Bureau of Justice Statistics Funding to States to Improve Criminal Records
Gao ID: GAO-08-898R July 8, 2008Public safety concerns require that criminal history records and the systems that maintain them be accurate, complete, and accessible. Such records and systems enable local, state, and federal authorities, among other things, to identify individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms or ineligible to hold positions of responsibility involving children, the elderly, or disabled; enable criminal justice agencies to make decisions prosecuting and sentencing offenders; assist in completing background checks; and assist law enforcement officials in criminal investigations. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) administers the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP). The goal of the NCHIP grant program is to improve the nation's safety and security by enhancing the quality, completeness, and accessibility of criminal history record information and by ensuring the nationwide implementation of criminal justice and noncriminal justice background check systems. This report responds to a provision in the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which requires us to review certain grant funding related to criminal history records. Specifically, this report provides information on grant funds awarded by BJS, updates certain information from our 2004 report on progress made in improving national criminal history records, and how DOJ monitors states' use of those funds.
BJS awarded states $241 million in NCHIP grant funding from fiscal years 2000 through 2007 under the NCHIP program, monitored the states' use of these funds through site visits, and have identified case disposition reporting by the courts and updating older technology data systems as continuing priorities. With the assistance of these grants, states continue to make progress in automating criminal history records and making them accessible nationally. For example, the most recent BJS data show that the percentage of criminal history records that are automated has increased from 79 percent in 1993 to 94 percent in 2003. BJS monitors the use of these funds by conducting approximately twelve site visits per year to monitor states' use of grant funds. BJS officials stated these sites are selected based on criteria, such as the amount of funding awarded and program performance. According to BJS, its staff visited 14 states and the District of Columbia in fiscal year 2007 to monitor states' progress and use of grant funds. Additionally, the Office of Justice Programs' Office of the Chief Financial Officer conducts financial monitoring visits to determine that grant funding is being used as intended. BJS officials told us that disposition reporting by the courts and updating older technology systems will be particularly important for states to continue making progress in automating criminal history records.
GAO-08-898R, Bureau of Justice Statistics Funding to States to Improve Criminal Records
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-898R
entitled 'Bureau of Justice Statistics Funding to States to Improve
Criminal Records' which was released on July 8, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
GAO-08-898R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 8, 2008:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Arlen Specter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Chairman:
The Honorable Lamar S. Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Bureau of Justice Statistics Funding to States to Improve
Criminal Records:
Public safety concerns require that criminal history records and the
systems that maintain them be accurate, complete, and accessible. Such
records and systems enable local, state, and federal authorities, among
other things, to identify individuals prohibited from purchasing
firearms or ineligible to hold positions of responsibility involving
children, the elderly, or disabled; enable criminal justice agencies to
make decisions prosecuting and sentencing offenders; assist in
completing background checks; and assist law enforcement officials in
criminal investigations. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) administers the National Criminal History
Improvement Program (NCHIP). The goal of the NCHIP grant program is to
improve the nation's safety and security by enhancing the quality,
completeness, and accessibility of criminal history record information
and by ensuring the nationwide implementation of criminal justice and
noncriminal justice background check systems. This report responds to a
provision in the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which
requires us to review certain grant funding related to criminal history
records[Footnote 1]. Specifically, this report provides information on
grant funds awarded by BJS, updates certain information from our 2004
report on progress made in improving national criminal history records,
and how DOJ monitors states' use of those funds.[Footnote 2]
To obtain information on grant funds awarded to states by BJS for
criminal records improvement, we analyzed funding data provided by BJS
to determine the amount of funding awarded to the states for these
efforts. BJS provided us with funding data organized both by spending
category,[Footnote 3] from fiscal years 2000 through 2007, and by NCHIP
funds awarded to states, from fiscal years 1995 through 2007. A list of
NCHIP awards is provided in Enclosure I. To determine activities for
which BJS awarded grant funding, we also reviewed BJS summaries of
states' grant activities for fiscal year 2007. In addition, we analyzed
BJS program documentation that describes allowable NCHIP spending
activities. We also analyzed relevant documentation, such as BJS
program reports, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget assessment of
NCHIP, and a June 2006 Attorney General report on criminal history
background checks. To obtain information on how DOJ monitors states'
use of NCHIP grant funding, we reviewed documentation provided by BJS
on fiscal years 2007 and 2008 ongoing and planned site visits to grant
participants. We reviewed memoranda summaries of monitoring visits to
states by BJS officials and also DOJ's Office of Justice Programs'
Office of the Chief Financial Officer. We did not assess the quality of
these monitoring visits for the purposes of this report. We also
interviewed BJS officials in Washington, D.C., to discuss how BJS
awards NCHIP grant funding and to obtain information on states'
progress in improving criminal records. To update portions of our 2004
report on progress made in improving criminal history records, we
analyzed data provided by BJS on records automation and the
accessibility of records nationally and interviewed BJS officials.
[Footnote 4] To assess the reliability of NCHIP funding data and record
automation data provided by BJS, we reviewed existing information on
the data from our 2004 report and questioned knowledgeable agency
officials about their procedures for collecting and maintaining the
data. BJS stated that the NCHIP grant funding data provided represent
original award amounts. However, BJS noted that grant awards may be
subsequently adjusted or deobligated if funded activities are not
initiated or completed. We determined that the data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 through July 2008
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
BJS awarded states $241 million in NCHIP grant funding from fiscal
years 2000 through 2007 under the NCHIP program, monitored the states'
use of these funds through site visits, and have identified case
disposition reporting by the courts and updating older technology data
systems as continuing priorities. With the assistance of these grants,
states continue to make progress in automating criminal history records
and making them accessible nationally. For example, the most recent BJS
data show that the percentage of criminal history records that are
automated has increased from 79 percent in 1993 to 94 percent in 2003.
[Footnote 5] BJS monitors the use of these funds by conducting
approximately twelve site visits per year to monitor states' use of
grant funds. BJS officials stated these sites are selected based on
criteria, such as the amount of funding awarded and program
performance. According to BJS, its staff visited 14 states and the
District of Columbia in fiscal year 2007 to monitor states' progress
and use of grant funds. Additionally, the Office of Justice Programs'
Office of the Chief Financial Officer conducts financial monitoring
visits to determine that grant funding is being used as intended. BJS
officials told us that disposition reporting by the courts and updating
older technology systems will be particularly important for states to
continue making progress in automating criminal history records.
Background:
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 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act),[Footnote
6] which, among other things, authorized grants for the improvement of
state criminal history records; specifically, section 106(b) directs
the Attorney General, through BJS, to award grants to states for the
creation of a computerized criminal history record system or
improvement of an existing system, improving the accessibility to the
national instant criminal background system, and, upon establishment of
the national system, assisting the states in the transmittal of
criminal records to the national system;
* the National Child Protection Act of 1993,[Footnote 7] which was
enacted to establish procedures for national criminal history
background checks for child care providers;
* the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,[Footnote
8] which, among other things, strove to improve access to court
protection orders and records of individuals wanted for stalking and
domestic violence; and:
* the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998, which established a
program under which grants would be made to states to, among other
things, (1) upgrade criminal history and criminal justice record
systems, including systems operated by law enforcement agencies and
courts, and (2) promote compatibility and integration of national,
state, and local systems for criminal justice purposes, firearms
eligibility determinations, identification of sexual offenders,
identification of domestic violence offenders, and background checks
for other authorized purposes unrelated to criminal justice.[Footnote
9]
To help fund the improvement of criminal history records, Congress
appropriated up to $100 million for fiscal year 1995 for grants,
contracts, cooperative agreements, and other assistance to help improve
states criminal history records, of which up to $6 million could be
used to implement NICS. Initiated in 1995 by BJS, NCHIP represents a
partnership among federal, state, and local agencies to build a
national criminal records infrastructure that is intended 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 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 and
completeness 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.
To ensure national compatibility and accessibility of records, states'
uses of NCHIP funds must conform with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI) standards for national data systems--including,
as applicable, the following:
* NICS--established by the FBI to provide instant background checks of
individuals applying to purchase firearms from federally licensed
dealers; NICS has electronic links to component databases described
below, including the National Crime Information Center (NCIC),[Footnote
10] Interstate Identification Index (III), and NICS Index--a database
created solely for presale background checks of firearms purchasers.
* NCIC--an automated, nationally accessible database of criminal
justice and justice-related records on wanted and missing persons, as
well as identifiable stolen property, such as vehicles and firearms.
* III--an interstate, federal-state computer network maintained by the
FBI, which provides the means of conducting national criminal history
records searches.
* Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)--a
computerized system for storing, comparing, and exchanging digitized
fingerprint data.
Congress appropriated approximately $27 million for fiscal year 1996
and $52 million for fiscal year 1997 jointly for grants to states to
upgrade criminal records pursuant to the Brady Act and grants to states
to improve child abuse crime information pursuant to the National Child
Protection Act of 1993. Another $210 million, according to BJS, was
appropriated for these purposes from fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
[Footnote 11] Beginning in fiscal year 2002, BJS continued to
administer grants to states to upgrade criminal records. However, the
appropriations for fiscal year 2002, and annually since then, no longer
contain a specific line item for the Brady criminal records improvement
grants and instead provide grant funding to upgrade criminal records
within the context of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998.
As a result, for example, the BJS program announcement for fiscal year
2008 states that the objectives of the NCHIP program are:
* to provide direct financial and technical assistance to states to
improve their criminal records systems and other related systems to
support background checks,
* to ensure that the infrastructure is developed to connect state
records systems across states and with FBI records systems,
* to provide training and technical assistance to help ensure
conformity to FBI standards, and:
* to assess progress made by states in improving criminal history
records systems.
BJS Awards States NCHIP Grants, Monitors Their Use for Criminal Records
Improvement, and Identifies Priorities for Future Emphasis:
BJS data show that states are awarded NCHIP grants to improve criminal
history records to support NICS in conducting background checks of
firearms' purchasers, as well as related records improvement efforts
that support the national records infrastructure. According to BJS
data, a total of $241 million in NCHIP grants was awarded from fiscal
years 2000 through 2007. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
the U.S. territories have been recipients of these grant awards. The
amount of funding awarded for NCHIP grants has generally declined each
year since 2000, with the exception of 2003 when the amount of funding
awarded peaked at $47.4 million. Congressional appropriations for NCHIP
have generally been less than the amounts requested in the President's
budget since 2003. Figure 1 shows the total amounts of annual grant
funding for fiscal years 2000 through 2007.
Figure 1: NCHIP Grant Funding Awarded to States and Territories from
Fiscal Year 2000 through Fiscal Year 2007:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 2000;
NCHIP Grant Funding: $41,482,328.
Fiscal year: 2001;
NCHIP Grant Funding: $38,905,171.
Fiscal year: 2002;
NCHIP Grant Funding: $36,842,228.
Fiscal year: 2003;
NCHIP Grant Funding: $47,473,392.
Fiscal year: 2004;
NCHIP Grant Funding: $31,188,766.
Fiscal year: 2005;
NCHIP Grant Funding: $25,881,053.
Fiscal year: 2006;
NCHIP Grant Funding: $10,924,230.
Fiscal year: 2007;
NCHIP Grant Funding: $8,598,703.
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
[End of figure]
As annual grant funding has generally declined, fewer states are
receiving grants and are receiving lesser amounts than in the past.
Specifically, in fiscal year 2004, BJS awarded grants to 48 states and
5 territories, while only 27 states and 2 territories received awards
in fiscal year 2007.
As shown in table 1, the NICS/III/criminal records improvement and the
court disposition[Footnote 12] reporting improvements categories
accounted for about 75 percent of NCHIP awards during 2000 through
2007--spending categories directly related to NICS. Table 1 lists
examples of how grant funds were used by spending category. By using
grant funds to develop databases, update and automate records systems,
and convert and automate manual records, funds spent in these
categories should improve criminal history records consistent with the
purposes of NCHIP. As an example, BJS awarded funds in 2007 to Kansas
to integrate local agency systems with the state's system, and to
connect the state's system to several national records systems. In
another example, BJS awarded California grant funds in 2007 to automate
disposition records from the courts.
Table 1: NCHIP Funds Awarded by Spending Category, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2007:
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 into compliance with the FBI's
standards for national data systems;
* Develop nonfelony databases for domestic violence related to
misdemeanor records;
Total grant awards, 2000-2007: $97,678,643;
Spending category as a percentage of total: 40.5%.
NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements;
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 probation and
parole systems;
* Develop protocols and standards for transferring disposition data to
the state central repository, linking disposition data to 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 awards, 2000-2007: $83,782,622;
Spending category as a percentage of total: 34.7%.
NCHIP spending category: Automated fingerprint identification
system/Livescan activities[A];
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 awards, 2000-2007: $32,770,537;
Spending category as a percentage of total: 13.6%.
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 awards, 2000-2007: $13,764,207;
Spending category as a percentage of total: 5.7%.
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 awards, 2000-2007: $8,765,575;
Spending category as a percentage of total: 3.6%.
NCHIP spending category: National security/anti-terrorism activities;
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 awards, 2000-2007: $3,597,141;
Spending category as a percentage of total: 1.5%.
NCHIP spending category: Mental Health Records;
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category:
* Develop nonfelony databases for mental health records;
* Implement interfaces between mental health record systems and
criminal repositories;
* Transmit qualifying records to the NICS Index;
Total grant awards, 2000-2007: $937,146;
Spending category as a percentage of total: 0.4%.
NCHIP spending category: Total:
Total grant awards, 2000-2007: $241,295,871;
Spending category as a percentage of total: 100%.
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
[A] 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 placed onto glass
scanning plates.
[End of table]
The remaining approximately 25 percent of the NCHIP grant funds have
been awarded for related records improvement activities, including
automated fingerprint identification system/Livescan activities, sex
offender registry enhancements, protection order activities, national
security/antiterrorism activities, and mental health records, as shown
in table 1.[Footnote 13] For example, BJS awarded funding in 2007 to
Wisconsin to purchase electronic fingerprint equipment to be used by
several law enforcement agencies across the state.
With the assistance of NCHIP grants, states continue to make progress
in automating criminal history records and making them accessible
nationally. According to the most recent BJS data, the percentage of
the nation's criminal history records that are automated increased from
79 percent in 1993 to 89 percent at the end of 2001 to 94 percent at
the end of 2003.[Footnote 14]
Figure 2: Percentage of Criminal History Records Automated (as of
Calendar Year-end):
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a line graph depicting the following data:
Fiscal year: 1993;
Percentage of Automated Criminal History Records: 79%.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Percentage of Automated Criminal History Records: 86%.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Percentage of Automated Criminal History Records: 87%.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Percentage of Automated Criminal History Records: 89%.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Percentage of Automated Criminal History Records: 89%.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Percentage of Automated Criminal History Records: 94%.
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
[End of figure]
BJS survey data show that record automation has outpaced overall growth
in the number of state-held criminal history records. Specifically,
while the number of total records increased 49 percent from 1993
through 2003, the number of automated records increased 78 percent--
which indicates progress in automating older criminal history records.
In addition, the number of III-indexed criminal records grew by 210
percent from 1993 through 2003. As a result, approximately 71 percent
of criminal history records are III accessible as of 2003. According to
FBI data provided by BJS, over 63 million criminal history records were
indexed in the III as of May 2008 as compared to 1993 when over 16
million records were indexed in the III. Figure 3 shows the trend in
automation and increase in III records.
Figure 3: Trend in Automation and III Accessibility of Criminal History
Records:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the following data
(number of records in millions:
Fiscal year: 1993;
Total 49 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 47.8;
Automated 78 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 37.7;
III-Accessible 210 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003):
16.3.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Total 49 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 49.9;
Automated 78 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 42.7;
III-Accessible 210 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003):
27.6.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Total 49 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 54.1;
Automated 78 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 46.8;
III-Accessible 210 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003):
34.1.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Total 49 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 59.2;
Automated 78 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 52.8;
III-Accessible 210 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003):
37.0.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Total 49 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 64.3;
Automated 78 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 57.4;
III-Accessible 210 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003):
40.9.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Total 49 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 71.0;
Automated 78 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003): 67.0;
III-Accessible 210 percent (percentage change from 1993 through 2003):
50.5.
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
[End of figure]
Additional indicators[Footnote 15] provided by BJS also demonstrate
progress:
* In 1997, the FBI established the NCIC Protection Order File to
provide a national repository for protection order records. As of April
2008, information has been provided by 47 states, the District of
Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the file contained more than
1,000,000 records.
* In 1999, in response to mandates in the amendments[Footnote 16] to
the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent
Offender Registration Act,[Footnote 17] the FBI established a national
sex offender database for states to register and verify addresses of
sex offenders. As of April 2008, the National Sex Offender Registry
contained over 525,000 records with records from 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and 3 territories.
* In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFIS. As of May 2008, 47 states and
territories had the capability to submit all of their criminal, civil,
and latent fingerprints to IAFIS electronically.
* From March 2004 through March 2008, the number of state submissions
to the NICS Index increased by 168 percent from about 415,000 to over
1.1 million.[Footnote 18]
DOJ Monitors States' Use of Grant Funds:
To monitor the states' use of NCHIP funds, the BJS Criminal Justice
Data Improvement Program Chief told us that BJS officials conduct
periodic site visits to states to meet the requirement to assess at
least 10 percent of grant funds awarded for the purpose of monitoring
the use of these funds.[Footnote 19] According to BJS, the objectives
of monitoring NCHIP grants, among other things, are to ensure that
programs initiated by states are carried out in a manner consistent
with the grantee's stated implementation plan. The Program Chief also
stated that BJS staff conduct approximately 3 site visits per quarter,
or approximately 12 per year. BJS program managers have discretion in
determining which sites to visit. However, BJS generally prioritizes
its site visits based on a process that utilizes 15 different criteria
to choose which sites will be assessed, such as amount of funding
awarded, programs awarded grants for the first time, states
experiencing difficulties, and model state programs that demonstrate
best practices. BJS staff visited 14 states and the District of
Columbia in fiscal year 2007 to monitor states' use of grant funds. For
example, a BJS staff member met with officials from the Arkansas Crime
Information Center in December 2006 to discuss plans to expend NCHIP
funds for activities related to criminal history records improvement,
such as transmitting mental health data to the NICS Index and entering
a backlog of court dispositions into Arkansas's computerized criminal
history record system.
In addition to BJS site visits, DOJ's Office of Justice Programs'
Office of the Chief Financial Officer conducts financial monitoring
visits to examine policies and procedures in place regarding the use of
NCHIP grant awards. According to DOJ, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer has conducted nine such visits related to NCHIP grant funds
from November 2005 through November 2007. Further, the Office of
Justice Programs requires award recipients to submit quarterly
financial reports. Also, progress reports are generally required
semiannually for discretionary awards and annually for block/formula
awards. These reports are to describe the status of the funds, the
status of the project, and comparison of actual accomplishments to the
program objectives. According to BJS program officials, BJS staff
review these reports and consider the results of these reviews when
selecting programs for site visits.
BJS Officials Have Identified Case Disposition Reporting by the Courts
and Updating Older Technology Data Systems As Continuing Priorities:
BJS officials told us that moving forward, addressing two issues--
disposition reporting by the courts and updating older technology data
systems--will be particularly important for states to continue making
progress in automating criminal history records. In 2004, we reported
that while states had made progress in automating disposition
information, achieving universal automation of disposition information
remained a challenge.[Footnote 20] BJS listed case disposition
reporting as an area in criminal history records improvement that needs
additional attention in fiscal year 2008. Our 2004 report also
highlighted that technology is not static and can change rapidly, which
necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated systems.
[Footnote 21] According to BJS, states and territories acquired
technologies intended to improve the accessibility of criminal records
information, such as record management systems, prior to 2003 when
NCHIP funding was at a higher level. The BJS Criminal Justice Data
Improvement Program Chief told us that the technology that supports
NICS, including the computer systems used to report NICS records, are
reaching the end of their life cycle and will need to be replaced.
According to BJS, new technologies are now available that can improve
the availability and accessibility of criminal record information
including updated digital fingerprinting technologies that could
dramatically speed up the registration process. This technology may
also allow more court disposition records to be linked to existing
criminal records and improve the completeness and automation of the
records.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Attorney General for review
and comment. DOJ advised us that it had no formal agency comments. DOJ
provided technical comments, which have been incorporated into the
report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to selected congressional
committees, the Attorney General, and any other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others on request. Contact points
for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If your offices or staff members have any questions concerning this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or at larencee@gao.gov.
William W. Crocker III, Assistant Director; Amy Brown; Ryan Consaul;
Michele Fejfar; Geoffrey Hamilton; and Lara Kaskie made key
contributions to this report.
Signed by:
Eileen Regen Larence:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of correspondence]
Enclosure I: NCHIP Awards: 1995-2007:
Jurisdiction: Alabama;
1995-99: $3,127,103;
2000: $879,447;
2001: $521,574;
2002: $499,880;
2003: $894,998;
2004: $573,000;
2005: $626,100;
2006: $400,000;
2007: $309,761;
Total 1995-2007: $7,831,863.
Jurisdiction: Alaska;
1995-99: $3,456,318;
2000: $760,000;
2001: $585,000;
2002: $475,000;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $268,980;
2006: $259,944;
2007: $260,000;
Total 1995-2007: $7,049,242.
Jurisdiction: American Samoa;
1995-99: $800,000;
2000: $300,000;
2001: $300,000;
2002: $285,000;
2003: $300,000;
2004: $250,000;
2005: $175,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $2,410,000.
Jurisdiction: Arizona;
1995-99: $3,888,988;
2000: $980,000;
2001: $1,000,000;
2002: $750,000;
2003: $1,028,573;
2004: $493,000;
2005: $345,000;
2006: $237,085;
2007: $430,000;
Total 1995-2007: $9,152,646.
Jurisdiction: Arkansas;
1995-99: $2,976,857;
2000: $694,330;
2001: $630,000;
2002: $475,000;
2003: $699,960;
2004: $383,998;
2005: $269,000;
2006: $117,000;
2007: $146,940;
Total 1995-2007: $6,393,085.
Jurisdiction: California;
1995-99: $23,095,680;
2000: $2,350,000;
2001: $2,238,414;
2002: $2,200,000;
2003: $3,000,000;
2004: $1,922,000;
2005: $1,425,000;
2006: $900,000;
2007: $550,000;
Total 1995-2007: $37,681,094.
Jurisdiction: Colorado;
1995-99: $3,528,113;
2000: $960,000;
2001: $507,000;
2002: $485,000;
2003: $735,000;
2004: $664,240;
2005: $500,906;
2006: $356,598;
2007: $381,962;
Total 1995-2007: $8,118,819.
Jurisdiction: Connecticut;
1995-99: $4,117,968;
2000: $700,000;
2001: $545,000;
2002: $518,000;
2003: $657,000;
2004: $421,000;
2005: $465,400;
2006: $147,760;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $7,572,128.
Jurisdiction: Delaware;
1995-99: $3,130,837;
2000: $491,470;
2001: $500,000;
2002: $475,000;
2003: $600,000;
2004: [Empty];
2005: $250,000;
2006: $95,237;
2007: $130,000;
Total 1995-2007: $5,672,544.
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia;
1995-99: $1,804,095;
2000: [Empty];
2001: $350,000;
2002: $329,916;
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: $265,000;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $2,749,011.
Jurisdiction: Florida;
1995-99: $9,373,486;
2000: $1,980,000;
2001: $1,650,787;
2002: $1,369,000;
2003: $1,800,000;
2004: $1,453,000;
2005: $973,000;
2006: $395,574;
2007: $260,000;
Total 1995-2007: $19,254,847.
Jurisdiction: Georgia;
1995-99: $6,143,349;
2000: $803,768;
2001: $498,979;
2002: $691,628;
2003: $1,045,000;
2004: $669,000;
2005: $375,600;
2006: $355,750;
2007: $117,000;
Total 1995-2007: $10,700,074.
Jurisdiction: Guam;
1995-99: $799,796;
2000: $300,000;
2001: $300,000;
2002: $285,000;
2003: $400,000;
2004: $250,000;
2005: $175,000;
2006: $20,334;
2007: $20,334;
Total 1995-2007: $2,550,464.
Jurisdiction: Hawaii;
1995-99: $2,967,125;
2000: $600,000;
2001: $500,000;
2002: $500,000;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $468,000;
2006: $315,656;
2007: $303,000;
Total 1995-2007: $6,637,781.
Jurisdiction: Idaho;
1995-99: $1,554,561;
2000: [Empty];
2001: $342,873;
2002: $170,000;
2003: $163,200;
2004: $142,250;
2005: $150,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $2,522,884.
Jurisdiction: Illinois;
1995-99: $10,372,000;
2000: $1,590,000;
2001: $1,352,000;
2002: $1,284,000;
2003: $1,669,000;
2004: $1,069,000;
2005: [Empty];
2006: $408,182;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $17,744,182.
Jurisdiction: Indiana;
1995-99: $5,022,273;
2000: $900,000;
2001: $964,500;
2002: $736,000;
2003: $975,000;
2004: $612,000;
2005: $428,000;
2006: $259,877;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $9,897,650.
Jurisdiction: Iowa;
1995-99: $2,783,525;
2000: $238,537;
2001: $208,915;
2002: $420,620;
2003: $561,437;
2004: $377,093;
2005: $348,090;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $4,938,217.
Jurisdiction: Kansas;
1995-99: $2,932,319;
2000: $520,000;
2001: $540,359;
2002: $475,000;
2003: $669,000;
2004: $429,000;
2005: $300,000;
2006: $407,220;
2007: $560,000;
Total 1995-2007: $6,832,898.
Jurisdiction: Kentucky;
1995-99: $3,984,961;
2000: $499,536;
2001: $507,000;
2002: $482,000;
2003: $584,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $269,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $6,710,497.
Jurisdiction: Louisiana;
1995-99: $3,903,751;
2000: $739,436;
2001: $578,698;
2002: $499,000;
2003: $650,000;
2004: $416,000;
2005: $394,000;
2006: $368,005;
2007: $392,591;
Total 1995-2007: $7,941,481.
Jurisdiction: Maine;
1995-99: $4,131,166;
2000: $90,000;
2001: [Empty];
2002: $453,000;
2003: $525,000;
2004: [Empty];
2005: $384,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $5,583,166.
Jurisdiction: Maryland;
1995-99: $4,630,000;
2000: $922,500;
2001: $630,462;
2002: $595,117;
2003: $627,995;
2004: $402,000;
2005: $275,472;
2006: [Empty];
2007: $338,408;
Total 1995-2007: $8,421,954.
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts;
1995-99: $8,275,250;
2000: $819,762;
2001: $1,028,000;
2002: $976,000;
2003: $1,268,000;
2004: $812,313;
2005: $544,000;
2006: $550,000;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $14,273,325.
Jurisdiction: Michigan;
1995-99: $7,151,290;
2000: $1,153,032;
2001: $1,200,199;
2002: $881,382;
2003: $1,038,452;
2004: $742,000;
2005: $520,549;
2006: $475,590;
2007: $495,165;
Total 1995-2007: $13,657,659.
Jurisdiction: Minnesota;
1995-99: $4,256,989;
2000: $413,454;
2001: $984,320;
2002: $502,000;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $496,500;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $7,637,263.
Jurisdiction: Mississippi;
1995-99: $3,748,079;
2000: $560,000;
2001: $534,717;
2002: $500,000;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $269,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $6,595,796.
Jurisdiction: Missouri;
1995-99: $5,172,515;
2000: $899,133;
2001: $904,000;
2002: $652,000;
2003: $757,627;
2004: $484,000;
2005: $338,970;
2006: $338,694;
2007: $371,565;
Total 1995-2007: $9,918,504.
Jurisdiction: Montana;
1995-99: $2,574,486;
2000: $512,389;
2001: $546,842;
2002: $475,341;
2003: $599,771;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $269,000;
2006: $130,000;
2007: $359,865;
Total 1995-2007: $5,851,694.
Jurisdiction: Nebraska;
1995-99: $3,037,053;
2000: $560,200;
2001: $553,237;
2002: $616,825;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $269,000;
2006: $204,085;
2007: $307,200;
Total 1995-2007: $6,531,600.
Jurisdiction: Nevada;
1995-99: $2,500,000;
2000: $610,000;
2001: $810,000;
2002: $513,000;
2003: $696,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $269,000;
2006: $93,391;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $5,875,391.
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire;
1995-99: $3,566,713;
2000: $381,073;
2001: $407,462;
2002: $476,996;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $353,691;
2006: $84,691;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $6,254,626.
Jurisdiction: New Jersey;
1995-99: $6,700,533;
2000: $1,200,000;
2001: $892,980;
2002: $848,000;
2003: $1,195,000;
2004: $766,000;
2005: $1,748,800;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $13,351,313.
Jurisdiction: New Mexico;
1995-99: $4,596,416;
2000: $579,942;
2001: $686,860;
2002: $555,998;
2003: $563,622;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $339,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $7,705,838.
Jurisdiction: New York;
1995-99: $17,472,269;
2000: $2,210,000;
2001: $2,225,000;
2002: $2,112,000;
2003: $2,745,000;
2004: $1,759,000;
2005: $1,437,300;
2006: $800,000;
2007: $600,000;
Total 1995-2007: $31,360,569.
Jurisdiction: North Carolina;
1995-99: $4,807,653;
2000: $809,498;
2001: $635,000;
2002: $603,000;
2003: $663,000;
2004: $424,996;
2005: $297,000;
2006: $200,000;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $8,440,147.
Jurisdiction: North Dakota;
1995-99: $2,931,218;
2000: $562,710;
2001: $544,470;
2002: $475,824;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $269,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $5,767,222.
Jurisdiction: Northern Mariana Islands;
1995-99: [Empty];
2000: $300,000;
2001: [Empty];
2002: $285,000;
2003: $400,000;
2004: $250,000;
2005: [Empty];
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $1,235,000.
Jurisdiction: Ohio;
1995-99: $9,456,526;
2000: $1,368,256;
2001: $1,320,627;
2002: $1,389,214;
2003: $1,510,000;
2004: $967,000;
2005: $648,000;
2006: $271,343;
2007: $350,000;
Total 1995-2007: $17,280,966.
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma;
1995-99: $2,628,198;
2000: $702,681;
2001: $549,999;
2002: $475,000;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $269,000;
2006: $153,600;
2007: $120,000;
Total 1995-2007: $5,882,478.
Jurisdiction: Oregon;
1995-99: $3,678,348;
2000: $1,000,000;
2001: $807,300;
2002: $122,861;
2003: [Empty];
2004: $496,000;
2005: $347,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $6,451,509.
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania;
1995-99: $11,395,537;
2000: $916,600;
2001: $1,392,000;
2002: $1,322,000;
2003: $1,499,195;
2004: $961,000;
2005: $1,654,273;
2006: $534,880;
2007: $351,763;
Total 1995-2007: $20,027,248.
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico;
1995-99: $812,436;
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: $350,000;
2005: [Empty];
2006: $300,000;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $1,462,436.
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island;
1995-99: $2,365,294;
2000: $520,000;
2001: $500,000;
2002: $475,000;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $294,000;
2006: $130,000;
2007: $168,500;
Total 1995-2007: $5,436,794.
Jurisdiction: South Carolina;
1995-99: $5,266,593;
2000: $990,000;
2001: $1,195,406;
2002: $822,000;
2003: $1,000,000;
2004: $641,000;
2005: $449,000;
2006: $65,262;
2007: $351,913;
Total 1995-2007: $10,781,174.
Jurisdiction: South Dakota;
1995-99: $2,012,211;
2000: $672,693;
2001: $452,172;
2002: $488,156;
2003: $606,895;
2004: $385,150;
2005: $270,000;
2006: $137,066;
2007: $106,500;
Total 1995-2007: $5,130,843.
Jurisdiction: Tennessee;
1995-99: $4,166,817;
2000: $780,161;
2001: $550,000;
2002: $531,000;
2003: $766,000;
2004: $491,000;
2005: $384,000;
2006: $252,778;
2007: $254,954;
Total 1995-2007: $8,176,710.
Jurisdiction: Texas;
1995-99: $17,246,275;
2000: $795,000;
2001: [Empty];
2002: $2,000,000;
2003: $2,900,000;
2004: $1,903,000;
2005: $1,085,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $25,929,275.
Jurisdiction: Utah;
1995-99: $3,073,085;
2000: $540,256;
2001: $530,000;
2002: $475,600;
2003: $600,010;
2004: $384,000;
2005: $324,000;
2006: $207,610;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $6,134,561.
Jurisdiction: Vermont;
1995-99: $4,514,810;
2000: $729,157;
2001: $683,459;
2002: $609,688;
2003: $602,959;
2004: $384,150;
2005: $298,218;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $7,822,441.
Jurisdiction: Virgin Islands;
1995-99: $203,157;
2000: [Empty];
2001: $300,000;
2002: [Empty];
2003: $400,000;
2004: $250,000;
2005: $175,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: $150,000;
Total 1995-2007: $1,478,157.
Jurisdiction: Virginia;
1995-99: $6,507,577;
2000: $1,082,781;
2001: $1,035,143;
2002: $1,203,182;
2003: $1,804,670;
2004: $1,299,000;
2005: $1,404,263;
2006: $365,496;
2007: $127,489;
Total 1995-2007: $14,829,601.
Jurisdiction: Washington;
1995-99: $5,111,682;
2000: $846,000;
2001: $674,000;
2003: $800,000;
2002: $1,194,000;
2004: $1,040,000;
2005: $697,000;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $10,362,682.
Jurisdiction: West Virginia;
1995-99: $3,384,564;
2000: $668,422;
2001: $500,000;
2002: $270,000;
2003: $600,000;
2004: $189,577;
2005: $554,208;
2006: [Empty];
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $6,166,771.
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin;
1995-99: $5,267,700;
2000: $760,000;
2001: $681,000;
2002: $647,000;
2003: $679,000;
2004: $435,000;
2005: $562,733;
2006: $243,621;
2007: $283,793;
Total 1995-2007: $9,559,847.
Jurisdiction: Wyoming;
1995-99: $1,052,389;
2000: $240,104;
2001: $529,417;
2002: $285,000;
2003: $399,028;
2004: $255,999;
2005: $179,000;
2006: $76,901;
2007: [Empty];
Total 1995-2007: $3,017,838.
Jurisdiction: Total;
1995-99: $273,457,934;
2000: $41,482,328;
2001: $38,905,171;
2002: $36,842,228;
2003: $47,473,392;
2004: $31,188,766;
2005: $25,881,053;
2006: $10,924,230;
2007: $8,598,703;
Total 1995-2007: $514,753,805.
[End of table]
Source: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Note: The 1998 awards include National Sex Offender Registry awards.
[End of enclosure]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 110-180, 121 Stat. 2559 (2008). NICS is the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System.
[2] GAO, National Criminal History Improvement Program: Federal Grants
Have Contributed to Progress, GAO-04-364 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27,
2004).
[3] BJS provided us NCHIP funding data from fiscal year 2000 through
2007 organized by seven spending categories. These categories represent
how states may use grant funds, such as activities to capture data on
case dispositions from courts. See table 1 of this report for more
information.
[4] GAO-04-364.
[5] According to BJS, the 2003 information represents the latest data
available from BJS surveys. BJS recently completed initial data
collection for a new version of this survey to reflect the status of
systems as of December 31, 2006. BJS expects to publish these initial
data tables by September 2008.
[6] Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).
[7] Pub. L. No. 103-209, 107 Stat. 2490 (1993). Amendments in 1994
further expanded the scope of such criminal history background check
procedures to include those caring for the elderly and individuals with
disabilities.
[8] Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994).
[9] Pub. L. No. 105-251, 112 Stat. 1871 (1998).
[10] NCIC includes the Protection Order File to permit interstate
enforcement of protection orders and the denial of firearms transfers
to individuals who are the subject of court protection orders, as well
as a file of active felony or misdemeanor warrants.
[11] These appropriations include funds for a stalking and domestic
violence component of NCHIP.
[12] The term "court disposition", as used here, refers to information
regarding whether the criminal charges against the arrested individual
were dropped or proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in a conviction
or acquittal.
[13] In our 2004 report, BJS included mental health record activities
under the NICS/III/criminal records improvements category. However, BJS
provided us information on mental health records as a separate spending
category for the purposes of this report.
[14] According to BJS, the 2003 information represents the latest data
available from BJS surveys. BJS recently completed initial data
collection for a new version of this survey to reflect the status of
systems as of December 31, 2006. BJS expects to publish initial data
tables by September 2008.
[15] For data in the NCIC Protection Order File, National Sex Offender
Registry, and NICS Index, BJS relies on monthly data reported by the
FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, which are based
on actual record counts in various FBI files and databases. However,
these data are not independently verified by BJS.
[16] Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093, (1996).
[17] Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (1994).
[18] However, Massachusetts and California accounted for almost 80
percent of the total increase in states submissions. Additionally,
while the number of states participating in the NICS Index increased
from 20 to 44 during this period, 22 states still have fewer than 100
records each in the NICS Index. BJS officials told us that
participation in the NICS Index is currently voluntary.
[19] Section 1158 of the Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-162, 119 Stat.
2960, 3114-15 (2006).
[20] GAO-04-364.
[21] GAO-04-364.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
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. Government Accountability 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
