Crosswalk of Changes 2008 vs 2010 Instrument

ATTACHMENT 1

2008 vs. 2010 Survey Questions:

Modifications, Deletions, Additions by SECTION

SECTION I: REPOSITORY

Deletion:

Question 3 (2008):

3. (a) Does your state retain any non-criminal justice fingerprints?

 Yes  No

(b) Non-criminal justice fingerprints represent _________ percent of the
total fingerprints maintained by the state criminal history repository.

Modifications:

Question 5 (2008):

5. (a) Percentage of criminal prints submitted via livescan during 2008?

This question is moved to Section II 5 (c) in 2010

5. (b) Percentage of non-criminal prints submitted via livescan during 2008?

This question is moved to Section VII 6 (c) in 2010

SECTION II: ARREST/FINGERPRINT REPORTING AND ENTRY

Modifications:

Question 2 (2008):

How many non-criminal justice fingerprints were submitted to the repository via livescan during 2010?

This question is moved to Section VII 6 (a) in 2010. Section VII consolidates noncriminal justice purpose related questions that were previously spread across several survey sections.

Question 5 (2008):

5. Please indicate the number of livescan devices in use as of December 31, 2008:

(a) Total number of livescan devices available for criminal
justice purposes only:

(b) Total number of livescan devices available for non-criminal
justice purposes only:

(c) Total number of livescan devices used for both criminal and
non-criminal justice purposes:

(d) Grand total of livescan devices in use:

Questions 5 (a) and (d) deleted.

Questions 5 (b) and (c) were moved to Section VII, and are now questions 6 (d) and 6 (e).

Question 6 (2008)

6. Please indicate:

(a) Total number of agencies that submit criminal prints via livescan:

(b) Total number of agencies that submit non-criminal prints via livescan:

(c) Total number of agencies without livescan devices that receive

livescan services from agencies that do have that equipment (e.g., a sheriff might submit arrest prints on behalf of 20 agencies):

Question 6 (a) is moved to Section II 5 (a) in 2010.

Question 6 (b) is moved to Section VII 6 (b) in 2010

Question 6 (c) is moved to Section II 5 (c) in 2010.

SECTION III: DISPOSITIONS

New Question:

Question 1:

1. Are you a National Fingerprint File (NFF) state?
   
   

 Yes  No

If yes, under NFF participation protocols, have you elected not to forward disposition information on second and subsequent arrests to the FBI?

 Yes  No

The Congress legislated and 28 states have enacted legislation to participate in the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact. An element of the Compact is a commitment to eventually become a National Fingerprint File (NFF) participant. As an NFF participant a state is not expected to provide disposition information to the FBI (but may do so). While the Congress has repeatedly expressed concern about the level of disposition reporting to the FBI, no reasonable or accurate explanation can be developed without gaining a better understanding of which states have a statutory basis for not forwarding disposition information to the FBI.

SECTION IV: COURT REPORTING

Modification:

Question 2: (Question was re-worded as follows)

(a) As of December 31, 2010, was any court disposition information reported directly to the repository by your state’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)?

 Yes  No

(b) What percentage of dispositions received was reported by the AOC? ____________ %

SECTION V: CORRECTIONS REPORTING

New Question:

Question 1: (The word ‘admission’ was added to the question and a checkbox was added to provide clarity.)

1. In 2010, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of corrections admission data by the repository and entry of that information into the criminal history record database?
   
   ____________ days

 Not currently receiving corrections admission data

New Question:

Question 2:

2. In 2010, what was the average time elapsed between receipt of corrections release data by the repository and entry of that information into the criminal history record database?
   
   ____________ days

 Not currently receiving corrections release data

The addition of “admission” in Question 1 and a new Question 2 is intended to clarify what information is being collection and posted to the criminal history record. In past surveys this distinction could not be determined from the responses.

SECTION VI: REPOSITORY ADMINISTRATION

Modifications:

Questions 1 and 2 (2008):

1. (a) Does your state charge a fee for conducting a search of the criminal history record database for non-criminal justice purposes?
   
   

 Yes  No

If yes, what fees are charged for the state record search as of December 31, 2010?

(b) Fingerprint-supported search: $_______ retained

$_______ non-retained

$_______ volunteer (retained)

$_______ volunteer (not retained)

(c) Name search: via Internet $_______ non-profit

$_______ government

$_______ volunteer (retained)

$_______ volunteer (not retained)

$_______ others

URL for citizen access to purchase criminal history information, if available

_______________________________________

via Mail $_______ non-profit

$_______ government

$_______ volunteer (retained)

$_______ volunteer (not retained)

$_______ others

(d) Additional service fees: $_______ mailed fingerprint cards/forms

$_______ “no resubmission of prints” for repeat applicant

$_______ retained service

$_______ rap back service

2. How are fees allocated?
   
    All fees go to the state general fund, with repository funded by general fund allotment

 A percentage of fees go to support repository operations: __________ %

 All fees go to support repository operations

 Other ________________________________________________________________

Questions 1 and 2 were moved from SECTION VI in the 2008 survey to SECTION VII in 2010.

The following was deleted from Question 1(c) and moved to Question 17(a)

URL for citizen access to purchase criminal history information, if available:

________________________________________________

New Questions:

New Question 2 (which is a modification of 2008 Question 4)

2. (a) Does your state maintain a protection order file?
   
   

 Yes  No

(b) If no, does law enforcement or courts enter protection order information directly to the FBI-NCIC Protective Order File?

 Yes  No

(c) If yes, how many records are in the state protection order record database as of
December 31, 2010?

__________ records

State reporting of orders of protection remains of interest to the Congress as evidenced by legislation such as the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. The Attorney General has delegated certain responsibilities relating to the reporting and verification of reporting of Orders of Protection to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

New Question:

Question 3:

Does your repository maintain the sex offender registry?

 Yes  No

If no, what agency in your state is responsible for the maintenance of the sex offender registry?

 Department of Corrections

Other ___________________

Past surveys implied that state record repositories maintained the sex offender registry in all states. This new question recognizes that is not true in all instances and seeks to determine which other agencies are carrying out this responsibility.

Deletion:

This is former Question 9 in SECTION VI, 2008 Survey:

What is the percentage of registered sex offenders

on your publicly available state registry? __________%

Section VI question 7 & 8 moved to Section VI questions 4 & 5 in 2010.

Modification:

Question 6: “Other” checkbox added to the question that captures information about hours of operation.

New Questions:

Questions 8-11:

8. (a) In 2010, did the repository perform compliance audits of agencies who contributed information to the repository?

 Yes  No

(b) In 2010, did the repository perform compliance audits of agencies who received information from the repository?

 Yes  No

Compliance audits are an important means of both improving quality of information and assuring that information is being disseminated and processed to comply with governing agreements, policies and statutes.

9. (a) Has your state implemented a GJXDM or NIEM-compliant standardized rap sheet?

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, please describe your implementation status. Check all that apply.

 Testing

 Operational, limited transmissions

 Operational, all transmissions

 Other. Please describe:

(c) What issues or challenges might delay your state’s implementation of the standardized rap sheet?

 Funding

 Need to upgrade/replace message switch

 Limited internal resources

 Need for technical assistance

 Other. Please describe:

The standardized rap sheet represents a meaningful quality improvement for all users of criminal history information. BJS has funded and continues to fund an initiative to facilitate adoption of the standardized rap sheet. These questions will provide BJS with status information and information for establishing future funding priorities.

10. (a) Which of the following best describes your criminal history system platform?

 Built in-house on Windows or .NET framework

• Built in-house on Open Source (e.g., JAVA platform)

• Built in-house utilizing mainframe services

• Vendor supplied on Window or .NET framework

• Vendor supplied on Open Source framework

• Vendor supplied on Mainframe environment

• Combinations

• Other. Please describe:

(b) Does your state have plans to migrate to web services?

 Yes  No

(c) If yes, when do you anticipate your state will migrate to web services?

 2011

 2012

 Other. Please explain:

Questions 9 and 10 focus on the current and future use of technology to enhance repository services. They provide information useful for setting future funding priorities.

11. Does your state currently capture and produce statistics on the following for budgeting or other reporting?

 Criminal history transactions

 Hits versus no-hits

 Purpose codes

Question 11 will help BJS determine the availability of certain transaction volumes and performance indicators.

SECTION VII: NON-CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Modifications:

Question 3: (Note: this was Question 1 in the 2008 survey)

• “Residents of home daycare providers’ homes” was changed to “Caregivers – residential facilities”

• “Non-teaching school employees” was changed to “Non-teaching school personnel, including volunteers”

• “Non-teaching school personnel” was removed

Modification:

Question 5: (Note: this was Question 18 in the 2008 survey)

• (a) Has your state privatized the taking of fingerprints for non-criminal justice purposes?
  
  

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, does the vendor assess a fee above what the state charges to perform the background check?

 Yes, Fee $  No

(c) Does the vendor provide any additional services besides the fingerprint capture (e.g. evaluating responses for the requestor, sending responses back to the requestor)?

Note: Question 5(c) was previously Question 18(d) in the 2008 survey because Question 5(b) now includes Question 18(b) and (c) from the 2008.

Modification:

Question 6: (Note: this question is the result of grouping non-criminal justice questions that previously existed elsewhere in the 2008 survey.)

6. (a) Total number of non-criminal justice fingerprints submitted to the

repository via livescan during 2010:

(b) Total number of law enforcement agencies that submit

non-criminal justice fingerprints via livescan:

(c) Percentage of non-criminal justice fingerprints submitted via

livescan during 2010:

(d) Total number of livescan devices available for non-criminal
justice purposes only:

(e) Total number of livescan devices used for both criminal and
non-criminal justice purposes:

Question 10: (new checkbox added to list)

 All non-criminal justice purpose fingerprints may be retained at the option of the contributor

Question 11: (‘Matched’ changed to ‘Searched’ and new checkbox added to list)

1. If your state does retain non-criminal justice fingerprints for any purpose, how are the fingerprints utilized? Check all that apply.

 Matched Searched against existing criminal history database

 Matched Searched against latent fingerprint database

 Matched Searched against subsequent criminal fingerprint submissions

 Searched against subsequent latent fingerprint submissions (new checkbox)

 Other _________________________________________________________

Deleted the following 2008 survey Question 9(a-c):

(a) What identifiers are required for a name-based search? Check all that apply:

 First name

 Last name

 Date of birth

 Year of birth

 Gender

 Social Security Number

 Race

 Addresses

 Hair color

 Eye color

(b) What are the minimum identifiers that have to “hit” before a response is returned?
Check all that apply:

 First name

 Last name

 Date of birth

 Year of birth

 Gender

 Social Security Number

 Race

 Addresses

 Hair color

 Eye color

(c) Does your name-based background check offer any of the following?

 Phonetic-assisted spelling features

 “Loose” spelling features (first name abbreviations, Jr./Sr. assistance, etc.)

 Interchangeable first/last name

SECTION VIII: INDIAN COUNTRY INFORMATION (NEW SECTION)

New Questions 1-6:

1. (a) Do you have any federally recognized Tribes in your state?

 Yes  No

If yes, please complete the following:

(b) How many Tribes do you have? ____________

2. (a) Do Tribes in your state submit arrest fingerprints to your state repository?

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, how many Tribes reported in 2010? ____________

(c) How many arrests did the Tribes report in 2010? ____________

(d) How were the records reported?

 Electronically  Hard Copy  Other. Please explain: ________

3. Does the repository receive protection order information from Tribes in your state?

 Yes  No

4. (a) Does the repository provide sex offender registry services for any Tribes in your state?

 Yes  No

(b) If yes, how many Tribes submitted sex offender registration information to the repository-maintained state registry in 2010?

5. (a) Do Tribes in your state submit fingerprints for non-criminal justice background checks?

 Yes, Fee $  No

(b) If yes, how many fingerprint-based non-criminal justice background checks did Tribes submit in 2010?

6. (a) Do Tribes in your state submit name-based non-criminal justice background checks?

 Yes, Fee $  No

(b) If yes, how many name-based non-criminal justice background checks did Tribes submit in 2010?

This is a new section in the bi-annual survey. Indian Country, and particularly justice and public safety have received increasing attention by the Administration and the Congress. BJS is administering several funding programs that are directed towards Indian Country. These questions will assist BJS is establishing baseline information.

15