National Criminal History Improvement Program: Federal Grants	 
Have Contributed to Progress (27-FEB-04, GAO-04-364).		 
                                                                 
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. 						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-364 					        
    ACCNO:   A09366						        
  TITLE:     National Criminal History Improvement Program: Federal   
Grants Have Contributed to Progress				 
     DATE:   02/27/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Crime prevention					 
	     Crimes or offenses 				 
	     Criminals						 
	     Legal records					 
	     Records management 				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Systems conversions				 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Law enforcement information systems		 
	     Funds management					 
	     Federal grants					 
	     Grants to states					 
	     California 					 
	     DOJ National Criminal History			 
	     Improvement Program				 
                                                                 
	     FBI Integrated Automated Fingerprint		 
	     Identification System				 
                                                                 
	     FBI National Instant Criminal Background		 
	     Check System					 
                                                                 
	     Maryland						 
	     Mississippi					 
	     Texas						 
	     West Virginia					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-364

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives

February 2004

NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

                  Federal Grants Have Contributed to Progress

GAO-04-364

Highlights of GAO-04-364, a report to the Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives

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.

February 2004

NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Federal Grants Have Contributed to Progress

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.

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.

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 [email protected].

Percentage of Criminal History Records Automated (as of calendar year-end)

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.

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

1

3 4 7

11

20 24 25

  Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27

Objectives 27
Scope and Methodology 27
Data Reliability 30

                                  Appendix II

Overview of National Criminal History Records
Systems

NCIC
III
NICS
National Sex Offender Registry
NCIC Protection Order File
IAFIS

32

33 33 34 34 35 35

Appendix III Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States 37

Overview of 5 States' Use of NCHIP Funds 37
California 38
Maryland 41
Mississippi 43
Texas 44
West Virginia 46

Appendix IV 	NCHIP Grants Contributed to Progress in Priority
States; No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics
Registration Systems 48

Priority States' Use of NCHIP Grant Funds 48

Priority States' Progress in Automating Records 49

No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems, According to BJS
51

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56

GAO Contacts 56 Staff Acknowledgments 56

Tables

Table 1: NCHIP Funds Awarded by Spending Category, Fiscal Years 2000
through 2003 8

Table 2: NCHIP Awards by Spending Category and States' Participation
Status in NICS, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 10

Table 3: Percent of Arrest Records in State Repositories That Had Final
Dispositions Recorded (as of Dec. 31, 2001) 15 Table 4: Summary of
Nonfelony or Noncriminal Information Available Nationally (as of May 2003)
18 Table 5: Five States Selected for Case Studies of Use of NCHIP Funds 28
Table 6: Overview of Case-Study States' Use of NCHIP Funds by Spending
Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 38 Table 7: California NCHIP
Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 40 Table 8: Maryland
NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 42 Table 9:
Mississippi NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 43
Table 10: Texas NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002
45 Table 11: West Virginia NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995
through 2002 47 Table 12: Priority States Uses of NCHIP Funds by Spending
Category, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 49 Table 13: Trend in Automation
Status of Priority States' Criminal History Files 50

Figures

Figure 1: Trend in Automation and III Accessibility of Criminal

History Records 12 Figure 2: Annual Number of Criminal and Civil
Fingerprint Submissions Received by the FBI (fiscal years 1992 through
2002) 22

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

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. However, 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.

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,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

1The 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.

(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

o  	how states have used NCHIP grant funds, particularly the extent to
which they have been used by states for NICS-related purposes;

o  	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

o  	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"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,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

2In 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.

3Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).

Results in Brief

the nation.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.

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.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

4Regarding 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.

5The $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.

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.6 For example, the development of computerized
criminal history systems in the states was a priority of the Law

6See 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.

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

o  	the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ("Brady Act"),7 which, among
other things, authorized grants for the improvement of state criminal
history records and amended the Gun Control Act of 1968;8

o  	the National Child Protection Act of 1993,9 which was enacted to
provide national criminal background checks for child care providers; and 
o  the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,10 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.

7Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).

8The 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.

9Pub. 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.

10Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994).

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.11
More details about the national data systems are presented in appendix II.

11Livescan 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.

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 2003.12 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

12The $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.

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

                                                                     Spending 
                                                                category as a 
NCHIP spending                             Total grant award percentage of 
                  Examples of grant fund uses       amounts for               
      category       by spending category               2000-03  4-year total

NICS/III/  o  Purchase equipment for major automated criminal records
criminal records systems or overall upgrades. $68,625,673 42

improvements  o  	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.

o  Develop nonfelony databases for mental health records.

o  	Develop nonfelony databases for domestic violence related misdemeanor
records.

Disposition reporting  o  Upgrade and automate records management systems
to capture 58,317,260 35 improvementsa data on dispositions from courts,
district attorney offices, and parole/probation systems.

o  	Develop protocols and standards for transferring disposition data to
the state central repository, linking disposition data with arrest
records.

o  	Install electronic fingerprinting equipment in courts to identify
defendants and facilitate record linkage.

o  Research missing dispositions in response to NICS inquiries.

o  	Update "arrest only" records to include case disposition information.

AFIS/  o  Purchase and install electronic fingerprinting equipment that
23,884,385 15 Livescan activities conforms to FBI technical standards.

o  	Implement technology to support the automated transfer of fingerprint
data to IAFIS.

Sex offender registry  o  Establish a state sex offender registry system
that complies with 5,638,410 3 enhancements FBI standards and supports an
interface with the FBI's National

Sex Offender Registry.

o  Classify state legislation relevant to sex offender registration.

o  Continually review registrants' addresses and status.

Protection order  o  Establish state-level protection order systems.
5,265,250

activities  o  	Establish protocols and record linkages to the NCIC
Protection 3 Order File.

Spending category as a percentage of

4-year total

NCHIP spending Examples of grant fund uses by spending category

category

Total grant award amounts for 2000-03

National

o  Develop linkages to the state repository used for background

3,472,141

security/anti

b

                              terrorism activities

checks on persons employed in sensitive positions.

o  Purchase electronic fingerprinting equipment.

o  	Develop policies governing the use of equipment to ensure privacy and
compliance with applicable regulations regarding noncriminal justice
background checks.

Total $165,203,119

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.

aFor 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.

bBJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities until
2002 (after the events of September 11, 2001).

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.13

13In 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.

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

                                         Full        Partial 
                                  participant    participant   Nonparticipant 
                                       states         states           states 
              Number of states             14             10 
            Total NCHIP awards    $56,553,315  $34,533,439        $68,781,449 

NCHIP spending category (in percent)

                         NICS/III/criminal records               
                                      improvements      35                 47 
                             Disposition reporting               
                                      improvements      40                 35 
                          AFIS/Livescan activities      15                 12 
                             Sex offender registry               
                                      enhancements       3                  3 
                       Protection order activities       4                  1 
                   National security/antiterrorism               
                                       activitiesa       3                  2 
                                     Total percent      100               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.

aBJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities until
2002 (after the events of September 11, 2001).

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

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.

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:

o  	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.

o  	In 1999, in response to mandates in the amendments14 to the Jacob
Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender
Registration Act,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

14Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996,
Pub. L. No. 104236, 110 Stat. 3093, (1996).

15Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (1994).

Columbia, and 3 territories had contributed all of their then-applicable records
         (over 300,000 records) to the National Sex Offender Registry.

o  	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 1998,16 as amended by the United
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001.17

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

Information on Dispositions of Arrests Not Always Widely Available

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.

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).

16Pub. L. No. 105-251, 112 Stat. 1870 (1988). 17Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115
Stat. 272 (2001).

Table 3: Percent of Arrest Records in State Repositories That Had Final
Dispositions Recorded (as of Dec. 31, 2001)

                    Number of 
            Percent    states                                          States 
            0 to 25         3              Colorado, Indiana, and Mississippi 
           26 to 50         6 Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, 
                                                                and Oklahoma. 
           51 to 75        14  California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 
                              Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North  
                                 Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Utah 

76 to 99 14	Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming

                              100 1 Massachusetts

Not reporteda 12	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.

aPercentages 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.

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

Automated Information Not Always Available to Identify Other Prohibited
Purchasers

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."

The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended,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

18Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat. 1213 (1968).

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 Systems providing
noncriminal information and number of Challenges affecting the
disqualifying factor records available availability of additional records

Persons convicted  o  National system for domestic  o  Definition in
federal statute is of domestic violence violence misdemeanor complex.a

misdemeanors records is not available.  o  States report domestic violence

o  	States rely on criminal history records for information pertaining to
domestic violence misdemeanor convictions.

misdemeanors as assaults and often do not include information regarding
perpetrator's relationship to victim.

o  	Arrest may lack disposition information.

Examples of state actions to address challenges

o  	Eight states have begun developing systems designed to identify
domestic violence records during background checks.

o  	One case-study state plans to install a domestic violence flagging
capability when its computerized criminal history system is reprogrammed
during fiscal year 2004.

Persons who are   o  NCIC Protection    o           Difficult to keep 
                        Order File                      protection order 
                        contains more than    information up-to-date     
subjects of court    778,000               because                    
                        court protection      orders can be rescinded    
protection orders    orders                and/or                     
                        submitted by 43       reinstated.                
                        states.               

Persons who have  o  NICS Index contains a  o  State privacy and
doctor/patient been adjudicated as filethe Mental Defective
confidentiality laws prohibit mentally defective Commitment
Filewhere contributing this information to

mental health records are national systems.

maintained.b

o  	Ten states have provided 58,721 mental health records to the NICS
Index Mental Defective Commitment File.

Persons who are  o  NICS Index contains a  o  The associated definition of
the unlawful users of or filethe Controlled term "addict" contains
various addicted to Substance Abuse File criteria that are subjective in
controlled where substance abuse nature.

substances records are maintained.  o  State privacy and doctor/patient

o  	Most states are providing this information to national systems.

o  	States that have applicable privacy or doctor/patient confidentiality
laws have begun considering using the NICS Index Denied Persons File.c

o  	No states are developing systems to track substance abusers.

o  	Three states have provided 66 substance abuse records to the NICS
Index Controlled Substance Abuse File.

confidentiality laws may prohibit contributing this information to
national systems.

Source: GAO analysis of BJS and FBI data.

aThe 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.

bThe 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.

cThe 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.

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.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,

19U.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).

Firearms, and Explosives occurred because disposition information for
felony arrests could not be determined within 3 days.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:

o  	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;

o  	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

o  	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

20Generally, 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.

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)

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.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

21National Child Protection Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-209, 107 Stat.
2490 (1993), as amended.

interactions with children.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:

o  	USA PATRIOT Act of 200123-Requires background checks on commercially
licensed drivers who transport hazardous materials.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.  o  Aviation and Transportation
Security Act of 200125-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

22Prosecutorial 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).

23Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).

24The 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.

25Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (2001).

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.

o  	Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 200226-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

                  26Pub. L. No. 107-188, 116 Stat. 594 (2002).

Agency Comments

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.

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:

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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.

o  	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,

Laurie E. Ekstrand
Director, Homeland Security and Justice

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

o  	how states have used NCHIP grant funds, particularly the extent to
which they have been used by states for NICS-related purposes;

o  	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

o  	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 1 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 	In addressing the objectives, to the extent possible, we
focused on obtaining national or programwide perspectives. For example, we

Methodology 	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

1In 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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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,2 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

NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003

                          Amount (in Funding NICS participation  
          Selected states  millions)    rank             statusa     Priority 
                                                                        state 
               California      $32.9       1    Full Participant           No 
                 Maryland       $7.4      20 Partial participant           No 
              Mississippi       $5.9      29      Nonparticipant          Yes 
                    Texas      $22.9       3      Nonparticipant           No 
            West Virginia       $5.4      35      Nonparticipant          Yes 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS and FBI information.

aRegarding 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.

How States Have Used To obtain an overview of how all jurisdictions (the
50 states, District of NCHIP Grant Funds, Columbia, and 5 U.S.
territories) have used NCHIP grant funds, we Including NICS-Related
requested that BJS provide us information on total awards for each of the

4 most recent fiscal years (2000 through 2003)-with the amountsPurposes
disaggregated into applicable spending categories. Generally, NCHIP
spending can be grouped into six spending categories: (1) NICS/Interstate

2Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Identification Index (III)3/criminal records improvements, (2) disposition
reporting improvements,4 (3) Automated Fingerprint Identification System
(AFIS)/Livescan activities,5 (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

3The III system, maintained by the FBI, is a pointer system used to locate
criminal history records anywhere in the nation.

4For 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.

5Most 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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

Data Reliability

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.

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

o  reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources,

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

o  	electronically tested the data to identify obvious problems with
completeness or accuracy, and

o  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.

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.

Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems

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.

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

       Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems

records to the requesting agency. The FBI provides responses for states
that are not yet participants in III.

NICS

National Sex Offender Registry

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.1

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.

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.2 The law further
provided that-when any offender convicted of committing a criminal sexual
act

118 U.S.C. S: 922.
2Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (1994).

Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems

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 19963 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.4 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

IAFIS

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.5

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

3Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093 (1996).

4 Allan D. Scholle, M.S., "Sex Offender Registration Community
Notification Laws," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (July 2000): 17-24.

528 U.S.C. S: 534.

Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems

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.

Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

Overview of 5 States'
Use of NCHIP Funds

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.1

Table 6 shows that since the inception of NCHIP in 1995, 4 of the 5
casestudy 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).

1These 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.

            Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

Table 6: Overview of Case-Study States' Use of NCHIP Funds by Spending Category,
                Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002 Case-Study States

  California Maryland Mississippi Texas West Virginia Total Total NCHIP award
 amounts (in millions) $29.9 $6.8 $5.3 $19.5 $4.7 $66.2 NCHIP spending category
                                 (in percent)a

      NICS/III/criminal records improvements     66    36    76    52    50   
        Disposition reporting improvements       13    12       8   2    35   
             AFIS/Livescan activities            13    40       5  45     9   
        Sex offender registry enhancements          9   8    11     1     5   
           Protection order activities              0   3       0   0     1   
    National security/antiterrorism activities      0   0       0   0     0   
                      Total                      100   100   100   100   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.

aCase-study state numbers represent percent of dollars spent for each
state.

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

Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

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.

            Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

 Table 7: California NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002

                                                    Grant award      Spending 
                                                     amounts by category as a 
NCHIP spending                                      spending percentage of 
                     Grant fund uses by spending                  state total 
      category                category                 category 

NICS/III/  o  Matching of III and state records.

criminal records  o  Reviewing manual criminal and applicant records up to
5 years old and improvements adding any criminal activity to the automated
system.

o  Converting manual fingerprint cards to automated format.

o  	Flagging of each automated criminal record with firearms qualification
status.

o  	Programming to provide non-U.S. citizen background checks for firearms
purchases.

o  Automating fingerprint/arrest records from the Department of
Corrections.

o  Providing electronic access to booking photos.

o  Paying miscellaneous staff costs.

o  	Conducting other activities (acquiring hardware and software,
performing programming tasks, upgrading and enhancing systems, linking
data, etc.).

$19,586,722

Disposition  o  Automating disposition reporting from courts to the
central repository. 3,899,414 13
reporting  o  Updating automated criminal records with missing
dispositions from manual
improvements records.

o  Assisting county courts report dispositions by magnetic tape.

o  	Developing pilot project to provide real-time, automated reporting of
court dispositions to the central repository.

o  	Developing pilot project for courts to place thumbprints on
disposition documents for proper identification.

o  Conducting other activities (acquiring hardware, etc.).

AFIS/  o  Purchasing Livescan devices for juvenile facilities, the courts,
and law 3,798,000 13 Livescan activities enforcement agencies.

o  	Updating AFIS to support increased workload due to full implementation
of electronic transmission.

Sex offender  o  Improving California's sex offender registry database, in
addition to 2,599,958 9
registry programming and interface efforts to allow reporting to the FBI's
national
enhancements registry.

Protection order  o  No projects in this category. 0 activities

National security/  o  No projects in this category. 0 0

antiterrorism activities

                             Total $29,884,094 100

Source: BJS and state data.

            Note: Details do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

Maryland

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.

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.

            Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

  Table 8: Maryland NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002

                                                    Grant award      Spending 
                                                     amounts by category as a 
NCHIP spending                                      spending percentage of 
                     Grant fund uses by spending                  state total 
      category                category                 category 

                    o    Converting older arrest records to III    $2,460,142 
      NICS/III/               format to make them available        
criminal records                    nationally.                 
     improvements   o     Developing audit program to identify     
                          missing criminal history records and     
                              making them available to III.        

o  Implementing updates in Maryland to support the FBI's NCIC system.

o  	Conducting other activities (conducting design studies and system
audits, training, paying indirect costs, etc.).

Disposition  o  Developing automated capabilities for the courts to
electronically 829,013 reporting transmit dispositions and other court
data to the state's central

improvements repository.

                                       36

                                       12

o  	Researching disposition requests received from the FBI for NICS checks
(Maryland State Archives).

          AFIS/        o         Upgrading the state's AFIS.        2,743,428 
Livescan activities o     Establishing arrest booking system     
                              workstations (including Livescan      
                              devices) at local jurisdictions.      
                       o   Establishing a system for transmitting   
                                   fingerprint card images          
                           electronically from local jurisdictions  
                                 to the central repository.         

       Sex offender      o    Automating Maryland's sex offender    521,277   
                                          registry.                
                             Studying the feasibility of placing   
registry enhancements o   the state's sex offender registry on  
                                        the Internet.              
                         o  Entering protection orders (manually)  
     Protection order                into state database.          
        activities       o   Providing statewide entry of warrant             
                             data (to include protection orders)    224,219
                                       by state police.            
    National security/   o      No projects in this category.          0      
       antiterrorism                                               
        activities                                                 
           Total                                                   $6,778,079 

Source: BJS and state data.

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

            Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

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

                                                         Grant award Spending
                                                     amounts by category as a
                                        NCHIP spending spending percentage of

       category          Grant fund uses by spending category        category 
                    o  Working with the vendor to provide systems             
      NICS/III/                support for the state's             $4,071,636
criminal records    computerized criminal history database.     
     improvements   o  Correcting the state's data and making      
                    other changes to the data and                  
                    software mandated by state and federal laws,   
                    policies, and procedures.                      

o  	Providing hardware/software for the computerized criminal history
database.

o  	Conducting other activities (paying travel expenses, purchasing
supplies, automating backlogged manual records, etc.).

Disposition  o  Acquiring hardware/software for automated disposition
reporting. 405,000
reporting  o  Developing disposition reporting system for prosecutors.
improvements  o  Purchasing workstations for court clerks.

                                  state total

AFIS/
Livescan activities

o  Purchasing Livescan devices for local and state agencies. 284,540

Sex offender

o  Providing hardware and software for the state's sex offender registry.

581,620

registry enhancements

o  	Working with consultants to design, test, implement, and support the
sex offender registry.

o  	Conducting other activities (e.g., purchasing supplies and providing
copier support).

Protection order  o  No projects in this category.
activities 0 0

National security/  o  No projects in this category. 0 0

antiterrorism activities

                              Total $5,342,796 100

                          Source: BJS and state data.

Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

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.

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.

Texas

            Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

Table 10: Texas NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through 2002

Grant award Spending amounts by category as a

    NCHIP spending                                     spending percentage of 
       category       Grant fund uses by spending      category   state total 
                               category                         
                        o  Scanning old manual                                
                      fingerprint cards into the                           52
      NICS/III/            state's automated        $10,095,000 
criminal records     database for subsequent                 
                       transmission to the FBI.                 
                       o  Upgrading the state's                 
     improvements    computerized criminal history              
                              database to                       
                         meet new demands and                   
                             expectations.                      

o  	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).

o  	Conducting other activities (updating state records in III, providing
file storage for incomplete criminal data, etc.).

                         o   Implementing pilot project in one    400,000   2 
Disposition reporting      county for the direct electronic             
                              transmission of disposition data             
       improvements            from the courts to the central              
                                        repository.                        
                         o    Purchasing Livescan devices for              45 
           AFIS/               electronic reporting of arrest    8,827,155 
    Livescan activities      records to the central repository.            

o  Upgrading state's automated fingerprint identification system.

o  	Conducting other activities (providing telecommunication lines,
purchasing hardware and software, etc.).

Sex offender registry  o  Developing the state's sex offender registry.
185,075 enhancements

Protection order No projects in this category. 0 activities

National No projects in this category. 0
security/antiterrorism
activities

                            Total $19,507,230a 100%

Source: BJS and state data.

aThe 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.

            Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

Also, as shown in table 10, Texas allocated 2 percent of its NCHIP awards
for disposition reporting improvementsthe lowest among the 5
casestudy 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.

            Appendix III: Use of NCHIP Funds by 5 Case-Study States

 Table 11: West Virginia NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 through
                                      2002

                                     Grant award amounts by spending category

Spending category as a percentage of

state total

NCHIP spending
category Grant fund uses by spending category

NICS/III/

o  Reducing the backlog of manual criminal records submitted to the

$2,320,442

criminal records improvements state repository by adding these data to the
automated database.

o  	Establishing a jail management information system for inmate tracking.

o  	Conducting other activities (working with a contractor on records
improvement, providing a data quality audit, establishing an offense code,
purchasing software for jails, etc.).

Disposition reporting  o  Automating court records, including
dispositions. 1,644,378 improvements

          AFIS/        o   Purchasing Livescan devices for regional   419,762 
                                            jails.                    
Livescan activities o     Purchasing hardware and software for     
                                   Livescan reporting to the          
                                  state's central repository.         
                       o  Conducting AFIS cost analysis/requirements  
                                            study.                    

Sex offender registry  o  Upgrading the state's sex offender registry.
236,744 enhancements

Protection order  o  Developing a database of domestic violence protection
orders.
activities 41,660

National security/  o  No projects in this category. 0

antiterrorism activities

Total $4,662,986a

Source: BJS and state data.

aThe 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.

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.

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.

Priority States' Use of NCHIP Grant Funds

 Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to Progress in Priority States; No NCHIP
                 Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems

Table 12: Priority States Uses of NCHIP Funds by Spending Category, Fiscal Years
                               2000 through 2003

NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year

                                                                    Total grant 
                                                                       Spending 
                                                                       category 
                                                                          award 
                                                                     amounts as 
                                                                              a 
                                                                     percentage 
                                                                             of 
     NCHIP spending                                                 for 2000-03 
        category              2000       2001       2002       2003      4-year 
                                                                          total 
NICS/III/criminal                                                
        records                                                     
      improvements        $929,651   $998,910  $562,466    $860,983 $3,352,010  
 Disposition reporting                                              
      improvements         647,346    920,189 1,019,070   1,278,917  3,865,522  
     AFIS/Livescan         317,080    146,095    550,557    427,835  1,441,567  
       activities                                                   
 Sex offender registry                                              
      enhancements         574,637    225,427    186,036    224,983  1,211,083  
    Protection order       158,807    114,415     70,557     98,863   442,642   
       activities                                                   
        National               Not        Not                       
 security/antiterrorism                                             
      activitiesa       applicable applicable          0          0      0      
                                                                    $10,312,824 
         Total          $2,627,521 $2,405,036 $2,388,686 $2,891,581        100% 

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.

aBJS did not recognize national security/antiterrorism activities until
2002 (after the events of September 11, 2001).

Priority States' The priority states have made progress in automating
their criminal history

records. Prior to NCHIP, these states had approximately 1.4 million
Progress in records in manual formats and very few automated records. By
2003, BJS Automating Records 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.

Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to Progress in Priority States; No
NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems

Table 13: Trend in Automation Status of Priority States' Criminal History Files

Percent of state's criminal history records automated (as of Dec. 31)

             Priority state    1993         1995  1997    1999           2001 
                      Maine       0            0       0      43          34a 
                Mississippi                  Not                 
                                  7  reportedb         7     100          100 
                 New Mexico       0          100   100    93 c            100 
                    Vermont       0            0   36         52 
              West Virginia                                               Not 
                                  0            1   13         22    reportedb 

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.

aIn 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.

bAutomation 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.

cIn 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.

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

Appendix IV: NCHIP Grants Contributed to Progress in Priority States; No
NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems

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.

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.

No NCHIP Funds Used for Ballistics Registration Systems, According to BJS

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

(440194)

Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777 Danny R. Burton, (214) 777-5600

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.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting 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.

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 fulltext 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

Contact:

To Report Fraud, Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***