National Criminal History Improvement Program
Federal Grants Have Contributed to Progress Gao ID: GAO-04-364 February 27, 2004Public safety concerns require that criminal history records be accurate, complete, and accessible. Among other purposes, such records are used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that prohibited persons do not purchase firearms. Initiated in 1995, the National Criminal History Improvement Program represents a partnership among federal, state, and local agencies to build a national criminal records infrastructure. Under the program, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) annually provides federal grants to states to improve the quality of records and their accessibility through NICS and other national systems maintained by the FBI. GAO examined (1) how states have used program grant funds, particularly the extent to which such funds have been used for NICS-related purposes; (2) the progress--using program grants and other funding sources--that states have made in automating criminal history and other relevant records and making them accessible nationally; and (3) the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers in debating the future of the program.
States have used program grants primarily to support NICS in conducting presale background checks of firearms' purchasers. BJS data show that over 75 percent of the total $164.3 million in program grants awarded in fiscal years 2000 through 2003 was used for NICS-related purposes. These uses encompassed a broad range of activities, such as converting manual records to automated formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized systems or upgrade existing systems. All other uses of program grants, according to BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to building an infrastructure of nationally accessible records. Using their own funds, in addition to the program and other federal grants, states have made progress in automating criminal history records and making them accessible nationally. The percentage of the nation's criminal history records that are automated increased from 79 percent in 1993 to 89 percent in 2001, according to BJS's most recent data. Also, the number of states participating in the Interstate Identification Index--a "pointer system" to locate criminal history records anywhere in the country--increased from 26 at year-end 1993 to 45 by May 2003. But, progress has been more limited for some NICS-related purposes. A national system for domestic violence misdemeanor records is not available. Also, as of May 2003, only 10 states had made mental health records available to NICS, and only 3 states had provided substance abuse records. One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when debating the future of the program is the extent of cumulative progress (and shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems. While states have made progress, more work remains. Also, the demand for background checks is growing, and technology is not static, which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated systems. Continued progress toward establishing and sustaining a national infrastructure inherently will involve long-term commitments from all governmental levels. Justice commented that GAO's report fairly and accurately described the program and its accomplishments.
GAO-04-364, National Criminal History Improvement Program: Federal Grants Have Contributed to Progress
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-364
entitled 'National Criminal History Improvement Program: Federal Grants
Have Contributed to Progress' which was released on March 29, 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 Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
February 2004:
NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
Federal Grants Have Contributed to Progress:
GAO-04-364:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-364, a report to the Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
Public safety concerns require that criminal history records be
accurate, complete, and accessible. Among other purposes, such records
are used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s (FBI) National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that
prohibited persons do not purchase firearms.
Initiated in 1995, the National Criminal History Improvement Program
represents a partnership among federal, state, and local agencies to
build a national criminal records infrastructure. Under the program,
the Department of Justice‘s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) annually
provides federal grants to states to improve the quality of records and
their accessibility through NICS and other national systems maintained
by the FBI.
GAO examined (1) how states have used program grant funds,
particularly the extent to which such funds have been used for NICS-
related purposes; (2) the progress”using program grants and other
funding sources”that states have made in automating criminal history
and other relevant records and making them accessible nationally; and
(3) the various factors that are relevant considerations for
policymakers in debating the future of the program.
What GAO Found:
States have used program grants primarily to support NICS in conducting
presale background checks of firearms‘ purchasers. BJS data show that
over 75 percent of the total $164.3 million in program grants awarded
in fiscal years 2000 through 2003 was used for NICS-related purposes.
These uses encompassed a broad range of activities, such as converting
manual records to automated formats and purchasing equipment to
implement computerized systems or upgrade existing systems. All other
uses of program grants, according to BJS, also had either direct or
indirect relevance to building an infrastructure of nationally
accessible records.
Using their own funds, in addition to the program and other federal
grants, states have made progress in automating criminal history
records and making them accessible nationally. As the figure shows, the
percentage of the nation‘s criminal history records that are automated
increased from 79 percent in 1993 to 89 percent in 2001, according to
BJS‘s most recent data. Also, the number of states participating in the
Interstate Identification Index”a ’pointer system“ to locate criminal
history records anywhere in the country”increased from 26 at year-end
1993 to 45 by May 2003. But, progress has been more limited for some
NICS-related purposes. A national system for domestic violence
misdemeanor records is not available. Also, as of May 2003, only 10
states had made mental health records available to NICS, and only 3
states had provided substance abuse records.
One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when
debating the future of the program is the extent of cumulative
progress (and shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated
systems. While states have made progress, more work remains. Also, the
demand for background checks is growing, and technology is not static,
which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated
systems. Continued progress toward establishing and sustaining a
national infrastructure inherently will involve long-term commitments
from all governmental levels. Justice commented that GAO‘s report
fairly and accurately described the program and its accomplishments.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-364.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Laurie Ekstrand at (202)
512-8777 or ekstrandl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
States Have Used NCHIP Grants Primarily to Support NICS:
Progress Has Been Made--Using State, NCHIP, and Other Federal Funds--in
Automating Records and Making Them Accessible Nationally:
Various Factors Are Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in
Debating the Future of NCHIP:
Conclusions:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
Scope and Methodology:
Data Reliability:
Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems:
NCIC:
III:
NICS:
National Sex Offender Registry:
NCIC Protection Order File:
IAFIS:
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States:
Overview of 5 States' Use of NCHIP Funds:
California:
Maryland:
Mississippi:
Texas:
West Virginia:
Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to Progress in Priority States;
No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems:
Priority States' Use of NCHIP Grant Funds:
Priority States' Progress in Automating Records:
No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems, According to
BJS:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: NCHIP Funds Awarded by Spending Category, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2003:
Table 2: NCHIP Awards by Spending Category and States' Participation
Status in NICS, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003:
Table 3: Percent of Arrest Records in State Repositories That Had Final
Dispositions Recorded (as of Dec. 31, 2001):
Table 4: Summary of Nonfelony or Noncriminal Information Available
Nationally (as of May 2003):
Table 5: Five States Selected for Case Studies of Use of NCHIP Funds:
Table 6: Overview of Case-Study States' Use of NCHIP Funds by Spending
Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002:
Table 7: California NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995
through 2002:
Table 8: Maryland NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through
2002:
Table 9: Mississippi NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995
through 2002:
Table 10: Texas NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through
2002:
Table 11: West Virginia NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995
through 2002:
Table 12: Priority States Uses of NCHIP Funds by Spending Category,
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003:
Table 13: Trend in Automation Status of Priority States' Criminal
History Files:
Figures:
Figure 1: Trend in Automation and III Accessibility of Criminal History
Records:
Figure 2: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil Fingerprint Submissions
Received by the FBI (fiscal years 1992 through 2002):
Abbreviations:
BJS: Bureau of Justice Statistics:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
IAFIS: Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System:
III: Interstate Identification Index:
NCHIP: National Criminal History Improvement Program:
NCIC: National Crime Information Center:
NICS: National Instant Criminal Background Check System:
NSOR: National Sex Offender Registry:
RQI: records quality index:
USA PATRIOT ACT: United Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 27, 2004:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Public safety concerns require that criminal history records and the
systems that maintain them be accurate, complete, and accessible. Such
records and systems are important for traditional criminal justice
purposes, such as positively identifying, prosecuting, and sentencing
repeat offenders. Moreover, they are used to conduct background checks
for various noncriminal justice purposes,[Footnote 1] such as (1)
ensuring that prohibited individuals do not purchase firearms, (2)
preventing convicted pedophiles from working with organizations that
serve children, and (3) meeting requirements associated with evolving
homeland security concerns. For most purposes, the background checks
are conducted using fingerprints. An exception is presale background
checks of firearms' purchasers, who are screened by a name-based
system--the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Initiated in 1995, the National Criminal History Improvement Program
(NCHIP) represents a partnership among federal, state, and local
agencies to build a national criminal records infrastructure. Under
NCHIP, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
annually provides federal grants to states to improve the quality and
availability of criminal history records and their accessibility
through various national systems maintained by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). Such systems include NICS--which has electronic
links to (1) the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which
contains information on fugitives or wanted persons and individuals
subject to court protection orders and (2) the Interstate
Identification Index (III), which serves as a "pointer system" to
locate criminal history records anywhere in the country--as well as the
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which
is a computerized system for storing, comparing, and exchanging
fingerprint data in a digital format.
As agreed with your office, this report presents information on:
* how states have used NCHIP grant funds, particularly the extent to
which they have been used by states for NICS-related purposes;
* the progress--using NCHIP grants and other funding sources--that states
have made in automating criminal history and other relevant records and
making them accessible nationally; and:
* the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers
in debating the future of NCHIP.
As further agreed with your office, appendix IV of this report presents
summary information on two supplemental topics: (1) the use of NCHIP
funds by the 5 "priority states"[Footnote 2] and their progress in
automating records and (2) whether any of the 50 states have used NCHIP
funds to develop or implement a ballistics registration system--that
is, a system that stores digital images of the markings made on bullets
and cartridge casings when firearms are discharged.
To address the primary objectives, we (1) reviewed BJS documentation
that describes NCHIP spending activities, (2) analyzed BJS's biennial
national survey data or reports on the automation status of all states'
criminal history records, and (3) interviewed NCHIP managers at BJS and
NICS managers at the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
Division (Clarksburg, W.Va.). In addition, given that NCHIP
consolidates criminal records improvement funding authorized by various
federal laws, we reviewed these laws, such as the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act,[Footnote 3] and related legislative histories.
Also, to provide supplemental and more in-depth perspectives, we
conducted case studies of 5 recipient states--California, Maryland,
Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia. We selected these states to
reflect a range of various factors or considerations--that is, the
amounts of grant funding received, status of NICS participation, and
levels of automation, as well as to encompass different geographic
areas of the nation.[Footnote 4] We conducted our work from April 2003
to January 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Appendix I presents more details about our
objectives, scope, and methodology.
Results in Brief:
States have used NCHIP grants primarily to support NICS in conducting
background checks of firearms' purchasers. According to BJS data, of
the total $165.2 million in NCHIP grants awarded in 4 recent fiscal
years (2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003), over 75 percent was used for NICS-
related purposes.[Footnote 5] Such uses or purposes encompassed a broad
range of activities, such as converting manual records to automated
formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized systems or
upgrade existing systems. All other uses of NCHIP grants, according to
BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to building an
infrastructure of nationally accessible records, such as implementing
technology to support the automated transfer of fingerprint data to
IAFIS.
Using their own funds, in addition to NCHIP grants and other federal
funds, states have made progress in automating criminal history records
and making them accessible nationally. For example, the percentage of
the nation's criminal history records that are automated increased from
79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at the end of 1995 and to
89 percent at the end of 2001, according to BJS's most recent biennial
survey of states. To facilitate national compatibility and
accessibility of records, BJS requires that all enhancements funded
under NCHIP conform to the FBI's standards for national data systems--
including, as applicable, NICS, NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Such conformance
is important, for example, because III is the primary system used to
access state-held data for NICS checks. The number of states
participating in III increased from 26 at the end of 1993 to 30 at the
end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003. On the other hand, progress has been
more limited for some NICS-related purposes. For example, automated
information on the disposition of older felony and other potentially
disqualifying arrests--that is, information regarding whether the
criminal charges against the arrested individual were dropped or
proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in a conviction or acquittal--is
critical for conducting background checks of persons purchasing
firearms but is not always widely available. Also, automated
information is not always available to identify other prohibited
purchasers, such as persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic
violence, adjudicated as mental defectives, or who are unlawful users
of controlled substances.
One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when
debating the future of NCHIP is the extent of cumulative progress (and
shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems. While
states have made progress, more work remains--such as for the NICS-
related purposes mentioned above. Another relevant factor to consider
is that the demand for background checks is growing, with increases in
recent years driven by screening requirements for employment and other
noncriminal justice purposes. Furthermore, technology is not static,
which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated
systems to remain functional.
Background:
Each state has a central repository for receiving criminal history
information contributed by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors,
courts, and corrections agencies throughout the state. Each repository
compiles this information into criminal history records (commonly
called "rap sheets"), which are to be made available to criminal
justice personnel for authorized purposes. Typically, a criminal
history record is created for each individual offender (each
"subject"). The record is to contain relevant identifiers (including
fingerprints) and information about all arrests and their dispositions,
such as whether the criminal charges were dropped or resulted in an
acquittal or a conviction.
Efforts to improve criminal history records nationwide predate NCHIP by
more than 2 decades.[Footnote 6] For example, the development of
computerized criminal history systems in the states was a priority of
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, established by the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Also, during much
of the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s--largely without specifically
appropriated funds--BJS (or its predecessor, the National Criminal
Justice Information and Statistics Service) took the lead in
encouraging states to computerize criminal records and ensure
conformity with evolving FBI standards.
In the 1990s, efforts to improve the accuracy, completeness, and
accessibility of criminal history records received an impetus with
passage of various federal statutes, particularly:
* the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ("Brady Act"),[Footnote 7]
which, among other things, authorized grants for the improvement of
state criminal history records and amended the Gun Control Act of
1968;[Footnote 8]
* the National Child Protection Act of 1993,[Footnote 9] which was
enacted to provide national criminal background checks for child care
providers; and:
* the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,[Footnote
10] which, among other things, strove to improve access to court
protection orders and records of individuals wanted for stalking and
domestic violence.
With initial grant awards to states in 1995, NCHIP was designed by BJS
to implement these federal mandates to improve public safety by
enhancing the nation's criminal history records systems. In 1998,
NCHIP's scope was expanded in response to federal directives to develop
or improve sex offender registries and to contribute data to a national
sex offender registry.
Also, in 1998, the "permanent" provisions of the Brady Act went into
effect with the implementation of NICS--the computerized system
designed to instantly (as the name indicates) conduct presale
background checks of purchasers of any firearm (both handguns and long
guns). In contrast, the "interim" provisions of the Brady Act
(effective from 1994 to 1998) applied to handgun purchases only, and
law enforcement officers were allowed a maximum of 5 business days to
conduct presale background checks for evidence of felony convictions or
disqualifying information. The effectiveness of NICS depends largely on
the availability of automated records--including the final dispositions
of arrests, such as whether the criminal charges resulted in
convictions or acquittals. In this regard, many criminal justice
agencies, from police departments to the courts, are generators of
records relevant to NICS.
Over the years, BJS has tried to ensure that the use of NCHIP funds was
closely coordinated with the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Grant
Program, which requires that states use at least 5 percent of their
awards for improving criminal history records. All 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories have been recipients of
NCHIP grant awards, which totaled more than $438 million during fiscal
years 1995 through 2003.
Also, as mentioned previously, to ensure national compatibility and
accessibility of records, recipients' uses of NCHIP funds must conform
with the FBI's standards for national data systems--including, as
applicable, NICS, NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Regarding IAFIS, for example,
most states have some type of automated fingerprint identification
system (AFIS); a state can use NCHIP funds to enhance its AFIS by
purchasing Livescan equipment, if the state has implemented (or is
implementing) procedures to ensure that the AFIS is compatible with FBI
standards.[Footnote 11] More details about the national data systems
are presented in appendix II.
States Have Used NCHIP Grants Primarily to Support NICS:
For the recent fiscal years we studied, states used NCHIP grants
primarily to support NICS in conducting background checks of firearms'
purchasers. According to BJS data, a total of $165.2 million in NCHIP
grants was awarded during fiscal years 2000 through 2003.[Footnote 12]
Of this total, a majority--over 75 percent--was used for NICS-related
purposes that encompassed a broad range of activities, such as
converting manual records to automated formats and purchasing equipment
to implement computerized systems or upgrade existing systems. All
other uses of NCHIP grants during this period, according to BJS, also
had either direct or indirect relevance to building an infrastructure
of nationally accessible records, such as implementing technology to
support the automated transfer of fingerprint data to IAFIS. We found
that a state's participation status in NICS--whether the state was a
full participant, partial participant, or nonparticipant--made little
difference in how NCHIP funds were used by states.
For the Recent Fiscal Years We Studied, the Majority of NCHIP Funds Was
Used to Support NICS-Related Activities:
As indicated in table 1, NCHIP award amounts can be grouped into six
spending categories in which BJS awarded a total of $165.2 million in
NCHIP grants for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. A majority of these
funds was used for NICS-related purposes. For example, the two largest
categories of spending--NICS/III/criminal records improvements and
disposition reporting improvements--accounted for over 75 percent of
total program awards during this period. Both categories directly
affected NICS. The NICS/III/criminal records improvements category
affected NICS by focusing on activities for improving records related
to federal firearms disqualifiers and enhancing access to these records
through III.
Similarly, the disposition reporting improvements category provided
access to information about the disposition of arrests--information
that is critical for determining whether persons are legally prohibited
from purchasing firearms. Regarding this category, BJS encourages
states to focus on making systemic improvements rather than using staff
to manually research records to determine dispositions. Nonetheless,
according to BJS, states may use NCHIP funds to research arrest
dispositions in response to specific NICS-related queries, if the
information is subsequently added to the automated system. BJS
officials could not quantify the NCHIP grant amounts that all states
have allocated for staff to research arrest dispositions. Officials in
2 of the 5 case-study states indicated that their states had used NCHIP
funding to research missing arrest dispositions and update criminal
history records in response to specific NICS-related queries. One of
these states (Maryland) used $41,000 of its fiscal year 2002 NCHIP
award to fund a full-time position for researching the state's archived
criminal history records.
Table 1: NCHIP Funds Awarded by Spending Category, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2003:
NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements;
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category:
* Purchase equipment for major automated criminal records systems or
overall upgrades;
* Convert and automate manual records, develop policies, and fund other
activities required to bring states in compliance with the FBI's
standards for national data systems;
* Develop nonfelony databases for mental health records;
* Develop nonfelony databases for domestic violence related misdemeanor
records;
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: $68,625,673;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 42.
NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements[A];
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category:
* Upgrade and automate records management systems to capture data on
dispositions from courts, district attorney offices, and parole/
probation systems;
* Develop protocols and standards for transferring disposition data to
the state central repository, linking disposition data with arrest
records;
* Install electronic fingerprinting equipment in courts to identify
defendants and facilitate record linkage;
* Research missing dispositions in response to NICS inquiries;
* Update "arrest only" records to include case disposition information;
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 58,317,260;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 35.
NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities;
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category:
* Purchase and install electronic fingerprinting equipment that
conforms to FBI technical standards;
* Implement technology to support the automated transfer of fingerprint
data to IAFIS;
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 23,884,385;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 15.
NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements;
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category:
* Establish a state sex offender registry system that complies with FBI
standards and supports an interface with the FBI's National Sex
Offender Registry;
* Classify state legislation relevant to sex offender registration;
* Continually review registrants' addresses and status;
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 5,638,410;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 3.
NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities;
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category:
* Establish state-level protection order systems;
* Establish protocols and record linkages to the NCIC Protection Order
File;
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 5,265,250;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 3.
NCHIP spending category: National security/anti-terrorism
activities[B];
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category:
* Develop linkages to the state repository used for background checks
on persons employed in sensitive positions;
* Purchase electronic fingerprinting equipment;
* Develop policies governing the use of equipment to ensure privacy and
compliance with applicable regulations regarding noncriminal justice
background checks;
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 3,472,141;
Spending category as a percentage of 4- year total: 2.
Total;
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: $165,203,119;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of BJS data.
Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts to the 50 states,
the District of Columbia, and 5 territories. As of January 2004, the
recipients had not yet spent all of the funds awarded. There is overlap
between some of the categories, but funds for any given activity were
included in only one category and were not double counted. In cases
where expenditures could be included in more than one category, BJS
judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the
activity. Details do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[A] For disposition reporting improvements, BJS used three spending
categories--(1) funding to state courts, (2) funding to other judicial
components, and (3) funding for disposition improvements not related to
state courts. For purposes of this table, we combined these three into
one spending category.
[B] BJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities
until 2002 (after the events of September 11, 2001).
[End of table]
Also, table 1 shows that BJS awarded 3 percent of NCHIP funding
specifically for protection order activities to improve records related
to this firearms-purchase disqualifier. The other categories in table
1--AFIS/Livescan activities, sex offender registry enhancements, and
national security/antiterrorism activities--were for records
improvement efforts that do not directly impact NICS. However,
according to BJS, even if not NICS-related, each of the six spending
categories in table 1 had either direct or indirect relevance to
building an infrastructure of nationally accessible records, such as
implementing technology to support the automated transfer of
fingerprint data to IAFIS.
Appendix III presents more information about the use of NCHIP funds in
the 5 case-study states, and appendix IV presents information about the
use of NCHIP funds in the 5 priority states.[Footnote 13]
No Apparent Differences in NCHIP Awards Based on States' Participation
Status in NICS:
As mentioned previously, for purposes of NICS background checks of
persons purchasing firearms, states are categorized as full
participants, partial participants, or nonparticipants. As table 2
shows, we found little difference in the use of NCHIP funds by states
based on their participation status in NICS. With relatively minor
exceptions, the relative order of spending across categories was the
same in all three types of states. Of the various spending categories,
NICS/III/records improvements reflected the largest difference in
percentage points--that is, a difference of 12 percentage points
between the partial participant states (47 percent) and the full
participant states (35 percent). A BJS official stated that this
difference is not substantial and might occur because some states have
legislation with slightly different prohibitors for purchasing
firearms.
Table 2: NCHIP Awards by Spending Category and States' Participation
Status in NICS, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003:
Number of states;
Full participant states: 14;
Partial participant states: 10;
Nonparticipant states: 26.
Total NCHIP awards;
Full participant states: $56,553,315;
Partial participant states: $34,533,439;
Nonparticipant states: $68,781,449.
NCHIP spending category (in percent): NICS/III/criminal records
improvements;
Full participant states: 35;
Partial participant states: 47;
Nonparticipant states: 41.
NCHIP spending category (in percent): Disposition reporting
improvements;
Full participant states: 40;
Partial participant states: 35;
Nonparticipant states: 34.
NCHIP spending category (in percent): AFIS/Livescan activities;
Full participant states: 15;
Partial participant states: 12;
Nonparticipant states: 16.
NCHIP spending category (in percent): Sex offender registry
enhancements;
Full participant states: 3;
Partial participant states: 3;
Nonparticipant states: 4.
NCHIP spending category (in percent): Protection order activities;
Full participant states: 4;
Partial participant states: 1;
Nonparticipant states: 3.
NCHIP spending category (in percent): National security/antiterrorism
activities[A];
Full participant states: 3;
Partial participant states: 2;
Nonparticipant states: 2.
Total percent;
Full participant states: 100;
Partial participant states: 100;
Nonparticipant states: 100.
Source: GAO summary of BJS data.
Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts. The recipients
have not yet spent all of the funds awarded. There is overlap between
some of the categories, but funds for any given activity were included
in only one category and were not double counted. In cases where
expenditures could be included in more than one category, BJS
judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the
activity.
[A] BJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities
until 2002 (after the events of September 11, 2001).
[End of table]
Progress Has Been Made Using State, NCHIP, and Other Federal Funds--in
Automating Records and Making Them Accessible Nationally:
Using their own funds, in addition to NCHIP grants and other federal
funds, states have made progress in automating criminal history records
and making them accessible nationally. For example, the percentage of
the nation's criminal history records that are automated increased from
79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at the end of 1995 and to
89 percent at the end of 2001, according to BJS's most recent biennial
survey of states. To ensure national compatibility and accessibility of
records, recipients' uses of NCHIP funds must conform with the FBI's
standards for national data systems--including, as applicable, NICS,
NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Such conformance is important, for example,
because III is the primary system used to access state-held data for
NICS checks. The number of states participating in III increased from
26 at the end of 1993 to 30 at the end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003,
indicating growth in compatible automated records. On the other hand,
progress has been more limited for some NICS-related purposes. For
example, automated information on the disposition of felony and other
potentially disqualifying arrests is not always widely available. Also,
automated information is not always available to identify other
prohibited purchasers of firearms, such as persons convicted of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, persons adjudicated as mental
defective, or persons who are unlawful users of controlled substances.
In fiscal year 2004, BJS plans to begin using a new, performance-based
tool for making NCHIP funding decisions.
Progress Made in Automation and Accessibility of Criminal History
Records:
In recent years, with the use of state and federal funds, criminal
history record automation levels in the states and the accessibility of
these records nationally have improved. BJS survey data from the end of
1993 to the end of 2001 (the most recent data) show that increases in
automation levels have outpaced increases in the number of criminal
history records. Specifically, while the number of total records
increased 35 percent during this period, the number of automated
records increased 52 percent--which indicates progress in automating
older criminal history records. Also, the number of records accessible
by the III system increased 196 percent (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Trend in Automation and III Accessibility of Criminal History
Records:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data for total records and automated records are as of calendar
year end for the respective years. Data for III-accessible records are
as of the following respective dates: December 31, 1993; December 31,
1995; September 30, 1997; June 30, 1999; and March 1, 2003.
[End of figure]
Overall, the percentage of the nation's criminal history records that
are automated increased from 79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86
percent at the end of 1995 and to 89 percent at the end of 2001. The
number of states participating in III increased from 26 at the end of
1993 to 30 at the end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003.
Also, according to BJS, other indicators of improved automation levels
and accessibility are as follows:
* In 1997, the FBI established the NCIC Protection Order File to
provide a repository for protection order records. As of May 2003
(within 6 years of implementation), 43 states and 1 territory had
contributed more than 778,000 records to this system.
* In 1999, in response to mandates in the amendments[Footnote 14] to
the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act,[Footnote 15] the FBI established a national
sex offender database for states to register and verify addresses of
sex offenders. As of May 2003 (within 5 years of implementation), 50
states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories had contributed all
of their then-applicable records (over 300,000 records) to the National
Sex Offender Registry.
* In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFIS--a computerized system for storing,
comparing, and exchanging fingerprint data in a digital format. As of
April 2003 (within 4 years of implementation), 44 states, the District
of Columbia, and 3 territories had submitted some portions of their
fingerprint files electronically to the FBI for entry into IAFIS.
BJS officials told us that NCHIP funds played a role in leading states
to these and other accomplishments. Similarly, officials in the 5 case-
study states we visited told us that the criminal history record
improvements in their states would not have been possible without NCHIP
funds. According to BJS officials, NCHIP is best viewed as being an
"umbrella" program that pools or coordinates various streams of monies.
The officials noted that NCHIP grants generally should not be viewed in
isolation, apart from funds that the states themselves spend for these
initiatives. That is, the NCHIP grants generally provide the seed money
or the supplemental funds that the states need to undertake major
system upgrades or to implement an overall plan for modernizing their
information systems. While NCHIP requires that states provide a 10
percent match to the federal funds awarded, officials in the case-study
states told us that their states typically have invested much more than
the required 10 percent. For example, 1 state that has received over $5
million in NCHIP funds estimated that over $20 million of its own funds
have been invested in system improvements since 1995. Another state,
receiving almost $7 million in NCHIP grants, estimated that $35.4
million in state resources have been spent on improving and automating
its systems.
In addition to NCHIP and state-provided funds, other federal programs
provide funds that can be used to improve criminal history records. For
example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance provides funds to states
through Byrne grants, a block grant program that requires states to set
aside 5 percent of any award for criminal justice information systems
to assist law enforcement, prosecution, courts and corrections
organizations. In addition to criminal history record improvements,
Byrne grants may be used for a variety of other system-related
activities that are not related to NCHIP. Examples include activities
involving systems to collect criminal intelligence and systems to
collect driving-under-the influence data. According to Bureau of
Justice Assistance data for fiscal years 2001 through 2003, almost $73
million in Byrne grants were set-aside to improve criminal justice
information systems.
Grants are also now available for antiterrorism purposes under the
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998,[Footnote 16] as amended by
the United Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of
2001.[Footnote 17]
Besides characterizing NCHIP as an umbrella program, BJS officials also
described it as being a "partnership" program--among BJS, the FBI, and
the states and localities--for building a national infrastructure to
facilitate the interstate exchange of information. The officials
explained that such exchanges or accessibility are needed to support a
variety of both criminal justice purposes (e.g., making decisions
regarding pretrial release, sentencing, etc.) and noncriminal justice
purposes (e.g., conducting background checks of firearms' purchasers,
child-care providers, etc.). The BJS officials noted that NCHIP funds
often are spread across a variety of long-term initiatives undertaken
by the states' executive and judicial branch agencies to upgrade the
architecture and coverage of criminal records information systems.
Limited Progress for Some NICS-Related Purposes:
For some NICS-related purposes, limited progress had been made in the
automation and accessibility of relevant records. For example,
automated information on the disposition of older felony and other
potentially disqualifying arrests--that is, information regarding
whether the criminal charges against the arrested individual were
dropped or proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in a conviction or
acquittal--is critical for conducting background checks of persons
purchasing firearms but is not always widely available. Also, automated
information is not always available to identify other prohibited
purchasers, such as persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic
violence, adjudicated as mental defectives, or who are unlawful users
of controlled substances.
Information on Dispositions of Arrests Not Always Widely Available:
In conducting background checks of firearms' purchasers, automated
information on whether the criminal charges against arrested
individuals were dropped or proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in
a conviction or acquittal is not always widely available. For example,
23 of the 38 states that responded to a question on final dispositions
in BJS's most recent biennial survey reported that 75 percent or less
of their arrest records had final dispositions recorded (see table 3).
Table 3: Percent of Arrest Records in State Repositories That Had Final
Dispositions Recorded (as of Dec. 31, 2001):
Percent: 0 to 25;
Number of states: 3;
States: Colorado, Indiana, and Mississippi.
Percent: 26 to 50;
Number of states: 6;
States: Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
Percent: 51 to 75;
Number of states: 14;
States: California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode
Island, and Utah.
Percent: 76 to 99;
Number of states: 14;
States: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Percent: 100;
Number of states: 1;
States: Massachusetts.
Percent: Not reported[A];
Number of states: 12;
States: Alabama, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West
Virginia.
Source: BJS data.
Note: The percentages are based on all arrest records in state
respositories, whether maintained in automated or manual formats.
[A] Percentages are "not reported" by states for various reasons,
including a lack of state personnel and/or computer program time to
submit survey responses, or states' inability to track the data needed
to respond to the survey.
[End of table]
It is important to draw a distinction between old and new arrest
records with respect to disposition reporting. The BJS Director told us
that, given limited resources, the agency has always emphasized to the
states the importance of making certain that records of recent criminal
activity are updated and compatible with FBI standards. In this regard,
the Director explained that many states adopted a "day 1" approach in
using NCHIP funds to improve records--that is, improve new records
first--and left a number of old, inactive records archived in state
repositories. The Director noted that BJS research, with FBI
assistance, has indicated that older arrest records account for much of
the "open arrest" problem. That is, of the criminal history records for
which missing disposition information was never recorded, about one-
half involve arrests that occurred before 1984 and three-quarters pre-
date NCHIP.
Nonetheless, while states have made progress in automating newer
disposition information--and automating disposition information
discovered when conducting research of older records--achieving
universal automation of disposition information continues to present
challenges, as table 3 indicates.
BJS has recognized that, whenever criminal history records show arrests
without final dispositions, there is the potential for delays in
responding to presale firearms inquiries because, in most instances,
disqualifications result from convictions rather than arrests. Since
1995, BJS has encouraged states to contact court representatives and
determine how NCHIP funds can be used to improve disposition reporting.
Further, since 2000, BJS has required that such contacts be documented
in the states' application packages for NCHIP funds. For example, in
the Fiscal Year 2003 Program Announcement (Mar. 2003), BJS specified
that "all applications will be required to demonstrate that court needs
have been considered, and if no funds for upgrading court systems
capable of providing disposition data are requested, applicants should
include a letter from the State court administrator or Chief Justice
indicating that the courts have been consulted in connection with the
application.":
Automated Information Not Always Available to Identify Other Prohibited
Purchasers:
The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended,[Footnote 18] specifies four
nonfelony or noncriminal categories that prohibit an individual from
owning or purchasing a firearm--that is, persons who (1) have been
convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, (2) are subject
to certain outstanding court protection orders, (3) have been
adjudicated as mentally defective, or (4) are unlawful users of
controlled substances. Generally, states have used NCHIP funds to
provide information for only one of these four categories--court
protection orders. For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, states received
a total of approximately $5.3 million in NCHIP funds to develop systems
for reporting information to the FBI to be included in the NCIC
Protection Order File as indicated in table 1. As of May 2003, states
had made more than 778,000 records of court protection orders available
to the national file.
However, the availability of information regarding domestic violence
misdemeanor convictions, mental health commitments, and controlled
substance abusers is problematic for various reasons. For example,
according to BJS, problems in identifying domestic violence misdemeanor
convictions are twofold--(1) misdemeanor data traditionally have not
been maintained at the state level in an automated format and (2)
misdemeanor assault charges rarely specify the victim-offender
relationship unless domestic violence is specifically charged. That is,
domestic violence-related offenses can be difficult to distinguish from
misdemeanors broadly classified as assaults. Since fiscal year 1996,
BJS has encouraged states to use NCHIP funds to improve access to
domestic violence records. BJS has provided direction, for example, to
the states to set "flags" on the records of persons known to have a
conviction for domestic violence.
Records regarding mental health commitments are often not available
nationally for reasons beyond the control of NCHIP. For instance, state
mental health laws, privacy laws, or doctor-patient considerations may
preclude federal law enforcement officials from routinely accessing
some of these records. According to BJS, the area of mental health
records and their shareability is a very difficult area--and is an area
in which BJS has encouraged states to do more with NCHIP funds since
fiscal year 1996. The FBI's strategy--which BJS encourages the states
to use--has been to create a Denied Persons File in the NICS Index
where the reason for denial is not given unless the denial is appealed.
In reference to substance abuse, BJS noted that federal law is very
unclear regarding who is a prohibited person, which makes it very
difficult for states to make records available to the FBI for NICS
checks. Also, BJS noted that states have no central registries of
active drug users or addicts. Given the complications of federal
definitions, BJS emphasized that it would be a very challenging
undertaking to develop such registries and keep them current.
Overall, as table 4 indicates, a national system for domestic violence
misdemeanor records is not available, only 10 states have provided
mental health records to the NICS Index, and only 3 states have
provided substance abuse records. According to BJS, most states have
chosen to use NCHIP awards to automate criminal history records overall
and improve criminal history record systems, rather than focus on
improving access to these four specific types of records. BJS
recognizes that ensuring the availability of additional nonfelony or
noncriminal records involves various considerations or challenges that
extend beyond simply providing more money to improve records. For
example, as mentioned previously, BJS noted that federal law is very
unclear regarding who is a prohibited person in reference to substance
abuse.
Table 4: Summary of Nonfelony or Noncriminal Information Available
Nationally (as of May 2003):
Nonfelony or noncriminal disqualifying factor: Persons convicted of
domestic violence misdemeanors;
Systems providing information and number of records available:
* National system for domestic violence misdemeanor records is not
available;
* States rely on criminal history records for information pertaining to
domestic violence misdemeanor convictions;
Challenges affecting the availability of additional records:
* Definition in federal statute is complex.[A];
* States report domestic violence misdemeanors as assaults and often do
not include information regarding perpetrator's relationship to victim;
* Arrest may lack disposition information;
Examples of state actions to address challenges:
* Eight states have begun developing systems designed to identify
domestic violence records during background checks;
* One case-study state plans to install a domestic violence flagging
capability when its computerized criminal history system is
reprogrammed during fiscal year 2004.
Nonfelony or noncriminal disqualifying factor: Persons who are subjects
of court protection orders;
Systems providing information and number of records available:
* NCIC Protection Order File contains more than 778,000 court
protection orders submitted by 43 states;
Challenges affecting the availability of additional records:
* Difficult to keep protection order information up-to-date because
orders can be rescinded and/or reinstated;
Examples of state actions to address challenges:
* Most states are providing this information to national systems.
Nonfelony or noncriminal disqualifying factor: Persons who have been
adjudicated as mentally defective;
Systems providing information and number of records available:
* NICS Index contains a file--the Mental Defective Commitment File--
where mental health records are maintained.[B];
* Ten states have provided 58,721 mental health records to the NICS
Index Mental Defective Commitment File;
Challenges affecting the availability of additional records:
* State privacy and doctor/patient confidentiality laws prohibit
contributing this information to national systems;
Examples of state actions to address challenges:
* States that have applicable privacy or doctor/patient confidentiality
laws have begun considering using the NICS Index Denied Persons File.
[C].
Nonfelony or noncriminal disqualifying factor: Persons who are unlawful
users of or addicted to controlled substances;
Systems providing information and number of records available:
* NICS Index contains a file--the Controlled Substance Abuse File --
where substance abuse records are maintained;
* Three states have provided 66 substance abuse records to the NICS
Index Controlled Substance Abuse File;
Challenges affecting the availability of additional records:
* The associated definition of the term "addict" contains various
criteria that are subjective in nature;
* State privacy and doctor/patient confidentiality laws may prohibit
contributing this information to national systems;
Examples of state actions to address challenges:
* No states are developing systems to track substance abusers.
Source: GAO analysis of BJS and FBI data.
[A] The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, defines a "misdemeanor
crime of domestic violence" as an offense that is a misdemeanor under
federal or state law and has, as an element, the use or attempted use
of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed
by (1) a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim;
(2) a person with whom the victim shares a child in common; (3) a
person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a
spouse, parent, or guardian; or (4) a person similarly situated to a
spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
[B] The NICS Index was created solely for presale background checks of
firearms' purchasers and contains disqualifying information
contributed by local, state, and federal agencies on individuals who
are prohibited from purchasing firearms for various reasons, such as
being (1) dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, (2)
involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or (3) an unlawful
user of a controlled substance.
[C] The NICS Index Denied Persons File allows a state to flag an
individual as prohibited from purchasing a firearm without providing
the specific reason for the prohibition.
[End of table]
BJS has recognized that the absence of widely accessible information on
domestic violence misdemeanors and noncriminal disqualifying factors is
among the most important issues affecting the accuracy and timeliness
of presale background checks of firearms purchasers. Thus, for several
years, BJS has been encouraging states to use NCHIP funds to make
improvements. Recently, for example, in providing NCHIP guidance in the
Fiscal Year 2003 Program Announcement (Mar. 2003), BJS encouraged
states to develop systems that would make this information available
nationally.
BJS Is Developing a Tool for Measuring NCHIP Performance:
As mentioned previously, NCHIP's goal is to improve public safety by
enhancing the quality, completeness, and accessibility of the nation's
criminal history and sex offender record systems and the extent to
which such records can be used and analyzed for criminal justice and
authorized noncriminal justice purposes. To better measure progress
toward this goal, BJS is developing a tool--a criminal history records
quality index (RQI)--to uniformly characterize and monitor performance
across jurisdictions and over time. RQI is to be based on a series of
key indicators or outcome measures, such as the proportion of fully
automated criminal history records in a state's repository, the
proportion of court dispositions transmitted electronically to the
repository, and the extent to which the state submits data
electronically to the FBI. According to BJS, RQI will be used to assess
the progress of records quality at both the state and national levels,
identify critical records improvement activities by pinpointing areas
of deficiency and permit BJS to target specific problems and
deficiencies for allocating future funding at the individual state
level.
After RQI is operationalized, BJS plans to begin using it for NCHIP
funding decisions. Initial RQI development--and pilot testing in 10
states--was completed in 2003. As of January 2004, according to BJS,
collection of the underlying RQI measures data from the other 46
jurisdictions (40 states, the District of Columbia, the 5 U.S.
territories) was still ongoing. BJS hopes to receive RQI data
submissions from all jurisdictions by April 30, 2004.
Various Factors Are Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in
Debating the Future of NCHIP:
One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when
debating the future of NCHIP is the extent of cumulative progress (and
shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems that cover
all needed types of information. While states have made progress, more
work remains. For NICS-related purposes, as discussed previously,
automated information is not always widely available on the disposition
of felony and other potentially disqualifying arrests, nor on other
prohibited purchasers, such as persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence. Another relevant factor to consider is that the
demand for background checks is growing, with increases in recent years
driven by screening requirements for employment and other noncriminal
justice purposes. Furthermore, technology is not static, which
necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated systems for
them to remain functional.
Progress Has Been Made, but More Work Remains:
As discussed previously, much progress has been made in automating
records in recent years. On the other hand, some areas reflect a
continuing need for improvements. For instance, the availability of and
access to arrest disposition information--necessary for timely presale
background checks of persons purchasing firearms--continues to be
problematic. Such information is important for preventing or minimizing
the sale of firearms by "default proceed." That is, by statute, if a
background check is not completed within 3 business days, the sale of
the firearm is allowed to proceed by default, sometimes to prohibited
persons.
In 2000, we reported that default proceeds occurred primarily due to a
lack of arrest dispositions in states' automated criminal history
records and that many of these transactions involved individuals--2,519
purchasers during a 10-month period--who were later determined by the
FBI to be prohibited persons.[Footnote 19] We further reported that
firearms being transferred to prohibited persons presented public
safety risks and placed resource demands on law enforcement agencies in
retrieving the firearms. More recently, according to the FBI, over one-
third (1,203) of the total 3,259 firearms retrieved in 2002 by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives occurred because
disposition information for felony arrests could not be determined
within 3 days.[Footnote 20]
Another one-third (1,052) of the total retrievals in 2002 involved
background checks whereby FBI examiners were unable to timely determine
from available records that misdemeanor assault convictions involved
domestic violence. A national system for domestic violence misdemeanor
records is not available (see table 4). To further support NICS, table
4 also indicates that there is still much opportunity for improving the
availability of records regarding persons who have been adjudicated as
mentally defective and persons who are unlawful users of controlled
substances.
Additional examples (not exhaustive) of opportunities for further
progress in automating records and/or enhancing national systems
include the following:
* 5 states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Vermont), the
District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands)
still do not participate in III;
* 7 states (Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, Virginia,
and West Virginia), the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories
(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico) have
not contributed any data to the NCIC Protection Order File; and:
* 6 states (Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Nevada Vermont, and Wyoming)
and 2 U.S. territories (Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico) have
not submitted any files electronically to IAFIS.
Demand on Systems Is Increasing, Especially for Noncriminal Justice
Purposes:
In debating the future of NCHIP, another relevant factor for
policymakers to consider is that the demand for background checks is
growing, with increases in recent years driven by screening
requirements for employment and other noncriminal justice purposes.
Generally, background checks for these "civil" purposes are based on
fingerprint submissions--in contrast to the "name-based" searches
conducted under NICS. The number of civil fingerprint submissions to
the FBI has increased substantially in recent years. As figure 2 shows,
for 5 of the 7 years during 1996 to 2002, the number of civil
fingerprint submissions exceeded the number of criminal fingerprint
submissions (i.e., fingerprints of criminal suspects or arrestees). In
the most recent year (2002), civil fingerprint submissions totaled 9.1
million, whereas criminal fingerprint submissions totaled 8.4 million.
Figure 2: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil Fingerprint Submissions
Received by the FBI (fiscal years 1992 through 2002):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The growth in civil fingerprint submissions is partly attributable to
1993 federal legislation that encouraged states to have procedures
requiring fingerprint-based national searches of criminal history
records of individuals seeking paid or volunteer positions with
organizations serving children, the elderly, or the disabled.[Footnote
21] As of February 2004, according to BJS, 47 states had enacted
legislation authorizing these record checks.
Further, in 2003, federal legislation was enacted that establishes, in
general, a pilot program in 3 states to conduct fingerprint-based
background checks on individuals seeking volunteer positions involving
interactions with children.[Footnote 22] Within 6 months of the date of
the 2003 Act's enactment, the Attorney General is to conduct a
feasibility study to determine, among other things, the number of
background checks that would be required if the pilot were implemented
nationwide and the impact these additional checks might have on the FBI
and IAFIS. If this pilot program is implemented nationally, BJS
officials estimate that millions of additional background checks would
be required annually.
Homeland security concerns are another factor that has increased the
demand for fingerprint-based background checks. Since the events of
September 11, 2001, Congress passed legislation to protect the nation
from future terrorist attacks. These laws require that individuals
employed in sensitive positions undergo background checks to qualify
for employment. FBI and BJS officials expect the number of applicant
background checks to be in the millions, as homeland defense laws are
fully implemented. Examples of federal homeland defense legislation and
the number of checks anticipated follow:
* USA PATRIOT Act of 2001[Footnote 23]--Requires background checks on
commercially licensed drivers who transport hazardous
materials.[Footnote 24] Officials from the FBI's Criminal Justice
Information Services Division estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000
individuals held commercial licenses at the time the USA PATRIOT Act
was passed. Under the act, license renewals, in addition to new
licensees, will need background checks to qualify for commercial
licenses.
* Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001[Footnote 25]--
Requires background checks of those individuals in security screener
positions or other positions such as those with unescorted access to
aircraft or secured areas of an airport. New background checks are
required for those employees already hired at the time of the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act's passage as well as for individuals
seeking employment. This act further requires background checks of
foreigners seeking enrollment in flight schools. The Transportation
Security Administration has requested over 105,365 background checks
since passage of the act in November 2001. In addition to these checks,
FBI officials estimated that flight school checks alone could result in
up to 50,000 fingerprint checks annually.
* Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 2002[Footnote 26]--Requires the Attorney General to conduct
background on persons possessing, using, or transferring various toxins
and biological agents. FBI officials estimated that this law could
result in 30,000 checks annually.
Technology Is Not Static:
Another factor for consideration is that technology is not static and
can change rapidly, which necessitates periodic upgrades or
replacements of automated systems. For example, 1 case-study state used
fiscal year 1995 NCHIP funds to purchase Livescan equipment for its
major metropolitan areas. According to state officials, this equipment
is now outdated and fiscal year 2003 NCHIP funds will be used to
purchase new equipment. According to state officials, the 1995 machines
will be retained for installation in other areas, such as the state's
less populous or more rural counties.
Another relevant factor is how long-term funding needs will be met.
Replacing outdated equipment and automating records can be expensive.
States advocate that steady or long-term funding streams are important
for implementing technological advances. In this regard, states do not
rely entirely on NCHIP grants for system improvements. That is, states
view NCHIP funding as "seed" or supplemental money and contribute from
their own coffers to fund these upgrades. For instance, as noted
previously, officials in the case-study states told us that their
states typically have invested much more than the 10 percent matching
funds required by NCHIP.
Conclusions:
The overarching goal of NCHIP--building a national infrastructure to
facilitate the interstate exchange of criminal history and other
relevant records--is important for many purposes. Without such an
infrastructure, individuals who are, in fact, prohibited but whose
records are inaccessible, or do not reflect such a prohibition may be
allowed to purchase firearms, creating safety concerns not only for the
general public, but also for the law enforcement officials responsible
for retrieving these firearms after the prohibited status is
ascertained. Further, inaccurate, incomplete, or inaccessible records
and systems do not help to prevent persons who have been convicted of
crimes to be hired in paid or volunteer positions with organizations
serving children, the elderly, or the disabled, putting these
populations at risk for abuse or worse. Also, accurate, complete, and
accessible records and systems are necessary to respond to the needs
and requirements of homeland security and to avert terrorism,
particularly with respect to individuals employed in sensitive
positions.
Since its initiation in 1995, NCHIP has provided more than $438 million
in federal grants nationwide. Using their own funds, as well as NCHIP
and other federal grants, states have made much progress in automating
their records and making them accessible nationally by conforming with
the FBI's standards for applicable national data systems--such as NICS,
NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Continued progress toward establishing and
sustaining a national infrastructure inherently will involve a
partnering of federal, state, and local resources and long-term
commitments from all governmental levels.
Agency Comments:
On January 28, 2004, we provided a draft of this report for comment to
the Department of Justice. In a response letter, dated February 13,
2004, the Assistant Attorney General (Office of Justice Programs)
commented that the report fairly and accurately described NCHIP, its
accomplishments, and the continued need to promote state and local
participation in national criminal history records systems. Also, the
Assistant Attorney General commented that the following issues
mentioned in the report should be highlighted:
Given limited resources, it is important to draw the distinction
between old and new arrest records with respect to disposition
coverage. BJS has always emphasized to the states the importance of
making certain that records of recent criminal activity were updated
and compatible with FBI standards.
In many cases, state laws prohibit sharing mental health information
because of confidentiality and doctor-patient privacy laws. The
strategy for the FBI, and one which BJS has encouraged the states to
use, has been to utilize the Denied Persons File in the NICS Index
where the reason for denial of a firearm purchase is not given unless
the denial is appealed.
Most states do not fingerprint misdemeanants, and misdemeanor assault
charges rarely specify the victim-offender relationship (unless
domestic violence is specifically charged). BJS has given strong
direction to the states to set flags on the records of persons known to
have a conviction for domestic violence.
No state has a central registry of active drug users or addicts. It
will be challenging to develop such registries and to keep them
current.
In perspective, the number of problematic firearms sales--that is,
default proceeds that result in a need to retrieve firearms from
prohibited purchasers--is very small compared to the 8 million to 9
million background checks conducted each year.
RQI, a metric developed by BJS, is a major step forward and may provide
a significant opportunity for evaluating performance over time and
establishing a basis for targeting future assistance to state and local
participants in federal funding programs.
The full text of the Assistant Attorney General's letter is presented
in appendix V.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to interested congressional committees and subcommittees.
We will also make copies available to others on request. In addition,
this report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to
discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or
Danny Burton at (214) 777-5600. Other key contributors to this report
are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Laurie E. Ekstrand:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
As requested by the Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, our
overall objective was to broadly review the National Criminal History
Improvement Program (NCHIP). Managed by the Department of Justice's
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), NCHIP is a federal grant program to
build a national infrastructure to facilitate the interstate exchange
of criminal history and other relevant records--that is, to improve the
accuracy, completeness, and accessibility of records used by various
national systems. One of the primary systems is the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is managed by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and is used to conduct presale
background checks of persons purchasing firearms. As agreed with the
requester's office, this report presents information on:
* how states have used NCHIP grant funds, particularly the extent to
which they have been used by states for NICS-related purposes;
* the progress--using NCHIP grants and other funding sources--that states
have made in automating criminal history and other relevant records and
making them accessible nationally; and:
* the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers
in debating the future of NCHIP.
Regarding the use of NCHIP grant funds, as further agreed with the
requester's office, this report also presents information on (1) the
use of such funds by the priority states [Footnote 27] and their
progress in automating records and (2) whether any of the 50 states
have used NCHIP funds to develop or implement a ballistics registration
system--that is, a system that stores digital images of the markings
made on bullets and cartridge casings when firearms are discharged.
Scope and Methodology:
In addressing the objectives, to the extent possible, we focused on
obtaining national or programwide perspectives. For example, we
reviewed BJS's biennial national survey data or reports on the
automation status of all states' criminal history records. Further, we
interviewed NCHIP managers at BJS and NICS managers at the FBI's
Criminal Justice Information Services Division (Clarksburg, W. Va.).
Also, we reviewed BJS program documentation that describes allowable
NCHIP spending activities. In addition, given that NCHIP consolidates
criminal records improvement funding authorized by various federal
laws, we reviewed these laws, such as the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act,[Footnote 28] and related legislative histories.
Also, to provide supplemental or more in-depth perspectives, we
conducted case studies of 5 recipient states (California, Maryland,
Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia). We selected these states to
reflect a range of various factors or considerations--the amounts of
grant funding received, status of NICS participation, and levels of
automation, as well as to encompass different geographic areas of the
nation (see table 5).
Table 5: Five States Selected for Case Studies of Use of NCHIP Funds:
Selected states: California;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions):
$32.9;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 1;
NICS participation status[A]: Full Participant;
Priority state: No.
Selected states: Maryland;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions):
$7.4;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 20;
NICS participation status[A]: Partial participant;
Priority state: No.
Selected states: Mississippi;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions):
$5.9;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 29;
NICS participation status[A]: Nonparticipant;
Priority state: Yes.
Selected states: Texas;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions):
$22.9;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 3;
NICS participation status[A]: Nonparticipant;
Priority state: No.
Selected states: West Virginia;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions):
$5.4;
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 35;
NICS participation status[A]: Nonparticipant;
Priority state: Yes.
Source: GAO analysis of BJS and FBI information.
[A] Regarding the status of NICS participation, the FBI categorizes
states as follows: (1) Full participant states are those where a
designated state agency conducts background checks of persons
purchasing any firearm, both handguns and long guns; (2) partial
participant states designate a state agency to conduct presale
background checks for handgun purchases, with the FBI conducting
background checks for long gun purchases; and (3) nonparticipant states
are those where the FBI conducts presale background checks for
purchases of both handguns and long guns. Sometimes, these categories
are referred to as point-of-contact states, partial point-of-contact
states, and FBI states, respectively.
[End of table]
How States Have Used NCHIP Grant Funds, Including NICS-Related
Purposes:
To obtain an overview of how all jurisdictions (the 50 states, District
of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories) have used NCHIP grant funds, we
requested that BJS provide us information on total awards for each of
the 4 most recent fiscal years (2000 through 2003)--with the amounts
disaggregated into applicable spending categories. Generally, NCHIP
spending can be grouped into six spending categories: (1) NICS/
Interstate Identification Index (III)[Footnote 29]/criminal records
improvements, (2) disposition reporting improvements,[Footnote 30] (3)
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)/Livescan
activities,[Footnote 31] (4) sex offender registry enhancements, (5)
protection order activities, and (6) national security/antiterrorism
activities. In cases where expenditures could be included in more than
one category, BJS judgmentally selected the category that was the most
descriptive of the activity.
We reviewed BJS documentation and interviewed BJS officials to
determine which of these spending categories involved NICS-related
purposes. In addition, we analyzed the spending category information in
reference to the 50 states' participation status in NICS (full
participant, partial participant, or nonparticipant) to determine any
general differences in the types of NCHIP-funded projects undertaken.
Similarly, we analyzed the spending category information to determine
how the 5 priority states had used NCHIP grant funds (see app. IV).
For more in-depth perspectives, we reviewed data on the use of NCHIP
grant funds by the 5 states we selected for case studies.
Preliminarily, we reviewed information in grant files maintained by the
Office of the Comptroller (a component of the Department of Justice's
Office of Justice Programs). Then, we visited each of the 5 states and
interviewed state officials responsible for NCHIP-funded projects. At
our request, using definitions provided by BJS, the officials grouped
their respective state's grant awards into applicable spending
categories (see app. III). For some NCHIP-funded activities, officials
in the case-study states indicated that expenditures could be included
in more than one category. In these cases, based on input from state
officials, we selected the category that was most descriptive of the
activity. For each of the case-study states, these spending category
analyses covered NCHIP grant awards for fiscal year 1995 (when the
program was initiated) through fiscal year 2002 (the most current data
available at the time of our visits).
Regarding ballistics registration systems, we interviewed NCHIP
managers to determine if NCHIP guidelines allow NCHIP funds to be used
to develop and implement such systems and, if so, the extent to which
states have used or are planning to use NCHIP funds for this purpose.
In addition, in visiting the 5 case-study states, we asked state
officials if NCHIP money had been or would be used to develop and
implement ballistics registration systems.
States' Progress in Automating Records and Making Them Accessible
Nationally:
We reviewed BJS's biennial survey data and/or reports (for 1993, 1995,
1997, 1999, and 2001) on the automation status of states' criminal
history records. We contacted BJS managers to clarify (when necessary)
the survey data and discuss automation progress, including the
contributing roles played by NCHIP and other federal grants and by the
states' use of their own funds. Further, we reviewed BJS and FBI
information regarding the progress of states in making criminal history
and other relevant records accessible nationally by, for example,
conforming with the FBI's standards for national data systems--
including, as applicable, NICS, the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC), III, and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (IAFIS). Also, in each of the 5 case-study states, we discussed
these issues with state officials.
Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in Debating the Future of
NCHIP:
To determine various factors that are relevant considerations for
policymakers in debating the future of NCHIP, we interviewed NCHIP and
NICS managers, as well as officials in the 5 case-study states. We also
contacted officials from other organizations, such as SEARCH (The
National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics) and the
American Prosecutors Research Institute. Further, we relied on insights
gained in addressing the objectives of this work.
Data Reliability:
To assess the reliability of BJS's data (by spending category) on NCHIP
funds awarded to all jurisdictions for fiscal years 2000 through 2003
(see table 1) and to the 5 case-study states for fiscal years 1995
through 2002 (see tables 6 through 11), we:
* reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources,
* electronically tested the data to identify obvious problems with
completeness or accuracy, and:
* interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data.
We determined that the NCHIP funds data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report.
To assess the reliability of data reported by BJS based on its biennial
surveys of state criminal history information systems for 1993, 1995,
1997, 1999, and 2001, we (1) reviewed the published survey results and
(2) interviewed officials knowledgeable about the surveys. We
determined that the biennial survey data were sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems:
BJS strives to create national criminal history records systems that
contain accurate, complete, and accessible information. To accomplish
this, since 1995, BJS has awarded approximately $438 million in NCHIP
grants to states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories to
help these jurisdictions improve their records and establish automated
capabilities that enhance participation in national criminal history
records systems.
Each state operates a central criminal history records repository that
receives information regarding individuals' criminal histories from a
number of sources throughout the state, including state and local law
enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies.
For each individual, the repository compiles the information from these
sources into a comprehensive criminal history record for that person.
These records are commonly referred to as "rap sheets." By means of
statewide telecommunications systems, the repositories make these
records available to criminal justice personnel for authorized
purposes, such as pretrial release and sentencing decisions. The
repositories also provide criminal history records for authorized
noncriminal justice purposes. For example, with increasing frequency,
state and federal laws are requiring local law enforcement agencies to
conduct criminal history background checks on persons seeking
employment in sensitive positions (such as child and elder care) and
for occupational license authorizations.
The FBI has historically maintained criminal history record files on
all federal offenders and on state offenders to the extent that states
voluntarily submit state criminal history information. The FBI also
maintains a nationwide telecommunications system that enables federal,
state, and local criminal justice agencies to conduct national record
searches and to obtain criminal justice related-information, for
example, about individuals who are arrested and prosecuted in other
states. Criminal record services are also provided to noncriminal
justice agencies authorized by federal law to obtain such records.
The practice of maintaining duplicative state offender records at both
the state and federal levels is being replaced by efforts to build an
automated infrastructure that will make all criminal history records
accessible nationally. To fully participate in the national systems
that are to comprise this infrastructure, a jurisdiction must have an
automated criminal history record system that meets FBI standards for
participation. For example, the state's automated system must be
compatible with the federal systems and be capable of responding
automatically to requests for records. The principal national, federal
systems are discussed in the following paragraphs.
NCIC:
Prior to 1967, the FBI's criminal history records were manual files. In
1967, the FBI established NCIC, an automated, nationally accessible
database of criminal justice and justice-related records. NCIC provides
automated information on wanted and missing persons, as well as
identifiable stolen property, such as vehicles and firearms. Each state
has a central control terminal operator, who is connected to NCIC
through a dedicated telecommunications line maintained by the FBI.
Authorized local agencies use their state's law enforcement
telecommunications network to access NCIC through the respective
operator. An investigator can obtain information on wanted and missing
persons and stolen property by requesting a search by name or other
nonfingerprint-based identification. Information provided can include
graphics, such as mug shots, pictures of tattoos, and signatures in a
paperless, electronic format. Using this system, an investigator can
also perform searches for "sound alike" names, such as "Knowles" for
"Nowles." The system has an enhanced feature for searching all
derivatives of names, such as Jeff, Geoff, Jeffrey. NCIC includes the
National Sex Offender Registry and a Protection Order File (discussed
later). NCIC data may be provided only for criminal justice and other
specifically authorized purposes. For example, authorized purposes
include presale firearms checks, as well as checks on potential
employees of criminal justice agencies, federally chartered or insured
banks or securities firms, and state and local governments.
III:
Maintained by the FBI, the III system is an interstate, federal-state
computer network, which currently provides the means of conducting
national criminal history record searches to determine whether a person
has a criminal record anywhere in the country. This system is designed
to tie the automated criminal history records databases of state
central repositories and the FBI together into a national system by
means of an "index-pointer" approach. The FBI maintains an
identification index of persons arrested for felonies or serious
misdemeanors under state or federal law. The index includes
identification information (such as name, date of birth, race, and
sex), FBI numbers, and state identification numbers from each state
holding information about the individual. Criminal justice agencies
nationwide can transmit search inquiries based on name or other
identifiers automatically through state law enforcement
telecommunications networks and the FBI's NCIC telecommunications
lines. According to the FBI, the III system responds to search
inquiries within seconds. If the search results in a "hit," the system
automatically requests records using the applicable FBI and state
identification numbers, and each repository holding information on the
individual forwards its records to the requesting agency. The FBI
provides responses for states that are not yet participants in III.
NICS:
Under Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requirements, the FBI
established NICS to provide instant background checks of individuals
applying to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers. Federal
law prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm by any person who
(1) has been convicted of a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding
1 year, (2) is a fugitive from justice, (3) is an unlawful user of
controlled substances, (4) has been adjudicated as mental defective,
(5) is an illegal or unlawful alien, (6) has been discharged
dishonorably from the armed forces, (7) has renounced his or her U.S.
citizenship, (8) has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence, or (9) is subject to certain domestic violence protection
orders.[Footnote 32]
The three primary, component databases searched by NICS are III, NCIC
(including the Protection Order File and a file of active felony or
misdemeanor warrants), and the NICS Index. This third database was
created solely for presale background checks of firearms purchasers and
contains disqualifying information contributed by local, state, and
federal agencies. For example, the database contains information on
individuals who are prohibited from purchasing firearms because they
are aliens unlawfully in the United States, are persons who have
renounced their U.S. citizenship, have been adjudicated as mental
defectives, have been committed to a mental institution, have been
dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, or are unlawful users of
or addicted to controlled substances.
National Sex Offender Registry:
The FBI established the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) to enable
state sex offender information to be obtained and tracked from one
jurisdiction to another. In 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against
Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (the Jacob
Wetterling Act) required that states create sex offender registries
within 3 years or lose some of their federal grant funds.[Footnote 33]
The law further provided that--when any offender convicted of
committing a criminal sexual act against a minor or committing any
sexually violent offense--is released from custody or supervision into
the community, he or she must register with law enforcement agencies
for a period of 10 years. The act was amended in 1996[Footnote 34] to
require the FBI to establish a NSOR and to register and verify
addresses of sex offenders when a state's registry does not meet the
minimum compliance standards required by the Jacob Wetterling Act.
According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, all 50 states currently
have sex offender registration laws, and all states require a
registration period of at least 10 years, with some states requiring
lifetime registration.[Footnote 35] State registry information
typically includes the offender's name, address, Social Security
number, date of birth, physical description, photograph, and
fingerprints. NSOR is a component of NCIC that serves as a pointer
system to identify a sex offender's records in the III system. When
agencies request authorized fingerprint-based criminal history
background checks, NSOR will flag the subjects who are registered sex
offenders.
NCIC Protection Order File:
The FBI established the Protection Order File in 1997 to provide a
repository for protection order records. The purpose of this NCIC
component is to permit interstate enforcement of protection orders and
the denial of firearms transfers to individuals who are the subjects of
court protection orders. Such orders include civil and criminal court
orders issued to prevent a person from committing violent, threatening,
or harassing acts against another individual. A protection order can
preclude the person from contacting, communicating with, and being in
physical proximity to a named individual. State and federal law
enforcement agencies can submit protection orders to the NCIC
Protection Order File.[Footnote 36]
IAFIS:
In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFIS, a computerized system for storing,
comparing, and exchanging digitized fingerprint data. Most fingerprint
data submitted to IAFIS originate when a local or state law enforcement
agency arrests a suspect. At that time, the agency takes the suspect's
fingerprints manually (using ink and paper fingerprint cards) or
electronically (using optical scanning equipment). The agency forwards
a copy of the fingerprints--along with nonbiometric data such as name
and age--through its state repository to the FBI. Electronic
submissions are automatically entered into IAFIS, and paper submissions
sent through the mail are scanned into an electronic format for entry.
When a set of fingerprints is submitted, IAFIS searches for a prior
entry in the system that matches the suspect's nonbiometric personal
identifying data. If a prior entry is not found, the system compares
the submitted fingerprints with those previously stored in the
computer's memory to determine if the suspect has an entry under
another name. This information can be used for a number of purposes,
including positively identifying arrestees to prevent the premature
release of suspects who use false names and are wanted in other
jurisdictions. To support crime scene investigations, the system can
also compare a full or partial fingerprint from a crime scene with the
prints stored in the database to identify a suspect.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States:
This appendix presents information about the use of NCHIP funds by 5
case-study states--California, Maryland, Mississippi, Texas, and West
Virginia--for fiscal years 1995 through 2002. As mentioned previously,
we selected these states to reflect a range of factors or
considerations--that is, the amounts of grant funding received, status
of NICS participation, and levels of automation, as well as to
encompass different geographic areas of the nation (see app. I).
NCHIP funding amounts can be grouped into six categories of spending
established by BJS to track the use of program funds. These six
categories are (1) NICS/III/criminal records improvements, (2)
disposition reporting improvements, (3) AFIS/Livescan activities, (4)
sex offender registry enhancements, (5) protection order activities,
and (6) national security/antiterrorism activities.[Footnote 37]
Overview of 5 States' Use of NCHIP Funds:
Table 6 shows that since the inception of NCHIP in 1995, 4 of the 5
case-study states have devoted the majority of their grant awards for
the first two BJS spending categories--NICS/III/criminal records
improvements and disposition reporting improvements. Expenditures in
the first category include overall system upgrades, equipment
purchases, database development, and other activities required to bring
states in compliance with FBI standards so that the states may
participate in national systems maintained by the FBI. Expenditures in
the second category include efforts to automate disposition records and
provide linkages for reporting these records to the state's central
records repository. Maryland, the only case-study state that did not
devote the majority of its funds to the first two categories, still
allocated nearly half (48 percent) of its total grant awards for these
two areas. Maryland devoted a large amount (40 percent) of its NCHIP
funding to AFIS/Livescan activities, as did Texas (45 percent).
Table 6: Overview of Case-Study States' Use of NCHIP Funds by Spending
Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002:
Total NCHIP award amounts (in millions);
Case-Study States: California: $29.9;
Case-Study States: Maryland: $6.8;
Case-Study States: Mississippi: $5.3;
Case-Study States: Texas: $19.5;
Case-Study States: West Virginia: $4.7;
Case-Study States: Total: $66.2.
NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
NICS/III/criminal records improvements;
Case-Study States: California: 66;
Case-Study States: Maryland: 36;
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 76;
Case-Study States: Texas: 52;
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 50;
Case-Study States: Total: 58.
NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
Disposition reporting improvements;
Case-Study States: California: 13;
Case-Study States: Maryland: 12;
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 8;
Case-Study States: Texas: 2;
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 35;
Case-Study States: Total: 11.
NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
AFIS/Livescan activities;
Case-Study States: California: 13;
Case- Study States: Maryland: 40;
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 5;
Case- Study States: Texas: 45;
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 9;
Case- Study States: Total: 24.
NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
Sex offender registry enhancements;
Case-Study States: California: 9;
Case-Study States: Maryland: 8;
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 11;
Case-Study States: Texas: 1;
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 5;
Case- Study States: Total: 6.
NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
Protection order activities;
Case-Study States: California: 0;
Case- Study States: Maryland: 3;
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 0;
Case- Study States: Texas: 0;
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 1;
Case-Study States: Total: 0.
NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
National security/antiterrorism activities;
Case-Study States: California: 0;
Case-Study States: Maryland: 0;
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 0;
Case-Study States: Texas: 0;
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 0;
Case-Study States: Total: 0.
Total;
Case-Study States: California: 100;
Case-Study States: Maryland: 100;
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 100;
Case-Study States: Texas: 100;
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 100;
Case-Study States: Total: 100.
Source: BJS and state data.
Note: The data are based on amounts reported by case-study state
officials. For some NCHIP-funded activities, officials in the case-
study states indicated that expenditures could be included in more than
one category. In these cases, based on input from state officials, we
judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the
activity. Details may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[A] Case-study state numbers represent percent of dollars spent for
each state.
[End of table]
For all 5 case-study states, the NCHIP funding detailed in table 6
represented "seed" or "catalyst" money and, therefore, accounted for
only a portion of the total criminal records improvement spending. For
example, according to California officials, state resources accounted
for 85 percent of records improvement funding in California during
fiscal year 2002-03. The remaining 15 percent consisted of NCHIP grants
(6 percent) and other federal sources (approximately 9 percent). Three
of the other 4 states provided data indicating that NCHIP grants
accounted for less than a majority of the criminal records improvement
funding in the respective state.
More details on each case-study state's use of NCHIP funds are
presented in the following sections.
California:
During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded California a total
of $29.9 million in NCHIP funds--the most of any state. As shown in
table 7, California allocated approximately two-thirds (66 percent) of
its NCHIP awards for NICS/III/criminal records improvements. For
example, the state devoted over $4.9 million of program funds to
projects for converting manual fingerprint and palm print cards to an
electronic format and matching records maintained by the FBI's III
system to those maintained by the state repository. According to
California officials, these efforts will improve overall criminal
record keeping and benefit NICS by improving the state's response to
queries on prospective gun purchasers.
Table 7: California NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995
through 2002:
NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Matching of III and state records;
* Reviewing manual criminal and applicant records up to 5 years old and
adding any criminal activity to the automated system;
* Converting manual fingerprint cards to automated format;
* Flagging of each automated criminal record with firearms
qualification status;
* Programming to provide non-U.S. citizen background checks for
firearms purchases;
* Automating fingerprint/arrest records from the Department of
Corrections;
* Providing electronic access to booking photos;
* Paying miscellaneous staff costs;
* Conducting other activities (acquiring hardware and software,
performing programming tasks, upgrading and enhancing systems, linking
data, etc.);
Grant award amounts by spending category: $19,586,722;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 66.
NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Automating disposition reporting from courts to the central
repository;
* Updating automated criminal records with missing dispositions from
manual records;
* Assisting county courts report dispositions by magnetic tape;
* Developing pilot project to provide real-time, automated reporting of
court dispositions to the central repository;
* Developing pilot project for courts to place thumbprints on
disposition documents for proper identification;
* Conducting other activities (acquiring hardware, etc.);
Grant award amounts by spending category: 3,899,414;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 13.
NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Purchasing Livescan devices for juvenile facilities, the courts, and
law enforcement agencies;
* Updating AFIS to support increased workload due to full
implementation of electronic transmission;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 3,798,000;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 13.
NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Improving California's sex offender registry database, in addition to
programming and interface efforts to allow reporting to the FBI's
national registry;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 2,599,958;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 9.
NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* No projects in this category;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* No projects in this category;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: Total;
Grant award amounts by spending category: $29,884,094;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100.
Source: BJS and state data.
Note: Details do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Officials also said that the state has used NCHIP funds to improve the
reporting of case dispositions to the state's central repository. For
example, officials have used program funds to improve disposition
reporting in the 28 counties that represent 70 percent of the
disposition volume for the entire state. As a result, these 28 counties
report 100 percent of their dispositions to the state central
repository via a magnetic tape batch process occurring three times a
week. In addition, California officials are conducting an NCHIP-funded
pilot project in one county to test the feasibility of moving to a
real-time updating system for disposition reporting rather than the
current batching approach.
Maryland:
During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded Maryland $6.8
million in NCHIP funds. As shown in table 8, Maryland allocated the
largest percentage (40 percent or $2.7 million) of its NCHIP awards for
AFIS/Livescan activities. This category, together with NICS/III/
criminal records improvement, accounted for over three-fourths (76
percent) of the state's use of NCHIP funds. Regarding the first
category in table 8, Maryland devoted a sizeable portion of its NCHIP
award ($1.2 million) to make the state's automated systems compatible
with the FBI's NCIC database, which was updated and expanded in 2000.
In addition, Maryland is using nearly $200,000 of program funds to
convert over 700,000 historical arrest records (older than October
1998) to a format compatible with the FBI's III system. This effort
will make older records accessible to the FBI, which will improve NICS
background checks. In the category of disposition reporting, Maryland
has also implemented a $360,000 NCHIP project to automate reporting
from the courts (including case dispositions) to the central records
repository on a daily basis. Maryland currently reports dispositions
from courts to the state's central records repository through weekly
magnetic tape updates.
Table 8: Maryland NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through
2002:
NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Converting older arrest records to III format to make them available
nationally;
* Developing audit program to identify missing criminal history records
and making them available to III;
* Implementing updates in Maryland to support the FBI's NCIC system;
* Conducting other activities (conducting design studies and system
audits, training, paying indirect costs, etc.);
Grant award amounts by spending category: $2,460,142;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 36.
NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Developing automated capabilities for the courts to electronically
transmit dispositions and other court data to the state's central
repository;
* Researching disposition requests received from the FBI for NICS
checks (Maryland State Archives);
Grant award amounts by spending category: 829,013;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 12.
NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Upgrading the state's AFIS;
* Establishing arrest booking system workstations (including Livescan
devices) at local jurisdictions;
* Establishing a system for transmitting fingerprint card images
electronically from local jurisdictions to the central repository;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 2,743,428;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 41.
NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Automating Maryland's sex offender registry;
* Studying the feasibility of placing the state's sex offender registry
on the Internet;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 521,277;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 8.
NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Entering protection orders (manually) into state database;
* Providing statewide entry of warrant data (to include protection
orders) by state police;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 224,219;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 3.
NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* No projects in this category;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: Total;
Grant award amounts by spending category: $6,778,079;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100.
Source: BJS and state data.
[End of table]
For purposes of NICS, Maryland is a partial participant state. That is,
a designated state agency (Maryland State Police) conducts background
checks for handgun purchases, whereas the FBI conducts such checks for
long gun purchases. For both types of firearms purchases (handguns and
long guns), another state agency (Maryland State Archives) provides
support (researching the disposition results of arrests) for criminal
history records generated before 1982. In fiscal year 2002, the
Maryland State Archives received $41,000 in NCHIP funds to conduct
disposition research for NICS queries from the FBI. Earlier, due to a
lack of state funding, this state agency had discontinued such research
for a period of approximately 3-1/2 months (March 18 to July 2, 2002).
According to Maryland and BJS officials, the $41,000 award in 2002 was
the first distribution of NCHIP funds to the Maryland State Archives
since the inception of the grant program.
Mississippi:
As shown in table 9, for fiscal years 1995 through 2002, Mississippi
allocated approximately three-fourths (76 percent) of its NCHIP funds
for projects in the category of NICS/III/criminal records improvements.
NCHIP projects in this category centered on creation of and support for
the state's computerized criminal history database.
Table 9: Mississippi NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995
through 2002:
NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Working with the vendor to provide systems support for the state's
computerized criminal history database;
* Correcting the state's data and making other changes to the data and
software mandated by state and federal laws, policies, and procedures;
* Providing hardware/software for the computerized criminal history
database;
* Conducting other activities (paying travel expenses, purchasing
supplies, automating backlogged manual records, etc.);
Grant award amounts by spending category: $4,071,636;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 76.
NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Acquiring hardware/software for automated disposition reporting;
* Developing disposition reporting system for prosecutors;
* Purchasing workstations for court clerks;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 405,000;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 8.
NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Purchasing Livescan devices for local and state agencies;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 284,540;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 5.
NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Providing hardware and software for the state's sex offender
registry;
* Working with consultants to design, test, implement, and support the
sex offender registry;
* Conducting other activities (e.g., purchasing supplies and providing
copier support);
Grant award amounts by spending category: 581,620;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 11.
NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* No projects in this category;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* No projects in this category;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: Total;
Grant fund uses by spending category: [Empty];
Grant award amounts by spending category: $5,342,796;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100.
[End of table]
Source: BJS and state data.
According to state officials, prior to the rollout of the state's new
automated criminal history database in March 1998, Mississippi was
without any type of arrest record automation. After the rollout,
Mississippi was one of fewer than 10 states with an automated system
whereby every arrest record was automatically associated with a
fingerprint record and made available to authorized inquirers across
the state and the nation. Mississippi officials told us that, without
NCHIP, this advance in records automation would not have been possible.
On the other hand, in responding to BJS's latest biennial survey
(2001), Mississippi reported that 3 percent of its automated criminal
records included final dispositions--the lowest among the responding
case-study states. However, as indicated in table 9, Mississippi is
using NCHIP funds for various projects to improve disposition
reporting.
Texas:
During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded Texas $19.5 million
in NCHIP funds--the third highest total among all states, behind only
California and New York. As shown in table 10, Texas allocated about
half (52 percent) of its NCHIP funds for NICS/III/criminal records
improvements. A significant project in this category is an ongoing
upgrade of the state's computerized criminal history system. According
to state officials, this upgrade will "rewrite" the system to meet new
demands and expectations. For example, the rewrite will allow Texas to
"flag" domestic violence misdemeanors (a category for prohibiting
firearms sales under NICS) at the arrest, prosecution, and court
levels.
Table 10: Texas NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through
2002:
NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Scanning old manual fingerprint cards into the state's automated
database for subsequent transmission to the FBI;
* Upgrading the state's computerized criminal history database to meet
new demands and expectations;
* Expanding the state's participation in the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (an FBI system designed to collect data and compile
comprehensive statistics on crime for use by law enforcement,
researchers, governmental planners, students of crime, and the general
public);
* Conducting other activities (updating state records in III, providing
file storage for incomplete criminal data, etc.);
Grant award amounts by spending category: $10,095,000;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 52.
NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Implementing pilot project in one county for the direct electronic
transmission of disposition data from the courts to the central
repository;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 400,000;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 2.
NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Purchasing Livescan devices for electronic reporting of arrest
records to the central repository;
* Upgrading state's automated fingerprint identification system;
* Conducting other activities (providing telecommunication lines,
purchasing hardware and software, etc.);
Grant award amounts by spending category: 8,827,155;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 45.
NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Developing the state's sex offender registry;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 185,075;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 1.
NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category: No projects in this category;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category: No projects in this category;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: Total;
Grant fund uses by spending category: [Empty];
Grant award amounts by spending category: $19,507,230[A];
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100%.
[End of table]
Source: BJS and state data.
[A] The total dollar amount reported by Texas state officials was
$534,045 less than the total award amount reported by BJS
($20,041,275). Texas and BJS officials attributed this difference to
two factors: (1) a $334,045 savings in the purchase of Livescan
equipment in year one and (2) a $200,000 savings in year five by hiring
temporary workers.
During this period, Texas also allocated 45 percent of its NICHIP funds
for AFIS/Livescan activities--the highest percentage for this category
among the 5 case-study states. To implement electronic reporting of
arrest data, Texas used NCHIP funds to purchase Livescan equipment for
placement in 4 major cities and 27 of the state's 254 counties.
According to Texas officials, these cities and counties account for a
majority of the state's total arrests.
Also, as shown in table 10, Texas allocated 2 percent of its NCHIP
awards for disposition reporting improvements--the lowest among the 5
case-study states. However, according to Texas officials, criminal case
disposition reporting is recognized as an area in need of improvement
and will be addressed by future projects funded by NCHIP. Also, as an
example of recent progress in Texas, BJS noted that NCHIP funds were
used to automate approximately 52,600 court disposition records from
Harris County--which includes Houston, the most populous city in Texas-
-for inclusion in the state's central repository.
West Virginia:
During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded West Virginia
approximately $4.7 million in NCHIP funds. As shown in table 11, West
Virginia allocated half of its NCHIP funds for NICS/III/criminal
records improvements. Also, the state allocated 35 percent for
disposition reporting improvements--the highest percentage for this
category among the 5 case-study states. The purpose of the ongoing
projects in this category is to automate the reporting of court data
(including case dispositions) to the state's central records
repository.
Table 11: West Virginia NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995
through 2002:
NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Reducing the backlog of manual criminal records submitted to the
state repository by adding these data to the automated database;
* Establishing a jail management information system for inmate
tracking;
* Conducting other activities (working with a contractor on records
improvement, providing a data quality audit, establishing an offense
code, purchasing software for jails, etc.);
Grant award amounts by spending category: $2,320,442;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 50.
NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Automating court records, including dispositions;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 1,644,378;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 35.
NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Purchasing Livescan devices for regional jails;
* Purchasing hardware and software for Livescan reporting to the
state's central repository;
* Conducting AFIS cost analysis/requirements study;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 419,762;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 9.
NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Upgrading the state's sex offender registry;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 236,744;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 5.
NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* Developing a database of domestic violence protection orders;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 41,660;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 1.
NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities;
Grant fund uses by spending category:
* No projects in this category;
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: Total;
Grant fund uses by spending category: [Empty];
Grant award amounts by spending category: $4,662,986[A];
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100.
[End of table]
Source: BJS and state data.
[A] The total dollar amount budgeted for NCHIP projects, as reported by
West Virginia officials, was $160,000 less than the total award amount
reported by BJS ($4,822,986). A state official told us that this
difference consisted of two components: (1) $60,000 not yet distributed
by the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety
(the agency designated to receive West Virginia's NCHIP funds) to the
state agency that was to spend these funds and (2) $100,000 deobligated
and returned to BJS.
According to its 2003 NCHIP grant application, West Virginia was the
last state to implement an AFIS. NCHIP funding assisted the state to
implement its system by financing a study to determine AFIS
requirements and costs. West Virginia officials noted that plans call
for placing Livescan equipment in each of the state's nine regional
jails, which are to be booking sites for all persons entering the
state's criminal justice system.
[End of section]
Appendix IV NCHIP Grants Contributed to Progress in Priority States;
No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems:
This appendix provides information on the 5 states that BJS identified
as having the lowest levels of criminal history record automation in
1994. Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia were
designated as priority states, making each eligible to receive an
additional $1 million in funding during NCHIP's first year. NCHIP was
tasked with implementing statutory grant provisions that required the
states with the lowest levels of criminal history record automation
receive priority funds from the program to give them some extra help in
automating their records. This additional funding for priority states
applied to only the first year of NCHIP grant awards.
Also, this appendix provides information about whether any of the 50
states have used NCHIP funds to develop or implement a ballistics
registration system--that is, a system that stores digital images of
the markings made on bullets and cartridge casings when firearms are
discharged.
Priority States' Use of NCHIP Grant Funds:
For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, table 12 shows that the priority
states allocated 70 percent of their NCHIP awards for NICS/III/criminal
records improvements and disposition reporting improvements. The
remaining 30 percent of the priority states' NCHIP award amounts was
allocated for AFIS/Livescan activities, sex offender registry
enhancements, and protection order activities. None of the priority
states allocated NCHIP award amounts for national security/
antiterrorism activities.
Table 12: Priority States Uses of NCHIP Funds by Spending Category,
Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003:
NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2000: $929,651;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2001: $998,910;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2002: $562,466;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2003: $860,983;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: $3,352,010;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 33.
NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2000: 647,346;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2001: 920,189;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2002: 1,019,070;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2003: 1,278,917;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 3,865,522;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 37.
NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2000: 317,080;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2001: 146,095;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2002: 550,557;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2003: 427,835;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 1,441,567;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 14.
NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2000: 574,637;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2001: 225,427;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2002: 186,036;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2003: 224,983;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 1,211,083;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 12.
NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2000: 158,807;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2001: 114,415;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2002: 70,557;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2003: 98,863;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 442,642;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 4.
NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism
activities[A];
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2000: Not applicable;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2001: Not applicable;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2002: 0;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2003: 0;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 0;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 0.
NCHIP spending category: Total;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2000: $2,627,521;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2001: $2,405,036;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2002: $2,388,686;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
2003: $2,891,581;
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year:
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: $10,312,824;
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 100%.
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of BJS data.
Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts to Maine,
Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia. The recipients
have not yet spent all of the funds awarded. There is overlap between
some of the categories, but funds for any given activity were included
in only one category and were not double counted. In cases where
expenditures could be included in more than one category, BJS
judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the
activity.
[A] BJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities
until 2002 (after the events of September 11, 2001).
Priority States' Progress in Automating Records:
The priority states have made progress in automating their criminal
history records. Prior to NCHIP, these states had approximately 1.4
million records in manual formats and very few automated records. By
2003, BJS estimated that these 5 states had over 1 million automated
records.
More specifically, as shown in table 13, biennial surveys of state
criminal history record repositories also indicate the priority states
have made progress in automating their records. For example, New Mexico
and Mississippi progressed from little or no automation in 1993 to 100
percent automation in 2001. The other priority states also have made
progress in automating their records but have not yet achieved full
automation.
Table 13: Trend in Automation Status of Priority States' Criminal
History Files:
Priority state.
Maine;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 0;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: 0;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 0;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 43;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: 34[A].
Mississippi;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 7;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: Not reported[B];
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 7;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 100;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: 100.
New Mexico;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 0;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: 100;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 100;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 93 c;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: 100.
Vermont;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 0;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: 0;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 36;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 52;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: 66.
West Virginia;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 0;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: 1;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 13;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 22;
Percent of state's criminal history records automated
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: Not reported[B].
Source: BJS.
Note: The data are based on biennial surveys of the administrators of
state criminal history record repositories. The surveys are conducted
by SEARCH (The National Consortium for Justice Information and
Statistics), under a cooperative agreement with BJS.
[A] In Maine, according to SEARCH officials, the decrease in automation
percentages from 1999 to 2001 was due to the transition from a manual
to an automated system, which resulted in some records being rejected
and/or deleted.
[B] Automation levels are "not reported" by states for various reasons,
including a lack of state personnel and/or computer program time or the
state's inability to track the data needed to respond to the survey.
[C] In New Mexico, according to SEARCH officials, the decrease in
automation percentages from 1997 to 1999 was due to a backlog in
automating records. The officials noted that the backlog cleared in
2001 and that all records are now automated.
[End of table]
According to Mississippi officials, NCHIP played a critical role in the
state's successes in automating and sharing criminal history
information. The officials noted, for instance, that receiving the
"priority" designation and the accompanying additional funds enabled
Mississippi to begin automating its criminal history records and take
advantage of the latest technology developments. Similarly, a West
Virginia official commented that the additional priority funding helped
the state establish and begin implementing an automated fingerprint
identification system, the backbone of West Virginia's entire records
improvement and automation project.
Another indicator of progress is participation in III, the system used
for a number of law enforcement-related purposes, including background
checks of persons purchasing firearms. As of May 2003, 3 of the 5
priority states participated in III, with New Mexico joining the
program in 1997 and Mississippi and West Virginia joining in 1998. At
the time of our review, Maine and Vermont were not participating in
III. According to BJS, Maine's participation may not occur until some
time in 2004 because the state is in the process of undertaking a major
revision of its entire criminal justice information technology
infrastructure. Vermont officials reported to BJS that the state is
currently using NCHIP funds to install a new system that is fundamental
to III participation and that the state will be III-compliant by
January 2004. States must ensure that their computerized criminal
history records systems meet specific FBI criteria and that these
systems are compatible with the FBI's national data systems before the
FBI will allow states to provide records nationally through III.
The 5 priority states have also increased their participation in other
national systems. According to BJS officials, all 5 states participate
in the National Sex Offender Registry, 4 of the 5 states have provided
some portion of their criminal fingerprints electronically to IAFIS,
and 3 states have submitted protection order records to the NCIC
Protection Order File.
No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems, According to
BJS:
BJS officials said that no NCHIP funds have been used to develop or
implement a ballistics registration system--a system typically used as
an investigative tool to compare crime scene evidence to the stored
images. Also, according to BJS officials, NCHIP funds are to improve
the availability of information on the "person," rather than to improve
investigative tools. BJS does not plan to expand the scope of NCHIP
funding to include investigative tools because improvements are still
needed in the ability to identify prohibited purchasers of firearms,
such as individuals with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions. Of
the 5 case-study states we visited, only 1 (Maryland) had developed a
ballistics registration system. According to BJS and state officials,
federal funding was not used to develop or implement this system.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General:
Washington, D.C. 20531:
Laurie E. Ekstrand:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Mail Stop 2440A
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ekstrand:
This letter responds to the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft
report entitled, "NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
Federal Grants Have Contributed to Progress " (GAO-04-364). We believe
that the GAO fairly and accurately described the program and its
accomplishments and the continuing need to promote State and local
participation in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) national
systems for sharing information. There were several issues mentioned in
the report that we believe should be highlighted.
1. It is important to draw the distinction between old and new arrest
records with respect to disposition coverage-with limited resources.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has always emphasized to the
States the importance of making certain that records of recent criminal
activity were updated and fully compatible with FBI standards. Many
States adopted a Day One approach to improving records when the
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) funds began to
flow, leaving a number of old, inactive records archived in State
repositories. The BJS' research, with the FBI's assistance, indicated
that older arrest records account for much of the "open arrest"
problem. Half of the open arrests studied were from 1984 or earlier,
and three-quarters of the arrests predated the NCHIP Program.
2. State laws in many cases prohibit sharing information on mental
health backgrounds (confidentiality and doctor-patient privacy). The
strategy for the FBI, and one which BJS has encouraged the States to
use, has been to utilize the Denied Persons File in the NICS Index
where the reason for denial of a firearm is not given unless the denial
is appealed. The area of mental health records and their accessibility
for a background check is a very difficult and challenging area of
records development. Since Fiscal Year 1996, BJS has made this a target
area and we have encouraged the States to do more with NCHIP Program
funds.
3. Misdemeanants in most States are not systematically fingerprinted and
misdemeanor assault charges rarely specify the victim-offender
relationship unless domestic violence is specifically charged-Like the
mental health area, this is-a difficult area since legal label.. rather
than victim-offender relationship contingencies characterize record-
keeping practices and requirements. The BJS has given strong direction
to the States to set flags on the records of those known to have a
conviction for domestic violence.
4. There are go central registries is each of the States of active drug
users or addicts, Central registries will need to be created, however,
it will be challenging to develop and keep current (i.e., under the Gun
Control Act; a former drug user can purchase a firearm--
-when is someone a former drug user?)_ This topic is also impacted by
issues of medical privacy and the public release and use of doctor
patient information.
5. The GAO may want to consider putting the number of problematic
firearms sales in perspective. Although the report mentions default-
proceed sales and the number of times the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms (ATF) must retrieve a firearm from a prohibited purchaser,
it does not examine the low error rate (.04% according to the report)
in the context of overall performance associated with the firearms
checks. There are about eight to nine million checks each year with a
very small number of default proceeds which then result in ATF having w
reacquire the illegally purchased firearm. Similarly, there are very
few prohibited sales which are subsequently overturned following an
appeal of the denial. Together these two types of errors probably
account for two errors in every 1,000 checks conducted,
6. The Record Quality Index (RQI) briefly mentioned in the report is a
major step forward in the quantitative estimation of performance
changes over time. This metric, developed by BJS, may provide a
significant opportunity for both evaluating performance over time and
for establishing the basis for targeting future assistance to State and
local parti cipants in Federal funding programs. We believe the States
will benefit enormously from a tool such as RQ which helps. to assess,
in a uniform manner, both progress and need.
The OJP appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft report. 1n
addition, we appreciate the careful and thoughtful manner in which the
GAO team approached its evaluation responsibility and we look forward
to working together on important public safety projects in the future.
Sincerely,
Signed by;
Deborah J. Daniels:
Assistant Attorney General:
cc: - Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Director Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Cynthia J. Schwimer Comptroller, OR:
LeToya A. Johnson Audit Liaison, OR:
Vickie L. Sloan Audit Liasion, DOJ:
OAAG Executive Secretariat Control Number 20040179:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777 Danny R. Burton, (214) 777-5600:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above, Grace Coleman, Geoffrey Hamilton, Michael H.
Harmond, Kevin L. Jackson, Jan B. Montgomery, Jerome T. Sandau, Linda
Kay Willard, and Ellen T. Wolfe made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The term "noncriminal justice purposes" refers to the uses of
criminal history records for purposes authorized by federal or state
law other than purposes relating to criminal justice activities. For
example, authorized purposes may include employment suitability,
licensing determinations, and national security clearances.
[2] In 1994, BJS identified 5 states--Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico,
Vermont, and West Virginia--as having the lowest levels of criminal
history record automation. These 5 states were designated as priority
states, making each eligible to receive an additional $1 million in
funding during NCHIP's first year.
[3] Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).
[4] Regarding status of NICS participation, the FBI categorizes states
as follows: (1) Full participant states are those where a designated
state agency conducts background checks of persons purchasing any
firearm, both handguns and long guns; (2) partial participant states
designate a state agency to conduct presale background checks for
handgun purchases, with the FBI conducting background checks for long
gun purchases; and (3) nonparticipant states are those where the FBI
conducts presale background checks for purchases of both handguns and
long guns. Sometimes, these categories are referred to as point-of-
contact states, partial point-of-contact states, and FBI states,
respectively.
[5] The $165.2 million total is based on NCHIP grant awards to the 50
states, the District of Columbia, and 5 territories for the 4 fiscal
years.
[6] See Office of Technology Assessment, An Assessment of Alternatives
for a National Computerized Criminal History System, October 1982.
Also, see BJS, Use and Management of Criminal History Record
Information: A Comprehensive Report, 2001 Update (NCJ 187670), December
2001.
[7] Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).
[8] The Gun Control Act, as amended, prohibits the purchase or
possession of a firearm by any person who (1) has been convicted of a
crime punishable by a prison term exceeding 1 year, (2) is a fugitive
from justice, (3) is an unlawful user of controlled substances, (4) has
been adjudicated as a mental defective, (5) is an illegal or unlawful
alien, (6) has been discharged dishonorably from the armed forces, (7)
has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, (8) has been convicted of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or (9) is subject to certain
outstanding court protection orders.
[9] Pub. L. No. 103-209, 107 Stat. 2490 (1993). Amendments in 1994
further provided for background checks of those caring for the elderly
and individuals with disabilities.
[10] Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994).
[11] Livescan equipment can record and transmit fingerprints in a
digital format. The equipment is used to capture fingerprint images
directly from an individual's fingers, which are rolled onto glass
scanning plates.
[12] The $165.2 million total is based on NCHIP grant awards to the 50
states, the District of Columbia, and 5 territories for the 4 fiscal
years.
[13] In 1994, BJS identified 5 states--Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico,
Vermont, and West Virginia--as having the lowest levels of criminal
history record automation. These 5 states were designated as priority
states, making each eligible to receive an additional $1 million in
funding during NCHIP's first year.
[14] Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093, (1996).
[15] Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (1994).
[16] Pub. L. No. 105-251, 112 Stat. 1870 (1988).
[17] Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
[18] Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (1968).
[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Gun Control: Options for Improving
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, GAO/GGD-00-56
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2000).
[20] Generally, the number of default proceeds (including those that
subsequently involve retrievals of firearms) represents a small
fraction of total NICS transactions. For example, the 3,259 firearms
retrieved in 2002 constituted about 0.04 percent of the approximately
8.4 million NICS transactions conducted that year. Also, BJS noted that
the number of retrievals in 2002 was about 33 percent fewer than in
2000, which indicates that NICS is becoming more effective with
improvements in record keeping.
[21] National Child Protection Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-209, 107
Stat. 2490 (1993), as amended.
[22] Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of
Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act), Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat.
650 (2003).
[23] Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
[24] The USA PATRIOT Act defines "hazardous materials" as any material
defined as a hazardous material by the Secretary of Transportation and
any chemical or biological material or agent determined by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Attorney General as being
a threat to the national security of the United States.
[25] Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).
[26] Pub. L. No. 107-188, 116 Stat. 594 (2002).
[27] In 1994, BJS identified 5 states--Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico,
Vermont, and West Virginia--as having the lowest levels of criminal
history record automation. These 5 states were designated as priority
states, making each eligible to receive an additional $1 million in
funding during NCHIP's first year.
[28] Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).
[29] The III system, maintained by the FBI, is a pointer system used to
locate criminal history records anywhere in the nation.
[30] For disposition reporting improvements, BJS used three spending
categories: (1) funding to state courts, (2) funding to other judicial
components, and (3) funding for disposition improvements not related to
state courts. For purposes of our analyses, we combined these three
into one spending category.
[31] Most states have some type of AFIS. A state can use NCHIP funds to
enhance its AFIS by purchasing Livescan equipment, if the state has
implemented (or is implementing) procedures to ensure that the AFIS is
compatible with FBI standards. Livescan equipment can generate and
transmit fingerprints in a digital format. The equipment is used to
capture fingerprint images directly from an individual's fingers, which
are rolled onto glass scanning plates.
[32] 18 U.S.C. § 922.
[33] Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (1994).
[34] Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093 (1996).
[35] Allan D. Scholle, M.S., "Sex Offender Registration Community
Notification Laws," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (July 2000): 17-24.
[36] 28 U.S.C. § 534.
[37] These six categories are the same as those used in table 1 to
categorize NCHIP awards to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
5 U.S. territories for fiscal years 2000 through 2002. For the tables
in this appendix, we relied on state officials to categorize their
NCHIP spending based on the definitions provided by BJS for these six
categories. BJS originally grouped NCHIP awards into eight categories.
However, we combined three similar categories into one (disposition
reporting improvements)--resulting in the six categories we present
here.
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:
