 
of the CHRI program, the scheme focused largely on the repository and 
on disposition reporting.  For this study, we develop an analogous, 
scaleable classification scheme that includes the NCHIP and Byrne 5% 
activities, in addition to the CHRI activities.  The scheme can 
accommodate new activities as well as potentially new funding sources.  
It is designed to incorporate diverse activities and to help us understand 
relationships among activities, funding sources, and time frames.  The 
scheme represents Q.E.D.’s effort to consistently classify activities 
across all states; as a result, states may not immediately “recognize” 
their activities since they are categorized in accordance with the 
classification scheme.  States may view their respective activity 
descriptions in Appendix B. 

As we consider activities which could improve criminal history records, 
it is helpful to detail the components in Exhibit 1-1.  In particular, the 
detailing should highlight where improvements could be made within 
each component.  This is done in Exhibit 2-3, where primary data flows 
are also indicated.  Exhibit 2-3 is generally true for all states, as we are 
interested only in functional responsibilities of these system 
components–whereas, organizationally, they may differ from state to 
state.  For example, in some states, probation is a part of the corrections 
organization, while in others, it is a part of the courts organization. 

The C-CHRIE classification scheme has three levels and categorizes 
improvement activities that mirror the flow of data as they are captured 
and used throughout the criminal history records system.  Exhibit 2-3 
represents this system: the lettered boxes provide context for the model 
and represent both criminal justice and non-criminal justice data 
sources and users.  The numbered boxes correspond to specific points 
in the system where these data are either generated or required.  For 
example, Booking (Box 3) includes the transfer of booking data to a 
fingerprint card or to the receipt of rapsheet data from the repository at 
an arresting agency.  Categories 1-19 constitute what we refer to in our 
classification scheme as “Level 1.”

Exhibit 2-4 demonstrates how the 19 Level 1 categories are subdivided 
into 50 more specific Level 2 subcategories.  For example, 1. System 
Improvements consists of 1.1 Conduct study/develop plan, 1.2 Conduct 
audit, 1.3 Establish infrastructure, etc.  Continuing with this approach, 
Level 3, a further sub-division of Level 2, offers the greatest specificity.  
It contains 171 subcategories which ultimately “house” the 
improvement activities.  To illustrate, 1.2 Conduct audit, in turn, 
consists of 1.2.1 Audit criminal history data quality, 1.2.2 Conduct 
legislative audit, 1.2.3 Audit superior court, etc.

It is important to note that Levels 1-3 are categories of activities, and 
not the actual state-planned improvement activities.  The actual 
activities are housed in Level 3; any such Level 3 category will most 
likely contain several improvement activities.  However, for the sake of 
brevity and convenience, when we refer to Level 1, 2, or 3 activities, we 
are referring to categories. 

In addition to providing the means to classify each activity according to 
potential impact on the criminal history records system, the scheme 
furnishes a consistent basis for comparing the range of improvement 
efforts undertaken in the states.  Furthermore, we capture each activity’s 
funding sources (CHRI, Byrne 5%, NCHIP, state, and/or local), as well 
as its planned and actual start and completion dates, when available.

The classification scheme is the result of several refinements; it is both 
viable and robust enough to permit an expanding C-CHRIE effort.  
However, as is the case with all classification schemes or taxonomies, it 
is limited in several respects.  Two such limitations merit discussion.

First, the scheme categorizes improvements by choosing the one 
category–from a prioritized list of categories–that best represents that 
activity.  This approach is somewhat analogous to the Uniform Crime 
Reporting (UCR) system, which captures only the most serious charge 
for each arrest.  Classifying information in this way biases the results 
towards those categories at the top of the hierarchy (which, in our case, 
is the lowest numbered activity, beginning with 1.1.1).

Second, activities are not comparable in either cost or benefit.  While 
we count each activity as if all activities were equivalent, they are not; 
thus, an audit activity, while critical, is less costly than the purchase of 
an AFIS system.  Notwithstanding these typical limitations, the 
classification scheme and the resultant findings form a sound basis for 
understanding the status of criminal history records and for funding 
their improvements.

Exhibit 2-3  Improvement-Focused Criminal History Records System
 
Exhibit 2-4  Criminal History Records Improvement Activities: Classification Scheme

Exhibit 2-4 (page 2 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 3 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 4 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 5 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 6 of 10)
 

Exhibit 2-4 (page 7 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 8 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 9 of 10)
 
Exhibit 2-4 (page 10 of 10)
 

2.3 Study Conduct

The C-CHRIE tasks and schedule are summarized in Exhibit 2-5.  We 
initiated the study by reviewing all documentation–including Byrne 5% 
plans, NCHIP grant applications, data quality improvement plans, and 
other memoranda–forwarded by the states to BJS and BJA.  Since our 
previous contacts with the states took place in early 1994, when we 
completed the CHRIE effort, we reestablished telephone contact with 
each state in mid-1995, specifically with the designated CHRI, Byrne 
5%, and NCHIP grant administrators.  We also obtained lists of key 
personnel and agencies involved in administering the Byrne 5% 
program.  As such, Q.E.D.’s first major deliverable, Preliminary 
Assessment, provided an initial perspective on both the federal 
programs and the extent of activities.  To better comprehend the 
relationship between activities, their funding sources, and timeframes, 
our second major deliverable, Continuing Criminal History Records 
Improvement Evaluation: 1994-1996 Report, “dug more deeply” and 
provided valuable insights and hypotheses which became the focus of 
this third major deliverable.  

As noted in Exhibit 2-5, our fourth major deliverable will be in the 
second quarter of 2001 and it will focus on the ’98-’00 period.  
Additionally, Q.E.D. has undertaken several special studies at the 
request of BJS; for example, in cooperation with SEARCH, we have 
recently completed a study on the efficacy of name-based–versus 
fingerprint-based–background checks. 

To monitor hundreds of activities effectively at state, local, and county 
levels, we remained in contact with each state’s NCHIP grant 
administrator, as well as representatives of the state’s multi-agency task 
force convened under a Byrne requirement.  In addition, visits to state 
repositories and criminal justice agencies nationwide played a key role 
in enhancing our understanding of the states’ activity planning and 
implementation.  In preparation for these site visits, we created 
information portfolios that include current and earlier improvement 
activities, NCHIP-related progress reports, firearm check capabilities, 
organizational structure, overall criminal justice system statistics, and 
recent grant activities (e.g., whether they received ASAP funds, and for 
what purpose). 

In addition to speaking or corresponding with over 200 individuals, we 
met with more than 70 officials from 17 states (California, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Texas, 
Vermont, Virginia, and Washington), the FBI, Morpho (now “Sagem 
Morpho”), and Printrak.  The selection of states to visit was based on 
several criteria, including the nature of activities, location, size, 
urban/rural population mix, degree of technology implementation, NFF 
and III status, and regional AFIS participation. 

Inasmuch as our effort focuses on activities supported by CHRI, Byrne 
5%, and NCHIP funding, the extent to which state and local funds 
contribute to these federally funded activities is also noted in this 
report.  Of course, many other criminal history records improvement 
activities are underway using only state or local funds.

As noted earlier, we took a two-pronged approach to the evaluation, 
involving both an overall impact evaluation of all states and a more 
focused evaluation of a few states.  As part of the impact evaluation 
during our 1993 CHRIE study, we conducted a questionnaire of all 
states, which addressed issues and approaches to improving data 
quality.  At that time, we learned a great deal about states’ views on 
critical issues and weak links within their criminal records information 
systems.  Leveraging that work, we redesigned and conducted a similar 
questionnaire.  As part of our focused evaluation, we collected arrest 
and disposition data from a small number of states to test critical 
hypotheses concerning arrest record/disposition linkage issues, and we 
interviewed users regarding their perceptions of criminal history 
records.  The resultant findings are presented in Section 3.3.  We wish 
to emphasize that during our effort, states have been cooperative in 
responding to our requests and in discussing their activities.

Finally, as alluded to in Section 2.2, one of the most challenging aspects 
of this study has been the early development of our activity-based 
classification scheme, and the subsequent construction of a database for 
maintaining activity information, on a state-by-state basis.  To enhance 
our knowledge of individual state activities, we designed an “activity 
summary” for each state which includes background characteristics, 
information about funding sources (CHRI, Byrne 5%, NCHIP, state, or 
local), and available activity start and completion dates, both planned 
and actual.  Activities based on information in NCHIP grant 
applications are as of FY 97, since any activities proposed in the FY 98 
application would hardly have begun.  An example of such a summary 
is given in Exhibit 2-6, which describes our “Sample State” as using 
federal funds to implement 17 improvement activities, ranging from 
auditing criminal history data quality (1.2.1) to processing disposition 
backlog (6.4.7).  To keep our database current, we twice requested that 
states update their information–in June 1997 and again in February 
1998.  When reviewing these summaries, note that a “blank” indicates 
that the information was not available at the time we wrote this report; 
we will incorporate the information in our database if and when it 
becomes known.  A complete summary for each state, included in 
Appendix B, should be beneficial to state administrators as they learn 
about improvement activities under way in other states. 

Exhibit 2-5  C-CHRIE: Study Tasks and Schedule
 
Exhibit 2-6  State Activity Summary: Sample State
Background Characteristics

3. Current Findings

The evolution of federal legislation and programs to address records 
improvement is presented in Section 1, and our approach to assessing 
the programs is detailed in Section 2.  The first two sections provide the 
necessary backdrop for the impact and focused evaluations, whose 
findings are contained in this section.  The findings are the result of a 
background analysis, an activity-based analysis, and a goal-based 
analysis. 

3.1 Background Analysis

The activity- and goal-based findings of Sections 3.2 and 3.3, 
respectively, are best understood within the context of federal and state 
background factors considered in this section. 
 
Level of Federal Funding 

Exhibit 3-1 highlights CHRI, Byrne 5%, and NCHIP funds awarded 
and drawn down, or spent, by state.  As of December 1998, CHRI, 
Byrne 5%, and NCHIP have awarded $27M, $156M, and $206M, 
respectively, for a total of $389M.  This averages $0.77M in federal 
funds awarded annually to each state, over the past nine years.  The 
average state award under CHRI was $504K, under Byrne 5% is $2.8M 
(thus far), and under NCHIP is $3.9M (thus far), for an average total of 
$6.9M.  Records indicate that some $300K of CHRI program funds has 
not been expended, which is surprising, since the CHRI program ended 
in FY 92.  If in fact they have been spent, the accounting error is 
probably the result of a miscommunication between state and federal 
offices.  As expected, neither the Byrne 5% nor NCHIP funds have 
been totally expended, since these funds were awarded as recently as 
FY 98.  

Assessing the individual impact of any one of the federal programs may 
be impossible, as noted earlier, since the states view the awards as one 
large pool of funds, and the programs strive to coordinate their efforts.  
Still, assessing the impact of Byrne 5% funds is especially complex 
because of the manner in which these grants are administered and 
targeted for local or state use which varies widely from state to state.  
While at least 25% of the formula grant must be matched, the matching 
can be accomplished on a project-by-project basis (as in Florida), or it 
can be the result of a statewide match (as in Connecticut).  The federal 
government requires that the state pass through a portion of the funds to 
local units of government, equal to the ratio of local criminal justice 
costs to total criminal justice costs for the state.  In Florida, 2/3 of the 
Byrne funds pass through to local jurisdictions and 1/3 goes to the state; 
while in Connecticut, the reverse is true.  In addition, some states 
accrue Byrne 5% moneys in order to purchase “big-ticket” items.  
Nevada receives approximately $3.2M annually in Byrne funds, $160K 
of which comprises their 5% set-aside.  The state is accumulating its 
5% funds over four years–usually the maximum allowable–to purchase 
livescan fingerprint processing equipment for six of its 17 county jail 
facilities.  Florida, on the other hand, receives a proportionately larger 
grant of $21.4M annually, and expends all of its Byrne 5% funding 
within each fiscal year.

Another factor that complicates evaluation of the Byrne 5% program is 
determining how much of these funds is actually spent on criminal 
history records improvement.  According to BJA, considerably more 
Byrne funds are used for this purpose than the $156 million which 
constitute the mandated 5% set-aside; this is but a lower limit on actual 
Byrne funds that states spend.  The total is difficult to ascertain.  States 
report draw-down figures for all Byrne formula funds–including violent 
crime and drug-related initiatives–but do not differentiate the 5% funds.  
Only twice since inception of the 5% program in FY 92 have the states 
been asked to report 5% draw-down numbers separately.  To facilitate 
analysis of Byrne 5% funds, each state should report them regularly and 
separately from the entire annual Byrne award.

Still, BJA’s assertion may be correct.  Exhibit 3-1 shows that 74% of 
Byrne funds has been drawn down as of 12/97 (in fact, this number is a 
lower limit, since FY 98 awards are included in the exhibit); 
approximately one-third of the states drew down more than 5% of their 
funds for criminal history records improvement–in these cases, the 
amount drawn down by the state exceeds the amount of the 5% award.  
(Low draw-down figures may be misleading, since some states wait to 
accrue funds prior to drawing down for large purchases.)  Many state 
staff concede they are “grateful for the Byrne 5% provision because 
without it no Byrne moneys would be spent on criminal history 
records.”  In particular, a Missouri official comments that the state 
hopes to increase its set-aside to as much as 20%, and in 1994 and 
1995, Massachusetts utilized 40% and 20%, respectively, of its Byrne 
funds for records improvement.  From this we can infer that states 
endorse the need for improving criminal history records and wish the 
federal funding to continue for such purposes.

Overall, more than half of the $389M in federal program awards has 
been drawn down, implying that the funds are in active use.  The fact 
that only slightly more than one-third of the NCHIP funds have been 
drawn down should not be discouraging–this can be attributed to its 
being the newest of the three federal records improvement initiatives.  

Existence of a Saturation Phenomenon?

Exhibit 3-1 shows that the average NCHIP draw-down per state (i.e., 
total drawn down as a fraction of its total award) is only 36%.  The 
question has been raised as to whether states are unable to handle 
additional workloads associated with a large infusion of funding, 
precipitating a so-called “saturation phenomenon”.  We believe there 
are other explanations.  First, improvement activities initiated during 
CHRI occurred over a long time frame–as noted earlier, 22 states had 
still not completed CHRI activities in April 1994.  Second, typical 
Byrne and NCHIP awards are substantially larger than CHRI, resulting 
in larger-scale, more complex activities, especially when states 
accumulate their Byrne funds over many years to purchase “big-ticket” 
items.  Finally, inasmuch as new programs such as SIS come into 
existence, there is a need for additional funding–to preclude 
promulgation of unfunded mandates. 

Basis for Formula Grants 

Awarding federal dollars on a formula grant basis–as in the case of the 
Byrne moneys–gives the more populous states proportionately larger 
grants.  Presumably, the larger the population, the more criminal 
records there are, and perhaps, the larger the cost to create, store, and 
disseminate records.  Exhibit 3-2 substantiates the assumption that the 
number of records in a state correlates highly with its population–the 
correlation coefficient is 81%, based on data from 53 states.

Investigating the “urban” influence on such a correlation, although 
beyond the scope of this report, can be a worthwhile endeavor.  An 
even stronger correlation might result if only urban populations within 
the states were correlated with the sizes of their criminal history records 
databases.

Completion Time of an Improvement Activity

On average, how long does it take to complete an improvement 
activity?  Answering this question sets proper expectations and aids in 
planning future funding efforts.  Obviously, some activities, such as 
processing a fingerprint card backlog, could take weeks, while others, 
such as computerizing corrections data, may take months.  Based on 
activities in our database which have actual completion dates, Exhibit 
3-3 estimates the average activity completion time to be 2.7 years.  (Of 
the 1,552 activities in our database, 108, or 7%, are “ongoing” and have 
no planned or actual end date, as with continuing training programs.)  
As our discussion of implementation issues in Section 2.1 suggests, 
many explanations for this length of completion time exist, including 
contractor delays, personnel changes, political difficulties, and even 
possible cancellations.  

III Participation and the Attorney General’s Timetable

Joining III is a priority under NCHIP because III states respond to out-
of-state inquiries for criminal history information based on their own 
record files, whereas the FBI responds to such inquiries on behalf of 
non-III states using FBI-supported records.  In general, state records are 
more complete than FBI-maintained records, since many states mandate 
reporting criminal history information to the repository, whereas 
reporting the same information to the FBI is voluntary.  As such, ten 
states have become III members under NCHIP–Alabama, Arizona, 
Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New 
Mexico, and West Virginia–bringing the total III membership to 39 
states. 

To expedite III participation, the Attorney General was assigned two 
major tasks under the Brady Act, namely:

1. accelerating the upgrading and indexing of state criminal history 
records in the FBI-maintained federal criminal records system (the 
Interstate Identification Index, or III); and 

2. determining a timetable for each state to be able to provide 
criminal records on an on-line capacity basis to the national system 
(referred to below as “current and shareable records”).

What is the significance of these tasks?  To begin with, they directly 
facilitate implementation of the Brady Act, whose primary purpose is 
establishing a national instant criminal background check system, 
NICS, to determine the eligibility of a prospective purchaser of a 
firearm.  Most important, the NICS Index will be made up of III 
criminal records–as well as non-criminal justice files (e.g., substance 
abusers) and NCIC hot files (e.g., wanted persons file).  Since III will 
be the source of criminal history records information for NICS, 
increasing its membership is critical to the integrity of NICS.  

The following four subsections address the III.

How III Works: Record Availability and Completeness

Following an arrest, states are requested to send fingerprint cards to the 
FBI for “criterion” offenses.  States send fingerprint cards for 
misdemeanor and felony arrests, as defined by the individual states; a 
criterion offense generally refers to a crime punishable by imprisonment 
for a term exceeding one year.  Not all fingerprint cards, however, are 
sent to the FBI.  In some states, such as Massachusetts, FBI reporting 
may be spotty because the central repository is not the “sole source of 
submission”–one reason why the state is not yet a III member–and 
fingerprint cards are submitted by local law enforcement, if at all.

Once the FBI receives the fingerprint card of an offender, the name, 
date of birth, and other demographic information is entered in III, 
regardless of whether the state is an III member or not.  Put simply, the 
III is a decentralized index-pointer system maintained by the FBI and 
containing the personal identifiers of criterion offenders, and “pointers” 
to states that maintain criminal history records on the offenders.  If a 
state is not a III member or does not support a particular criminal 
record, the pointer points to the FBI, which maintains the record.  States 
become III members by meeting stringent requirements covering record 
content, maintenance, response, and accountability. 

III Member State Response to a III Inquiry

States that are III members respond to out-of-state criminal justice 
information requests–called purpose code C–for records for which they 
are responsible.  A state is “responsible” for, or “supports,” a particular 
record if the record has been “synchronized” with its FBI record.  
Synchronization is a regular process, whereby either the FBI sends a 
magnetic tape of records to a state, or vice versa, and each field of 
every record is matched between state and FBI records.  If the record 
cannot be reconciled completely, it is not synchronized, and the FBI 
continues to support it.  Some states synchronize periodically, 
especially when new arrests occur for a prior record and that record is 
updated.  

Any state can inquire into the III system.  For example, if following an 
arrest, the New Jersey State Police wish to ascertain if the arrestee has a 
record in another state, it inquires into III.  III might uncover the fact 
that the arrestee has a record in Wyoming and in Massachusetts, and as 
such, the III response “points” to Wyoming and the FBI.  (If no record 
is found, a negative response is indicated.)  If New Jersey wants to see 
the records, it will request the Wyoming record from that state and the 
Massachusetts record from the FBI, since Massachusetts is not an III 
state and is not capable of responding to III inquiries (see next 
subsection).  The responding entities–Wyoming and the FBI–return 
criminal histories or “rapsheets” to New Jersey.  While the process 
usually takes only a few minutes, it requires an individual capable of 
interpreting rapsheets–often a trooper–because the format and the 
violation and conviction codes in the rapsheets are complex and vary 
from state to state.  (States have long recognized the need for improved 
readability–consistency and uniformity–of rapsheets, as documented in 
Increasing the Utility of the Criminal History Record: Report of the 
National Task Force [BJS, 1995]). 

If the inquiry is for a firearm check, it is called purpose code F and the 
process is the same as for purpose code C, except that the information 
released about a record can differ.  In South Dakota, for example, 
sealed records can be released for purpose code C but not for purpose 
code F. 

FBI Response to a III Inquiry 

The FBI responds to an inquiry to III that results in a “hit” in a non-III 
state (e.g., Massachusetts) or in a III state that is not responsible for a 
particular record.  FBI information is based on the record maintained 
by the FBI, and, as noted earlier, FBI-supported records are frequently 
less complete than state records. 

Currently, the FBI sometimes does not receive a fingerprint card for an 
arrest that results in a felony conviction or it may receive one or some 
(but not all) fingerprint cards for an offender who has been arrested 
more than once.   (If and when the National Fingerprint File (NFF) goes 
into effect nationally, the FBI will receive only the first fingerprint 
card for an offender, but this is not yet the case. To date, four states 
have NFF status: Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina and Oregon.)
Under NICS, if a fingerprint card was never received, 
the FBI might mistakenly allow the sale of a firearm to an individual 
who has been convicted of a felony.  Similarly, if the FBI received one 
fingerprint card only for an offender based on a misdemeanor, but never 
received a subsequent fingerprint card for the same offender based on 
an arrest that resulted in a felony conviction, the FBI would permit the 
sale.  

Because of such scenarios, the federal government wants to accelerate 
III participation and expand the states’ responsibility for their own 
records.  

Exhibit 3-4 sheds light on the scope of these issues.  As column 1 
indicates, there are 53.7 million criminal history records in the United 
States.  Thirty-nine states are III members; ten joined during NCHIP 
(columns 2 and 3).  Columns 4-6 refer to the 32.7 million records that 
are available via an III inquiry; the FBI is responsible for 12.6 million 
of these, and the states support 20.1 million.
  
States will surely never support all III records; some records pre-date 
membership and/or may be inactive and not warrant synchronization.  
Nevertheless, the twin goals of expanding III participation and 
increasing the number of state-supported records will improve record 
availability and record completeness.  

Attorney General’s Timetable: Current and Shareable Records

Driving the Attorney General’s timetable is the federal goal of current 
and shareable records.  Records are considered “current and shareable” 
if: (i) they come from an III state, and (ii) the records of arrests made 
within the preceding five years–with at least one criterion offense–
contain dispositions of those arrests.  

Columns 6 and 7 of Exhibit 3-4 indicate that as of 1995, 21 states had 
reached the federal goal of 80% for records within the previous five 
years.  However, since six of these states are not yet III members 
(Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and 
Wisconsin), their records cannot be considered current and shareable.  
Furthermore, the feasibility of achieving (ii) on a national level is 
questionable and is discussed in Section 3.3.

Firearm Purchase Procedure

There is a risk that firearm sales to ineligible purchasers will incr