Law Enforcement
Information on Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions to the FBI Gao ID: GAO-04-260 January 27, 2004By positively confirming identifications and linking relevant records of arrests and prosecutions, fingerprint analysis provides a basis for making fundamental criminal justice decisions regarding detention, charging, bail, and sentencing. In 1999, the FBI implemented the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)--a computerized system for storing, comparing, and exchanging fingerprint data in a digital format. The FBI's goal under IAFIS is to ultimately achieve paperless processing and to provide a response within 2 hours to users who submit criminal fingerprints electronically. Maximizing the benefits of rapid responses under IAFIS depends largely on how quickly criminal fingerprints are submitted by local and state law enforcement agencies. Concerns have been raised that, after arrests are made by some local or state law enforcement agencies, periods of up to 6 months may elapse before the criminal fingerprints are submitted for entry into IAFIS. GAO examined (1) the importance of IAFIS processing to local and state law enforcement agencies, (2) the progress these agencies have made toward the goal of paperless fingerprint processing, and (3) efforts being made to improve the timeliness of criminal fingerprint submissions.
IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints is important to local and state law enforcement not only for updating national databases but also for obtaining an individual's criminal history and, at times, for obtaining positive identification of arrestees. For a recent 8-month period (October 2002 through May 2003) that GAO reviewed, law enforcement agencies wanted a response from the FBI for 78 percent of the approximately 5.3 million sets of criminal fingerprints submitted to IAFIS. The extent to which these responses were used to either positively identify arrestees or obtain criminal history records is unknown. However, the FBI provided GAO with examples of how IAFIS responses prevented the premature release of individuals who had used false names at arrest and were wanted in other jurisdictions. Law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the FBI's goal of paperless processing of criminal fingerprints, although there is room for substantial improvement. The percentage of criminal fingerprints submitted electronically by state repositories to the FBI increased from 45 percent in 1999 to 70 percent in 2003. Also, for the recent 8-month period GAO reviewed, the overall average submission time for criminal fingerprints was 40 days (an average that encompasses both paper and electronic submissions)--whereas, before IAFIS, average submission times were much higher (e.g., 118 days in 1997). Although much progress has been made, many jurisdictions lack automation and have backlogs of paper fingerprint cards to be processed, in part because of competing priorities and resource constraints. Numerous efforts have been made to help improve the timeliness of criminal fingerprint submissions to IAFIS. To facilitate electronic processing, federal technical and financial assistance has encouraged law enforcement agencies to purchase optical scanning (Livescan) equipment for taking fingerprints and to establish automated systems compatible with FBI standards. GAO noted that the need for quick, fingerprint-based identifications--positively linking individuals to relevant criminal history records--is becoming increasingly important. Reasons for such importance are the mobility of criminals (many of whom have multistate records), the growing incidence of identity theft or identity fraud, the significance of homeland security concerns, and increasing demands stemming from background checksrequired for employment or other noncriminal justice purposes.
GAO-04-260, Law Enforcement: Information on Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions to the FBI
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-260
entitled 'Law Enforcement: Information on Timeliness of Criminal
Fingerprint Submissions to the FBI' which was released on February 26,
2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
January 2004:
Law Enforcement:
Information on Timeliness of Criminal Fingerprint Submissions to the
FBI:
GAO-04-260:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-260, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
By positively confirming identifications and linking relevant records
of arrests and prosecutions, fingerprint analysis provides a basis for
making fundamental criminal justice decisions regarding detention,
charging, bail, and sentencing. In 1999, the FBI implemented the
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)”a
computerized system for storing, comparing, and exchanging fingerprint
data in a digital format. The FBI‘s goal under IAFIS is to ultimately
achieve paperless processing and to provide a response within 2 hours
to users who submit criminal fingerprints electronically. Maximizing
the benefits of rapid responses under IAFIS depends largely on how
quickly criminal fingerprints are submitted by local and state law
enforcement agencies. Concerns have been raised that, after arrests
are made by some local or state law enforcement agencies, periods of
up to 6 months may elapse before the criminal fingerprints are
submitted for entry into IAFIS.
GAO examined (1) the importance of IAFIS processing to local and state
law enforcement agencies, (2) the progress these agencies have made
toward the goal of paperless fingerprint processing, and (3) efforts
being made to improve the timeliness of criminal fingerprint
submissions.
What GAO Found:
IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints is important to local and
state law enforcement not only for updating national databases but
also for obtaining an individual‘s criminal history and, at times, for
obtaining positive identification of arrestees. For a recent 8-month
period (October 2002 through May 2003) that GAO reviewed, law
enforcement agencies wanted a response from the FBI for 78 percent of
the approximately 5.3 million sets of criminal fingerprints submitted
to IAFIS. The extent to which these responses were used to either
positively identify arrestees or obtain criminal history records is
unknown. However, the FBI provided GAO with examples of how IAFIS
responses prevented the premature release of individuals who had used
false names at arrest and were wanted in other jurisdictions.
Law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the FBI‘s goal of
paperless processing of criminal fingerprints, although there is room
for substantial improvement. The percentage of criminal fingerprints
submitted electronically by state repositories to the FBI increased
from 45 percent in 1999 to 70 percent in 2003. Also, for the recent
8-month period GAO reviewed, the overall average submission time for
criminal fingerprints was 40 days (an average that encompasses both
paper and electronic submissions)”whereas, before IAFIS, average
submission times were much higher (e.g., 118 days in 1997). Although
much progress has been made, many jurisdictions lack automation and
have backlogs of paper fingerprint cards to be processed, in part
because of competing priorities and resource constraints.
Numerous efforts have been made to help improve the timeliness of
criminal fingerprint submissions to IAFIS. To facilitate electronic
processing, federal technical and financial assistance has encouraged
law enforcement agencies to purchase optical scanning (Livescan)
equipment for taking fingerprints and to establish automated systems
compatible with FBI standards. GAO noted that the need for quick,
fingerprint-based identifications”positively linking individuals to
relevant criminal history records”is becoming increasingly important.
Reasons for such importance are the mobility of criminals (many of
whom have multistate records), the growing incidence of identity theft
or identity fraud, the significance of homeland security concerns, and
increasing demands stemming from background checks required for
employment or other noncriminal justice purposes.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making no recommendations in this report.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-260.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Laurie Ekstrand,
202-512-8777, ekstrandl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
IAFIS Processing of Criminal Fingerprints Is Important for Updating and
Providing Complete Criminal History Information and Can Provide
Positive Identification of Arrestees:
Progress Has Been Made in Achieving Paperless Fingerprint Processing,
with Many Factors Influencing Progress:
Various Efforts Are Under Way to Improve the Timeliness of Criminal
Fingerprint Submissions to IAFIS:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
Scope and Methodology:
Data Reliability:
Appendix II: National Criminal History Improvement Program Grant
Funding for AFIS/Livescan (Fiscal Years 1999-2003):
Table:
Table 1: National Criminal History Improvement Program Grant Funding
Received by the States for AFIS/Livescan Activities (Fiscal Years 1999
-2003):
Figures:
Figure 1: Flowchart of Manual and Electronic Submission Processes:
Figure 2: Examples of Arrestees Held Pending Positive Identification
from IAFIS:
Figure 3: Examples of Arrestees Released before Positive Identification
from IAFIS:
Figure 4: Average Number of Days between the Date of Arrest and the
Date That the Criminal Fingerprints Were Received by the FBI or Entered
Into IAFIS (for Specific Periods in 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2003):
Figure 5: Percentage of the Total Criminal Fingerprint Submissions
Received by the FBI That Were Submitted Electronically (1999-2003):
Figure 6: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil Fingerprint Submissions
Received by the FBI (1992-2002):
Abbreviations:
AFIS: automated fingerprint identification system:
BJS: Bureau of Justice Statistics:
CJIS: Criminal Justice Information Services:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
IAFIS: Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System:
NCHIP: National Criminal History Improvement Program:
SEARCH: The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 27, 2004:
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Byrd:
An effective criminal justice system must be able to accurately
identify persons who violate the law. For decades, fingerprint analysis
has been the most widely used method for positively identifying
arrestees and linking them with any previous criminal record. Timely
analysis of criminal fingerprint records by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), as well as by local and state law enforcement
agencies, plays an important role in enabling criminal justice
administrators--including police officers, prosecuting attorneys, and
judges--to know the extent of an arrested person's previous criminal
record as a basis for making fundamental decisions about detention,
charging, bail, and sentencing.
This report responds to your request that we review various issues
regarding the timeliness of criminal fingerprint submissions by local
and state law enforcement to the FBI for inclusion in the Integrated
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Implemented in
July 1999, IAFIS was designed to improve the speed and accuracy of the
fingerprint identification process. A full set of fingerprints is taken
when a suspect is booked by the arresting law enforcement agency.
Jurisdictionally, approximately 94 percent of the nation's felony and
serious misdemeanor crime arrests are handled by nonfederal
authorities. Copies of fingerprints taken as a result of an arrest at
the local or state level are submitted to the state's central
repository and, in turn, to the FBI for entry into IAFIS.
You expressed particular concerns that after arrests are made by some
local or state law enforcement agencies, periods of up to 6 months may
elapse before the arresting agencies submit criminal fingerprints for
entry into IAFIS. As agreed with your office, this report addresses the
following questions:
* Why is IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints important to local
and state law enforcement agencies?
* What progress have local and state law enforcement agencies made
toward the FBI's goal of achieving electronic (paperless) fingerprint
processing after an arrest has been made, and what factors have
influenced this progress?
* What efforts are being made to improve the timeliness of criminal
fingerprint submissions from local and state law enforcement agencies?
To address these questions, we visited the FBI's Criminal Justice
Information Services Division (Clarksburg, WV), which manages IAFIS. We
interviewed FBI officials and reviewed available statistics, studies,
and other information about the issues. Also, we contacted the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS), which administers a federal grant program
to help states automate criminal history records. Further, we discussed
the fingerprint issues with representatives of the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association,
the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National District Attorneys
Association, and SEARCH.[Footnote 1] Also, we discussed these issues
with (and analyzed statistics or other information maintained by) local
and state law enforcement agencies in five states--Connecticut,
Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico. We selected these states to
reflect a range of factors or considerations--volume of fingerprint
submissions, the "age" of such submissions (i.e., the average amount of
time from the date of arrest to when the fingerprints were entered into
IAFIS), and the level of automation in the state's criminal justice
information system, as well as to encompass different geographic areas
of the nation. We conducted our work from March through December 2003
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
More details about the scope and methodology of our work are presented
in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints is important to local and
state law enforcement agencies not only for updating national criminal
records databases but also for obtaining an individual's complete
criminal history--and, at times, for obtaining positive identification
of arrestees. The importance of IAFIS to law enforcement agencies is
apparent in the high number of requests for information from the
system. For the recent 8-month period we studied (October 2002 through
May 2003), law enforcement agencies wanted a response from the FBI for
78 percent of the approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprint sets
submitted. The extent to which law enforcement agencies used these
IAFIS responses to either positively identify arrestees or obtain the
arrestees' criminal history records is unclear. Law enforcement
officials in the five states we visited told us that their agencies
typically do not use IAFIS for identifying arrestees; rather, the
officials noted that the primary purpose of fingerprint submissions is
to update IAFIS databases. However, the FBI provided us examples of
actual cases in which IAFIS responses to law enforcement agencies
prevented the premature release of arrested individuals who had used
false names and were wanted in other jurisdictions.
Local and state law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the
FBI's goal of electronic (paperless) processing of criminal
fingerprints in the IAFIS environment, although there is room for
substantial improvement. For the recent 8-month period we studied
(October 2002 through May 2003), the overall average submission time
for criminal fingerprints was 40 days (an average that encompasses both
manual (paper) and electronic submissions)--whereas prior to the
implementation of IAFIS, average submission times were significantly
higher (e.g., 118 days in 1997). Also, since the implementation of
IAFIS, the number of fingerprints submitted electronically by state
agencies as a percentage of total criminal fingerprints received by the
FBI has increased annually. And, for a large number of criminal
fingerprints, local and state law enforcement agencies have
demonstrated the ability to make submissions to IAFIS the same day as
the date of the arrest. However, for many jurisdictions, delays in
submitting fingerprints to IAFIS have been attributable to various
factors, including lack of automation, competing priorities and
resource constraints, backlogs of paper fingerprint cards to be
processed, and other factors. In practice, large portions of the
lengthy submission times associated with paper fingerprint cards
probably represent inactivity, or "holding," rather than actual
"processing.":
Numerous efforts have been made to help improve the timeliness of
criminal fingerprint submissions from law enforcement agencies to
IAFIS. In recent years, federal technical and financial assistance has
focused on encouraging law enforcement agencies to purchase optical
scanning (Livescan) equipment for taking fingerprints and for states to
establish state-level computerized fingerprint identification systems
compatible with FBI standards to facilitate electronic submission of
criminal fingerprints to IAFIS. The FBI has provided states with
network connections, promoted the benefits of IAFIS to local and state
law enforcement at national conferences, and provided states with other
technical assistance. In each of the five states we visited, the
practices or plans for extending automation capabilities appeared to be
based on practical or cost-benefit considerations, such as giving
priority to placing Livescan equipment with local law enforcement
agencies serving the most populous areas. Also, BJS has provided
federal grants to help states purchase needed equipment and computer
systems that provide electronic transmission of criminal fingerprints
to IAFIS. In addition, to help mitigate competing workload demands
stemming from increasing volumes of fingerprints submitted for civil or
noncriminal justice purposes, such as employment background checks, the
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council is considering a
need to broaden the authority of private companies to process such
fingerprints.[Footnote 2]
Background:
Historically, before the invention of automated fingerprint
identification systems, paper fingerprint cards were used by law
enforcement agencies to report arrest information to state repositories
and to the FBI. The process was time-consuming, given that the local
arresting agency mailed the fingerprint cards to the state repository,
which mailed the information to the FBI--and, in return, the FBI's
response (based on a search of national records) would be mailed back
to the state repository, which would then mail the information to the
local arresting agency. Automation offered the potential to reduce
submission and processing times from weeks (or longer) to hours.
According to the FBI, prior to IAFIS implementation, a 6-month
turnaround time for responses from the national level was not unusual-
-whereas, under IAFIS, for criminal fingerprints submitted
electronically, the system can provide a response within 2 hours.
IAFIS is a national, computerized system for storing, comparing, and
exchanging fingerprint data in a digital format. As mentioned
previously, most fingerprint data stem from arrests made by local and
state law enforcement agencies, which take the suspect's fingerprints
manually (using ink and paper cards) or electronically (using Livescan
equipment). Then, a copy of the fingerprints is forwarded (by mail or
electronically) to the applicable state repository and, in turn, to the
FBI for processing in IAFIS, which is the world's largest biometric
database (see fig. 1). In practice, a combination of both manual and
electronic methods is used in submitting fingerprints to the FBI. For
example, local law enforcement agencies may take fingerprints manually
on paper cards and mail them to the state repository, and the state may
then convert them to an electronic format before forwarding them to the
FBI. Alternatively, some local law enforcement agencies with Livescan
equipment forward fingerprints electronically to state repositories,
which--because they do not yet have electronic transmission capability-
-print out paper copies of the fingerprints and mail them to the FBI.
Figure 1: Flowchart of Manual and Electronic Submission Processes:
[See PDF for image]
Note: This flowchart is representative of the manual and electronic
submission processes. There can be many processing nuances that cause
deviations from the depicted flow.
[A] Personal data searches are based on information such as first and
last name, date of birth, and Social Security numbers.
[End of figure]
For both paper and electronic criminal fingerprint submissions, law
enforcement agencies can indicate on the submission whether they want
the FBI to provide them with the results of searching the fingerprints
against the IAFIS database. If the agency does want a response and
IAFIS finds a match, the FBI provides the submitting agency with the
individual's FBI identification number, which the agency can use to
retrieve the related criminal history record.[Footnote 3] If no match
is found, then the FBI creates a new FBI identification number for the
individual and adds the fingerprints to the IAFIS database.
Nationally, there is no standard requirement regarding the types or
categories of criminal offenses for which fingerprints must be taken by
local and state law enforcement agencies, nor is there any standard
time frame requirement (after the arrest) for submitting the
fingerprints to state criminal history repositories. However, according
to FBI officials, virtually all states require the fingerprinting of
persons arrested for serious offenses. Also, according to FBI
officials, the time frame requirement for submitting the fingerprints
to criminal history repositories varies among the states--generally
ranging from a specific number of hours or days to a nonspecific
standard such as "promptly" or "without undue delay.":
Because complete information is integral to the capability of IAFIS to
provide accurate identification and criminal history services, the FBI
encourages all law enforcement agencies to submit criminal fingerprints
to IAFIS. Except for arrests related to crimes against children, there
is no federal statutory requirement for state criminal history
repositories to submit criminal fingerprints to the FBI.[Footnote 4]
However, in accordance with FBI guidance, all states voluntarily submit
fingerprints for criterion offenses--that is, any offense punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year (generally felonies and
serious misdemeanors).
FBI policy calls for the submissions to be made through a designated
agency (the respective state's criminal history repository) rather than
directly from local agencies to the FBI. Centralized submissions from
each state are intended to help ensure that the states' repositories
are complete and that all agencies adhere to technical and quality
standards. There are no established time frame criteria or requirements
for the submission of fingerprints from the states to the FBI.
Ultimately, IAFIS was intended to eliminate the need for contributing
law enforcement agencies to prepare and mail paper fingerprint cards to
the FBI for processing and thereby improve the speed and accuracy of
the fingerprint identification process. That is, the FBI's goal is to
achieve electronic (paperless) processing of all fingerprint data--and
to provide a response within 2 hours to users who submit criminal
fingerprints electronically. Maximizing the benefits of rapid responses
under IAFIS depends largely on how quickly criminal fingerprints are
submitted by local and state law enforcement agencies after arrests are
made.
IAFIS Processing of Criminal Fingerprints Is Important for Updating and
Providing Complete Criminal History Information and Can Provide
Positive Identification of Arrestees:
IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints is important to local and
state law enforcement agencies not only for updating national criminal
records databases but also for obtaining an individual's complete
criminal history--and, at times, for obtaining positive identification
of arrestees and for immediate warrant notification. It is not unusual
for arrested persons to use someone else's name or an alias and have
false identification documents. Also, many offenders are extremely
mobile, committing crimes in more than one state. According to the FBI,
an estimated 31 percent of criminal fingerprints processed by the
Bureau involve multistate offenders--that is, offenders who have been
arrested in more than one state.
The importance of IAFIS to law enforcement agencies is apparent in the
high number of requests for information from the system. Overall, law
enforcement agencies submitting criminal fingerprints generally want to
know the results of searching the fingerprints against IAFIS databases.
For the recent 8-month period we studied (October 2002 through May
2003), law enforcement agencies wanted a response from the FBI for 78
percent of the approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprint sets
submitted.[Footnote 5] With the search results, law enforcement
agencies can positively identify an arrestee and obtain an arrestee's
criminal history record. This information can be used by various
justice system officials as a basis for making fundamental decisions
about detention, charging, bail, and sentencing. For the remaining 22
percent of submissions, law enforcement agencies did not request a
response from the FBI; rather, the fingerprints were submitted to
update IAFIS databases.
The extent to which law enforcement agencies use IAFIS responses to
either positively identify arrestees or obtain an arrestee's criminal
history record is unclear. Law enforcement officials in the five states
we visited told us that their agencies generally do not use IAFIS for a
quick identification response because (1) local or state law
enforcement agencies usually can identify the arrested individuals,
most of whom are repeat offenders, and (2) all states currently have
their own automated fingerprint identification systems or belong to
regional automated fingerprint identification systems that can
positively identify arrestees. Instead, these officials noted that
submitting fingerprints is important for updating IAFIS databases so
that future inquirers receive complete information.
Furthermore, law enforcement officials in the states we visited noted
that in those cases where a quick identification response is needed
from IAFIS but the arresting agency does not have access to Livescan
equipment that can electronically submit fingerprints, the FBI allows
agencies to fax fingerprints to the FBI for processing. According to
the FBI, these fax requests for rapid fingerprint identification
account for less than 1 percent of the total number of fingerprints
received.
In any event, there are instances where quick identification responses
from IAFIS are important. In designing IAFIS, the FBI estimated that
the system would "prevent the release of the 10,000 to 30,000 fugitives
freed each year because of the extended delays in establishing their
true identities and warrant status."[Footnote 6] More recently, in
response to our inquiry, FBI officials could not confirm this estimate
or provide data on the extent to which IAFIS has prevented the
inappropriate release of fugitives. However, as examples, the FBI
provided us summary information regarding two actual cases where quick
identification responses from IAFIS prevented the release of
individuals who gave false names when they were arrested and were
wanted fugitives from another jurisdiction (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Examples of Arrestees Held Pending Positive Identification
from IAFIS:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FBI.
[End of figure]
As contrasting examples, the FBI also provided us summary information
regarding two actual cases where the arresting agencies released
individuals from custody before making fingerprint submissions or
receiving the IAFIS responses, which indicated that the released
persons had used false names and were wanted fugitives from another
jurisdiction (see fig. 3). The frequency of such incidents--that is,
cases where a local or state law enforcement agency releases an
arrestee from custody and subsequently receives an IAFIS identification
response showing cross-jurisdictional criminal history and outstanding
warrants--is not known.
Figure 3: Examples of Arrestees Released before Positive Identification
from IAFIS:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FBI.
[End of figure]
The capability of being able to quickly obtain positive identification
of arrestees is becoming increasingly important--not only because many
offenders have multistate records but also because of identity theft or
identity fraud, which has been characterized by law enforcement as the
fastest-growing type of crime in the United States.[Footnote 7]
Furthermore, homeland security concerns add to the importance of quick
positive identification capability. For example, in June 2002
congressional testimony, we noted that, in addition to using identity
theft or identity fraud to enter the United States illegally and seek
job opportunities, some aliens have used fraudulent identification
documents in connection with serious crimes, such as narcotics
trafficking and terrorism.[Footnote 8] Also, during our current review,
the Chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police's
Criminal Justice Information Systems Committee told us that the
electronic processing of fingerprint data is the most important
component of the criminal justice information system and that the
timeliness of submission and how long it takes to enter fingerprints
into the automated system is an issue that could have serious
consequences. Although obstacles remain, much progress has been made in
electronic processing, as discussed in the following section.
Progress Has Been Made in Achieving Paperless Fingerprint Processing,
with Many Factors Influencing Progress:
Local and state law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the
FBI's goal of electronic (paperless) processing of criminal
fingerprints in the IAFIS environment, although there is room for
substantial improvement. For the recent 8-month period we studied
(October 2002 through May 2003), the overall average submission time
for criminal fingerprints was 40 days--whereas prior to the
implementation of IAFIS, average submission times were significantly
higher (e.g., 118 days in 1997). Also, since the implementation of
IAFIS, the number of fingerprints submitted electronically by state
agencies as a percentage of total criminal fingerprints received by the
FBI has increased annually. And for a large number of criminal
fingerprints, local and state law enforcement agencies have
demonstrated the ability to make submissions to IAFIS the same day as
the date of the arrest. However, for many jurisdictions, delays in
submitting fingerprints to IAFIS have been attributable to various
factors, including lack of automation, competing priorities and
resource constraints, backlogs of paper fingerprint cards to be
processed, and other factors. In practice, large portions of the
lengthy submission times associated with paper fingerprint cards
probably represent inactivity, or "holding," rather than actual
"processing.":
Nationally, the Average Time for Submitting Criminal Fingerprints Has
Improved since Implementation of IAFIS:
Nationally, since the implementation of IAFIS in July 1999, the overall
timeliness of criminal fingerprint submissions has improved. For the
approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprints entered into IAFIS from
October 2002 through May 2003--a total that encompasses both paper
fingerprint card and electronic submissions--the average submission
time was about 40 days after the date of arrest. In contrast, figure 4
shows that before the implementation of IAFIS, the average number of
days from arrest to when the FBI received the fingerprints was about
two or three times longer than 40 days.
Figure 4: Average Number of Days between the Date of Arrest and the
Date That the Criminal Fingerprints Were Received by the FBI or Entered
Into IAFIS (for Specific Periods in 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2003):
[See PDF for image]
Notes: Each of the four data points represents a weighted average
(mean) in days for specific periods of time within the respective year
for criminal fingerprint submissions from the 50 states and the
District of Columbia. Data from other years were not available for
analysis. Also, the FBI's information systems do not have data
regarding the amount of time that elapsed from the date of arrest to
the date the fingerprints were received by state criminal history
repositories. Thus, we could not determine what portions of the
submission times were associated with processing by the arresting law
enforcement agencies and the state criminal history repositories,
respectively.
Data for 1993, 1995, and 1997 are based on the FBI's sampling of all
criminal fingerprint submissions received by the FBI for the respective
time periods. Submission times were calculated using the date of arrest
and the date the fingerprint data arrived at the FBI. The 1993 mean
(81.1 days) covers May 21 through June 23, 1993; the 1995 mean (75.6
days) covers January 9 through February 28, 1995; and the 1997 mean
(117.6 days) covers July 14 through November 14, 1997. The FBI
performed its analyses of submission times as staff were available;
therefore, the analyses do not cover equivalent periods of time.
[End of figure]
The 2003 data are based on all criminal fingerprint submissions entered
into IAFIS from October 2002 through May 2003 for arrests made since
the implementation of IAFIS on July 28, 1999. The data include criminal
fingerprint submissions that arrived at the FBI in either hard copy or
electronic format. Submission times were calculated using the date of
arrest and the date the fingerprint data were entered into IAFIS. The
mean submission time for the 2003 data was 40.2 days.
Despite improvements in average submission times since the
implementation of IAFIS, some criminal fingerprint requests continued
to reflect large lag times before being submitted. For example, of the
approximately 5.3 million criminal fingerprint submissions entered into
IAFIS from October 2002 through May 2003, about 535,000 (or 10 percent)
were entered more than 90 days after the date of arrest. And, of this
percentage, over one-half were entered into IAFIS more than 150 days
after the date of arrest.
In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Justice
noted that while our use of the term "entered into IAFIS" accurately
measures the end of local and state processing, it should not be
construed to represent the point in time when the fingerprint record
was physically entered into the IAFIS database. The department noted
that the time intervals presented in this report--computed by the FBI's
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division--were measured at
the time the fingerprint records were received electronically by IAFIS.
The Department added that the type of fingerprint submission, priority,
workload, and time of day would influence the actual time the records
were processed and entered into the IAFIS database. According to FBI
officials, the agency has a goal of processing electronic fingerprint
submissions and sending a response within 2 hours of receipt. For
fiscal year 2002, the FBI reported that it responded to 90.3 percent of
the electronic criminal submissions within 2 hours of receipt. Thus,
the end of state processing and the actual entry of the fingerprints
into the system are within hours of each other in most cases.
Electronic Criminal Fingerprint Submissions from State Agencies Have
Increased since the Implementation of IAFIS:
Since the implementation of IAFIS in July 1999, the number of
fingerprints submitted electronically by state agencies as a percentage
of total criminal fingerprints received by the FBI has increased
annually. As figure 5 shows, for example, 45 percent of criminal
fingerprint submissions received by the FBI in 1999 from state central
repositories were electronic; whereas, in the first 4 months of 2003,
70 percent of such criminal fingerprint submissions were electronic.
According to FBI data as of April 2003, 42 states and the District of
Columbia were routinely submitting some portion of their criminal
fingerprints to the FBI electronically.
Figure 5: Percentage of the Total Criminal Fingerprint Submissions
Received by the FBI That Were Submitted Electronically (1999-2003):
[See PDF for image]
Note: The percentages represent electronic submissions from state
repositories to the FBI. Although totals are not readily quantifiable,
state repositories received paper fingerprint cards from some local law
enforcement agencies and then digitally scanned the cards for
electronic transmission to the FBI.
[A] The 1999 data cover the period July 28 through December 31, 1999.
[B] The 2003 data cover the 4-month period January through April 2003.
[End of figure]
Additional states soon may have the capability to submit criminal
fingerprints electronically. For instance, two of the five states we
visited in summer 2003 (Connecticut and Nevada) had not begun routinely
submitting criminal fingerprints to the FBI electronically but expected
to do so in the future. Specifically, officials from Nevada said that
their state was developing such capability and anticipated that it
would be available by the end of 2003. Similarly, officials from
Connecticut said that their state was upgrading technology to provide
electronic submission capability by the end of 2004.
Over One-Fourth of Criminal Fingerprints Were Entered into IAFIS the
Same Day as the Date of Arrest for the Period We Analyzed:
For a large number of criminal fingerprints, local and state law
enforcement agencies have demonstrated the ability to make submissions
to IAFIS the same day as the date of the arrest. Of the approximately
5.3 million criminal fingerprints entered into IAFIS from October 2002
through May 2003, over 1.5 million (29 percent) were entered on the
same day as the date of the arrest.[Footnote 9] Such same-day
submissions are achievable when the entire process is electronic, with
law enforcement taking fingerprints using Livescan devices that
transmit the fingerprints electronically to the state criminal history
repository--which, in turn, transmits the fingerprints electronically
to the FBI.[Footnote 10] Electronic processing allows for the fastest
submission of fingerprints to IAFIS and supports the FBI's goal of
paperless processing of criminal fingerprint data.[Footnote 11]
The Atlanta Police Department's electronic fingerprint process
illustrates how quickly fingerprint data can be submitted to IAFIS. The
Atlanta Police Department takes criminal fingerprints using Livescan
devices and forwards the fingerprint data electronically to the Georgia
Crime Information Center. After processing the fingerprint data, the
Georgia Crime Information Center transmits the fingerprint data via its
computer systems directly to IAFIS. According to FBI data for the
period January through May 2003, the Atlanta Police Department
submitted a total of 7,895 sets of criminal fingerprints. Of this
total, 46 percent were entered into IAFIS the same day as the date of
the arrest. And 95 percent of the total criminal fingerprint
submissions for this period were entered within 1 day after the date of
the arrest.[Footnote 12]
Most Submission Time Lags Are Attributable to a Lack of Automation and
Various Other Factors:
As mentioned previously, most criminal fingerprints are not entered
into IAFIS the same day as the date of arrest and may reflect time lags
of 90 days or more. For many jurisdictions, time lags in submitting
fingerprints are attributable to various factors, including a lack of
automation, competing priorities and resource constraints, and backlogs
of paper fingerprint cards to be processed. Given these circumstances,
large portions of lengthy submission times associated with paper
fingerprint cards probably represent inactivity, or "holding," rather
than actual "processing.":
The most significant factor causing delays in criminal fingerprint
submissions is lack of electronic processing capability. Generally, law
enforcement agencies that serve large populations have access to
technology that allows electronic capture and transmission of criminal
fingerprint data. For example, the most recent local law enforcement
data collected by BJS (in a July 2000 survey) indicated that a majority
of police departments serving populations of 50,000 or more reported
they regularly used digital imaging technology for fingerprints, and a
majority of sheriffs' offices serving populations of 100,000 or more
reported they regularly used such technology. However, the BJS report
also indicated that law enforcement agencies in less populated areas
may have to use paper fingerprint cards and manual processes. As a
result, the BJS report noted that, overall, only 11 percent of all
police departments nationwide and 27 percent of all sheriffs' offices
reported they regularly used digital imaging technology for
fingerprints.[Footnote 13]
Also, given competing priorities and resource constraints, local law
enforcement agencies may not always see an urgent need to voluntarily
submit paper fingerprint cards quickly, particularly if the arrestee is
a repeat offender whose identity is already known. A representative of
the National District Attorneys Association told us that, given the
staff time and other costs involved, law enforcement agencies on a
tight budget may not submit fingerprints quickly without a good reason
to do so, even though submission would add to the national database.
Local law enforcement agencies that use manual processes may hold
fingerprint cards until a number are collected and then mail the batch
to the state criminal history repository.[Footnote 14] For example,
according to Missouri State Highway Patrol officials, some local
agencies mail batches of paper criminal fingerprints cards every other
week to the state criminal history repository.
Broader perspectives on submission time frames are presented in an
August 2003 BJS report. Basing its conclusions on a survey (conducted
in January through July 2002) of state criminal history repository
administrators, BJS reported wide variances among states regarding
submission of paper fingerprint cards.[Footnote 15] For example,
whereas Livescan fingerprint data often were received by repositories
within 1 day or less after the arrest (sometimes only hours), one
state's repository reported receiving paper fingerprint cards 7 to 30
days (on average) after the date of arrest, another repository reported
receiving cards up to 90 days after arrest, and another reported an
average submission time of 169 days. During our review, FBI officials
told us that their data systems cannot track the time from the date of
arrest to when fingerprints (either paper or electronic) arrive at the
state repositories for processing. Therefore, we could not determine
what portion of submission times was attributable to the submitting law
enforcement agency versus the state criminal history repository.
In its August 2003 report, BJS also indicated that 26 states reported
they had backlogs (as of year end 2001) in processing criminal
fingerprint cards.[Footnote 16] Generally, the size and "age" of such
backlogs, according to a BJS survey, largely are a function of
resources available for processing the fingerprint cards. One state
noted, for instance, that because of a lack of funding to pay contract
staff responsible for data entry and clerical functions associated with
fingerprint card processing, it had a backlog of 7,500 cards in the
latter part of 2001, but the backlog was eliminated in June 2002 after
state funds were reinstated. Law enforcement officials we contacted
also said that their jurisdictions lacked the necessary personnel to
quickly process fingerprint submissions. For example, Missouri State
Highway Patrol officials said that the agency has had several
fingerprint technician positions vacant over the last several years,
resulting in a backlog of unprocessed fingerprint cards.
Poor-quality fingerprints, inaccurate or incomplete textual
information, and other technical aspects of submissions are additional
factors that can delay entry of fingerprint data into IAFIS. According
to FBI officials, about 5 to 6 percent of criminal fingerprint
submissions are initially rejected for these reasons. Local and state
law enforcement officials we contacted told us that it generally is not
possible to resubmit fingerprints that were rejected for poor quality
because the individuals may no longer be in custody. However, these
officials said they generally resubmit fingerprints that were rejected
because of inaccurate or incomplete textual information.[Footnote 17]
FBI officials told us that when significant rejection patterns occur,
the FBI works with the submitting law enforcement agencies to address
the causes.
Finally, as discussed in the following section, the timeliness of
criminal fingerprint submissions can be affected by an increasing
workload associated with the processing of "civil" fingerprints--that
is, fingerprint-based background checks conducted for employment or
other noncriminal justice purposes.
Various Efforts Are Under Way to Improve the Timeliness of Criminal
Fingerprint Submissions to IAFIS:
In recent years, to encourage law enforcement agencies to submit
criminal fingerprints electronically to IAFIS, the FBI has provided
states with network connections, promoted the benefits of IAFIS at
national conferences, and provided states with other technical
assistance. In each of the five states we visited, the practices or
plans for extending automation capabilities appeared to be based on
practical or cost-benefit considerations, such as giving priority to
placing Livescan equipment with local law enforcement agencies serving
the most populous areas. Also, BJS has provided states with federal
grants to help automate criminal fingerprint submissions. According to
the local and state officials we contacted, continuation of federal
technical and funding assistance is essential for achieving further
improvements in the timeliness of criminal fingerprint submissions. In
addition, to help mitigate competing workload demands stemming from
increasing volumes of fingerprints submitted for civil or noncriminal
justice purposes, such as employment background checks, the National
Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council is considering a need to
broaden the authority of private companies to process such
fingerprints.
FBI Initiatives and State Efforts Support the Automation of Criminal
Fingerprint Submissions:
Although the FBI continues to accept paper submissions, the FBI's goal
is to achieve a completely paperless system, with all fingerprints
being submitted electronically. In 1998, to help achieve this goal, the
FBI provided IAFIS network connections to each state through the CJIS
Wide Area Network. These network connections provide each state with a
link to support a fully automated fingerprint submission process,
including electronic access to IAFIS.
To further support the automation of criminal fingerprint submissions,
the FBI has participated in various national conferences conducted by
organizations such as the International Association for Identification,
the National Sheriffs' Association, and the International Association
of Chiefs of Police. The FBI has also hosted two national conferences
on IAFIS and has provided technical assistance to various local and
state law enforcement agencies through workshops and site visits.
Local and state law enforcement officials we contacted expressed a need
for these initiatives to continue in the future. For example, Georgia
Bureau of Investigation officials said that continued training by the
FBI is essential to improve the quality of fingerprints and the
timeliness of submissions. Also, Missouri State Highway Patrol
officials said that previous FBI technical training has been valuable
and that further training is still needed.
In the five states we visited, the plans or practices for extending
automation capabilities appeared to be based on practical or cost-
benefit considerations. Generally, to allocate Livescan equipment,
priority placements were made to local law enforcement agencies serving
the most populous areas. For example, according to Georgia Bureau of
Investigation officials, 88 percent of the state's felony and serious
misdemeanor offense arrests in 2002 occurred within the geographic
jurisdictions of agencies that had access to Livescan machines. New
Mexico Department of Public Safety officials told us that the nine
Livescan machines available to law enforcement agencies in New Mexico
are used to record fingerprints for about 65 percent of the criminal
arrests in the state.
National Criminal History Improvement Program Has Provided Federal
Funds for States to Automate Criminal Fingerprint Submissions:
Under the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP)--a
grant program administered by BJS and designed to ensure that accurate
records are available for use in law enforcement--states can receive
funds to improve their ability to electronically provide criminal
fingerprints to the FBI. NCHIP funds support a broad range of
activities and programs to facilitate the electronic transfer of
criminal fingerprints to the FBI, such as (1) ensuring compatibility of
state criminal history and arrest records systems with FBI records
systems, (2) establishing records management systems to improve the
quality and completeness of criminal history and arrest information
maintained by the state and provided to the FBI, and (3) providing
training and hosting conferences and seminars for local and state
criminal justice officials on issues related to improvements in and
automation of criminal history and arrest records.[Footnote 18]
According to BJS data for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, 44 states and
the District of Columbia received a total of $31 million in NCHIP
grants to improve local law enforcement and state criminal history
repository access to electronic fingerprint transmission technology and
IAFIS (see app. II). For instance, Georgia Bureau of Investigation
officials said that the state used NCHIP funding in 1999 to provide
smaller law enforcement agencies a cost-effective approach to
electronically submit fingerprints. The funds were used, for example,
to purchase card-scanning equipment to digitally convert paper
fingerprint cards for electronic transmission to the state repository.
On the other hand, local and state law enforcement officials we
contacted said that fingerprints are not all submitted electronically
because states still lack funding to purchase, operate, and maintain
the necessary equipment. The officials said that law enforcement
agencies generally do not resist the idea of converting to an
electronic process but are limited financially in their capabilities to
do so. For example, Missouri State Highway Patrol officials said that
an obstacle to additional automation has been funding. According to
these officials, while NCHIP is making funding available for purchasing
Livescan machines, some local law enforcement agencies cannot afford
the ongoing network and maintenance costs needed to support an
automated system. In commenting on a draft of this report, the BJS
Director indicated that NCHIP funds can and have frequently been used
by the states for the maintenance of automated fingerprint systems. The
Director added that if local agencies are not receiving funds for
maintenance, it is probably because the state has not requested NCHIP
funds for that purpose or has set its own priorities for which
localities will receive such support.
Generally, according to FBI officials, there is a continuing need for
(1) additional Livescan devices; (2) the upgrade of automated
fingerprint identification systems at the state level that are
compatible with IAFIS; and (3) research for fingerprint imaging,
Livescan, and other automated systems that will ensure interoperability
of state and FBI systems. However, the FBI officials noted that given
the budget problems that many states are now experiencing and the high
cost of Livescan machines, investment in this technology may not be a
priority for the states.
Proposed Rule to Give Broader Authority to Private Contractors for
Processing Fingerprints for Noncriminal Justice Purposes:
State and FBI officials told us that the timeliness of criminal
fingerprint submissions can be slowed by an increasing workload
associated with the processing of fingerprint submissions for civil or
noncriminal justice purposes, such as employment background
checks.[Footnote 19] The numbers of criminal fingerprint submissions
and civil fingerprint submissions to the FBI have increased annually in
most years since 1992. As figure 6 shows, during 1996 to 2002, the
number of criminal fingerprint submissions was exceeded by the number
of civil fingerprint submissions in 5 of the 7 years. For example, in
the most recent year (2002), criminal fingerprint submissions totaled
8.4 million, whereas civil fingerprint submissions totaled 9.1 million.
Figure 6: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil Fingerprint Submissions
Received by the FBI (1992-2002):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The growth in civil fingerprint submissions is partly attributable to,
among other factors, federal legislation that encouraged states to
enact statutes authorizing fingerprint-based national searches of
criminal history records of individuals seeking paid or volunteer
positions with organizations serving children, the elderly, or the
disabled.[Footnote 20] More recently, another factor has been homeland
security concerns. For instance, because of the relatively unfettered
access that taxicabs have to city infrastructure, including the
airport, the Atlanta Police Department has begun running fingerprint-
based criminal history background checks on all of the city's
approximately 3,500 taxicab drivers.
To help mitigate workload demands, some states have begun awarding
contracts to private companies to provide civil fingerprinting
services. Currently, private companies are involved in the collection
of fingerprints but do not have the legal authority to access criminal
history information or make fitness determinations for employment.
However, since February 2003, the National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact Council--the 15-member entity (composed of state and federal
officials) that administers the use and exchange of criminal history
records for noncriminal justice uses--has been working to develop a
rule to provide such authority. That is, the proposed rule would enable
state and federal government agencies to contract with private
companies to not only collect fingerprints but also have access to
criminal history information and make fitness determinations for
employment. According to the FBI, the rule is anticipated to be
finalized by the middle of calendar year 2004 and will incorporate
appropriate guidelines and controls.
Concluding Observations:
Local and state law enforcement agencies have made progress toward the
FBI's goal of electronic (paperless) processing of criminal
fingerprints in the IAFIS environment. For example, all states have
either established or are working to establish interoperability between
their state automated fingerprint identification systems and IAFIS that
allows for the electronic submission of criminal fingerprints to the
FBI. However, there is still room for substantial improvement. Gaps
exist in law enforcement agencies' access to Livescan technology. Given
budget and other resource constraints at all levels of government, it
may be unrealistic to expect that 100 percent electronic processing and
submission eventually will be achieved for all jurisdictions. Smaller
law enforcement agencies, for example, may have difficulty justifying
the cost of operating or maintaining Livescan equipment and a
telecommunications linkage to the state's central repository.
For local agencies without access to Livescan equipment and for state
agencies that cannot currently submit fingerprints electronically to
IAFIS, the potential may exist for improving the timeliness of
processing and submitting paper fingerprint cards. The "potential"
rests on reducing the time that criminal fingerprints are waiting, or
being held for processing, which is likely to be a resource issue.
Theoretically, for example, these cards could be processed and mailed
forward on a daily basis rather than held for batch processing.
Additionally, the processing of noncriminal fingerprints could be
handled by contractors, which could free up law enforcement personnel
to process criminal fingerprints in a more timely manner. Ultimately,
such decisions may involve unique circumstances and, thus, perhaps are
best left to agency-by-agency determinations.
Overall, the effect of less than universal electronic processing is
unclear. In many cases, for instance, a same-day or quick response from
the FBI may not be needed. On the other hand, although such instances
are not readily quantifiable, there are cases where a local or state
law enforcement agency has released an arrestee from custody and
subsequently received an IAFIS identification response showing cross-
jurisdictional criminal history or outstanding warrants. In the absence
of electronic processing, the number of such instances may be partly
mitigated by the manual procedure whereby law enforcement can directly
fax fingerprints to the FBI. However, the effectiveness of this
exception-basis procedure depends largely on officers having sufficient
experience to recognize a need for expedited manual processing.
Federal technical and funding assistance continues to support ongoing
efforts to make additional progress in the automation of fingerprint
submissions. The need for positive, fingerprint-based identifications-
-providing linkages to complete criminal history records--is not likely
to diminish in the foreseeable future, given that significant numbers
of arrestees have multistate criminal histories, the incidence of
identity theft or identity fraud is growing, and homeland security
concerns and noncriminal justice demands are increasing.
Agency Comments:
On December 9, 2003, we provided a draft of this report for review and
comment to the Department of Justice. In its written comments, dated
January 7, 2004, Justice said the report was accurate and provided some
technical clarifications, which we incorporated in this report where
appropriate.
Also, one Justice component (BJS) commented that the draft report
presented a narrow description of the role of NCHIP in upgrading the
ability of states to provide fingerprints electronically to the FBI.
Specifically, the BJS Director noted that the allowable uses for NCHIP
funds extended far beyond the purchase of Livescan machines and covered
the continuum from fingerprint capture through the transmission of the
images to the FBI. We added additional information to the applicable
report section to reflect this perspective.
Further, the BJS Director commented that much progress has been made in
the automation of criminal fingerprint submissions under NCHIP.
According to the Director, NCHIP performance measures calculated and
tracked as part of the administration and oversight of the program
indicate that:
The number of arresting agencies reporting arrests electronically to
the state criminal history repositories has increased significantly,
from 493 agencies in 1997 to 2,594 agencies in 2001.
Arrest information is reaching state criminal history repositories
faster, with submission times from the arresting agency to the state
agency dropping from an average of 14 days in 1997 to 11 days in 2001.
State repositories are processing arrest information faster, with
average times to post arrest data into the criminal history record
dropping from 32 days in 1995 to 13 days in 2001.
State criminal history backlogs of unprocessed fingerprint cards
dropped from an estimated 711,000 in 1997 to an estimated 354,300 in
2001.
The Director noted that these statistics are based on data collected
for BJS in biennial surveys conducted by SEARCH. Because of our
reporting time frames, these specific statistics were not included in
the data reliability assessments described in appendix I.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to interested congressional committees and subcommittees.
We will also make copies available to others on request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to
discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or
Danny Burton at (214) 777-5600. Other key contributors to this report
were Amy Bernstein, Michele Fejfar, Ann H. Finley, Jason Kelly, George
Quinn, Deena Richart, and Jason Schwartz.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Laurie E. Ekstrand:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
At the request of the Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, we addressed the following questions regarding the
submission of criminal fingerprints by local and state law enforcement
agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for processing by
the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS):
* Why is IAFIS processing of criminal fingerprints important to local
and state law enforcement agencies?
* What progress have local and state law enforcement agencies made
toward the FBI's goal of achieving electronic (paperless) fingerprint
processing after an arrest has been made, and what factors have
influenced this progress?
* What efforts are being made to improve the timeliness of criminal
fingerprint submissions from local and state law enforcement agencies?
Scope and Methodology:
To address these questions, we visited the FBI's Criminal Justice
Information Services Division (Clarksburg, WV), which manages IAFIS. We
interviewed FBI officials and reviewed available statistics, studies,
and other relevant information. We analyzed FBI data by state on
criminal fingerprint submission volumes and times for fingerprints
entered into IAFIS from October 2002 through May 2003. Our analysis
focused on criminal fingerprint submissions for arrests made since the
implementation of IAFIS on July 28, 1999, and covered both automated
and manual (paper) submissions. We also obtained the FBI's reports of
criminal fingerprint submission times in 1993, 1995, and 1997, and the
total numbers of criminal and civil fingerprints submitted annually
during 1992 through 2002.
Also, we obtained funding amounts from Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) officials regarding the amount of National Criminal History
Improvement Program (NCHIP) grant funding awarded in fiscal years 1999
through 2003 to the states and the District of Columbia for use in
automating fingerprint processes.
Further, we discussed the fingerprint submission issues with
representatives of the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs'
Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and SEARCH
(the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics).
Also, we discussed the fingerprint submission issues with (and analyzed
any statistics or other information maintained by) state law
enforcement agencies (e.g., state police department and judicial system
representatives) in five states--Connecticut, Georgia, Missouri,
Nevada, and New Mexico. We selected these states to reflect a range of
various factors or considerations--that is, the volume of fingerprint
submissions, the "age" of such submissions (i.e., the average amount of
time from when the fingerprints were taken to when they were entered
into IAFIS), and level of automation in the state's criminal justice
information system, as well as to encompass different geographic areas
of the nation.
Further, in each of the five states, we discussed the fingerprint
submission issues with relevant local agencies (e.g., city police
department or county sheriff's office) in at least one local
jurisdiction. Generally, for travel cost reasons (among other
considerations), the local jurisdictions selected were located in or
near the respective state's capital.
Data Reliability:
To assess the reliability of the FBI's October 2002 through May 2003
criminal fingerprint submission data, we (1) reviewed existing
documentation related to the data sources, (2) electronically tested
the data to identify obvious problems with completeness or accuracy,
and (3) interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report.
To assess the reliability of (1) the FBI's reports of criminal
fingerprint submission times in 1993, 1995, and 1997; (2) the total
numbers of criminal and civil fingerprints submitted annually during
1992 through 2002; and (3) the percentages of electronic fingerprint
submissions, we interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the
data and reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources.
To assess the reliability of the results of the BJS surveys of local
law enforcement, sheriff's offices, and state criminal history
repository administrators, we reviewed existing documentation related
to the data sources. To assess the reliability of the BJS NCHIP grant
funding amounts and the FBI estimate of multistate offenders, we
interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. We determined that the data
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
[End of section]
Appendix II: National Criminal History Improvement Program Grant
Funding for AFIS/Livescan (Fiscal Years 1999-2003):
This appendix summarizes Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data
regarding National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) grant
funding received by states and the District of Columbia for automated
fingerprint identification system (AFIS) and Livescan activities in
fiscal years 1999 through 2003 (see table 1). According to BJS, the
dollar amounts in table 1 are based on actual amounts awarded and the
proposed AFIS/Livescan activities listed in grant applications from the
states and the District of Columbia. A BJS official told us that some
of the 12 states that received no grant funding for AFIS/Livescan
activities during this time period did receive NCHIP funding for such
activities in the earlier years of the program, beginning in 1995.
Table 1: National Criminal History Improvement Program Grant Funding
Received by the States for AFIS/Livescan Activities (Fiscal Years 1999
-2003):
State: Alabama;
1999: $401,582;
2000: $85,000;
2001: $76,875;
2002: $90,000;
2003: $107,760;
Total: $761,217.
State: Alaska;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 0.
State: Arizona;
1999: 0;
2000: 121,721;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 121,721.
State: Arkansas;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 10,800;
Total: 10,800.
State: California;
1999: 0;
2000: 0[A];
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 0.
State: Colorado;
1999: 242,676;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 242,676.
State: Connecticut;
1999: 0;
2000: 176,000;
2001: 139,500;
2002: 0;
2003: 76,050;
Total: 391,550.
State: Delaware;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 224,000;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 224,000.
State: District of Columbia;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 68,000;
2002: 102,100;
2003: 0;
Total: 170,100.
State: Florida;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 156,000;
2003: 141,920;
Total: 297,920.
State: Georgia;
1999: 1,583,528;
2000: 301,240;
2001: 94,783;
2002: 0;
2003: 351,634;
Total: 2,331,185.
State: Hawaii;
1999: 0;
2000: 488,640;
2001: 275,000;
2002: 215,675;
2003: 354,000;
Total: 1,333,315.
State: Idaho;
1999: 63,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 120,000;
2003: 0;
Total: 183,000.
State: Illinois;
1999: 305,000;
2000: 456,680;
2001: 1,082,000;
2002: 0;
2003: 63,920;
Total: 1,907,600.
State: Indiana;
1999: 280,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 200,000;
2002: 511,200;
2003: 925,000;
Total: 1,916,200.
State: Iowa;
1999: 89,500;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 89,500.
State: Kansas;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 229,000;
Total: 229,000.
State: Kentucky;
1999: 288,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 289,000;
Total: 577,000.
State: Louisiana;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 0.
State: Maine;
1999: 120,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 130,000;
2003: 0;
Total: 250,000.
State: Maryland;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 181,170;
2002: 0;
2003: 251,111;
Total: 432,281.
State: Massachusetts;
1999: 186,000;
2000: 372,149;
2001: 442,550;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 1,000,699.
State: Michigan;
1999: 34,314;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 34,314.
State: Minnesota;
1999: 275,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 275,000.
State: Mississippi;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 0.
State: Missouri;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 409,973;
2002: 86,235;
2003: 0;
Total: 496,208.
State: Montana;
1999: 0;
2000: 67,500;
2001: 21,213;
2002: 0;
2003: 275,000;
Total: 363,713.
State: Nebraska;
1999: 120,000;
2000: 40,200;
2001: 0;
2002: 124,620;
2003: 0;
Total: 284,820.
State: Nevada;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 0.
State: New Hampshire;
1999: 150,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 25,000;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 175,000.
State: New Jersey;
1999: 731,034;
2000: 930,651;
2001: 459,763;
2002: 0;
2003: 211,412;
Total: 2,332,860.
State: New Mexico;
1999: 173,747;
2000: 257,080;
2001: 31,680;
2002: 80,000;
2003: 55,000[B];
Total: 597,507.
State: New York;
1999: 443,069;
2000: 170,483;
2001: 143,131;
2002: 22,954;
2003: 0;
Total: 779,637.
State: North Carolina;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 0.
State: North Dakota;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 349,546;
Total: 349,546.
State: Ohio;
1999: 205,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 54,913;
Total: 259,913.
State: Oklahoma;
1999: 140,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 400,000;
2002: 428,000;
2003: 300,000;
Total: 1,268,000.
State: Oregon;
1999: 0;
2000: 431,400;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 431,400.
State: Pennsylvania;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 160,000;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 160,000.
State: Rhode Island;
1999: 406,800;
2000: 336,400;
2001: 220,000;
2002: 284,950;
2003: 342,855;
Total: 1,591,005.
State: South Carolina;
1999: 112,350;
2000: 105,000;
2001: 40,000;
2002: 71,500;
2003: 0;
Total: 328,850.
State: South Dakota;
1999: 135,000;
2000: 138,322;
2001: 130,000;
2002: 0;
2003: 396,775;
Total: 800,097.
State: Tennessee;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 360,652;
2002: 0;
2003: 0;
Total: 360,652.
State: Texas;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 0;
2003: 2,270,000;
Total: 2,270,000.
State: Utah;
1999: 0;
2000: 0;
2001: 0;
2002: 19,200;
2003: 0;
Total: 19,200.
State: Vermont;
1999: 82,000;
2000: 0;
2001: 114,415;
2002: 70,557;
2003: 98,863;
Total: 365,835.
State: Virginia;
1999: 327,080;
2000: 0;
2001: 225,489;
2002: 475,990;
2003: 650,054;
Total: 1,678,613.
State: Washington;
1999: 125,000;
2000: 220,473;
2001: 190,000;
2002: 0;
2003: 150,000;
Total: 685,473.
State: West Virginia;
1999: 0;
2000: 60,000;
2001: 0;
2002: 270,000;
2003: 273,972;
Total: 603,972.
State: Wisconsin;
1999: 540,060;
2000: 0 ;
2001: 251,720;
2002: 597,000;
2003: 145,200;
Total: 1,533,980.
State: Wyoming;
1999: 0;
2000: 168,146;
2001: 105,883;
2002: 137,322;
2003: 77,064;
Total: 488,415.
National totals;
1999: $7,559,740;
2000: $4,927,085;
2001: $6,072,797;
2002: $3,993,303;
2003: $8,450,849;
Total: $31,003,774.
Source: BJS.
[A] The data do not reflect an additional $739,302 California requested
in fiscal year 2000 to install Livescan machines in courthouses.
[B] Fiscal year 2003 NCHIP funding for the state of New Mexico is to be
awarded in fiscal year 2004.
[End of table]
[End of section]
FOOTNOTES
[1] SEARCH (the National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics), a nonprofit membership organization created by and for the
states, is dedicated to improving the criminal justice system and the
quality of justice through better information management, the effective
application of information and identification technology, and
responsible law and policy.
[2] The Compact Council, a 15-member entity composed of federal and
state officials, is responsible for promulgating rules and procedures
governing use of the Interstate Identification Index for noncriminal
justice purposes. The Interstate Identification Index is an "index-
pointer" system maintained by the FBI to facilitate the interstate
exchange of criminal history records. The Council administers the
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (also known as the
Interstate Identification Index, or Triple I, Compact), which was
established with passage of the Crime Identification and Technology Act
of 1998.
[3] Agencies submitting fingerprints to IAFIS electronically can use
the FBI identification number to retrieve an individual's criminal
history from the Interstate Identification Index system, which includes
warrant flags for the National Crime Information Center subject
records. (According to the FBI, approximately 60 percent of all
warrants have an FBI identification number.) If requested, the FBI can
also electronically provide a copy of an individual's record of arrest
and prosecution (rap sheet), which provides the individual's name, date
of birth, physical description, criminal history, and a notification of
whether or not the individual has any outstanding arrest warrants. For
fingerprints submitted on paper cards, the FBI will mail a copy of the
rap sheet to the submitting law enforcement agency, if a response is
requested.
[4] Fingerprints must be submitted for individuals violating the Jacob
Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender
Registration Program, 42 U.S.C. 14071, and the National Child
Protection Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 5119.
[5] These data are based on all criminal fingerprint submissions
entered into IAFIS from October 2002 through May 2003 for arrests made
since the implementation of IAFIS on July 28, 1999. The data include
criminal fingerprint submissions that arrived at the FBI in either hard
copy or electronic format.
[6] Eric C. Johnson, SEARCH Technical Bulletin (Issue Number 2), "From
the Inkpad to the Mousepad: IAFIS and Fingerprint Technology at the
Dawn of the 21st Century," 1998.
[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Identity Fraud: Prevalence and Cost
Appear to Be Growing, GAO-02-363 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2002) and
Identity Theft: Greater Awareness and Use of Existing Data Are Needed,
GAO-02-766 (Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002).
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Identity Fraud: Prevalence and
Links to Alien Illegal Activities, GAO-02-830T (Washington, D.C.: June
25, 2002).
[9] There were 1,527,205 of 5,266,393 fingerprints entered into IAFIS
on the same day as the date of arrest. The FBI's data were not amenable
to calculating the average number of hours from the time the
fingerprints were taken to when the fingerprints were entered into
IAFIS.
[10] While 70 percent of the criminal fingerprint submissions to IAFIS
were made electronically during the period we reviewed, only 29 percent
of the submissions were entered into IAFIS the same day as the date of
arrest. Many fingerprints were likely taken on paper cards by the
arresting agency and mailed to the state criminal repository, where
they were then converted to an electronic format for submission to
IAFIS.
[11] While characterizing the 29 percent figure as progress under
IAFIS, FBI officials had no specific data for comparing pre-IAFIS
periods. The officials noted that prior to IAFIS implementation, the
number of criminal fingerprints received by the FBI on the same day as
the date of arrest was not tracked.
[12] The remaining 5 percent of the criminal fingerprint submissions
were entered into IAFIS from 2 to 98 days after the date of arrest. No
information was readily available to indicate if these fingerprints
were taken manually and then converted to electronic format at the
state criminal history repository or were taken electronically using
Livescan devices. Downtime of equipment and human error are also
plausible reasons for delays in submission of some fingerprints.
[13] The data are based on a July 2000 survey of a nationally
representative sample of local police departments and sheriffs' offices
in the United States. See BJS, Local Police Departments 2000 (NCJ
196002), January 2003, and BJS, Sheriffs' Offices 2000 (NCJ 196534),
January 2003.
[14] Similarly, FBI officials said that various state repositories
periodically batch-mail fingerprint cards to the Bureau.
[15] BJS, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2001
(NCJ 200343), August 2003.
[16] Criminal fingerprint cards are not forwarded to the FBI until the
state criminal history repository has processed them. State-level
processing includes such steps as identification, transmission of
responses to the submitting law enforcement agencies, and update or
creation of computerized criminal history records.
[17] Data were not available for us to determine what percentage of
rejected fingerprints was later resubmitted to the FBI.
[18] For the full range of programs and activities for which states can
use NCHIP funds, see BJS, National Criminal History Improvement Program
- Fiscal Year 2003 Program Announcement.
[19] The term "noncriminal justice purposes" refers to uses of criminal
history records for purposes authorized by federal or state law other
than purposes relating to criminal justice activities. For example,
authorized purposes may include employment suitability, licensing
determinations, and national security clearances.
[20] National Child Protection Act of 1993, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5119). See U.S. General Accounting Office, Fingerprint-Based Background
Checks: Implementation of the National Child Protection Act of 1993,
GAO/GGD-97-32 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 15, 1997).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
