This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-364 
entitled 'National Criminal History Improvement Program: Federal Grants 
Have Contributed to Progress' which was released on March 29, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

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

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

February 2004:

NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:

Federal Grants Have Contributed to Progress:

GAO-04-364:

GAO Highlights:

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

Why GAO Did This Study:

Public safety concerns require that criminal history records be 
accurate, complete, and accessible. Among other purposes, such records 
are used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that 
prohibited persons do not purchase firearms. 

Initiated in 1995, the National Criminal History Improvement Program 
represents a partnership among federal, state, and local agencies to 
build a national criminal records infrastructure. Under the program, 
the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) annually 
provides federal grants to states to improve the quality of records and 
their accessibility through NICS and other national systems maintained 
by the FBI. 

GAO examined (1) how states have used program grant funds, 
particularly the extent to which such funds have been used for NICS-
related purposes; (2) the progress—using program grants and other 
funding sources—that states have made in automating criminal history 
and other relevant records and making them accessible nationally; and 
(3) the various factors that are relevant considerations for 
policymakers in debating the future of the program.

What GAO Found:

States have used program grants primarily to support NICS in conducting 
presale background checks of firearms’ purchasers. BJS data show that 
over 75 percent of the total $164.3 million in program grants awarded 
in fiscal years 2000 through 2003 was used for NICS-related purposes. 
These uses encompassed a broad range of activities, such as converting 
manual records to automated formats and purchasing equipment to 
implement computerized systems or upgrade existing systems. All other 
uses of program grants, according to BJS, also had either direct or 
indirect relevance to building an infrastructure of nationally 
accessible records.

Using their own funds, in addition to the program and other federal 
grants, states have made progress in automating criminal history 
records and making them accessible nationally. As the figure shows, the 
percentage of the nation’s criminal history records that are automated 
increased from 79 percent in 1993 to 89 percent in 2001, according to 
BJS’s most recent data. Also, the number of states participating in the 
Interstate Identification Index—a “pointer system” to locate criminal 
history records anywhere in the country—increased from 26 at year-end 
1993 to 45 by May 2003. But, progress has been more limited for some 
NICS-related purposes. A national system for domestic violence 
misdemeanor records is not available. Also, as of May 2003, only 10 
states had made mental health records available to NICS, and only 3 
states had provided substance abuse records. 

One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when 
debating the future of the program is the extent of cumulative 
progress (and shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated 
systems. While states have made progress, more work remains. Also, the 
demand for background checks is growing, and technology is not static, 
which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated 
systems. Continued progress toward establishing and sustaining a 
national infrastructure inherently will involve long-term commitments 
from all governmental levels. Justice commented that GAO’s report 
fairly and accurately described the program and its accomplishments.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-364.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Laurie Ekstrand at (202) 
512-8777 or ekstrandl@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

States Have Used NCHIP Grants Primarily to Support NICS:

Progress Has Been Made--Using State, NCHIP, and Other Federal Funds--in 
Automating Records and Making Them Accessible Nationally:

Various Factors Are Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in 
Debating the Future of NCHIP:

Conclusions:

Agency Comments:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Objectives:

Scope and Methodology:

Data Reliability:

Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems:

NCIC:

III:

NICS:

National Sex Offender Registry:

NCIC Protection Order File:

IAFIS:

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

Overview of 5 States' Use of NCHIP Funds:

California:

Maryland:

Mississippi:

Texas:

West Virginia:

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

Priority States' Use of NCHIP Grant Funds:

Priority States' Progress in Automating Records:

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

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice:

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

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

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

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

Table 4: Summary of Nonfelony or Noncriminal Information Available 
Nationally (as of May 2003):

Table 5: Five States Selected for Case Studies of Use of NCHIP Funds:

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

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

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

Table 9: Mississippi NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 
through 2002:

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

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

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

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

Figures:

Figure 1: Trend in Automation and III Accessibility of Criminal History 
Records:

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

Abbreviations:

BJS: Bureau of Justice Statistics:

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:

IAFIS: Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System:

III: Interstate Identification Index:

NCHIP: National Criminal History Improvement Program:

NCIC: National Crime Information Center:

NICS: National Instant Criminal Background Check System:

NSOR: National Sex Offender Registry:

RQI: records quality index:

USA PATRIOT ACT: United Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate 
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

February 27, 2004:

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman, Committee on the 
Judiciary: 
House of Representatives:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Public safety concerns require that criminal history records and the 
systems that maintain them be accurate, complete, and accessible. Such 
records and systems are important for traditional criminal justice 
purposes, such as positively identifying, prosecuting, and sentencing 
repeat offenders. Moreover, they are used to conduct background checks 
for various noncriminal justice purposes,[Footnote 1] such as (1) 
ensuring that prohibited individuals do not purchase firearms, (2) 
preventing convicted pedophiles from working with organizations that 
serve children, and (3) meeting requirements associated with evolving 
homeland security concerns. For most purposes, the background checks 
are conducted using fingerprints. An exception is presale background 
checks of firearms' purchasers, who are screened by a name-based 
system--the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Initiated in 1995, the National Criminal History Improvement Program 
(NCHIP) represents a partnership among federal, state, and local 
agencies to build a national criminal records infrastructure. Under 
NCHIP, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 
annually provides federal grants to states to improve the quality and 
availability of criminal history records and their accessibility 
through various national systems maintained by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI). Such systems include NICS--which has electronic 
links to (1) the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which 
contains information on fugitives or wanted persons and individuals 
subject to court protection orders and (2) the Interstate 
Identification Index (III), which serves as a "pointer system" to 
locate criminal history records anywhere in the country--as well as the 
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which 
is a computerized system for storing, comparing, and exchanging 
fingerprint data in a digital format.

As agreed with your office, this report presents information on:

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

* the progress--using NCHIP grants and other funding sources--that states 
have made in automating criminal history and other relevant records and 
making them accessible nationally; and:

* the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers 
in debating the future of NCHIP.

As further agreed with your office, appendix IV of this report presents 
summary information on two supplemental topics: (1) the use of NCHIP 
funds by the 5 "priority states"[Footnote 2] and their progress in 
automating records and (2) whether any of the 50 states have used NCHIP 
funds to develop or implement a ballistics registration system--that 
is, a system that stores digital images of the markings made on bullets 
and cartridge casings when firearms are discharged.

To address the primary objectives, we (1) reviewed BJS documentation 
that describes NCHIP spending activities, (2) analyzed BJS's biennial 
national survey data or reports on the automation status of all states' 
criminal history records, and (3) interviewed NCHIP managers at BJS and 
NICS managers at the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services 
Division (Clarksburg, W.Va.). In addition, given that NCHIP 
consolidates criminal records improvement funding authorized by various 
federal laws, we reviewed these laws, such as the Brady Handgun 
Violence Prevention Act,[Footnote 3] and related legislative histories. 
Also, to provide supplemental and more in-depth perspectives, we 
conducted case studies of 5 recipient states--California, Maryland, 
Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia. We selected these states to 
reflect a range of various factors or considerations--that is, the 
amounts of grant funding received, status of NICS participation, and 
levels of automation, as well as to encompass different geographic 
areas of the nation.[Footnote 4] We conducted our work from April 2003 
to January 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Appendix I presents more details about our 
objectives, scope, and methodology.

Results in Brief:

States have used NCHIP grants primarily to support NICS in conducting 
background checks of firearms' purchasers. According to BJS data, of 
the total $165.2 million in NCHIP grants awarded in 4 recent fiscal 
years (2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003), over 75 percent was used for NICS-
related purposes.[Footnote 5] Such uses or purposes encompassed a broad 
range of activities, such as converting manual records to automated 
formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized systems or 
upgrade existing systems. All other uses of NCHIP grants, according to 
BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to building an 
infrastructure of nationally accessible records, such as implementing 
technology to support the automated transfer of fingerprint data to 
IAFIS.

Using their own funds, in addition to NCHIP grants and other federal 
funds, states have made progress in automating criminal history records 
and making them accessible nationally. For example, the percentage of 
the nation's criminal history records that are automated increased from 
79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at the end of 1995 and to 
89 percent at the end of 2001, according to BJS's most recent biennial 
survey of states. To facilitate national compatibility and 
accessibility of records, BJS requires that all enhancements funded 
under NCHIP conform to the FBI's standards for national data systems--
including, as applicable, NICS, NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Such conformance 
is important, for example, because III is the primary system used to 
access state-held data for NICS checks. The number of states 
participating in III increased from 26 at the end of 1993 to 30 at the 
end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003. On the other hand, progress has been 
more limited for some NICS-related purposes. For example, automated 
information on the disposition of older felony and other potentially 
disqualifying arrests--that is, information regarding whether the 
criminal charges against the arrested individual were dropped or 
proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in a conviction or acquittal--is 
critical for conducting background checks of persons purchasing 
firearms but is not always widely available. Also, automated 
information is not always available to identify other prohibited 
purchasers, such as persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic 
violence, adjudicated as mental defectives, or who are unlawful users 
of controlled substances.

One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when 
debating the future of NCHIP is the extent of cumulative progress (and 
shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems. While 
states have made progress, more work remains--such as for the NICS-
related purposes mentioned above. Another relevant factor to consider 
is that the demand for background checks is growing, with increases in 
recent years driven by screening requirements for employment and other 
noncriminal justice purposes. Furthermore, technology is not static, 
which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated 
systems to remain functional.

Background:

Each state has a central repository for receiving criminal history 
information contributed by law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, 
courts, and corrections agencies throughout the state. Each repository 
compiles this information into criminal history records (commonly 
called "rap sheets"), which are to be made available to criminal 
justice personnel for authorized purposes. Typically, a criminal 
history record is created for each individual offender (each 
"subject"). The record is to contain relevant identifiers (including 
fingerprints) and information about all arrests and their dispositions, 
such as whether the criminal charges were dropped or resulted in an 
acquittal or a conviction.

Efforts to improve criminal history records nationwide predate NCHIP by 
more than 2 decades.[Footnote 6] For example, the development of 
computerized criminal history systems in the states was a priority of 
the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, established by the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Also, during much 
of the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s--largely without specifically 
appropriated funds--BJS (or its predecessor, the National Criminal 
Justice Information and Statistics Service) took the lead in 
encouraging states to computerize criminal records and ensure 
conformity with evolving FBI standards.

In the 1990s, efforts to improve the accuracy, completeness, and 
accessibility of criminal history records received an impetus with 
passage of various federal statutes, particularly:

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

* the National Child Protection Act of 1993,[Footnote 9] which was 
enacted to provide national criminal background checks for child care 
providers; and:

* the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,[Footnote 
10] which, among other things, strove to improve access to court 
protection orders and records of individuals wanted for stalking and 
domestic violence.

With initial grant awards to states in 1995, NCHIP was designed by BJS 
to implement these federal mandates to improve public safety by 
enhancing the nation's criminal history records systems. In 1998, 
NCHIP's scope was expanded in response to federal directives to develop 
or improve sex offender registries and to contribute data to a national 
sex offender registry.

Also, in 1998, the "permanent" provisions of the Brady Act went into 
effect with the implementation of NICS--the computerized system 
designed to instantly (as the name indicates) conduct presale 
background checks of purchasers of any firearm (both handguns and long 
guns). In contrast, the "interim" provisions of the Brady Act 
(effective from 1994 to 1998) applied to handgun purchases only, and 
law enforcement officers were allowed a maximum of 5 business days to 
conduct presale background checks for evidence of felony convictions or 
disqualifying information. The effectiveness of NICS depends largely on 
the availability of automated records--including the final dispositions 
of arrests, such as whether the criminal charges resulted in 
convictions or acquittals. In this regard, many criminal justice 
agencies, from police departments to the courts, are generators of 
records relevant to NICS.

Over the years, BJS has tried to ensure that the use of NCHIP funds was 
closely coordinated with the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Grant 
Program, which requires that states use at least 5 percent of their 
awards for improving criminal history records. All 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories have been recipients of 
NCHIP grant awards, which totaled more than $438 million during fiscal 
years 1995 through 2003.

Also, as mentioned previously, to ensure national compatibility and 
accessibility of records, recipients' uses of NCHIP funds must conform 
with the FBI's standards for national data systems--including, as 
applicable, NICS, NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Regarding IAFIS, for example, 
most states have some type of automated fingerprint identification 
system (AFIS); a state can use NCHIP funds to enhance its AFIS by 
purchasing Livescan equipment, if the state has implemented (or is 
implementing) procedures to ensure that the AFIS is compatible with FBI 
standards.[Footnote 11] More details about the national data systems 
are presented in appendix II.

States Have Used NCHIP Grants Primarily to Support NICS:

For the recent fiscal years we studied, states used NCHIP grants 
primarily to support NICS in conducting background checks of firearms' 
purchasers. According to BJS data, a total of $165.2 million in NCHIP 
grants was awarded during fiscal years 2000 through 2003.[Footnote 12] 
Of this total, a majority--over 75 percent--was used for NICS-related 
purposes that encompassed a broad range of activities, such as 
converting manual records to automated formats and purchasing equipment 
to implement computerized systems or upgrade existing systems. All 
other uses of NCHIP grants during this period, according to BJS, also 
had either direct or indirect relevance to building an infrastructure 
of nationally accessible records, such as implementing technology to 
support the automated transfer of fingerprint data to IAFIS. We found 
that a state's participation status in NICS--whether the state was a 
full participant, partial participant, or nonparticipant--made little 
difference in how NCHIP funds were used by states.

For the Recent Fiscal Years We Studied, the Majority of NCHIP Funds Was 
Used to Support NICS-Related Activities:

As indicated in table 1, NCHIP award amounts can be grouped into six 
spending categories in which BJS awarded a total of $165.2 million in 
NCHIP grants for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. A majority of these 
funds was used for NICS-related purposes. For example, the two largest 
categories of spending--NICS/III/criminal records improvements and 
disposition reporting improvements--accounted for over 75 percent of 
total program awards during this period. Both categories directly 
affected NICS. The NICS/III/criminal records improvements category 
affected NICS by focusing on activities for improving records related 
to federal firearms disqualifiers and enhancing access to these records 
through III.

Similarly, the disposition reporting improvements category provided 
access to information about the disposition of arrests--information 
that is critical for determining whether persons are legally prohibited 
from purchasing firearms. Regarding this category, BJS encourages 
states to focus on making systemic improvements rather than using staff 
to manually research records to determine dispositions. Nonetheless, 
according to BJS, states may use NCHIP funds to research arrest 
dispositions in response to specific NICS-related queries, if the 
information is subsequently added to the automated system. BJS 
officials could not quantify the NCHIP grant amounts that all states 
have allocated for staff to research arrest dispositions. Officials in 
2 of the 5 case-study states indicated that their states had used NCHIP 
funding to research missing arrest dispositions and update criminal 
history records in response to specific NICS-related queries. One of 
these states (Maryland) used $41,000 of its fiscal year 2002 NCHIP 
award to fund a full-time position for researching the state's archived 
criminal history records.

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

NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements; 
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Purchase equipment for major automated criminal records systems or 
overall upgrades; 
* Convert and automate manual records, develop policies, and fund other 
activities required to bring states in compliance with the FBI's 
standards for national data systems; 
* Develop nonfelony databases for mental health records; 
* Develop nonfelony databases for domestic violence related misdemeanor 
records; 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: $68,625,673; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 42.

NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements[A]; 
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Upgrade and automate records management systems to capture data on 
dispositions from courts, district attorney offices, and parole/
probation systems; 
* Develop protocols and standards for transferring disposition data to 
the state central repository, linking disposition data with arrest 
records; 
* Install electronic fingerprinting equipment in courts to identify 
defendants and facilitate record linkage; 
* Research missing dispositions in response to NICS inquiries; 
* Update "arrest only" records to include case disposition information; 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 58,317,260; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 35.

NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities; 
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Purchase and install electronic fingerprinting equipment that 
conforms to FBI technical standards; 
* Implement technology to support the automated transfer of fingerprint 
data to IAFIS; 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 23,884,385; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 15.

NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements; 
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Establish a state sex offender registry system that complies with FBI 
standards and supports an interface with the FBI's National Sex 
Offender Registry; 
* Classify state legislation relevant to sex offender registration; 
* Continually review registrants' addresses and status; 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 5,638,410; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 3.

NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities; 
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Establish state-level protection order systems; 
* Establish protocols and record linkages to the NCIC Protection Order 
File; 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 5,265,250; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 3.

NCHIP spending category: National security/anti-terrorism 
activities[B]; 
Examples of grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Develop linkages to the state repository used for background checks 
on persons employed in sensitive positions; 
* Purchase electronic fingerprinting equipment; 
* Develop policies governing the use of equipment to ensure privacy and 
compliance with applicable regulations regarding noncriminal justice 
background checks; 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 3,472,141; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4- year total: 2.

Total; 

Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: $165,203,119; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 100. 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS data.

Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts to the 50 states, 
the District of Columbia, and 5 territories. As of January 2004, the 
recipients had not yet spent all of the funds awarded. There is overlap 
between some of the categories, but funds for any given activity were 
included in only one category and were not double counted. In cases 
where expenditures could be included in more than one category, BJS 
judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the 
activity. Details do not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

[A] For disposition reporting improvements, BJS used three spending 
categories--(1) funding to state courts, (2) funding to other judicial 
components, and (3) funding for disposition improvements not related to 
state courts. For purposes of this table, we combined these three into 
one spending category.

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

[End of table]

Also, table 1 shows that BJS awarded 3 percent of NCHIP funding 
specifically for protection order activities to improve records related 
to this firearms-purchase disqualifier. The other categories in table 
1--AFIS/Livescan activities, sex offender registry enhancements, and 
national security/antiterrorism activities--were for records 
improvement efforts that do not directly impact NICS. However, 
according to BJS, even if not NICS-related, each of the six spending 
categories in table 1 had either direct or indirect relevance to 
building an infrastructure of nationally accessible records, such as 
implementing technology to support the automated transfer of 
fingerprint data to IAFIS.

Appendix III presents more information about the use of NCHIP funds in 
the 5 case-study states, and appendix IV presents information about the 
use of NCHIP funds in the 5 priority states.[Footnote 13]

No Apparent Differences in NCHIP Awards Based on States' Participation 
Status in NICS:

As mentioned previously, for purposes of NICS background checks of 
persons purchasing firearms, states are categorized as full 
participants, partial participants, or nonparticipants. As table 2 
shows, we found little difference in the use of NCHIP funds by states 
based on their participation status in NICS. With relatively minor 
exceptions, the relative order of spending across categories was the 
same in all three types of states. Of the various spending categories, 
NICS/III/records improvements reflected the largest difference in 
percentage points--that is, a difference of 12 percentage points 
between the partial participant states (47 percent) and the full 
participant states (35 percent). A BJS official stated that this 
difference is not substantial and might occur because some states have 
legislation with slightly different prohibitors for purchasing 
firearms.

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

Number of states; 
Full participant states: 14; 
Partial participant states: 10; 
Nonparticipant states: 26.

Total NCHIP awards; 
Full participant states: $56,553,315; 
Partial participant states: $34,533,439; 
Nonparticipant states: $68,781,449.

NCHIP spending category (in percent): NICS/III/criminal records 
improvements; 
Full participant states: 35; 
Partial participant states: 47; 
Nonparticipant states: 41.

NCHIP spending category (in percent): Disposition reporting 
improvements; 
Full participant states: 40; 
Partial participant states: 35; 
Nonparticipant states: 34.

NCHIP spending category (in percent): AFIS/Livescan activities; 
Full participant states: 15; 
Partial participant states: 12; 
Nonparticipant states: 16.

NCHIP spending category (in percent): Sex offender registry 
enhancements; 
Full participant states: 3; 
Partial participant states: 3; 
Nonparticipant states: 4.

NCHIP spending category (in percent): Protection order activities; 
Full participant states: 4; 
Partial participant states: 1; 
Nonparticipant states: 3.

NCHIP spending category (in percent): National security/antiterrorism 
activities[A]; 
Full participant states: 3; 
Partial participant states: 2; 
Nonparticipant states: 2.

Total percent; 
Full participant states: 100; 
Partial participant states: 100; 
Nonparticipant states: 100. 

Source: GAO summary of BJS data.

Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts. The recipients 
have not yet spent all of the funds awarded. There is overlap between 
some of the categories, but funds for any given activity were included 
in only one category and were not double counted. In cases where 
expenditures could be included in more than one category, BJS 
judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the 
activity.

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

[End of table]

Progress Has Been Made Using State, NCHIP, and Other Federal Funds--in 
Automating Records and Making Them Accessible Nationally:

Using their own funds, in addition to NCHIP grants and other federal 
funds, states have made progress in automating criminal history records 
and making them accessible nationally. For example, the percentage of 
the nation's criminal history records that are automated increased from 
79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at the end of 1995 and to 
89 percent at the end of 2001, according to BJS's most recent biennial 
survey of states. To ensure national compatibility and accessibility of 
records, recipients' uses of NCHIP funds must conform with the FBI's 
standards for national data systems--including, as applicable, NICS, 
NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Such conformance is important, for example, 
because III is the primary system used to access state-held data for 
NICS checks. The number of states participating in III increased from 
26 at the end of 1993 to 30 at the end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003, 
indicating growth in compatible automated records. On the other hand, 
progress has been more limited for some NICS-related purposes. For 
example, automated information on the disposition of felony and other 
potentially disqualifying arrests is not always widely available. Also, 
automated information is not always available to identify other 
prohibited purchasers of firearms, such as persons convicted of a 
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, persons adjudicated as mental 
defective, or persons who are unlawful users of controlled substances. 
In fiscal year 2004, BJS plans to begin using a new, performance-based 
tool for making NCHIP funding decisions.

Progress Made in Automation and Accessibility of Criminal History 
Records:

In recent years, with the use of state and federal funds, criminal 
history record automation levels in the states and the accessibility of 
these records nationally have improved. BJS survey data from the end of 
1993 to the end of 2001 (the most recent data) show that increases in 
automation levels have outpaced increases in the number of criminal 
history records. Specifically, while the number of total records 
increased 35 percent during this period, the number of automated 
records increased 52 percent--which indicates progress in automating 
older criminal history records. Also, the number of records accessible 
by the III system increased 196 percent (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Trend in Automation and III Accessibility of Criminal History 
Records:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Data for total records and automated records are as of calendar 
year end for the respective years. Data for III-accessible records are 
as of the following respective dates: December 31, 1993; December 31, 
1995; September 30, 1997; June 30, 1999; and March 1, 2003.

[End of figure]

Overall, the percentage of the nation's criminal history records that 
are automated increased from 79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 
percent at the end of 1995 and to 89 percent at the end of 2001. The 
number of states participating in III increased from 26 at the end of 
1993 to 30 at the end of 1995 and to 45 by May 2003.

Also, according to BJS, other indicators of improved automation levels 
and accessibility are as follows:

* In 1997, the FBI established the NCIC Protection Order File to 
provide a repository for protection order records. As of May 2003 
(within 6 years of implementation), 43 states and 1 territory had 
contributed more than 778,000 records to this system.

* In 1999, in response to mandates in the amendments[Footnote 14] to 
the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent 
Offender Registration Act,[Footnote 15] the FBI established a national 
sex offender database for states to register and verify addresses of 
sex offenders. As of May 2003 (within 5 years of implementation), 50 
states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories had contributed all 
of their then-applicable records (over 300,000 records) to the National 
Sex Offender Registry.

* In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFIS--a computerized system for storing, 
comparing, and exchanging fingerprint data in a digital format. As of 
April 2003 (within 4 years of implementation), 44 states, the District 
of Columbia, and 3 territories had submitted some portions of their 
fingerprint files electronically to the FBI for entry into IAFIS.

BJS officials told us that NCHIP funds played a role in leading states 
to these and other accomplishments. Similarly, officials in the 5 case-
study states we visited told us that the criminal history record 
improvements in their states would not have been possible without NCHIP 
funds. According to BJS officials, NCHIP is best viewed as being an 
"umbrella" program that pools or coordinates various streams of monies. 
The officials noted that NCHIP grants generally should not be viewed in 
isolation, apart from funds that the states themselves spend for these 
initiatives. That is, the NCHIP grants generally provide the seed money 
or the supplemental funds that the states need to undertake major 
system upgrades or to implement an overall plan for modernizing their 
information systems. While NCHIP requires that states provide a 10 
percent match to the federal funds awarded, officials in the case-study 
states told us that their states typically have invested much more than 
the required 10 percent. For example, 1 state that has received over $5 
million in NCHIP funds estimated that over $20 million of its own funds 
have been invested in system improvements since 1995. Another state, 
receiving almost $7 million in NCHIP grants, estimated that $35.4 
million in state resources have been spent on improving and automating 
its systems.

In addition to NCHIP and state-provided funds, other federal programs 
provide funds that can be used to improve criminal history records. For 
example, the Bureau of Justice Assistance provides funds to states 
through Byrne grants, a block grant program that requires states to set 
aside 5 percent of any award for criminal justice information systems 
to assist law enforcement, prosecution, courts and corrections 
organizations. In addition to criminal history record improvements, 
Byrne grants may be used for a variety of other system-related 
activities that are not related to NCHIP. Examples include activities 
involving systems to collect criminal intelligence and systems to 
collect driving-under-the influence data. According to Bureau of 
Justice Assistance data for fiscal years 2001 through 2003, almost $73 
million in Byrne grants were set-aside to improve criminal justice 
information systems.

Grants are also now available for antiterrorism purposes under the 
Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998,[Footnote 16] as amended by 
the United Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools 
Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) of 
2001.[Footnote 17]

Besides characterizing NCHIP as an umbrella program, BJS officials also 
described it as being a "partnership" program--among BJS, the FBI, and 
the states and localities--for building a national infrastructure to 
facilitate the interstate exchange of information. The officials 
explained that such exchanges or accessibility are needed to support a 
variety of both criminal justice purposes (e.g., making decisions 
regarding pretrial release, sentencing, etc.) and noncriminal justice 
purposes (e.g., conducting background checks of firearms' purchasers, 
child-care providers, etc.). The BJS officials noted that NCHIP funds 
often are spread across a variety of long-term initiatives undertaken 
by the states' executive and judicial branch agencies to upgrade the 
architecture and coverage of criminal records information systems.

Limited Progress for Some NICS-Related Purposes:

For some NICS-related purposes, limited progress had been made in the 
automation and accessibility of relevant records. For example, 
automated information on the disposition of older felony and other 
potentially disqualifying arrests--that is, information regarding 
whether the criminal charges against the arrested individual were 
dropped or proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in a conviction or 
acquittal--is critical for conducting background checks of persons 
purchasing firearms but is not always widely available. Also, automated 
information is not always available to identify other prohibited 
purchasers, such as persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic 
violence, adjudicated as mental defectives, or who are unlawful users 
of controlled substances.

Information on Dispositions of Arrests Not Always Widely Available:

In conducting background checks of firearms' purchasers, automated 
information on whether the criminal charges against arrested 
individuals were dropped or proceeded to be prosecuted and resulted in 
a conviction or acquittal is not always widely available. For example, 
23 of the 38 states that responded to a question on final dispositions 
in BJS's most recent biennial survey reported that 75 percent or less 
of their arrest records had final dispositions recorded (see table 3).

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

Percent: 0 to 25; 
Number of states: 3; 
States: Colorado, Indiana, and Mississippi.

Percent: 26 to 50; 
Number of states: 6; 
States: Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.

Percent: 51 to 75; 
Number of states: 14; 
States: California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, 
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode 
Island, and Utah.

Percent: 76 to 99; 
Number of states: 14; 
States: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, 
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, 
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

Percent: 100; 
Number of states: 1; 
States: Massachusetts.

Percent: Not reported[A]; 
Number of states: 12; 
States: Alabama, Illinois, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West 
Virginia. 

Source: BJS data.

Note: The percentages are based on all arrest records in state 
respositories, whether maintained in automated or manual formats.

[A] Percentages are "not reported" by states for various reasons, 
including a lack of state personnel and/or computer program time to 
submit survey responses, or states' inability to track the data needed 
to respond to the survey.

[End of table]

It is important to draw a distinction between old and new arrest 
records with respect to disposition reporting. The BJS Director told us 
that, given limited resources, the agency has always emphasized to the 
states the importance of making certain that records of recent criminal 
activity are updated and compatible with FBI standards. In this regard, 
the Director explained that many states adopted a "day 1" approach in 
using NCHIP funds to improve records--that is, improve new records 
first--and left a number of old, inactive records archived in state 
repositories. The Director noted that BJS research, with FBI 
assistance, has indicated that older arrest records account for much of 
the "open arrest" problem. That is, of the criminal history records for 
which missing disposition information was never recorded, about one-
half involve arrests that occurred before 1984 and three-quarters pre-
date NCHIP.

Nonetheless, while states have made progress in automating newer 
disposition information--and automating disposition information 
discovered when conducting research of older records--achieving 
universal automation of disposition information continues to present 
challenges, as table 3 indicates.

BJS has recognized that, whenever criminal history records show arrests 
without final dispositions, there is the potential for delays in 
responding to presale firearms inquiries because, in most instances, 
disqualifications result from convictions rather than arrests. Since 
1995, BJS has encouraged states to contact court representatives and 
determine how NCHIP funds can be used to improve disposition reporting. 
Further, since 2000, BJS has required that such contacts be documented 
in the states' application packages for NCHIP funds. For example, in 
the Fiscal Year 2003 Program Announcement (Mar. 2003), BJS specified 
that "all applications will be required to demonstrate that court needs 
have been considered, and if no funds for upgrading court systems 
capable of providing disposition data are requested, applicants should 
include a letter from the State court administrator or Chief Justice 
indicating that the courts have been consulted in connection with the 
application.":

Automated Information Not Always Available to Identify Other Prohibited 
Purchasers:

The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended,[Footnote 18] specifies four 
nonfelony or noncriminal categories that prohibit an individual from 
owning or purchasing a firearm--that is, persons who (1) have been 
convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, (2) are subject 
to certain outstanding court protection orders, (3) have been 
adjudicated as mentally defective, or (4) are unlawful users of 
controlled substances. Generally, states have used NCHIP funds to 
provide information for only one of these four categories--court 
protection orders. For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, states received 
a total of approximately $5.3 million in NCHIP funds to develop systems 
for reporting information to the FBI to be included in the NCIC 
Protection Order File as indicated in table 1. As of May 2003, states 
had made more than 778,000 records of court protection orders available 
to the national file.

However, the availability of information regarding domestic violence 
misdemeanor convictions, mental health commitments, and controlled 
substance abusers is problematic for various reasons. For example, 
according to BJS, problems in identifying domestic violence misdemeanor 
convictions are twofold--(1) misdemeanor data traditionally have not 
been maintained at the state level in an automated format and (2) 
misdemeanor assault charges rarely specify the victim-offender 
relationship unless domestic violence is specifically charged. That is, 
domestic violence-related offenses can be difficult to distinguish from 
misdemeanors broadly classified as assaults. Since fiscal year 1996, 
BJS has encouraged states to use NCHIP funds to improve access to 
domestic violence records. BJS has provided direction, for example, to 
the states to set "flags" on the records of persons known to have a 
conviction for domestic violence.

Records regarding mental health commitments are often not available 
nationally for reasons beyond the control of NCHIP. For instance, state 
mental health laws, privacy laws, or doctor-patient considerations may 
preclude federal law enforcement officials from routinely accessing 
some of these records. According to BJS, the area of mental health 
records and their shareability is a very difficult area--and is an area 
in which BJS has encouraged states to do more with NCHIP funds since 
fiscal year 1996. The FBI's strategy--which BJS encourages the states 
to use--has been to create a Denied Persons File in the NICS Index 
where the reason for denial is not given unless the denial is appealed.

In reference to substance abuse, BJS noted that federal law is very 
unclear regarding who is a prohibited person, which makes it very 
difficult for states to make records available to the FBI for NICS 
checks. Also, BJS noted that states have no central registries of 
active drug users or addicts. Given the complications of federal 
definitions, BJS emphasized that it would be a very challenging 
undertaking to develop such registries and keep them current.

Overall, as table 4 indicates, a national system for domestic violence 
misdemeanor records is not available, only 10 states have provided 
mental health records to the NICS Index, and only 3 states have 
provided substance abuse records. According to BJS, most states have 
chosen to use NCHIP awards to automate criminal history records overall 
and improve criminal history record systems, rather than focus on 
improving access to these four specific types of records. BJS 
recognizes that ensuring the availability of additional nonfelony or 
noncriminal records involves various considerations or challenges that 
extend beyond simply providing more money to improve records. For 
example, as mentioned previously, BJS noted that federal law is very 
unclear regarding who is a prohibited person in reference to substance 
abuse.

Table 4: Summary of Nonfelony or Noncriminal Information Available 
Nationally (as of May 2003):

Nonfelony or noncriminal disqualifying factor: Persons convicted of 
domestic violence misdemeanors; 
Systems providing information and number of records available: 
* National system for domestic violence misdemeanor records is not 
available; 
* States rely on criminal history records for information pertaining to 
domestic violence misdemeanor convictions; 
Challenges affecting the availability of additional records: 
* Definition in federal statute is complex.[A]; 
* States report domestic violence misdemeanors as assaults and often do 
not include information regarding perpetrator's relationship to victim; 
* Arrest may lack disposition information; 
Examples of state actions to address challenges: 
* Eight states have begun developing systems designed to identify 
domestic violence records during background checks; 
* One case-study state plans to install a domestic violence flagging 
capability when its computerized criminal history system is 
reprogrammed during fiscal year 2004.

Nonfelony or noncriminal disqualifying factor: Persons who are subjects 
of court protection orders; 
Systems providing information and number of records available: 
* NCIC Protection Order File contains more than 778,000 court 
protection orders submitted by 43 states; 
Challenges affecting the availability of additional records: 
* Difficult to keep protection order information up-to-date because 
orders can be rescinded and/or reinstated; 
Examples of state actions to address challenges: 
* Most states are providing this information to national systems.

Nonfelony or noncriminal disqualifying factor: Persons who have been 
adjudicated as mentally defective; 
Systems providing information and number of records available: 
* NICS Index contains a file--the Mental Defective Commitment File--
where mental health records are maintained.[B]; 
* Ten states have provided 58,721 mental health records to the NICS 
Index Mental Defective Commitment File; 
Challenges affecting the availability of additional records: 
* State privacy and doctor/patient confidentiality laws prohibit 
contributing this information to national systems; 
Examples of state actions to address challenges: 
* States that have applicable privacy or doctor/patient confidentiality 
laws have begun considering using the NICS Index Denied Persons File.
[C].

Nonfelony or noncriminal disqualifying factor: Persons who are unlawful 
users of or addicted to controlled substances; 
Systems providing information and number of records available: 
* NICS Index contains a file--the Controlled Substance Abuse File --
where substance abuse records are maintained; 
* Three states have provided 66 substance abuse records to the NICS 
Index Controlled Substance Abuse File; 
Challenges affecting the availability of additional records: 
* The associated definition of the term "addict" contains various 
criteria that are subjective in nature; 
* State privacy and doctor/patient confidentiality laws may prohibit 
contributing this information to national systems; 
Examples of state actions to address challenges: 
* No states are developing systems to track substance abusers. 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS and FBI data.

[A] The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, defines a "misdemeanor 
crime of domestic violence" as an offense that is a misdemeanor under 
federal or state law and has, as an element, the use or attempted use 
of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed 
by (1) a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; 
(2) a person with whom the victim shares a child in common; (3) a 
person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a 
spouse, parent, or guardian; or (4) a person similarly situated to a 
spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

[B] The NICS Index was created solely for presale background checks of 
firearms' purchasers and contains disqualifying information 
contributed by local, state, and federal agencies on individuals who 
are prohibited from purchasing firearms for various reasons, such as 
being (1) dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, (2) 
involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or (3) an unlawful 
user of a controlled substance.

[C] The NICS Index Denied Persons File allows a state to flag an 
individual as prohibited from purchasing a firearm without providing 
the specific reason for the prohibition.

[End of table]

BJS has recognized that the absence of widely accessible information on 
domestic violence misdemeanors and noncriminal disqualifying factors is 
among the most important issues affecting the accuracy and timeliness 
of presale background checks of firearms purchasers. Thus, for several 
years, BJS has been encouraging states to use NCHIP funds to make 
improvements. Recently, for example, in providing NCHIP guidance in the 
Fiscal Year 2003 Program Announcement (Mar. 2003), BJS encouraged 
states to develop systems that would make this information available 
nationally.

BJS Is Developing a Tool for Measuring NCHIP Performance:

As mentioned previously, NCHIP's goal is to improve public safety by 
enhancing the quality, completeness, and accessibility of the nation's 
criminal history and sex offender record systems and the extent to 
which such records can be used and analyzed for criminal justice and 
authorized noncriminal justice purposes. To better measure progress 
toward this goal, BJS is developing a tool--a criminal history records 
quality index (RQI)--to uniformly characterize and monitor performance 
across jurisdictions and over time. RQI is to be based on a series of 
key indicators or outcome measures, such as the proportion of fully 
automated criminal history records in a state's repository, the 
proportion of court dispositions transmitted electronically to the 
repository, and the extent to which the state submits data 
electronically to the FBI. According to BJS, RQI will be used to assess 
the progress of records quality at both the state and national levels, 
identify critical records improvement activities by pinpointing areas 
of deficiency and permit BJS to target specific problems and 
deficiencies for allocating future funding at the individual state 
level.

After RQI is operationalized, BJS plans to begin using it for NCHIP 
funding decisions. Initial RQI development--and pilot testing in 10 
states--was completed in 2003. As of January 2004, according to BJS, 
collection of the underlying RQI measures data from the other 46 
jurisdictions (40 states, the District of Columbia, the 5 U.S. 
territories) was still ongoing. BJS hopes to receive RQI data 
submissions from all jurisdictions by April 30, 2004.

Various Factors Are Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in 
Debating the Future of NCHIP:

One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when 
debating the future of NCHIP is the extent of cumulative progress (and 
shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems that cover 
all needed types of information. While states have made progress, more 
work remains. For NICS-related purposes, as discussed previously, 
automated information is not always widely available on the disposition 
of felony and other potentially disqualifying arrests, nor on other 
prohibited purchasers, such as persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime 
of domestic violence. Another relevant factor to consider is that the 
demand for background checks is growing, with increases in recent years 
driven by screening requirements for employment and other noncriminal 
justice purposes. Furthermore, technology is not static, which 
necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated systems for 
them to remain functional.

Progress Has Been Made, but More Work Remains:

As discussed previously, much progress has been made in automating 
records in recent years. On the other hand, some areas reflect a 
continuing need for improvements. For instance, the availability of and 
access to arrest disposition information--necessary for timely presale 
background checks of persons purchasing firearms--continues to be 
problematic. Such information is important for preventing or minimizing 
the sale of firearms by "default proceed." That is, by statute, if a 
background check is not completed within 3 business days, the sale of 
the firearm is allowed to proceed by default, sometimes to prohibited 
persons.

In 2000, we reported that default proceeds occurred primarily due to a 
lack of arrest dispositions in states' automated criminal history 
records and that many of these transactions involved individuals--2,519 
purchasers during a 10-month period--who were later determined by the 
FBI to be prohibited persons.[Footnote 19] We further reported that 
firearms being transferred to prohibited persons presented public 
safety risks and placed resource demands on law enforcement agencies in 
retrieving the firearms. More recently, according to the FBI, over one-
third (1,203) of the total 3,259 firearms retrieved in 2002 by the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives occurred because 
disposition information for felony arrests could not be determined 
within 3 days.[Footnote 20]

Another one-third (1,052) of the total retrievals in 2002 involved 
background checks whereby FBI examiners were unable to timely determine 
from available records that misdemeanor assault convictions involved 
domestic violence. A national system for domestic violence misdemeanor 
records is not available (see table 4). To further support NICS, table 
4 also indicates that there is still much opportunity for improving the 
availability of records regarding persons who have been adjudicated as 
mentally defective and persons who are unlawful users of controlled 
substances.

Additional examples (not exhaustive) of opportunities for further 
progress in automating records and/or enhancing national systems 
include the following:

* 5 states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, and Vermont), the 
District of Columbia, and the 5 U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, 
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) 
still do not participate in III;

* 7 states (Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, Virginia, 
and West Virginia), the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories 
(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico) have 
not contributed any data to the NCIC Protection Order File; and:

* 6 states (Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, Nevada Vermont, and Wyoming) 
and 2 U.S. territories (Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico) have 
not submitted any files electronically to IAFIS.

Demand on Systems Is Increasing, Especially for Noncriminal Justice 
Purposes:

In debating the future of NCHIP, another relevant factor for 
policymakers to consider is that the demand for background checks is 
growing, with increases in recent years driven by screening 
requirements for employment and other noncriminal justice purposes. 
Generally, background checks for these "civil" purposes are based on 
fingerprint submissions--in contrast to the "name-based" searches 
conducted under NICS. The number of civil fingerprint submissions to 
the FBI has increased substantially in recent years. As figure 2 shows, 
for 5 of the 7 years during 1996 to 2002, the number of civil 
fingerprint submissions exceeded the number of criminal fingerprint 
submissions (i.e., fingerprints of criminal suspects or arrestees). In 
the most recent year (2002), civil fingerprint submissions totaled 9.1 
million, whereas criminal fingerprint submissions totaled 8.4 million.

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The growth in civil fingerprint submissions is partly attributable to 
1993 federal legislation that encouraged states to have procedures 
requiring fingerprint-based national searches of criminal history 
records of individuals seeking paid or volunteer positions with 
organizations serving children, the elderly, or the disabled.[Footnote 
21] As of February 2004, according to BJS, 47 states had enacted 
legislation authorizing these record checks.

Further, in 2003, federal legislation was enacted that establishes, in 
general, a pilot program in 3 states to conduct fingerprint-based 
background checks on individuals seeking volunteer positions involving 
interactions with children.[Footnote 22] Within 6 months of the date of 
the 2003 Act's enactment, the Attorney General is to conduct a 
feasibility study to determine, among other things, the number of 
background checks that would be required if the pilot were implemented 
nationwide and the impact these additional checks might have on the FBI 
and IAFIS. If this pilot program is implemented nationally, BJS 
officials estimate that millions of additional background checks would 
be required annually.

Homeland security concerns are another factor that has increased the 
demand for fingerprint-based background checks. Since the events of 
September 11, 2001, Congress passed legislation to protect the nation 
from future terrorist attacks. These laws require that individuals 
employed in sensitive positions undergo background checks to qualify 
for employment. FBI and BJS officials expect the number of applicant 
background checks to be in the millions, as homeland defense laws are 
fully implemented. Examples of federal homeland defense legislation and 
the number of checks anticipated follow:

* USA PATRIOT Act of 2001[Footnote 23]--Requires background checks on 
commercially licensed drivers who transport hazardous 
materials.[Footnote 24] Officials from the FBI's Criminal Justice 
Information Services Division estimated that 800,000 to 1,000,000 
individuals held commercial licenses at the time the USA PATRIOT Act 
was passed. Under the act, license renewals, in addition to new 
licensees, will need background checks to qualify for commercial 
licenses.

* Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001[Footnote 25]--
Requires background checks of those individuals in security screener 
positions or other positions such as those with unescorted access to 
aircraft or secured areas of an airport. New background checks are 
required for those employees already hired at the time of the Aviation 
and Transportation Security Act's passage as well as for individuals 
seeking employment. This act further requires background checks of 
foreigners seeking enrollment in flight schools. The Transportation 
Security Administration has requested over 105,365 background checks 
since passage of the act in November 2001. In addition to these checks, 
FBI officials estimated that flight school checks alone could result in 
up to 50,000 fingerprint checks annually.

* Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act 
of 2002[Footnote 26]--Requires the Attorney General to conduct 
background on persons possessing, using, or transferring various toxins 
and biological agents. FBI officials estimated that this law could 
result in 30,000 checks annually.

Technology Is Not Static:

Another factor for consideration is that technology is not static and 
can change rapidly, which necessitates periodic upgrades or 
replacements of automated systems. For example, 1 case-study state used 
fiscal year 1995 NCHIP funds to purchase Livescan equipment for its 
major metropolitan areas. According to state officials, this equipment 
is now outdated and fiscal year 2003 NCHIP funds will be used to 
purchase new equipment. According to state officials, the 1995 machines 
will be retained for installation in other areas, such as the state's 
less populous or more rural counties.

Another relevant factor is how long-term funding needs will be met. 
Replacing outdated equipment and automating records can be expensive. 
States advocate that steady or long-term funding streams are important 
for implementing technological advances. In this regard, states do not 
rely entirely on NCHIP grants for system improvements. That is, states 
view NCHIP funding as "seed" or supplemental money and contribute from 
their own coffers to fund these upgrades. For instance, as noted 
previously, officials in the case-study states told us that their 
states typically have invested much more than the 10 percent matching 
funds required by NCHIP.

Conclusions:

The overarching goal of NCHIP--building a national infrastructure to 
facilitate the interstate exchange of criminal history and other 
relevant records--is important for many purposes. Without such an 
infrastructure, individuals who are, in fact, prohibited but whose 
records are inaccessible, or do not reflect such a prohibition may be 
allowed to purchase firearms, creating safety concerns not only for the 
general public, but also for the law enforcement officials responsible 
for retrieving these firearms after the prohibited status is 
ascertained. Further, inaccurate, incomplete, or inaccessible records 
and systems do not help to prevent persons who have been convicted of 
crimes to be hired in paid or volunteer positions with organizations 
serving children, the elderly, or the disabled, putting these 
populations at risk for abuse or worse. Also, accurate, complete, and 
accessible records and systems are necessary to respond to the needs 
and requirements of homeland security and to avert terrorism, 
particularly with respect to individuals employed in sensitive 
positions.

Since its initiation in 1995, NCHIP has provided more than $438 million 
in federal grants nationwide. Using their own funds, as well as NCHIP 
and other federal grants, states have made much progress in automating 
their records and making them accessible nationally by conforming with 
the FBI's standards for applicable national data systems--such as NICS, 
NCIC, III, and IAFIS. Continued progress toward establishing and 
sustaining a national infrastructure inherently will involve a 
partnering of federal, state, and local resources and long-term 
commitments from all governmental levels.

Agency Comments:

On January 28, 2004, we provided a draft of this report for comment to 
the Department of Justice. In a response letter, dated February 13, 
2004, the Assistant Attorney General (Office of Justice Programs) 
commented that the report fairly and accurately described NCHIP, its 
accomplishments, and the continued need to promote state and local 
participation in national criminal history records systems. Also, the 
Assistant Attorney General commented that the following issues 
mentioned in the report should be highlighted:

Given limited resources, it is important to draw the distinction 
between old and new arrest records with respect to disposition 
coverage. BJS has always emphasized to the states the importance of 
making certain that records of recent criminal activity were updated 
and compatible with FBI standards.

In many cases, state laws prohibit sharing mental health information 
because of confidentiality and doctor-patient privacy laws. The 
strategy for the FBI, and one which BJS has encouraged the states to 
use, has been to utilize the Denied Persons File in the NICS Index 
where the reason for denial of a firearm purchase is not given unless 
the denial is appealed.

Most states do not fingerprint misdemeanants, and misdemeanor assault 
charges rarely specify the victim-offender relationship (unless 
domestic violence is specifically charged). BJS has given strong 
direction to the states to set flags on the records of persons known to 
have a conviction for domestic violence.

No state has a central registry of active drug users or addicts. It 
will be challenging to develop such registries and to keep them 
current.

In perspective, the number of problematic firearms sales--that is, 
default proceeds that result in a need to retrieve firearms from 
prohibited purchasers--is very small compared to the 8 million to 9 
million background checks conducted each year.

RQI, a metric developed by BJS, is a major step forward and may provide 
a significant opportunity for evaluating performance over time and 
establishing a basis for targeting future assistance to state and local 
participants in federal funding programs.

The full text of the Assistant Attorney General's letter is presented 
in appendix V.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of 
this report to interested congressional committees and subcommittees. 
We will also make copies available to others on request. In addition, 
this report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to 
discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or 
Danny Burton at (214) 777-5600. Other key contributors to this report 
are listed in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

Laurie E. Ekstrand: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Objectives:

As requested by the Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary, our 
overall objective was to broadly review the National Criminal History 
Improvement Program (NCHIP). Managed by the Department of Justice's 
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), NCHIP is a federal grant program to 
build a national infrastructure to facilitate the interstate exchange 
of criminal history and other relevant records--that is, to improve the 
accuracy, completeness, and accessibility of records used by various 
national systems. One of the primary systems is the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is managed by the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and is used to conduct presale 
background checks of persons purchasing firearms. As agreed with the 
requester's office, this report presents information on:

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

* the progress--using NCHIP grants and other funding sources--that states 
have made in automating criminal history and other relevant records and 
making them accessible nationally; and:

* the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers 
in debating the future of NCHIP.

Regarding the use of NCHIP grant funds, as further agreed with the 
requester's office, this report also presents information on (1) the 
use of such funds by the priority states [Footnote 27] and their 
progress in automating records and (2) whether any of the 50 states 
have used NCHIP funds to develop or implement a ballistics registration 
system--that is, a system that stores digital images of the markings 
made on bullets and cartridge casings when firearms are discharged.

Scope and Methodology:

In addressing the objectives, to the extent possible, we focused on 
obtaining national or programwide perspectives. For example, we 
reviewed BJS's biennial national survey data or reports on the 
automation status of all states' criminal history records. Further, we 
interviewed NCHIP managers at BJS and NICS managers at the FBI's 
Criminal Justice Information Services Division (Clarksburg, W. Va.). 
Also, we reviewed BJS program documentation that describes allowable 
NCHIP spending activities. In addition, given that NCHIP consolidates 
criminal records improvement funding authorized by various federal 
laws, we reviewed these laws, such as the Brady Handgun Violence 
Prevention Act,[Footnote 28] and related legislative histories.

Also, to provide supplemental or more in-depth perspectives, we 
conducted case studies of 5 recipient states (California, Maryland, 
Mississippi, Texas, and West Virginia). We selected these states to 
reflect a range of various factors or considerations--the amounts of 
grant funding received, status of NICS participation, and levels of 
automation, as well as to encompass different geographic areas of the 
nation (see table 5).

Table 5: Five States Selected for Case Studies of Use of NCHIP Funds:

Selected states: California; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions): 
$32.9; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 1; 
NICS participation status[A]: Full Participant; 
Priority state: No.

Selected states: Maryland; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions): 
$7.4; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 20; 
NICS participation status[A]: Partial participant; 
Priority state: No.

Selected states: Mississippi; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions): 
$5.9; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 29; 
NICS participation status[A]: Nonparticipant; 
Priority state: Yes.

Selected states: Texas; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions): 
$22.9; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 3; 
NICS participation status[A]: Nonparticipant; 
Priority state: No.

Selected states: West Virginia; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Amount (in millions): 
$5.4; 
NCHIP funding for fiscal years 1995 through 2003: Funding rank: 35; 
NICS participation status[A]: Nonparticipant; 
Priority state: Yes. 

Source: GAO analysis of BJS and FBI information.

[A] Regarding the status of NICS participation, the FBI categorizes 
states as follows: (1) Full participant states are those where a 
designated state agency conducts background checks of persons 
purchasing any firearm, both handguns and long guns; (2) partial 
participant states designate a state agency to conduct presale 
background checks for handgun purchases, with the FBI conducting 
background checks for long gun purchases; and (3) nonparticipant states 
are those where the FBI conducts presale background checks for 
purchases of both handguns and long guns. Sometimes, these categories 
are referred to as point-of-contact states, partial point-of-contact 
states, and FBI states, respectively.

[End of table]

How States Have Used NCHIP Grant Funds, Including NICS-Related 
Purposes:

To obtain an overview of how all jurisdictions (the 50 states, District 
of Columbia, and 5 U.S. territories) have used NCHIP grant funds, we 
requested that BJS provide us information on total awards for each of 
the 4 most recent fiscal years (2000 through 2003)--with the amounts 
disaggregated into applicable spending categories. Generally, NCHIP 
spending can be grouped into six spending categories: (1) NICS/
Interstate Identification Index (III)[Footnote 29]/criminal records 
improvements, (2) disposition reporting improvements,[Footnote 30] (3) 
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS)/Livescan 
activities,[Footnote 31] (4) sex offender registry enhancements, (5) 
protection order activities, and (6) national security/antiterrorism 
activities. In cases where expenditures could be included in more than 
one category, BJS judgmentally selected the category that was the most 
descriptive of the activity.

We reviewed BJS documentation and interviewed BJS officials to 
determine which of these spending categories involved NICS-related 
purposes. In addition, we analyzed the spending category information in 
reference to the 50 states' participation status in NICS (full 
participant, partial participant, or nonparticipant) to determine any 
general differences in the types of NCHIP-funded projects undertaken. 
Similarly, we analyzed the spending category information to determine 
how the 5 priority states had used NCHIP grant funds (see app. IV).

For more in-depth perspectives, we reviewed data on the use of NCHIP 
grant funds by the 5 states we selected for case studies. 
Preliminarily, we reviewed information in grant files maintained by the 
Office of the Comptroller (a component of the Department of Justice's 
Office of Justice Programs). Then, we visited each of the 5 states and 
interviewed state officials responsible for NCHIP-funded projects. At 
our request, using definitions provided by BJS, the officials grouped 
their respective state's grant awards into applicable spending 
categories (see app. III). For some NCHIP-funded activities, officials 
in the case-study states indicated that expenditures could be included 
in more than one category. In these cases, based on input from state 
officials, we selected the category that was most descriptive of the 
activity. For each of the case-study states, these spending category 
analyses covered NCHIP grant awards for fiscal year 1995 (when the 
program was initiated) through fiscal year 2002 (the most current data 
available at the time of our visits).

Regarding ballistics registration systems, we interviewed NCHIP 
managers to determine if NCHIP guidelines allow NCHIP funds to be used 
to develop and implement such systems and, if so, the extent to which 
states have used or are planning to use NCHIP funds for this purpose. 
In addition, in visiting the 5 case-study states, we asked state 
officials if NCHIP money had been or would be used to develop and 
implement ballistics registration systems.

States' Progress in Automating Records and Making Them Accessible 
Nationally:

We reviewed BJS's biennial survey data and/or reports (for 1993, 1995, 
1997, 1999, and 2001) on the automation status of states' criminal 
history records. We contacted BJS managers to clarify (when necessary) 
the survey data and discuss automation progress, including the 
contributing roles played by NCHIP and other federal grants and by the 
states' use of their own funds. Further, we reviewed BJS and FBI 
information regarding the progress of states in making criminal history 
and other relevant records accessible nationally by, for example, 
conforming with the FBI's standards for national data systems--
including, as applicable, NICS, the National Crime Information Center 
(NCIC), III, and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification 
System (IAFIS). Also, in each of the 5 case-study states, we discussed 
these issues with state officials.

Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in Debating the Future of 
NCHIP:

To determine various factors that are relevant considerations for 
policymakers in debating the future of NCHIP, we interviewed NCHIP and 
NICS managers, as well as officials in the 5 case-study states. We also 
contacted officials from other organizations, such as SEARCH (The 
National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics) and the 
American Prosecutors Research Institute. Further, we relied on insights 
gained in addressing the objectives of this work.

Data Reliability:

To assess the reliability of BJS's data (by spending category) on NCHIP 
funds awarded to all jurisdictions for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 
(see table 1) and to the 5 case-study states for fiscal years 1995 
through 2002 (see tables 6 through 11), we:

* reviewed existing documentation related to the data sources,

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

* interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data.

We determined that the NCHIP funds data were sufficiently reliable for 
the purposes of this report.

To assess the reliability of data reported by BJS based on its biennial 
surveys of state criminal history information systems for 1993, 1995, 
1997, 1999, and 2001, we (1) reviewed the published survey results and 
(2) interviewed officials knowledgeable about the surveys. We 
determined that the biennial survey data were sufficiently reliable for 
the purposes of this report.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Overview of National Criminal History Records Systems:

BJS strives to create national criminal history records systems that 
contain accurate, complete, and accessible information. To accomplish 
this, since 1995, BJS has awarded approximately $438 million in NCHIP 
grants to states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories to 
help these jurisdictions improve their records and establish automated 
capabilities that enhance participation in national criminal history 
records systems.

Each state operates a central criminal history records repository that 
receives information regarding individuals' criminal histories from a 
number of sources throughout the state, including state and local law 
enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and corrections agencies. 
For each individual, the repository compiles the information from these 
sources into a comprehensive criminal history record for that person. 
These records are commonly referred to as "rap sheets." By means of 
statewide telecommunications systems, the repositories make these 
records available to criminal justice personnel for authorized 
purposes, such as pretrial release and sentencing decisions. The 
repositories also provide criminal history records for authorized 
noncriminal justice purposes. For example, with increasing frequency, 
state and federal laws are requiring local law enforcement agencies to 
conduct criminal history background checks on persons seeking 
employment in sensitive positions (such as child and elder care) and 
for occupational license authorizations.

The FBI has historically maintained criminal history record files on 
all federal offenders and on state offenders to the extent that states 
voluntarily submit state criminal history information. The FBI also 
maintains a nationwide telecommunications system that enables federal, 
state, and local criminal justice agencies to conduct national record 
searches and to obtain criminal justice related-information, for 
example, about individuals who are arrested and prosecuted in other 
states. Criminal record services are also provided to noncriminal 
justice agencies authorized by federal law to obtain such records.

The practice of maintaining duplicative state offender records at both 
the state and federal levels is being replaced by efforts to build an 
automated infrastructure that will make all criminal history records 
accessible nationally. To fully participate in the national systems 
that are to comprise this infrastructure, a jurisdiction must have an 
automated criminal history record system that meets FBI standards for 
participation. For example, the state's automated system must be 
compatible with the federal systems and be capable of responding 
automatically to requests for records. The principal national, federal 
systems are discussed in the following paragraphs.

NCIC:

Prior to 1967, the FBI's criminal history records were manual files. In 
1967, the FBI established NCIC, an automated, nationally accessible 
database of criminal justice and justice-related records. NCIC provides 
automated information on wanted and missing persons, as well as 
identifiable stolen property, such as vehicles and firearms. Each state 
has a central control terminal operator, who is connected to NCIC 
through a dedicated telecommunications line maintained by the FBI. 
Authorized local agencies use their state's law enforcement 
telecommunications network to access NCIC through the respective 
operator. An investigator can obtain information on wanted and missing 
persons and stolen property by requesting a search by name or other 
nonfingerprint-based identification. Information provided can include 
graphics, such as mug shots, pictures of tattoos, and signatures in a 
paperless, electronic format. Using this system, an investigator can 
also perform searches for "sound alike" names, such as "Knowles" for 
"Nowles." The system has an enhanced feature for searching all 
derivatives of names, such as Jeff, Geoff, Jeffrey. NCIC includes the 
National Sex Offender Registry and a Protection Order File (discussed 
later). NCIC data may be provided only for criminal justice and other 
specifically authorized purposes. For example, authorized purposes 
include presale firearms checks, as well as checks on potential 
employees of criminal justice agencies, federally chartered or insured 
banks or securities firms, and state and local governments.

III:

Maintained by the FBI, the III system is an interstate, federal-state 
computer network, which currently provides the means of conducting 
national criminal history record searches to determine whether a person 
has a criminal record anywhere in the country. This system is designed 
to tie the automated criminal history records databases of state 
central repositories and the FBI together into a national system by 
means of an "index-pointer" approach. The FBI maintains an 
identification index of persons arrested for felonies or serious 
misdemeanors under state or federal law. The index includes 
identification information (such as name, date of birth, race, and 
sex), FBI numbers, and state identification numbers from each state 
holding information about the individual. Criminal justice agencies 
nationwide can transmit search inquiries based on name or other 
identifiers automatically through state law enforcement 
telecommunications networks and the FBI's NCIC telecommunications 
lines. According to the FBI, the III system responds to search 
inquiries within seconds. If the search results in a "hit," the system 
automatically requests records using the applicable FBI and state 
identification numbers, and each repository holding information on the 
individual forwards its records to the requesting agency. The FBI 
provides responses for states that are not yet participants in III.

NICS:

Under Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requirements, the FBI 
established NICS to provide instant background checks of individuals 
applying to purchase firearms from federally licensed dealers. Federal 
law prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm by any person who 
(1) has been convicted of a crime punishable by a prison term exceeding 
1 year, (2) is a fugitive from justice, (3) is an unlawful user of 
controlled substances, (4) has been adjudicated as mental defective, 
(5) is an illegal or unlawful alien, (6) has been discharged 
dishonorably from the armed forces, (7) has renounced his or her U.S. 
citizenship, (8) has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic 
violence, or (9) is subject to certain domestic violence protection 
orders.[Footnote 32]

The three primary, component databases searched by NICS are III, NCIC 
(including the Protection Order File and a file of active felony or 
misdemeanor warrants), and the NICS Index. This third database was 
created solely for presale background checks of firearms purchasers and 
contains disqualifying information contributed by local, state, and 
federal agencies. For example, the database contains information on 
individuals who are prohibited from purchasing firearms because they 
are aliens unlawfully in the United States, are persons who have 
renounced their U.S. citizenship, have been adjudicated as mental 
defectives, have been committed to a mental institution, have been 
dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, or are unlawful users of 
or addicted to controlled substances.

National Sex Offender Registry:

The FBI established the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) to enable 
state sex offender information to be obtained and tracked from one 
jurisdiction to another. In 1994, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against 
Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (the Jacob 
Wetterling Act) required that states create sex offender registries 
within 3 years or lose some of their federal grant funds.[Footnote 33] 
The law further provided that--when any offender convicted of 
committing a criminal sexual act against a minor or committing any 
sexually violent offense--is released from custody or supervision into 
the community, he or she must register with law enforcement agencies 
for a period of 10 years. The act was amended in 1996[Footnote 34] to 
require the FBI to establish a NSOR and to register and verify 
addresses of sex offenders when a state's registry does not meet the 
minimum compliance standards required by the Jacob Wetterling Act. 
According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, all 50 states currently 
have sex offender registration laws, and all states require a 
registration period of at least 10 years, with some states requiring 
lifetime registration.[Footnote 35] State registry information 
typically includes the offender's name, address, Social Security 
number, date of birth, physical description, photograph, and 
fingerprints. NSOR is a component of NCIC that serves as a pointer 
system to identify a sex offender's records in the III system. When 
agencies request authorized fingerprint-based criminal history 
background checks, NSOR will flag the subjects who are registered sex 
offenders.

NCIC Protection Order File:

The FBI established the Protection Order File in 1997 to provide a 
repository for protection order records. The purpose of this NCIC 
component is to permit interstate enforcement of protection orders and 
the denial of firearms transfers to individuals who are the subjects of 
court protection orders. Such orders include civil and criminal court 
orders issued to prevent a person from committing violent, threatening, 
or harassing acts against another individual. A protection order can 
preclude the person from contacting, communicating with, and being in 
physical proximity to a named individual. State and federal law 
enforcement agencies can submit protection orders to the NCIC 
Protection Order File.[Footnote 36]

IAFIS:

In 1999, the FBI implemented IAFIS, a computerized system for storing, 
comparing, and exchanging digitized fingerprint data. Most fingerprint 
data submitted to IAFIS originate when a local or state law enforcement 
agency arrests a suspect. At that time, the agency takes the suspect's 
fingerprints manually (using ink and paper fingerprint cards) or 
electronically (using optical scanning equipment). The agency forwards 
a copy of the fingerprints--along with nonbiometric data such as name 
and age--through its state repository to the FBI. Electronic 
submissions are automatically entered into IAFIS, and paper submissions 
sent through the mail are scanned into an electronic format for entry. 
When a set of fingerprints is submitted, IAFIS searches for a prior 
entry in the system that matches the suspect's nonbiometric personal 
identifying data. If a prior entry is not found, the system compares 
the submitted fingerprints with those previously stored in the 
computer's memory to determine if the suspect has an entry under 
another name. This information can be used for a number of purposes, 
including positively identifying arrestees to prevent the premature 
release of suspects who use false names and are wanted in other 
jurisdictions. To support crime scene investigations, the system can 
also compare a full or partial fingerprint from a crime scene with the 
prints stored in the database to identify a suspect.

[End of section]

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

This appendix presents information about the use of NCHIP funds by 5 
case-study states--California, Maryland, Mississippi, Texas, and West 
Virginia--for fiscal years 1995 through 2002. As mentioned previously, 
we selected these states to reflect a range of factors or 
considerations--that is, the amounts of grant funding received, status 
of NICS participation, and levels of automation, as well as to 
encompass different geographic areas of the nation (see app. I).

NCHIP funding amounts can be grouped into six categories of spending 
established by BJS to track the use of program funds. These six 
categories are (1) NICS/III/criminal records improvements, (2) 
disposition reporting improvements, (3) AFIS/Livescan activities, (4) 
sex offender registry enhancements, (5) protection order activities, 
and (6) national security/antiterrorism activities.[Footnote 37]

Overview of 5 States' Use of NCHIP Funds:

Table 6 shows that since the inception of NCHIP in 1995, 4 of the 5 
case-study states have devoted the majority of their grant awards for 
the first two BJS spending categories--NICS/III/criminal records 
improvements and disposition reporting improvements. Expenditures in 
the first category include overall system upgrades, equipment 
purchases, database development, and other activities required to bring 
states in compliance with FBI standards so that the states may 
participate in national systems maintained by the FBI. Expenditures in 
the second category include efforts to automate disposition records and 
provide linkages for reporting these records to the state's central 
records repository. Maryland, the only case-study state that did not 
devote the majority of its funds to the first two categories, still 
allocated nearly half (48 percent) of its total grant awards for these 
two areas. Maryland devoted a large amount (40 percent) of its NCHIP 
funding to AFIS/Livescan activities, as did Texas (45 percent).

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

Total NCHIP award amounts (in millions); 
Case-Study States: California: $29.9; 
Case-Study States: Maryland: $6.8; 
Case-Study States: Mississippi: $5.3; 
Case-Study States: Texas: $19.5; 
Case-Study States: West Virginia: $4.7; 
Case-Study States: Total: $66.2.

NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]: 
NICS/III/criminal records improvements; 
Case-Study States: California: 66; 
Case-Study States: Maryland: 36; 
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 76; 
Case-Study States: Texas: 52; 
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 50; 
Case-Study States: Total: 58.

NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
Disposition reporting improvements; 
Case-Study States: California: 13; 
Case-Study States: Maryland: 12; 
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 8; 
Case-Study States: Texas: 2; 
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 35; 
Case-Study States: Total: 11.

NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
AFIS/Livescan activities; 
Case-Study States: California: 13; 
Case- Study States: Maryland: 40; 
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 5; 
Case- Study States: Texas: 45; 
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 9; 
Case- Study States: Total: 24.

NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
Sex offender registry enhancements; 
Case-Study States: California: 9; 
Case-Study States: Maryland: 8; 
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 11; 
Case-Study States: Texas: 1; 
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 5; 
Case- Study States: Total: 6.

NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
Protection order activities; 
Case-Study States: California: 0; 
Case- Study States: Maryland: 3; 
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 0; 
Case- Study States: Texas: 0; 
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 1; 
Case-Study States: Total: 0.

NCHIP spending category (in percent)[A]:
National security/antiterrorism activities; 
Case-Study States: California: 0; 
Case-Study States: Maryland: 0; 
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 0; 
Case-Study States: Texas: 0; 
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 0; 
Case-Study States: Total: 0.

Total; 
Case-Study States: California: 100; 
Case-Study States: Maryland: 100; 
Case-Study States: Mississippi: 100; 
Case-Study States: Texas: 100; 
Case-Study States: West Virginia: 100; 
Case-Study States: Total: 100. 

Source: BJS and state data.

Note: The data are based on amounts reported by case-study state 
officials. For some NCHIP-funded activities, officials in the case-
study states indicated that expenditures could be included in more than 
one category. In these cases, based on input from state officials, we 
judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the 
activity. Details may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

[A] Case-study state numbers represent percent of dollars spent for 
each state.

[End of table]

For all 5 case-study states, the NCHIP funding detailed in table 6 
represented "seed" or "catalyst" money and, therefore, accounted for 
only a portion of the total criminal records improvement spending. For 
example, according to California officials, state resources accounted 
for 85 percent of records improvement funding in California during 
fiscal year 2002-03. The remaining 15 percent consisted of NCHIP grants 
(6 percent) and other federal sources (approximately 9 percent). Three 
of the other 4 states provided data indicating that NCHIP grants 
accounted for less than a majority of the criminal records improvement 
funding in the respective state.

More details on each case-study state's use of NCHIP funds are 
presented in the following sections.

California:

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded California a total 
of $29.9 million in NCHIP funds--the most of any state. As shown in 
table 7, California allocated approximately two-thirds (66 percent) of 
its NCHIP awards for NICS/III/criminal records improvements. For 
example, the state devoted over $4.9 million of program funds to 
projects for converting manual fingerprint and palm print cards to an 
electronic format and matching records maintained by the FBI's III 
system to those maintained by the state repository. According to 
California officials, these efforts will improve overall criminal 
record keeping and benefit NICS by improving the state's response to 
queries on prospective gun purchasers.

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

NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Matching of III and state records; 
* Reviewing manual criminal and applicant records up to 5 years old and 
adding any criminal activity to the automated system; 
* Converting manual fingerprint cards to automated format; 
* Flagging of each automated criminal record with firearms 
qualification status; 
* Programming to provide non-U.S. citizen background checks for 
firearms purchases; 
* Automating fingerprint/arrest records from the Department of 
Corrections; 
* Providing electronic access to booking photos; 
* Paying miscellaneous staff costs; 
* Conducting other activities (acquiring hardware and software, 
performing programming tasks, upgrading and enhancing systems, linking 
data, etc.); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $19,586,722; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 66.

NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Automating disposition reporting from courts to the central 
repository; 
* Updating automated criminal records with missing dispositions from 
manual records; 
* Assisting county courts report dispositions by magnetic tape; 
* Developing pilot project to provide real-time, automated reporting of 
court dispositions to the central repository; 
* Developing pilot project for courts to place thumbprints on 
disposition documents for proper identification; 
* Conducting other activities (acquiring hardware, etc.); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 3,899,414; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 13.

NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Purchasing Livescan devices for juvenile facilities, the courts, and 
law enforcement agencies; 
* Updating AFIS to support increased workload due to full 
implementation of electronic transmission; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 3,798,000; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 13.

NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Improving California's sex offender registry database, in addition to 
programming and interface efforts to allow reporting to the FBI's 
national registry; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 2,599,958; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 9.

NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* No projects in this category; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* No projects in this category; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: Total; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $29,884,094; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100. 

Source: BJS and state data.

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

[End of table]

Officials also said that the state has used NCHIP funds to improve the 
reporting of case dispositions to the state's central repository. For 
example, officials have used program funds to improve disposition 
reporting in the 28 counties that represent 70 percent of the 
disposition volume for the entire state. As a result, these 28 counties 
report 100 percent of their dispositions to the state central 
repository via a magnetic tape batch process occurring three times a 
week. In addition, California officials are conducting an NCHIP-funded 
pilot project in one county to test the feasibility of moving to a 
real-time updating system for disposition reporting rather than the 
current batching approach.

Maryland:

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded Maryland $6.8 
million in NCHIP funds. As shown in table 8, Maryland allocated the 
largest percentage (40 percent or $2.7 million) of its NCHIP awards for 
AFIS/Livescan activities. This category, together with NICS/III/
criminal records improvement, accounted for over three-fourths (76 
percent) of the state's use of NCHIP funds. Regarding the first 
category in table 8, Maryland devoted a sizeable portion of its NCHIP 
award ($1.2 million) to make the state's automated systems compatible 
with the FBI's NCIC database, which was updated and expanded in 2000. 
In addition, Maryland is using nearly $200,000 of program funds to 
convert over 700,000 historical arrest records (older than October 
1998) to a format compatible with the FBI's III system. This effort 
will make older records accessible to the FBI, which will improve NICS 
background checks. In the category of disposition reporting, Maryland 
has also implemented a $360,000 NCHIP project to automate reporting 
from the courts (including case dispositions) to the central records 
repository on a daily basis. Maryland currently reports dispositions 
from courts to the state's central records repository through weekly 
magnetic tape updates.

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

NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Converting older arrest records to III format to make them available 
nationally; 
* Developing audit program to identify missing criminal history records 
and making them available to III; 
* Implementing updates in Maryland to support the FBI's NCIC system; 
* Conducting other activities (conducting design studies and system 
audits, training, paying indirect costs, etc.); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $2,460,142; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 36.

NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Developing automated capabilities for the courts to electronically 
transmit dispositions and other court data to the state's central 
repository; 
* Researching disposition requests received from the FBI for NICS 
checks (Maryland State Archives); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 829,013; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 12.

NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Upgrading the state's AFIS; 
* Establishing arrest booking system workstations (including Livescan 
devices) at local jurisdictions; 
* Establishing a system for transmitting fingerprint card images 
electronically from local jurisdictions to the central repository; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 2,743,428; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 41.

NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Automating Maryland's sex offender registry; 
* Studying the feasibility of placing the state's sex offender registry 
on the Internet; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 521,277; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 8.

NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Entering protection orders (manually) into state database; 
* Providing statewide entry of warrant data (to include protection 
orders) by state police; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 224,219; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 3.

NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* No projects in this category; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: Total; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $6,778,079; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100. 

Source: BJS and state data.

[End of table]

For purposes of NICS, Maryland is a partial participant state. That is, 
a designated state agency (Maryland State Police) conducts background 
checks for handgun purchases, whereas the FBI conducts such checks for 
long gun purchases. For both types of firearms purchases (handguns and 
long guns), another state agency (Maryland State Archives) provides 
support (researching the disposition results of arrests) for criminal 
history records generated before 1982. In fiscal year 2002, the 
Maryland State Archives received $41,000 in NCHIP funds to conduct 
disposition research for NICS queries from the FBI. Earlier, due to a 
lack of state funding, this state agency had discontinued such research 
for a period of approximately 3-1/2 months (March 18 to July 2, 2002). 
According to Maryland and BJS officials, the $41,000 award in 2002 was 
the first distribution of NCHIP funds to the Maryland State Archives 
since the inception of the grant program.

Mississippi:

As shown in table 9, for fiscal years 1995 through 2002, Mississippi 
allocated approximately three-fourths (76 percent) of its NCHIP funds 
for projects in the category of NICS/III/criminal records improvements. 
NCHIP projects in this category centered on creation of and support for 
the state's computerized criminal history database.

Table 9: Mississippi NCHIP Spending by Category, Fiscal Years 1995 
through 2002:

NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Working with the vendor to provide systems support for the state's 
computerized criminal history database; 
* Correcting the state's data and making other changes to the data and 
software mandated by state and federal laws, policies, and procedures; 
* Providing hardware/software for the computerized criminal history 
database; 
* Conducting other activities (paying travel expenses, purchasing 
supplies, automating backlogged manual records, etc.); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $4,071,636; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 76.

NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Acquiring hardware/software for automated disposition reporting; 
* Developing disposition reporting system for prosecutors; 
* Purchasing workstations for court clerks; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 405,000; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 8.

NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Purchasing Livescan devices for local and state agencies; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 284,540; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 5.

NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Providing hardware and software for the state's sex offender 
registry; 
* Working with consultants to design, test, implement, and support the 
sex offender registry; 
* Conducting other activities (e.g., purchasing supplies and providing 
copier support); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 581,620; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 11.

NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* No projects in this category; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* No projects in this category; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: Total; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: [Empty]; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $5,342,796; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100.

[End of table]

Source: BJS and state data.

According to state officials, prior to the rollout of the state's new 
automated criminal history database in March 1998, Mississippi was 
without any type of arrest record automation. After the rollout, 
Mississippi was one of fewer than 10 states with an automated system 
whereby every arrest record was automatically associated with a 
fingerprint record and made available to authorized inquirers across 
the state and the nation. Mississippi officials told us that, without 
NCHIP, this advance in records automation would not have been possible.

On the other hand, in responding to BJS's latest biennial survey 
(2001), Mississippi reported that 3 percent of its automated criminal 
records included final dispositions--the lowest among the responding 
case-study states. However, as indicated in table 9, Mississippi is 
using NCHIP funds for various projects to improve disposition 
reporting.

Texas:

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded Texas $19.5 million 
in NCHIP funds--the third highest total among all states, behind only 
California and New York. As shown in table 10, Texas allocated about 
half (52 percent) of its NCHIP funds for NICS/III/criminal records 
improvements. A significant project in this category is an ongoing 
upgrade of the state's computerized criminal history system. According 
to state officials, this upgrade will "rewrite" the system to meet new 
demands and expectations. For example, the rewrite will allow Texas to 
"flag" domestic violence misdemeanors (a category for prohibiting 
firearms sales under NICS) at the arrest, prosecution, and court 
levels.

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

NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Scanning old manual fingerprint cards into the state's automated 
database for subsequent transmission to the FBI; 
* Upgrading the state's computerized criminal history database to meet 
new demands and expectations; 
* Expanding the state's participation in the National Incident-Based 
Reporting System (an FBI system designed to collect data and compile 
comprehensive statistics on crime for use by law enforcement, 
researchers, governmental planners, students of crime, and the general 
public); 
* Conducting other activities (updating state records in III, providing 
file storage for incomplete criminal data, etc.); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $10,095,000; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 52.

NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Implementing pilot project in one county for the direct electronic 
transmission of disposition data from the courts to the central 
repository; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 400,000; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 2.

NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Purchasing Livescan devices for electronic reporting of arrest 
records to the central repository; 
* Upgrading state's automated fingerprint identification system; 
* Conducting other activities (providing telecommunication lines, 
purchasing hardware and software, etc.); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 8,827,155; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 45.

NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Developing the state's sex offender registry; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 185,075; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 1.

NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: No projects in this category; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: No projects in this category; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: Total; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: [Empty]; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $19,507,230[A]; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100%.

[End of table]

Source: BJS and state data.

[A] The total dollar amount reported by Texas state officials was 
$534,045 less than the total award amount reported by BJS 
($20,041,275). Texas and BJS officials attributed this difference to 
two factors: (1) a $334,045 savings in the purchase of Livescan 
equipment in year one and (2) a $200,000 savings in year five by hiring 
temporary workers.

During this period, Texas also allocated 45 percent of its NICHIP funds 
for AFIS/Livescan activities--the highest percentage for this category 
among the 5 case-study states. To implement electronic reporting of 
arrest data, Texas used NCHIP funds to purchase Livescan equipment for 
placement in 4 major cities and 27 of the state's 254 counties. 
According to Texas officials, these cities and counties account for a 
majority of the state's total arrests.

Also, as shown in table 10, Texas allocated 2 percent of its NCHIP 
awards for disposition reporting improvements--the lowest among the 5 
case-study states. However, according to Texas officials, criminal case 
disposition reporting is recognized as an area in need of improvement 
and will be addressed by future projects funded by NCHIP. Also, as an 
example of recent progress in Texas, BJS noted that NCHIP funds were 
used to automate approximately 52,600 court disposition records from 
Harris County--which includes Houston, the most populous city in Texas-
-for inclusion in the state's central repository.

West Virginia:

During fiscal years 1995 through 2002, BJS awarded West Virginia 
approximately $4.7 million in NCHIP funds. As shown in table 11, West 
Virginia allocated half of its NCHIP funds for NICS/III/criminal 
records improvements. Also, the state allocated 35 percent for 
disposition reporting improvements--the highest percentage for this 
category among the 5 case-study states. The purpose of the ongoing 
projects in this category is to automate the reporting of court data 
(including case dispositions) to the state's central records 
repository.

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

NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Reducing the backlog of manual criminal records submitted to the 
state repository by adding these data to the automated database; 
* Establishing a jail management information system for inmate 
tracking; 
* Conducting other activities (working with a contractor on records 
improvement, providing a data quality audit, establishing an offense 
code, purchasing software for jails, etc.); 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $2,320,442; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 50.

NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Automating court records, including dispositions; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 1,644,378; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 35.

NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Purchasing Livescan devices for regional jails; 
* Purchasing hardware and software for Livescan reporting to the 
state's central repository; 
* Conducting AFIS cost analysis/requirements study; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 419,762; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 9.

NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Upgrading the state's sex offender registry; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 236,744; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 5.

NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* Developing a database of domestic violence protection orders; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 41,660; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 1.

NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism activities; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: 
* No projects in this category; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: Total; 
Grant fund uses by spending category: [Empty]; 
Grant award amounts by spending category: $4,662,986[A]; 
Spending category as a percentage of state total: 100.

[End of table]

Source: BJS and state data.

[A] The total dollar amount budgeted for NCHIP projects, as reported by 
West Virginia officials, was $160,000 less than the total award amount 
reported by BJS ($4,822,986). A state official told us that this 
difference consisted of two components: (1) $60,000 not yet distributed 
by the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety 
(the agency designated to receive West Virginia's NCHIP funds) to the 
state agency that was to spend these funds and (2) $100,000 deobligated 
and returned to BJS.

According to its 2003 NCHIP grant application, West Virginia was the 
last state to implement an AFIS. NCHIP funding assisted the state to 
implement its system by financing a study to determine AFIS 
requirements and costs. West Virginia officials noted that plans call 
for placing Livescan equipment in each of the state's nine regional 
jails, which are to be booking sites for all persons entering the 
state's criminal justice system.

[End of section]

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

This appendix provides information on the 5 states that BJS identified 
as having the lowest levels of criminal history record automation in 
1994. Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia were 
designated as priority states, making each eligible to receive an 
additional $1 million in funding during NCHIP's first year. NCHIP was 
tasked with implementing statutory grant provisions that required the 
states with the lowest levels of criminal history record automation 
receive priority funds from the program to give them some extra help in 
automating their records. This additional funding for priority states 
applied to only the first year of NCHIP grant awards.

Also, this appendix provides information about whether any of the 50 
states have used NCHIP funds to develop or implement a ballistics 
registration system--that is, a system that stores digital images of 
the markings made on bullets and cartridge casings when firearms are 
discharged.

Priority States' Use of NCHIP Grant Funds:

For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, table 12 shows that the priority 
states allocated 70 percent of their NCHIP awards for NICS/III/criminal 
records improvements and disposition reporting improvements. The 
remaining 30 percent of the priority states' NCHIP award amounts was 
allocated for AFIS/Livescan activities, sex offender registry 
enhancements, and protection order activities. None of the priority 
states allocated NCHIP award amounts for national security/
antiterrorism activities.

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

NCHIP spending category: NICS/III/criminal records improvements; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2000: $929,651; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2001: $998,910; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2002: $562,466; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2003: $860,983; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: $3,352,010; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 33.

NCHIP spending category: Disposition reporting improvements; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2000: 647,346; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2001: 920,189; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2002: 1,019,070; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2003: 1,278,917; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 3,865,522; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 37.

NCHIP spending category: AFIS/Livescan activities; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2000: 317,080; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2001: 146,095; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2002: 550,557; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2003: 427,835; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 1,441,567; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 14.

NCHIP spending category: Sex offender registry enhancements; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2000: 574,637; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2001: 225,427; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2002: 186,036; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2003: 224,983; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 1,211,083; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 12.

NCHIP spending category: Protection order activities; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2000: 158,807; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2001: 114,415; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2002: 70,557; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2003: 98,863; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 442,642; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 4.

NCHIP spending category: National security/antiterrorism 
activities[A]; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2000: Not applicable; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2001: Not applicable; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2002: 0; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2003: 0; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: 0; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 0.

NCHIP spending category: Total; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2000: $2,627,521; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2001: $2,405,036; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2002: $2,388,686; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
2003: $2,891,581; 
NCHIP grant award amounts by fiscal year: 
Total grant award amounts for 2000-03: $10,312,824; 
Spending category as a percentage of 4-year total: 100%.

[End of table]

Source: GAO analysis of BJS data.

Note: The data are based on NCHIP grant award amounts to Maine, 
Mississippi, New Mexico, Vermont, and West Virginia. The recipients 
have not yet spent all of the funds awarded. There is overlap between 
some of the categories, but funds for any given activity were included 
in only one category and were not double counted. In cases where 
expenditures could be included in more than one category, BJS 
judgmentally selected the category that was most descriptive of the 
activity.

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

Priority States' Progress in Automating Records:

The priority states have made progress in automating their criminal 
history records. Prior to NCHIP, these states had approximately 1.4 
million records in manual formats and very few automated records. By 
2003, BJS estimated that these 5 states had over 1 million automated 
records.

More specifically, as shown in table 13, biennial surveys of state 
criminal history record repositories also indicate the priority states 
have made progress in automating their records. For example, New Mexico 
and Mississippi progressed from little or no automation in 1993 to 100 
percent automation in 2001. The other priority states also have made 
progress in automating their records but have not yet achieved full 
automation.

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

Priority state.

Maine; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 0; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: 0; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 0; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 43; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: 34[A].

Mississippi; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 7; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: Not reported[B]; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 7; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 100; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: 100.

New Mexico; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 0; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: 100; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 100; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 93 c; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: 100.

Vermont; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 0; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: 0; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 36; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 52; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: 66.

West Virginia; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1993: 0; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1995: 1; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1997: 13; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 1999: 22; 
Percent of state's criminal history records automated 
(as of Dec. 31): 2001: Not reported[B]. 


Source: BJS.

Note: The data are based on biennial surveys of the administrators of 
state criminal history record repositories. The surveys are conducted 
by SEARCH (The National Consortium for Justice Information and 
Statistics), under a cooperative agreement with BJS.

[A] In Maine, according to SEARCH officials, the decrease in automation 
percentages from 1999 to 2001 was due to the transition from a manual 
to an automated system, which resulted in some records being rejected 
and/or deleted.

[B] Automation levels are "not reported" by states for various reasons, 
including a lack of state personnel and/or computer program time or the 
state's inability to track the data needed to respond to the survey.

[C] In New Mexico, according to SEARCH officials, the decrease in 
automation percentages from 1997 to 1999 was due to a backlog in 
automating records. The officials noted that the backlog cleared in 
2001 and that all records are now automated.

[End of table]

According to Mississippi officials, NCHIP played a critical role in the 
state's successes in automating and sharing criminal history 
information. The officials noted, for instance, that receiving the 
"priority" designation and the accompanying additional funds enabled 
Mississippi to begin automating its criminal history records and take 
advantage of the latest technology developments. Similarly, a West 
Virginia official commented that the additional priority funding helped 
the state establish and begin implementing an automated fingerprint 
identification system, the backbone of West Virginia's entire records 
improvement and automation project.

Another indicator of progress is participation in III, the system used 
for a number of law enforcement-related purposes, including background 
checks of persons purchasing firearms. As of May 2003, 3 of the 5 
priority states participated in III, with New Mexico joining the 
program in 1997 and Mississippi and West Virginia joining in 1998. At 
the time of our review, Maine and Vermont were not participating in 
III. According to BJS, Maine's participation may not occur until some 
time in 2004 because the state is in the process of undertaking a major 
revision of its entire criminal justice information technology 
infrastructure. Vermont officials reported to BJS that the state is 
currently using NCHIP funds to install a new system that is fundamental 
to III participation and that the state will be III-compliant by 
January 2004. States must ensure that their computerized criminal 
history records systems meet specific FBI criteria and that these 
systems are compatible with the FBI's national data systems before the 
FBI will allow states to provide records nationally through III.

The 5 priority states have also increased their participation in other 
national systems. According to BJS officials, all 5 states participate 
in the National Sex Offender Registry, 4 of the 5 states have provided 
some portion of their criminal fingerprints electronically to IAFIS, 
and 3 states have submitted protection order records to the NCIC 
Protection Order File.

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

BJS officials said that no NCHIP funds have been used to develop or 
implement a ballistics registration system--a system typically used as 
an investigative tool to compare crime scene evidence to the stored 
images. Also, according to BJS officials, NCHIP funds are to improve 
the availability of information on the "person," rather than to improve 
investigative tools. BJS does not plan to expand the scope of NCHIP 
funding to include investigative tools because improvements are still 
needed in the ability to identify prohibited purchasers of firearms, 
such as individuals with domestic violence misdemeanor convictions. Of 
the 5 case-study states we visited, only 1 (Maryland) had developed a 
ballistics registration system. According to BJS and state officials, 
federal funding was not used to develop or implement this system.

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Justice:

U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Justice Programs 
Office of the Assistant Attorney General:

Washington, D.C. 20531:

Laurie E. Ekstrand:

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 
General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Mail Stop 2440A 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Ekstrand:

This letter responds to the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft 
report entitled, "NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: 
Federal Grants Have Contributed to Progress " (GAO-04-364). We believe 
that the GAO fairly and accurately described the program and its 
accomplishments and the continuing need to promote State and local 
participation in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) national 
systems for sharing information. There were several issues mentioned in 
the report that we believe should be highlighted.

1. It is important to draw the distinction between old and new arrest 
records with respect to disposition coverage-with limited resources. 
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has always emphasized to the 
States the importance of making certain that records of recent criminal 
activity were updated and fully compatible with FBI standards. Many 
States adopted a Day One approach to improving records when the 
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) funds began to 
flow, leaving a number of old, inactive records archived in State 
repositories. The BJS' research, with the FBI's assistance, indicated 
that older arrest records account for much of the "open arrest" 
problem. Half of the open arrests studied were from 1984 or earlier, 
and three-quarters of the arrests predated the NCHIP Program.

2. State laws in many cases prohibit sharing information on mental 
health backgrounds (confidentiality and doctor-patient privacy). The 
strategy for the FBI, and one which BJS has encouraged the States to 
use, has been to utilize the Denied Persons File in the NICS Index 
where the reason for denial of a firearm is not given unless the denial 
is appealed. The area of mental health records and their accessibility 
for a background check is a very difficult and challenging area of 
records development. Since Fiscal Year 1996, BJS has made this a target 
area and we have encouraged the States to do more with NCHIP Program 
funds.

3. Misdemeanants in most States are not systematically fingerprinted and 
misdemeanor assault charges rarely specify the victim-offender 
relationship unless domestic violence is specifically charged-Like the 
mental health area, this is-a difficult area since legal label.. rather 
than victim-offender relationship contingencies characterize record-
keeping practices and requirements. The BJS has given strong direction 
to the States to set flags on the records of those known to have a 
conviction for domestic violence.

4. There are go central registries is each of the States of active drug 
users or addicts, Central registries will need to be created, however, 
it will be challenging to develop and keep current (i.e., under the Gun 
Control Act; a former drug user can purchase a firearm--
-when is someone a former drug user?)_ This topic is also impacted by 
issues of medical privacy and the public release and use of doctor 
patient information.

5. The GAO may want to consider putting the number of problematic 
firearms sales in perspective. Although the report mentions default-
proceed sales and the number of times the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms (ATF) must retrieve a firearm from a prohibited purchaser, 
it does not examine the low error rate (.04% according to the report) 
in the context of overall performance associated with the firearms 
checks. There are about eight to nine million checks each year with a 
very small number of default proceeds which then result in ATF having w 
reacquire the illegally purchased firearm. Similarly, there are very 
few prohibited sales which are subsequently overturned following an 
appeal of the denial. Together these two types of errors probably 
account for two errors in every 1,000 checks conducted,

6. The Record Quality Index (RQI) briefly mentioned in the report is a 
major step forward in the quantitative estimation of performance 
changes over time. This metric, developed by BJS, may provide a 
significant opportunity for both evaluating performance over time and 
for establishing the basis for targeting future assistance to State and 
local parti cipants in Federal funding programs. We believe the States 
will benefit enormously from a tool such as RQ which helps. to assess, 
in a uniform manner, both progress and need.

The OJP appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft report. 1n 
addition, we appreciate the careful and thoughtful manner in which the 
GAO team approached its evaluation responsibility and we look forward 
to working together on important public safety projects in the future.

Sincerely,

Signed by; 

Deborah J. Daniels: 
Assistant Attorney General:

cc: - Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Director Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Cynthia J. Schwimer Comptroller, OR:

LeToya A. Johnson Audit Liaison, OR:

Vickie L. Sloan Audit Liasion, DOJ:

OAAG Executive Secretariat Control Number 20040179:

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

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

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the above, Grace Coleman, Geoffrey Hamilton, Michael H. 
Harmond, Kevin L. Jackson, Jan B. Montgomery, Jerome T. Sandau, Linda 
Kay Willard, and Ellen T. Wolfe made key contributions to this report.

FOOTNOTES

[1] The term "noncriminal justice purposes" refers to the uses of 
criminal history records for purposes authorized by federal or state 
law other than purposes relating to criminal justice activities. For 
example, authorized purposes may include employment suitability, 
licensing determinations, and national security clearances.

[2] In 1994, BJS identified 5 states--Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, 
Vermont, and West Virginia--as having the lowest levels of criminal 
history record automation. These 5 states were designated as priority 
states, making each eligible to receive an additional $1 million in 
funding during NCHIP's first year.

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

[4] Regarding status of NICS participation, the FBI categorizes states 
as follows: (1) Full participant states are those where a designated 
state agency conducts background checks of persons purchasing any 
firearm, both handguns and long guns; (2) partial participant states 
designate a state agency to conduct presale background checks for 
handgun purchases, with the FBI conducting background checks for long 
gun purchases; and (3) nonparticipant states are those where the FBI 
conducts presale background checks for purchases of both handguns and 
long guns. Sometimes, these categories are referred to as point-of-
contact states, partial point-of-contact states, and FBI states, 
respectively. 

[5] The $165.2 million total is based on NCHIP grant awards to the 50 
states, the District of Columbia, and 5 territories for the 4 fiscal 
years. 

[6] See Office of Technology Assessment, An Assessment of Alternatives 
for a National Computerized Criminal History System, October 1982. 
Also, see BJS, Use and Management of Criminal History Record 
Information: A Comprehensive Report, 2001 Update (NCJ 187670), December 
2001.

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

[8] The Gun Control Act, as amended, prohibits the purchase or 
possession of a firearm by any person who (1) has been convicted of a 
crime punishable by a prison term exceeding 1 year, (2) is a fugitive 
from justice, (3) is an unlawful user of controlled substances, (4) has 
been adjudicated as a mental defective, (5) is an illegal or unlawful 
alien, (6) has been discharged dishonorably from the armed forces, (7) 
has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, (8) has been convicted of a 
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or (9) is subject to certain 
outstanding court protection orders. 

[9] Pub. L. No. 103-209, 107 Stat. 2490 (1993). Amendments in 1994 
further provided for background checks of those caring for the elderly 
and individuals with disabilities. 

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

[11] Livescan equipment can record and transmit fingerprints in a 
digital format. The equipment is used to capture fingerprint images 
directly from an individual's fingers, which are rolled onto glass 
scanning plates. 

[12] The $165.2 million total is based on NCHIP grant awards to the 50 
states, the District of Columbia, and 5 territories for the 4 fiscal 
years. 

[13] In 1994, BJS identified 5 states--Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, 
Vermont, and West Virginia--as having the lowest levels of criminal 
history record automation. These 5 states were designated as priority 
states, making each eligible to receive an additional $1 million in 
funding during NCHIP's first year.

[14] Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093, (1996).

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

[16] Pub. L. No. 105-251, 112 Stat. 1870 (1988).

[17] Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).

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

[19] U.S. General Accounting Office, Gun Control: Options for Improving 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, GAO/GGD-00-56 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2000). 

[20] Generally, the number of default proceeds (including those that 
subsequently involve retrievals of firearms) represents a small 
fraction of total NICS transactions. For example, the 3,259 firearms 
retrieved in 2002 constituted about 0.04 percent of the approximately 
8.4 million NICS transactions conducted that year. Also, BJS noted that 
the number of retrievals in 2002 was about 33 percent fewer than in 
2000, which indicates that NICS is becoming more effective with 
improvements in record keeping.

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

[22] Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of 
Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act), Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 
650 (2003).

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

[24] The USA PATRIOT Act defines "hazardous materials" as any material 
defined as a hazardous material by the Secretary of Transportation and 
any chemical or biological material or agent determined by the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Attorney General as being 
a threat to the national security of the United States. 

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

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

[27] In 1994, BJS identified 5 states--Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, 
Vermont, and West Virginia--as having the lowest levels of criminal 
history record automation. These 5 states were designated as priority 
states, making each eligible to receive an additional $1 million in 
funding during NCHIP's first year.

[28] Pub. L. No. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).

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

[30] For disposition reporting improvements, BJS used three spending 
categories: (1) funding to state courts, (2) funding to other judicial 
components, and (3) funding for disposition improvements not related to 
state courts. For purposes of our analyses, we combined these three 
into one spending category.

[31] Most states have some type of AFIS. A state can use NCHIP funds to 
enhance its AFIS by purchasing Livescan equipment, if the state has 
implemented (or is implementing) procedures to ensure that the AFIS is 
compatible with FBI standards. Livescan equipment can generate and 
transmit fingerprints in a digital format. The equipment is used to 
capture fingerprint images directly from an individual's fingers, which 
are rolled onto glass scanning plates.

[32] 18 U.S.C. § 922.

[33] Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2038 (1994).

[34] Pub. L. No. 104-236, 110 Stat. 3093 (1996).

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

[36] 28 U.S.C. § 534.

[37] These six categories are the same as those used in table 1 to 
categorize NCHIP awards to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 
5 U.S. territories for fiscal years 2000 through 2002. For the tables 
in this appendix, we relied on state officials to categorize their 
NCHIP spending based on the definitions provided by BJS for these six 
categories. BJS originally grouped NCHIP awards into eight categories. 
However, we combined three similar categories into one (disposition 
reporting improvements)--resulting in the six categories we present 
here.

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: