Arizona criminal history records evaluation 2001

              ACJC
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
March 2002 Publication Our mission is to sustain and enhance the coordination, cohesiveness, p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f t h e C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S y s t e m i n A r i z o n a



Arizona

Criminal History Records Evaluation 2001 SAC



Statistical Analysis Center



ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION



Chairperson TERRY STEWART Department of Corrections Director



Vice Chairperson RALPH OGDEN Yuma County Sheriff



JOSEPH ARPAIO Maricopa County Sheriff



JIM BOLES City of Winslow Mayor



DAVID K. BYERS Administrative Office of the Courts Director CLARENCE DUPNIK Pima County Sheriff



CARROL de BROEKERT Board of Executive Clemency Chairperson



DAVID DOBROTKA Glendale Police Department Chief



TONY ESTRADA Santa Cruz County Sheriff



BILL FITZGERALD Yavapai County Adult Probation Officer J.T. McCANN Flagstaff Police Department Chief ROBERT CARTER OLSON Pinal County Attorney



DENNIS GARRETT Department of Public Safety Director RICHARD MIRANDA Tucson Police Department Chief RICHARD M. ROMLEY Maricopa County Attorney



BARBARA LAWALL Pima County Attorney



JANET NAPOLITANO Attorney General



CHRISTOPHER SKELLY Judge, Retired



MICHAEL D. BRANHAM Executive Director JOE EASTON Statistical Analysis Center Director DAMITA KALOOSTIAN Research Analyst STEVE BALLANCE Sr. Research Analyst JACKIE MINERO Research Analyst



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 1 RESEARCH PURPOSE.......................................................................................................... 1 FINDINGS............................................................................................................................. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................... 3 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................6 CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS OVERVIEW...................................................................6 Criminal History Records Improvement................................................................................7 Edward Bryne Memorial Five Percent Set-Aside Program....................................................7 National Criminal History Improvement Program.................................................................8 State Identification System...................................................................................................9 ARIZONA CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS......................................................................9 Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan........................................................... 10 Arizona Criminal Justice Records Progress........................................................................... 13 BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS SURVEY................................................................... 14 ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES..........................................................................................15 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................... 19 A. CENTRAL STATE RESPOSITORY DATA ..................................................................... 19 Proportion of Arrests with Dispositions............................................................................. 19 Elapsed Time for Entry into Central State Repository.......................................................20 Summary Data Related to Central Repository Database.................................................. 21 Validation of Arrests and Dispositions............................................................................... 21 B. AGENCY ARREST SUMMARY DATA COMPARISON................................................ 22 C. SITE INTERVIEWS........................................................................................................22 D. SURVEY RESPONSES................................................................................................... 22 E. CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS FUNDING...............................................................23 FINDINGS..............................................................................................................................25 A. CENTRAL STATE RESPOSITORY DATA ..................................................................... 25 Proportion of Arrests with Dispositions..................................................................... 25 Elapsed Time for Entry into Central State Repository..................................................... 27 Miscellaneous Summary Data Related to ACCH Database.............................................. 29 Validation of Arrest and Disposition Data.........................................................................31 B. A GENCY ARREST SUMMARY DATA COMPARISON................................................ 33 C. SITE INTERVIEWS.................................................................................................. 34 Court................................................................................................................................34 Law Enforcement.......................................................................................................... 36 County Attorney............................................................................................................ 37 Overall Agency.............................................................................................................. 37 Department of Public Safety's Criminal Support Division................................... 38 Department of Public Safety's Criminal Information Services Bureau............. 39 Access Integrity Unit ....................................................................................................40 Fingerprint Identification Bureaus........................................................................... 42 Special Projects.............................................................................................................44 Search Institute and other Central State Repositories........................................ 45 D. SURVEY RESPONSES................................................................................................... 46 All Criminal Justice Agencies.............................................................................. ....... 46 Law Enforcement.......................................................................................................... 48 County Attorneys.......................................................................................................... 50 Courts.............................................................................................................................. 51 Agencies Funded By Arizona Criminal Justice Commission................................ 53 E. Criminal History Funding ....................................................................................55 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................58 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 61 APPENDIX A County Data.............................................................................................. 65 APPENDIX B: DISPOSITION REJECTIONS................................................................. 74 APPENDIX C: CASES PROCESSED BY MARICOPA COUNTY CLERK........................ 75 APPENDIX D: DPS (CHR) Training Schedule for 2002............................................. 76



Table of Contents



Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

Statistical Analysis Center



CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS IN ARIZONA, 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Accurate criminal history records represent a fundamental component of a coordinated and effective criminal justice system, allowing for safer communities and increased national security. The use of criminal history records are further being accessed for the purpose of establishing non criminal justice qualifications for individuals who seek employment as care providers, airport security positions and volunteer programs. This includes identifying persons who are ineligible from purchasing firearms. Currently, criminal history records are coordinated and maintained by each state in a Central State Repository. The Central State Repository is responsible for processing thousands of fingerprint and arrest records from local, county and state criminal justice agencies for the purpose of establishing criminal charges to be included on an individual's criminal history record. Disposition information is utilized to complete the criminal charge information contained on an individual's criminal history record, and the Central State Repository is responsible for matching disposition information to arrest information located in the Central State Repository database to ensure complete, accurate, timely, and available criminal history records. In Arizona, the coordination and maintenance of criminal history records, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A .R.S.) �41-2205, is fulfilled by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Currently, the criminal history information is stored in the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) database, which serves as the Central State Repository in Arizona. The specific responsibilities regarding the submission of data to the Central State Repository by local, county and state agencies is outlined in A.R.S. �41-1750 and A.R.S. �41-1751; and the consequences and potential disciplinary actions regarding criminal history records is outlined in A.R.S. �41-2206.



RESEARCH PURPOSE

Pursuant to A.R.S. �41-2405, this evaluation was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal history funds in improving criminal history records in Arizona. The analysis will include an evaluation of the number of open cases relative to the number of arrest submissions over the past five years. In addition, the research will assess the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of records submitted to the Central State Repository. The information obtained through this



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 1



research will provide the basis for recommendations to the Commission for potential policy decisions pertaining to the overall improvement of the Criminal History Records System.



FINDINGS

Through this research, several notable findings were identified. evaluation of the Arizona Criminal History Records found: In particular, the � The average time of arrest fingerprint submission to the DPS Central State Repository has been reduced from approximately 98 days in 1994 to 13 days in 2000. This represents an 84 percent decrease in the time needed to submit arrest fingerprints to the Central State Repository. � The number of electronic fingerprint arrest submissions increased from .10 percent in 1992 to 93.4 percent in 2000. � Approximately 41 percent of dispositions have been completed (matched) for the year 2000. The percentage of completed dispositions is projected to increase to 70 percent in the next five years. � There are only three criminal justice agencies within Arizona that are able to electronically identify defendants on a continual basis (i.e. 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week). At this time, only the Arizona Department of Public Safety, the Maricopa Sheriff's Office and the Phoenix Police Department have this extended service. � Dispositions submitted to the Central State Repository are often rejected due to lack of information. In 2000, approximately 12,645 dispositions were returned to criminal justice agencies for resubmission to the Central State Repository. Lack of information accounted for 74 percent of the total rejections in 2000 and 2001, which is a 44 percent increase from 1999.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 2



RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of the findings of this evaluation, the following recommendations are provided to the Commission: � Arizona should proceed with the completion of the Criminal Justice Systems Integration Needs Assessment and use this information as the foundation for further improvements to the Criminal History Records System. � Accurate identification of a defendant should occur throughout the state on a continual basis (24 hours-a-day). Ideally, this process of identification should occur within a two-hour time period. � Each county should develop a working group to evaluate and improve present organizational practices and to develop business processes that are consistent with future improvements to integrate at local and state level. This working group should be comprised of criminal justice agency representatives that participate in this process from the local level. � Each county should provide evidence of this working group for the improvement of Criminal History Records within the state as a prerequisite to receiving National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), Criminal Justice Records Improvement Program (CJRIP) and Edward Byrne grant funding. � Each county should provide a local plan for the improvement of Criminal History Records and the integration of automated systems as a prerequisite for receiving NCHIP, CJRIP and Edward Byrne grant funding. � Agencies initiating electronic submission of electronic dispositions should implement quality control measures to ensure accuracy of information. � Agencies submitting paper submissions of dispositions should implement quality control measures to ensure disposition forms are filled out completely.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 3



CONCLUSIONS

Since 1995, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission has awarded $11,536,255 for the improvement of Criminal History Records. Under the direction of the Program Grant Manager, Jerry Hardt, identifiable goals and objectives were developed and documented in the Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan 2001. These goals and objectives were adopted by the Commission on January 25, 2001. This plan has been the criterion utilized as the foundation for projects receiving grant awards throughout the state. The primary focus of grant funding from the Commission in the mid-and late-1990s was to provide local agencies with the fundamental technology to allow electronic storage and management of criminal history information. Concurrently, NCHIP grant funding emphasized efforts towards the improvement of the arrest submissions to the Central State Repository. This was the initial focus of NCHIP and CJRIP funding during the past six years, which provided for dramatic improvements to the front-end of the criminal history record process. More recently, efforts have been directed toward improving the flow of disposition information to improve criminal history records contained within the Central State Repository. This program has been the catalyst for Arizona criminal justice and law enforcement agencies to improve the Criminal History Records process at the front-end. However, future funding emphasis should be directed toward addressing the difficulties associated with the timely submission of disposition information to the Central State Repository. Additionally, greater accountability must be provided to ensure for any major improvements in the timely collection and dissemination of criminal history records. Specifically, there needs to be greater buy-in from disposing agencies for responsibility in submitting accurate and timely criminal history records. Efforts toward a coordinated process for providing systematic feedback to local agencies regarding their contributions to the Central State Repository should be enhanced to go beyond a case-by-case basis. A strategy providing for the management of both centralized and decentralized efforts will yield the necessary communication to allow for substantial improvements in the Central State Repository. First, criminal justice leaders must step forward in voicing their commitment from the top levels of government. Although Arizona has made considerable progress in automating and solidifying the criminal history records process, it must strive to provide adequate measures for identifying defendants and assuring appropriate sanctions for crimes. The need to accurately identify criminals for local and national security has never been more apparent. Second, individual agencies must be made aware of their role and responsibility for providing complete and accurate criminal history records within the state of Arizona. This will provide ownership and understanding of criminal history records maintained by DPS through the Central State Repository at the local agency level. An automated Criminal History Records System can contribute significantly to resolving the complexity and underlining problems for this process; however, new policy, governance, and full participation will be the major keys to success. Although it is evident that criminal justice agencies in the state of Arizona consider this process

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 4



important, the end result is that priority is demanded and ultimately directed towards day-to-day operations. Through a common vision, Arizona can realize the goals outlined in the 2001 Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan. Further, criminal justice leaders must demonstrate their commitment through the allocation of adequate resources at the agency level in order to realize this vision. This leadership will provide the direction that is needed to coordinate the development of policy and procedures for the administration and monitoring of the Criminal History Records System.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 5



INTRODUCTION

The extent to which criminal history records are complete, accurate and timely is essential to maintaining an effective criminal justice system. Currently, criminal history records are collected and maintained by each state in a Central State Repository. The Central State Repository is a database of all state offenders and criminal history records, which contains fingerprint files and notations of arrests and dispositions. The responsibilities of the Central State Repository include identifying state-level arrestees, serving as the central control terminal for contact with the FBI record systems and routing inquiries for national record checks from local organizations to the FBI (BJS, 1999). In Arizona, the coordination and maintenance of criminal history records, pursuant to A.R.S. �41-2205, is fulfilled by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Currently, criminal history information is stored in the Central State Repository database, Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH). The specific responsibilities regarding the submission of data to the Central State Repository by local, county and state agencies is outlined in A.R.S. �41-1750 and A.R.S. �41-1751; and the consequences and potential disciplinary actions for failing to adhere to state statutes addressing criminal history records is outlined in A.R.S. �41-2206. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the efficiency of the Arizona Criminal History Records System and to assess the progress of this system from 1992 through 2000 as the result of criminal history record improvement grant funds received during this time period. More specifically, the research presented in this report was designed to evaluate the overall improvement in accuracy, timeliness and completeness of criminal history records in Arizona from 1992 to 2000, and to provide recommendations for the continued progress of the Arizona Criminal History Records System.



CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS OVERVIEW

The issue of maintaining accurate criminal records has been recognized by federal, state, and local criminal justice administrators for many years. The publication of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice indicated that criminal history records were frequently inaccurate, incomplete and not easily accessible. Since the publication of that report, substantial steps have been taken to improve the quality of criminal history records. The improvement of criminal history records has been accomplished through specialized strategic workshops, as well as the implementation of federal and state statutes such as the Brady Act, the National Child Protection Act and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. In addition, there have been a number of federal agencies, particularly the former Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) that have provided extensive funding for state programs designed to enhance data quality. Such programs include the BJA funded Criminal History Records Improvement Program (CHRI); the Edward Byrne Memorial five percent set-aside

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 6



Program (CJRIP) and the BJS funded National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), and the State Identification System (SIS) (BJS, 2000).



Criminal History Records Improvement

The Criminal History Records Improvement (CHRI) program was created and implemented to improve the quality of criminal history records nationwide. In 1989, the CHRI program received funding as a result of a recommendation by the US Attorney General, which proposed the use of $9 million from the Anti-Drug Abuse Act Discretionary Funds for fiscal years 1990, 1991 and 1992. The objectives of the Criminal History Records Improvement program are to: � Enhance state criminal history records to accurately identify convicted felons; � Meet the new FBI/BJS voluntary reporting standards for identifying such individuals; � Improve the quality and timeliness of criminal history records information; (BJS, 2000)



Edward Byrne Memorial Five Percent Set-Aside Program

An amendment to the Crime Control Act of 1990 required that states allocate at least five percent of their annual Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant funds (ordinarily intended for initiatives to control violent and drug-related crime) for improving the quality of criminal history records. Under the Crime Control Act, the objectives of the Edward Byrne five percent set-aside program are to: � Enhance the completeness of criminal history records, especially including final disposition of all felony arrest offenses; � Completely automate all criminal justice history and fingerprint records;



� Improve the frequency and quality of criminal history reports submitted to

the FBI;



� Improve state record systems and sharing with the U.S. Attorney General of

all records described above in order to implement the Brady Act and the National Child Protection Act (BJS, 2000).



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 7



National Criminal History Improvement Program

The National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) was initiated in 1995 to improve public safety within the United States by facilitating the accurate and timely identification of persons who are ineligible to purchase a firearm, ensuring that persons with the responsibility of child care, elder care, and/or care of the disabled do not have disqualifying criminal records and enhancing the quality, completeness and accessibility of the nation's criminal history record systems. NCHIP is designed to assist states with meeting the timetables developed for criminal history record completeness and the participation in the FBI's Interstate Identification Index (III) established by the Attorney General of each state. Funding under the NCHIP program is available to states that are subject to the five-day waiting period ("Brady states") and states that operate under an alternative system pursuant to the approval of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) ("non-Brady states"). The NCHIP program objectives are to: � Improve the level of criminal history record automation; � Improve the accuracy, completeness and flagging of criminal records; � Expand and enhance participation in the FBI's Interstate Identification Index (III); � Expand and enhance the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); � Develop procedures for accessing records of persons other than felons (including persons subject to civil restraining orders arising out of domestic or child abuse) who are ineligible to purchase firearms; � Identify (through interface with the National Incident-Based Reporting System) records of crimes involving the use of a handgun and/or abuse of children, elderly or disabled persons; � Ensure that states develop the capability to monitor and assess state progress in achieving legislative and programmatic goals; To ensure that all NCHIP funded efforts support the development of the national criminal record system, the national criminal history improvement program is closely coordinated with the FBI, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF).



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 8



State Identification System

In 1997, the State Identification System (SIS) was developed to enhance the identification and prosecution of offenders within state and local governments by establishing or upgrading information systems and DNA analysis capabilities. Specifically, the goals of the SIS program are to establish, develop, update and/or upgrade state identification systems such as the computerized identification systems that are compatible and integrated with the databases of the FBI's National Crime Information Center; DNA forensic laboratory analysis that are compatible and integrated with the FBI's Combined DNA Index System (CODIS); and Automated fingerprint identification systems that are compatible and integrated with the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint System (IAFIS). Each of the previously discussed grants has established a platform in which considerable advancements have been achieved in improving criminal history records. Recognizing the complexity of criminal history records, each grant has adopted slightly different focus areas and objectives to provide state agencies with the resources to address multiple components of enhanced criminal records. Through resources provided by federal grants, more criminal history records have become automated, the percentage of arrests within the criminal history records database that have final dispositions recorded has increased and the level of felony flagging has improved. Each of these achievements represents state-level advancements obtained as a direct result of federal grant funding dedicated to criminal history records improvement.



ARIZONA CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS

The first Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Program task force was established in 1992 to initiate the long-term planning process necessary to comply with the federal legislative mandate authorizing the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant program to set-aside five percent of revenues for criminal history records improvement. The Executive Consulting Group (ECG) was hired by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) to perform the first evaluation of Arizona Criminal History Records. At the conclusion of this study, ECG found that Arizona was in compliance with seven of the ten recommended voluntary standards for improving the quality of criminal history records information published by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) (Appendix A). The initial evaluation conducted by ECG also concluded that of the criminal history records maintained in Arizona, 57 percent were incomplete, 58 percent were error-free and the arrest and disposition reports were not entered into the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) database on a timely basis. Further, it was determined that Arizona was not in compliance with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) guidelines for the Improvement of Criminal Justice Records in the area of completeness, reporting of correctional information, and automated reporting to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for convictions of individuals not legally present within the United States. The primary reason cited for the previous conclusion was a lack of understanding of and compliance with arrest and disposition reporting procedures by local agency personnel. According to ECG, the noncompliance with the Bureau of

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 9



Justice Assistance (BJA) guidelines for the Improvement of Criminal Justice Records reduced the overall accuracy and completeness of criminal history records information in Arizona. The major finding of this initial evaluation indicated that Arizona lacked adequate criminal history record and fingerprint technology. In response to this particular finding, Arizona has dedicated the last five years to installing and upgrading computer systems, hardware, software, fingerprint systems and databases within state, county and local agencies to improve the automation and integration of criminal history records within the state (ECG, 1992).



Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan

A fundamental component of the enhancement of criminal history records in Arizona is the Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan. In 1994, the first Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan was approved by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which authorized the allocation of the five percent set-aside funds from the Edward Byrne Memorial Fund for fiscal years 1992, 1993 and 1994. The principle function of the initial Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan was to develop a systematic strategy that addressed current issues related to the improvement of criminal history records within Arizona, and to identify both the long-term and short-term goals necessary to accomplish the identified objectives. Since the origination of the Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Plan, subsequent reports have been created annually to identify the current progress of the criminal history records improvement plan, ongoing projects, completed projects and future goals and objectives. The goals and objectives outlined in the initial Arizona Criminal Justice Records Improvement Program plan drafted in 1994 have not changed significantly over the past seven years. The following are the short and long term goals as highlighted in the 2002 Criminal History Records Improvement Plan relating to the submission of criminal history records to the Central State Repository: 1. Short-term goals stated in 2002: � In accordance with ARS �41-1750C, all law enforcement agencies within the state shall adopt the Process Control Number (PCN) with fingerprint card scanners or bar code printers provided to the agencies who lack a Livescan system. By December 31, 2002, the equipment necessary to scan fingerprint cards to obtain the PCN and the bar code printers to print the numbers issued by the Central State Repository will be in place. � As required by ARS �41-1750C, prosecutors shall use the PCN in their agency's automated systems so charges can be tracked from law enforcement agencies, through the courts, to the Central State Repository, by December 31, 2002, thereby improving disposition reporting information.

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 10



� By December 31, 2005, the State Integration Information System shall have current, complete, and accurate criminal disposition information available for use by any Arizona criminal justice practitioner within any state criminal justice system, within 2 minutes, with a status currency of 24 hours. � By December 31, 2002, the Courts shall provide juvenile probation information from the Juvenile On Line Tracking System (JOLTS) for use by any Arizona criminal justice practitioner within any state criminal justice system, within 2 minutes, with a status currency of 24 hours. This information will be provided to law enforcement through the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Arizona Criminal Justice Information System (ACJIS) network. � By December 31, 2002, all courts shall use the PCN, as required by ARS �41-1750C, to track charges from law enforcement and prosecutors through the court system to the Central State Repository to improve disposition reporting. � Integrate Department of Corrections data into the Department of Public Safety data center by December 31, 2002. The Arizona correctional status (incarcerated, on community supervision, probation including conditions) shall be able to be determined by a member of any criminal justice agency within 2 minutes with a status currency of 24 hours. � By December 31, 2002, the Department of Corrections shall use the PCN to track charges from law enforcement and prosecutors through the court system to the Central State Repository and to track cases back to the originating agency. 2. Long-term goals stated in 2002: � By December 31, 2005, every criminal justice agency shall be able to obtain the fingerprint supported criminal history record of a person who has one, within 2 minutes, with a status currency of 24 hours. � By December 31, 2005, the Arizona Criminal Justice Integrated Information System shall have current, complete, and accurate criminal prosecution information available for use by any Arizona criminal justice practitioner, within any criminal justice agency, within 2 minutes with a status currency of 24 hours. � By December 31, 2010, complete information systems integration shall exist within each city and county of Arizona, to include law enforcement

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 11



agencies, prosecutors and courts. To provide for information sharing among the criminal justice agencies at the county level and to provide information to the Central State Repository at the Arizona Department of Public Safety. The goal is to provide for a two-way communication between local criminal justice agencies and the Central State Repository. The state of Arizona is actively progressing toward completing the goals identified in the 2002 Arizona Criminal History Records Improvement Plan. However, due to recent legislative mandates, new projects must supersede current and future projects in order to comply with federal law. In 1994 and 1995 several laws were enacted impacting protection orders, therefore NCHIP II and NCHIP III funds were allocated to county agencies to automate protection orders. In addition, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1995 mandated that states implement Sex Offender Registration Systems that were capable of transmitting conviction data and fingerprints to the FBI. If states were not in compliance within three years of the enactment of this legislation, the Edward Byrne funds allocated to the state would be reduced by 10 percent. As a result of the Jacob Wetterling Act, CJRIP, NCHIP, SIS, and ASOR-AP funds were used to help criminal justice agencies comply with federal mandates so that future funding would not be jeopardized. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 mandated that the states computerized identification systems: � be compatible and integrated with the National Crime Information Center; � have the capability to analyze DNA in forensic laboratories that are compatible to the FBI combined DNA identification system (CODIS); � Integrate the state's Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems with the FBI Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS).



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 12



Arizona Criminal Justice Records Progress

Arizona has made significant progress in improving criminal history records within the state. Records management, case management and fingerprint systems at the state, county and local levels have been installed and upgraded. All fifteen county attorney offices have received new or upgraded case management systems with the goal of automated disposition reporting to the Central State Repository. At this time, Maricopa County, Coconino County and the Administrative Office of the Courts have received funds for this capability, but according to experts at the Central State Repository, this process is not operating efficiently due to human and technical errors. In an effort to improve criminal history records, monies were also allocated to alleviate a severe backlog of dispositions at the county attorney offices, the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Central State Repository. Through these monies, the Department of Public Safety was able to reduce the backlog from a high of 18-months to within 30days of receipt of dispositions to their office. In addition, the monies allocated to this project allowed local criminal justice agencies to reduce backlogs in their particular agency. It is important to note that once grant funding dedicated to the elimination of backlogs was discontinued, some jurisdictions again experienced backlogs. Criminal history records improvement funds were also allocated to three county sheriff's offices, six municipal police departments, the Department of Corrections, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Department of Public Safety to purchase Livescan Fingerprint Systems. Livescan fingerprint systems allow agencies to obtain a State Identification Number (SID) from the Arizona Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AZAFIS). At this point in time, the ability to obtain a SID number is significant because the SID number is the only identifier that remains with an individual throughout the criminal justice system process. In addition, fourteen Police departments and 8 sheriff's offices have received monies to install and/or upgrade their records management system to have the capability to connect to other jurisdictions (local to county agency) and to connect with both the Arizona Central State Repository and the National Crime Information Centers. As a result of State Identification System (SIS) funds, the Department of Public Safety is now integrated with the FBI combined DNA identification system (CODIS). Under NCHIP III, criminal history records were converted to assimilate the national model so that Arizona information could be contained in the national database. It is important to note that this project was not completed, and in 1996 $50,000 originally committed to this project was reverted to the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. In 1996, these monies were approved for reallocation and dedicated to a study conducted by IBM. Finally, criminal history records were originally maintained using the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) codes rather than the Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) codes. At the recommendation of the IBM study, and as a result of criminal history record



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 13



improvement grant funding, the Arizona Department of Public Safety converted ACCH to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S) codes in December of 1999.



BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS SURVEY

Every two years the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) surveys the criminal history information systems of all 50 states. On a national level, the 1999 Survey of the State Criminal History Information Systems by BJS concluded that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have automated at least some records in the criminal history file. In addition, 18 states indicated that 80 percent or more of the arrests within the past five years that are maintained within the criminal history records database have final dispositions recorded. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia reported that 70 percent of arrests within the past five years have final dispositions recorded. When discussing the timeliness in which dispositions are entered, 25 states indicated that dispositions are entered within 10 days or less, and 27 states report that dispositions are entered in 14 days or less (BJS, 1999). In 1995, 45 percent of all arrests included in criminal history records for Arizona had final dispositions, and in 1999 this number increased to 50 percent. Since 1995, all criminal history records within the state are flagged to identify felony convictions. Arizona documented 798,700 automated offender criminal history records in the state criminal history file in 1997, and this number (798,700) has increased to 915,100 as of 1999. The number of arrest fingerprint cards and Livescan images submitted to the Central State Repository has also increased by over 40,000 entries in the past five years. Because fingerprints support one hundred percent of arrest events in the state criminal history files, the Central State Repository should be notified if an arrested individual is not charged after the submission of fingerprints to the system. Although Arizona state law requires the Central State Repository to be notified if an arrested individual is not charged after the submission of fingerprints to the Central State Repository, this does not always occur. Finally, according to the BJS survey, the number of final dispositions reported to the Central State Repository has increased from 140,800 in 1995 to 190,500 in 1999 (BJS, 1999). At this time Arizona is unable to provide the number of complete prosecutor and court disposition reports submitted to the Central State Repository. In addition, no statistics are available regarding the number of prosecutor declinations or the percent of cases in which the Central State Repository is notified of prosecutor declinations and felony trial court dispositions. In Arizona, only two of five possible data fields that could be required in the Central State Repository are maintained. Currently, the prosecutor's no files and felony dispositions by courts with felony jurisdiction are maintained, but the admission/release of felons from state prisons and local jails, probation and parole information are not. In Arizona, taped extracts allow for the transfer of data between the prisons and/or jails and the Central State Repository. However, through NCHIP funding for Livescan equipment for male and female intake centers this is available in Arizona.

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 14



ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES

This section provides a brief overview regarding Arizona Statutes and Administrative Orders relevant to the processing and submission of criminal history records to the Central State Repository. Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) �41-1750 mandates criminal justice agencies within the state to report criminal history information to the Central State Repository (CSR). Additionally, this mandates that the Central State Repository collect, store, and disseminate complete and accurate criminal history arrest and disposition information. (Criminal History Reporting, Arrest and Disposition Information Manual:DPS December 2000). The following are excerpts from ARS �41-1750 highlighting information relevant to the submission of records to the Central State Repository.

ARS �41-1750. Central State Repository, department of public safety; duties; funds; accounts; definitions. A. Notwithstanding section �41-2205, the department is responsible for the effectiv e operation of the Central State Repository in order to collect, store and disseminate complete and accurate Arizona criminal history records and related criminal justice information. The department shall: 1. Procure from all criminal justice agencies in this state accurate and complete personal identification data, fingerprints, charges, process control numbers and dispositions and such other information as may be pertinent to all persons who have been charged with, arrested for, convicted of or summoned to court as a criminal defendant for a felony offense or an offense involving domestic violence as defined in section 13-3601 or a violation of title 13, chapter 14 or title 28, chapter 4.



This section charges the Department of Public Safety with conducting periodic audits of the Central State Repository and of agencies that contribute or receive information from this system. The Department of Public Safety is mandated to encourage coordination and cooperation among criminal justice agencies through information exchange and for providing training for agencies receiving information from the Central State Repository. Further, these criminal justice agencies are mandated to comply with the training and proficiency testing guidelines set by the Department of Public Safety.

7. Conduct periodic operational audits of the Central State Repository and of a representative sample of other agencies that contribute records to or receive criminal justice information from the Central State Repository or through the Arizona criminal justice information system.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 15



9. Aid and encourage coordination and cooperation among criminal justice agencies through the statewide and interstate exchange of criminal justice information. 10. Provide training and proficiency testing on the use of criminal justice information to agencies receiving information from the Central State Repository or through the Arizona criminal justice information system. E. The chief officers of criminal justice agencies of this state or its political subdivisions shall comply with the training and proficiency testing guidelines as required by the department to comply with the federal national crime information center mandates.



Additionally, ARS �41-1750 sets out specific timelines for the submission of arrest and disposition information by criminal justice agencies to the Central State Repository.

U. In order to ensure that complete and accurate criminal history record information is maintained and disseminated by the Central State Repository: 1. The arresting authority shall take legible fingerprints of all persons arrested for offenses specified in subsection C of this section and, within ten days of the arrest, the arresting authority shall forward the fingerprints to the department in the manner or form required b the y department. On the issuance and service of a summons for a defendant who is charged with a felony offense, a violation of title 13, chapter 14 or title 28, chapter 4 or a domestic violence offense as defined in section 133601, the court shall order that the defendant be fingerprinted by the appropriate law enforcement agency and that the defendant appear at a designated time and place for fingerprinting. At the initial appearance or on the arraignment of a summoned defendant who is charged with a felony offense, a violation of title 13, chapter 14 or title 28, chapter 4 or a domestic violence offense as defined in section 13-3601, the court shall order that the defendant be fingerprinted at a designated time and place by the appropriate law enforcement agency if the court has reasonable cause to believe that the defendant was not previously fingerprinted. 2. In every criminal case in which the defendant is incarcerated or fingerprinted as a result of the charge, an originating law enforcement agency or prosecutor, within forty days of the disposition, shall advise the Central State Repository of all dispositions concerning the termination of criminal proceedings against an individual arrested for an offense specified in subsection C of this section. This information shall be submitted on a form or in a manner required by the department. 3. Dispositions resulting from formal proceedings in a court having jurisdiction in a criminal action against an individual who is arrested for an offense specified in subsection C of this section or section 8-341, Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 16



subsection R shall be reported to the Central State Repository within forty days of the date of the disposition. This information shall be submitted on a form or in a manner specified by rules approved by the Supreme Court. 4. The state department of corrections or the department of juvenile corrections, within forty days, shall advise the Central State Repository that it has assumed supervision of a person convicted of an offense specified in subsection C of this section or section 8-341, subsection R. The state department of corrections or the department of juvenile corrections shall also report dispositions that occur thereafter to the Central State Repository within forty days of the date of the dispositions. This information shall be submitted on a form or in a manner required by the department of public safety.



Finally, ARS �41-1750 requires that the Department of Public Safety maintain a continuing training program that is made available to agencies that contribute to or receive criminal justice information to the Central State Repository.

W. The department shall make available to agencies that contribute to, or receive criminal justice information from, the Central State Repository or through the Arizona criminal justice information system a continuing training program in the proper methods for collecting, storing and disseminating information in compliance with this section.



The following statutes outline specific aspects of the Central State Repository. Specifically, ARS �41-2205 states that the Department of Public Safety will operate the Central State Repository pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Additionally, the Department of Public Safety is required to perform annual audits to insure criminal justice agencies are abiding by these rules and regulations. In ARS �41-2206, by action taken by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission criminal justice agencies can be removed from participation for failing to comply with the previously mentioned rules.

ARS �41-2205. Criminal justice information system Central State Repository. A. There shall be a Central State Repository for the collection, storage and dissemination of criminal history record information. The department of public safety shall operate the Central State Repository pursuant to the rules and regulations adopted by the commission. The department of public safety shall conduct annual audits to insure each criminal justice agency is complying with rules and regulations governing the maintenance and dissemination of criminal history record information.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 17



B. Each criminal justice agency shall report criminal history record information, whether collected manually or by means of an automated system, to the Central State Repository pursuant to the provisions of �41-1750 and �41-1751. ARS �41-2205. Disciplinary action; system participants Any agency, company or individual that fails to conform to the rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter may be subject to removal from participation in the system by action of the commission.



The following statute, ARS �41-1751 outlines the requirement for reporting court dispositions to the Department of Public Safety.

ARS �41-1751. Reporting court dispositions to department of public safety Every magistrate, or judge of a court, or clerk of a court of record who is responsible for court records in this state shall furnish to the criminal identification section of the Department of Public Safety information pertaining to all court dispositions of felonies and misdemeanors, except traffic arrests, where incarceration or fingerprinting of the person occurred, including guilty pleas, convictions, acquittals, probations granted and pleas of guilty to reduced charges within forty days of the final disposition. Such information shall be submitted on a form and in accordance with rules approved by the supreme court of the state.

Added by Laws 1974, Ch. 17, � 1. Amended by Laws 1984, Ch. 135, � 1. Administrative office of the court. Parallel and support statutes.



On October 16th, 2001, Chief Justice Zlaket signed Supreme Court No. R-01-0022 amending Rule 37.1 within the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. The modification provides language allowing for the electronic submission of disposition data to the criminal identification section. This submission of the disposition information is to be completed within 10 days of the final disposition. It is important to note that there are no procedures outlining the course of action when the disposition form is not available.

Rule 37.1. Scope a. In every criminal case filed in any court, the final disposition of the case shall be reported to the criminal identification section of the Department of Public Safety if the defendant was incarcerated or fingerprinted as a result of the charge. The disposition shall be reported on a form approved by the Supreme Court. The disposition shall be sent to the criminal identification section within 10 days of the final disposition. b. A final disposition is the information disclosing that criminal proceedings have concluded and the nature of the termination. Added Sept. 14, 1976, effective Nov. 1, 1976.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 18



Rule 37.3. Reporting procedure a. If the final disposition of a case occurs in a court of record, the clerk of that court shall complete the disposition form noting the disposition and forward it to the criminal identification section. The clerk shall retain a copy of the completed form in the court's file. If the disposition of a case occurs in a limited jurisdiction court, the magistrate, justice of the peace, or judge of such court shall retain the disposition form until the time for an appeal has expired or an appeal has been perfected. In the event of an appeal has been perfected, the final disposition report shall be forwarded to the court in which the appeal has been taken. If the time for appeal has run out and no appeal has been perfected, the disposition form shall be forwarded to the criminal identification section. Added Sept. 14, 1976, effective Nov. 1, 1976. Amended July 28, 1993, effective Dec. 1, 1993.



b.



METHODOLOGY

As a result of the complexities associated with criminal history records, both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to evaluate the overall efficiency of the Arizona Criminal History Records System. The primary data source for this evaluation consisted of data contained within the Central State Repository. The information maintained within the Central State Repository facilitated the analysis of the proportion of arrests with dispositions, the elapsed time for disposition entry into the ACCH database, summary data related to the ACCH database and the validation of arrests and dispositions. Additional focal points were utilized to supplement the primary data source and included: (1) a comparison of agency arrest summary data to the Central State Repository, (2) site interviews with various criminal justice agencies throughout Arizona, (3) survey responses of state criminal justice agencies and (4) an analysis of funding allocated to the criminal history records program.



A. CENTRAL STATE REPOSITORY DATA

Proportion of Arrests with Dispositions In order to evaluate the proportion of arrests with dispositions, an ASCII dataset was provided by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). The dataset consisted of approximately 1,100,000 records from 1994 through 2000, and each record contained within the dataset included a unique identifier (PCN and SID number). For the purposes of this study, it is important to note that the dataset contained information relating to arrests rather than counts per arrest. In addition to the dataset, DPS provided a codebook (table), which was used to determine information relating to the county of arrest. The information used from the DPS



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 19



dataset to complete this research included: (1) original agency codes; (2) date of arrests; (3) date of arrest entry into the Central State Repository; (4) date of disposition; and (5) date of disposition entry into the Central State Repository. Elapsed Time for Entry into Central State Repository To complete this component of the research, the amount of time (in days) between significant dates of the history of an arrest was calculated. Specifically, the elapsed times needed to evaluate system performance were from date of arrest to entry into the Central State Repository and the time from case disposition to entry into the Central State Repository. Calculations to ascertain the amount of time between arrest date and entry into the Central State Repository were obtained through the original ASCII dataset received from the Department of Public Safety. However, the original database provided by DPS was unable to provide the information needed to determine the amount of time between date of case disposition and entry into the Central State Repository. This due to the practice of data on disposition information entry being updated and overwriting the initial date of entry, and the average elapsed time for disposition entry into the Central State Repository increasing as cases are updated. As a result of this process, an additional database was obtained from DPS, which included all records with a disposition date of entry since 1999. Similar to the original database provided by DPS, the second database included records reflective of entire dispositions rather than disposition counts. The use of the second database provided a more accurate assessment of the elapsed time in which disposition updates into the Central State Repository occur. Records with a disposition date of more than five years were removed from the sample in an effort to exclude cases that were updated rather than originally entered into the Central State Repository. Finally, in addition to elapsed time, the dataset provided information that allowed the proportion of completed dispositions per county to be calculated. For this study, completion is defined as a disposition date entered into the Central State Repository. Utilizing this definition and agency codes made it possible to calculate the percentage of completions for each county per calendar year. The data obtained from this research methodology was transformed into two separate SPSS databases. The creation of the two separate databases allowed a transformation of dates to be performed and the elapsed times provided by SPSS to be utilized. The metric of analysis was in whole days as opposed to fractions of days or hours. In addition, the agency codes were used to determine the county for each arrest. The final databases provided elapsed time statistics per county for arrest and disposition information entered into the Central State Repository. Given the data configuration, descriptive statistics of elapsed time



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 20



per county were generated. Specifically, the descriptive statistics included measures of central tendency and variance. Summary Data Related to Central State Repository Database The Department of Public Safety also provided summary data that was included in the analysis section of this report. The following reports and summary data were provided by DPS: � The number of manual versus electronic Livescan arrest fingerprint submissions from 1992 through June 30, 2001. This data was entered into an Excel spreadsheet, which allowed the percentage of arrest fingerprint submissions per type to be computed. � The number of rejected dispositions returned to individual agencies by type of rejection. � The number of Failure to Appear (FTA) counts entered into the Central State Repository for the year 2000. (Prior years were not selected due to a change in tracking methods within the ACCH database, which occurred in December 1999). � The time interval in elapsed days between arrest and disposition date. Validation of Arrests and Dispositions Due to the high volume of arrests, the use of all arrest data was not employed to determine the validity of the information contained within the Central State Repository. Instead, a random sample of arrests was generated to determine the degree of validity between the arrest and disposition information documented by the agency of record and the information contained in the Central State Repository. In addition, both the high volume of arrests and the limited time allotted to conduct this study prevented a stratified sample of all counties in the state. For this research, the random sample consisted of records from Maricopa, Pima and Coconino counties. The selection of these counties was based upon the fact that Maricopa and Pima County account for more than 85 percent of the records, and records from Coconino County would be representative of rural areas in Arizona. The Department of Public Safety generated a random sample of records from Maricopa, Pima and Coconino counties. This random selection process resulted in 1,500 records from each county, which totaled approximately 6,000 records per year from 1992 to 1999. Overall, the database provided by DPS included 48,000 arrest records for Maricopa, Pima and Coconino counties for the seven year time frame. It is important to note that the only method capable of testing



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 21



the validity of information between the courts and the Central State Repository is through the physical analysis of court files. As a result of the limited duration of time to complete this study and the extensive number of arrest records (48,000), it was necessary to generate a sub-sample of the records originally provided by DPS. A random selection function in SPSS was used to generate the sub-sample, which consisted of approximately 150 records. The court file was requested for each of the 150 arrests, and the request included the booking slip and court file. After locating the necessary information, each file was reviewed and the disposition information compared to the data in the Central State Repository. This process was partially facilitated by a data collection sheet that was completed by research and/or agency staff in Pima County



B. AGENCY ARREST SUMMARY DATA COMPARISON

Information within the Central State Repository represented the largest source of data included in this evaluation. However, there was no assessment of whether the arrests in the ACCH database contained an accurate representation of actual arrests at the local agency level. Therefore, as part of this research, a comparison of felony arrests within the Central State Repository and selected law enforcement agencies was conducted. In Arizona, felony arrests must be submitted to the Central State Repository, therefore the summary data from the ACCH database and local law enforcement agencies should be consistent. In order to complete this component of the research, ten law enforcement agencies were selected from Maricopa, Pima and Coconino counties.



C. SITE INTERVIEWS

Interviews were conducted with the Maricopa, Pima and Coconino staff that are responsible for facilitating the arrest and disposition process in each county. Specifically, site visits were conducted with the Sheriff's Department, County Attorney, and Clerk of the Court for each county, and additional interviews and site visits were conducted when necessary within each specific county. It is important to note that numerous site visits were conducted in order to complete the validation of random records for certain agencies. Telephone and site interviews were also conducted with the Department of Public Safety, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Within the Department of Public Safety, interviews were conducted with the Criminal Information Services Bureau, the Access Integrity Unit, and the Fingerprint Identification Bureau in order to understand the process by which records are submitted to the Central State Repository. Interviews were also conducted with the Administrative Office of the Courts to identify on-going efforts related to the submission of court dispositions to the Central State Repository. Finally, several interviews with the Program Manager and staff

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 22



responsible for overseeing the Criminal History Records Improvement Program were conducted throughout this evaluation.



D. SURVEY RESPONSES

Recognizing the various roles that criminal justice agencies contribute to the overall improvement of criminal history records, three different surveys were created to capture the perspective of law enforcement, prosecution and court criminal justice agencies in Arizona. Each of the three surveys included agencyspecific questions reflective of the roles and responsibilities assigned to that category of criminal justice agencies (law enforcement, prosecution and courts). An additional survey was developed to provide supplementary data to the agency-specific surveys, and to provide a perspective indicative of all criminal justice agencies in Arizona. The final survey for this evaluation was tailored specifically for criminal justice agencies that received criminal history record improvement grant funding from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. In sum, each of the five surveys was designed to capture information relating to a specific component of the criminal history records improvement process, and the combined information from the five surveys provided a complete perspective of the criminal history records improvement process as it relates to criminal justice agencies in the state. The surveys were distributed statewide to criminal justice agencies in June 2001 with a final survey return deadline of August 2001. Criminal justice agencies throughout the state received the survey created for all organizations and the survey specific to their agency category (law enforcement, prosecution and courts). In addition, agencies that received grant funding from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission also received the survey specifically addressing this aspect of criminal history records improvement in Arizona. A total of 353 surveys were distributed to all criminal justice agencies, 120 surveys were mailed to law enforcement agencies, 78 surveys were distributed to courts, 92 surveys were mailed to prosecutors and 63 surveys were mailed to criminal justice agencies receiving funding from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. Of the total number surveys distributed, 169 (48 percent) criminal justice organizations responded to the "all-agency" survey, 72 (60 percent) agencies responded to the law enforcement survey, 68 (87 percent) agencies responded to the court survey, 31 (34 percent) agencies responded to the attorney survey and 32 (51 percent) agencies responded to the survey for organization funded through the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.



E. CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS FUNDING

Information utilized for analyzing grant funding associated with the improvement of the Criminal History Records Program was provided through records from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. In addition, interviews were conducted with both the program manager of the Criminal History Records Program and the

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 23



Financial Officer of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to supplement the information provided through documents and records.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 24



FINDINGS

A. CENTRAL STATE REPOSITORY DATA

Proportion of Arrests with Dispositions The following table represents the proportion of arrests with dispositions for all 15 counties from 1994 to 2000. For the seven year time frame, the number of electronic fingerprint submissions for arrests has risen consistently. Since 1994, there has been a 74 percent increase in t e total number of arrest submissions to the Central State h Repository by law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the average elapsed time between the arrest date and entry into the Central State Repository has decreased significantly since 1994. While the mandatory timeline for submission of arrest information to the Central State Repository in Arizona is ten days pursuant to ARS �411750, in 2000, the average time for submission of arrests into the Central State Repository was approximately 13 days. Nationally, information on the completion of disposition records tends to stabilize after 5 years with limited improvements thereafter. Table One: Proportion of Arrests with Dispositions

TOTAL ARRESTS TOTAL DISPOSI TIONS ARREST MEAN DISPOSI T I O N S NOT COMPLETE PERCENT DISPOSITIONS NOT COMPLETE PERCENT DISPOSITIONS COMPLETE FELONIES SUBMITTED TO DPS



YEAR 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 110107 151850 164098 184300 197679 199972 191887 76678 92531 93013 105747 114082 102220 84388 97.81 118.19 57.25 27.68 32.68 23.79 13.29 33429 59319 71085 78553 83597 97752 107499 30.36 39.06 43.32 42.62 42.29 48.88 56.02 69.64 60.94 56.68 57.38 57.71 51.12 43.98 47311 53359 54193 64503 68331 65752 69636



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 25



Each of the 15 counties within the state has also experienced a reduction in elapsed time for the submission of arrest data to the Central State Repository. As the following chart demonstrates, the most substantial changes in elapsed time occurred between the years 1996 and 1997. However, it is important to note that there was a 44 percent reduction from 1999 to 2000, and the most significant reduction was observed in Coconino County, which reduced elapsed time from approximately 142 days in 1994 to approximately 2 days in 2000. Chart One: Elapsed Time for Submission of Arrest Data to State Repository

500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1994

APACHE GREENLEE PIMA



1995

COCHISE LA PAZ PINAL



1996



1997

COCONINO MARICOPA SANTA CRUZ



1998

GILA MOHAVE YAVAPAI



1999



2000

GRAHAM NAVAJO YUMA



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 26



Elapsed Time for Entry into Central State Repository As noted previously in this report, there are substantial difficulties in utilizing the ACCH database for the purpose of obtaining elapsed times for the submission of disposition data into the Central State Repository. A.R.S. �41-1751 requires that criminal justice agencies submit disposition information within forty days of completion of the disposition of a case. Further, the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure provide even stricter guidelines for the submission of dispositions, and Rule 37.1 requires that information be submitted within 10 days of the final disposition. The following table provides information about the elapsed times for the submission of disposition data throughout the state. The table also presents the average time for submission of a disposition with all associated counts for each county for the last three years. The overall time for submission and entry of the disposition data into the Central State Repository increased in 2000 and decreased in 2001. The fluctuation between the two years can be attributed to several factors. First, grant funds were still being utilized to assist in the completion of disposition forms in 2000 with the goal of reducing the existing backlog. Second, the overall number of dispositions submitted to the ACCH database increased by 36 percent from the 2000 to 2001 (through November 30, 2001). Finally, there are several statewide projects that provide increased training and awareness to the Central State Repository.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 27



Table Two: Elapsed Times for Entry of Dispositions into CSR

Count Apache Cochise Coconino Gila Graham Greenlee La Paz Maricopa Mojave Navajo Pima Pinal Santa Cruz Yavapai Yuma Total 784 2675 3345 1937 649 194 1094 78938 5934 1419 20043 4155 1450 4407 4711 131735



1999



Average Days 216 163 155 154 108 157 167 132 116 186 287 117 121 166 134 158



Count 861 2722 4243 1818 811 160 1111



2000



Average Days 179 215 178 148 146 148 172 220 161 226 325 154 173 155 163 216



Count 1174 2498 6065 2226 955 274 1217



*2001



Average Days 126 154 158 131 113 158 147 161 145 193 440 120 163 125 138 189



% Change

Percent



-30% -28% -11% -11% -23% 7% -27% -10% -15% 35% -22% -5% -19% -15% -15% -13%



88982 5614 1354 11587 5392 1506 4416 4513 135090



122664 6721 1583 21253 5423 1706 5017 5452 184228



It is important to note that as a state, the elapsed time for s bmission of u dispositions resulted in a 13 percent reduction, with 13 of the 15 counties demonstrating improvements in this area. The county demonstrating the most difficulty submitting disposition data to the Central State Repository during this time period was Pima County, with an average elapsed time of 440 days. Again, it is important to stress the limitations of the available methods for evaluating the elapsed time for submission of disposition data to the Central State Repository in Arizona. In speaking with the Department of Public Safety Information Technology staff, this issue has been remedied as of January 1, 2002. As of this date, the ACCH database now has the ability to accept the date of entry separate from the date of update for the submission of disposition data. This should allow counties and individual agencies to more accurately evaluate

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 28



their efforts towards meeting the state mandates for the submission of disposition data within 40 days. At the writing of this report, a data request has been made to acquire the data for the first month of 2002 utilizing the new fields for follow-up evaluation. Summary Data Related to Central State Repository Database Over the past decade, electronic fingerprint submissions for arrests have consistently risen while manual submissions have consistently decreased. The most remarkable change occurred between 1996 and 1997, increasing electronic submissions from 46 percent to 82 percent. The reduction in the elapsed time for submission of arrest data to the Central State Repository can be attributed to the widespread use of Livescan and portable scanners. The following table summarizes the progress of the electronic submission of fingerprints. Table Three: Manual and Livescan Fingerprint Submissions MANUAL LIVESCAN

Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 87866 97027 93886 41535 25981 3507 1457 3518 850 128 46 380 15505 74900 75093 150739 169868 175055 190163 95882 370 680 2399 35604 63254 30322 26822 22730 12524 4021 0.1 0.4 13.9 49.3 45.7 81.7 85.7 87.0 93.4 95.9 0.1% 0.4% 13.9% 49.3% 45.7% 81.7% 85.7% 87.0% 93.4% 95.9% 99.9% 99.6% 86.1% 50.7% 54.3% 18.3% 14.3% 13.0% 6.6% 4.1%



% % INKROLL LIVESCAN LIVESCAN



% MANUAL



Over the past decade, there have been minimal electronic submissions of dispositions. As can be noted by the following table, the number of dispositions submitted to the Central State Repository has more than doubled since 1995. In 1998, there was a noticeable increase, which can be attributed to an increase in staffing provided by grants directed towards reducing the backlog throughout the state. Although there was a decrease in electronic submissions of dispositions



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 29



during 1999 with the depletion of grant funded positions, there has been a noticeable increase through June 30th, 2001. Table Four: Electronic Submission of Dispositions YEAR PAPER COUNTY ATTORNEY COURT ELECTRONIC ELECTRONIC

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 *2001 Total 79672 54402 129940 191887 137622 144981 103137 884775 0 0 0 3446 5949 998 1380 11773 0 0 0 0 104 1412 1248 2764



TOTAL

79672 54402 129940 238467 143675 147391 105765 899312



PERCENT ELECTRONIC

0 0 0 1.4% 4.2% 1.6% 2.5% 1.6%



*2001 data is through June 30t h . The data displayed on the following page (table five) reflects the average elapsed times between the arrest date and the date of disposition. Generally speaking, this table illustrates the amount of days required to process a case in the year 2000. As can be observed in the following table, approximately 97 percent of the cases sent to the Central State Repository are disposed within one year.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 30



Table Five: Average Elapsed Time between Arrest and Disposition Date INTERVAL DATA

0-7 DAYS 8-14 DAYS 15-22 DAYS 23-30 DAYS 31-45 DAYS 46-90 DAYS 91-120 DAYS 121-150 DAYS 151-180 DAYS 181-365 DAYS 1 OR MORE YEARS TOTAL DISPOSITIONS AVERAGE DAYS TO DISPOSITION



TOTAL DISPOSITIONS

40240 7084 3930 3914 7569 15215 7149 5236 3980 11168 3507 108992 74.5



PERCENTAGE

36.9 6.5 3.6 3.6 6.9 14.0 6.6 4.8 3.7 10.2 3.2



CUMULATIVE TOTAL

36.9 43.4 47.0 50.6 57.6 71.5 78.1 82.9 86.5 96.8 100



Validation of Arrest and Disposition Data Approximately 150 criminal history record submissions were randomly selected from the ACCH database, which acts as the Central State Repository for the state of Arizona. As noted previously, these records were drawn from Coconino, Maricopa, and Pima counties. Additionally, discussions were held with respective agency staff regarding inconsistencies or problems with individual records as part of this evaluation. One of the major difficulties in conducting this part of the evaluation was the lack of integration of the State Identification (SID) and the Process Control Number (PCN) within each of the key processes and paperwork of the criminal justice agencies responsible for the submission of disposition information. Therefore, there were significant problems in tracking the disposition of these criminal history records and the positive matching of the local agency criminal history record with the record contained within the Central State Repository. As a result of these limitations for tracking and matching, specific reporting on the proportion of problem areas was deemed inappropriate. Rather, information derived from this analysis will be presented as the five most

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 31



commonly observed barriers to the successful submission of criminal history records in these three counties. The most significant barrier to the accurate and timely submission of criminal history records revolves around confusion between a Failure to Appear arrest and the original arrest. Quite frequently the Failure to Appear disposition form was not submitted to the Central State Repository but rather was stored in a separate location. The Failure to Appears were either stored in a section for nonprocessed Failure to Appears or contained within a court case record handling the original charge. At the writing of this report there were some discussions between agencies seeking to develop a procedure for the handling of Failure to Appear dispositions. It is important to note that this issue was targeted through a subcommittee originating from the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Final Disposition Reporting Committee (FDR). A second problem noted in this analysis as well as through site interviews is the lack of continuity in the flow of disposition forms between agencies. The successful completion of a disposition form often assumes the logical flow of the disposition form between criminal justice agencies as part of the case processing flow. It was observed through the review of these records that this assumption is not valid. There was documentation within records indicating that the disposition form was not readily available at the time the court case had been processed, and there were no indications that follow up was conducted in order to retrieve the disposition form. There was also a consistent pattern whereby cases originating through a summons process did not result in a disposition form being completed. This could have been a result of the defendant not being fingerprinted at the time of the court case. Additional research would need to be conducted in order to assess the validity of this assumption. However, there is sufficient information to indicate that these types of cases further contribute to the breakdown of the paper flow process. As noted previously, there was no indication that the SID or PCN identifiers were integrated within the paperwork, databases, or supporting processes. This was consistent throughout all agencies responsible for the submission of disposition information to the Central State Repository. Finally, there was not consistency in the method in which the individual charge for a defendant was tracked. The tracking methodology was specific to the organization and may not be consistent with statewide standards. Adding to the problem is that laws and the time frames for these laws are constantly changing. An example of this problem is the inability of one system to electronically submit charges that were identified as attempted, facilitation, solicitation, and conspiracy.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 32



B. Agency Arrest Summary Data Comparison

As noted previously, law enforcement agencies from Maricopa, Pima and Coconino were selected and requested to provide agency data for the purpose of this analysis. In particular, law enforcement agencies were requested to provide summary data of felony arrests for the past five years. Of the ten law enforcement agencies, only five of the 10 agencies were able to comply with this request. Consistently, the response was that this data was either not collected or was not available. It should be noted that all agency staff were agreeable with the project and went out of their way to comply with this request for data. Often, Uniform Crime Reports were suggested as an alternative solution for this project. The five submitting law enforcement agencies returned the original data combined with comparisons for their agencies as housed in the Central State Repository. Two agencies conducted additional queries and resubmitted information after further analysis. It should also be noted that the five participating law enforcement agencies were the largest law enforcement agencies in Arizona. The data received from the five law enforcement agencies were combined and compared in the aggregate with the same data stored in the ACCH database within the Central State Repository. The following table captures the findings derived from this analysis. It can be observed that the felony arrests reported by the individual law enforcement agencies were consistently higher than that contained within the Central State Repository for each year from 1996 to 2000. Table Six: Arrest Summary Data Comparison 1996 Total Agency Felonies Central State Repository Felonies Difference Percentage Difference 41482 30963 10519 34% 1997 46615 37506 9109 24% 1998 48472 39684 8788 22% 1999 47020 38467 8553 22% 2000 48161 39342 8819 22% Total 231750 185962 45788 25%



Over a five year period, the selected agencies indicated felony arrest summaries at a rate 34 percent lower than what is contained within the Central State Repository. It is important to note the limitations of this analysis and emphasize caution pertaining to the interpretation of results. Only five law enforcement agencies submitted data for this analysis and there was limited time to follow up with individual agencies. This follow up could provide additional information explaining the differences in data.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 33



Still, there is enough information to warrant further analysis. Other states have noted this as being a primary barrier to the completion of disposition records to the Central State Repository. As part of the audit performed by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, the following was stated: "Dispositions can only be added to rap sheets if law enforcement agencies submit arrest reports and fingerprints to the Illinois State Police (ISP), and arrest reports and fingerprints to ISP, and ISP, in turn, posts the information to the database"(On Good Authority, 1999). It was further stated that the arrest not being submitted was a major reason dispositions were not added to the rap sheet. Additionally, there is concern regarding the inability to track this data coupled with the obvious conclusion that this information is not examined on a regular basis to assure for statewide compliance on reporting mandates.



C. Site Interviews

Consistent themes emerged from the site interviews that were conducted. Interviews were conducted with staff in charge of the arrest, fingerprint, and disposition process within criminal justice agencies for each of the counties selected for analysis. Court Staff reported that there was limited continuity between criminal justice agencies for the completion of disposition records. Specifically, the disposition form required the submission of the criminal history record rarely was available at the time of disposition. This requires that staff again pull the court record upon receipt of the disposition form. Finally, this process results in one clerk completing the disposition form with another handling the actual court order. The impact of two different people handling the same case can result in added confusion and redundancy of case processing. In each of the three counties, staff expressed an understanding of the importance for the completion of disposition forms for the submission of criminal history records to the Central State Repository. Unfortunately, several factors were cited for this important function not being completed. First, although this was deemed an important function by each agency, more often than not, the agency indicated that this process was a low priority relative to their day-to-day operations. For example, the staff assigned to the disposition process was often the least experienced staff person. Further, the number of hours dedicated to the disposition process was driven by the volume and priority of their day-to-day operations. The exception to this was the Maricopa County Clerk of the Court. The Maricopa County Clerk of the Court dedicates seasoned staff on an average of 18 hours per day. It is important to note, that the newest supervisor was assigned to the process for handling dispositions in Maricopa County.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 34



All Court Clerks expressed frustration with the disposition process, and cited the untimely submission of disposition forms as the number one complaint. In addition, the Maricopa Clerk of the Court provided records for the past three years noting that approximately half of the disposition forms were available by the date of disposition. As can be noted from table seven, the percentage of cases sent to the Central State Repository has decreased over this time period. Staff indicated that a high percentage of disposition forms are never received, thus preventing their agency from completing statutorily mandated requirements (Appendix C).



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 35



Table Seven: Cases Processed by Maricopa Court Clerk YEAR Total Disposition Reports Prepared No Dispositions/ No Dispositions Processed Total Disposition Cases Processed Percentage of Dispositions Sent to CSR 1999 23044 7274 30318 76% 2000 20307 10972 31279 65% *2001 13376 12038 25414 53% 3 Year Average 18909 10095 29004 65%



*through September 2001



All agencies indicated that if the disposition form is not made available at the time of disposition, there is no, or limited, effort made to track down the disposition. Specifically, there is no procedure to allow for follow-up on the location of the disposition form. Rather, the case record is returned to the file room if the disposition form is not available. Time, resources, and the complexity of the system were cited as reasons why more resources are not dedicated for this purpose. Related to this problem is the arrival of dispositions after the case has been processed and returned to the file room or a similar storage area. Court staff described bulk shipments of dispositions being sent to the County Attorney's office, and then, forwarded on to their office for processing. The result is that both County Attorney and Clerk offices must spend a significant amount of time researching dispositions and case information to match a disposition report to a case file. Court staff indicated that the process was extremely complex and that often there is not a clear understanding as to what is required to complete the process. A specific problem cited and observed in each of the counties was the completion of Failure to Appear (FTA) disposition forms. Often FTAs were either completed incorrectly or distributed for further updates when the case had not been filed upon by the County Attorney. Backlogs for the completion of disposition forms were observed and noted in many of the courts visited. Law Enforcement Feedback from law enforcement agencies was that their part of the process has improved remarkably since the implementation of Livescan machines at their agency. Most of the discussions with law enforcement centered on the AZFIS system and the need for the timely identification of a criminal. Only the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office indicated they provided 24-hours, 7 day-a-week service for the identification of arrested persons. Often this function is a Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. service for law enforcement agencies. This often

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 36



leads to the identification process being completed after the initial appearance and subsequent release of the defendant. Further, the disposition forms are held up to complete this process, and thus, removing it from the general flow of the arrest paperwork. It is important to note that only the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office provides electronic submission of the disposition form to the appropriate agencies required to complete the disposition forms. This information is available from the Maricopa County Attorney database and can also be viewed and updated by the Maricopa County Clerk of the Court. Law enforcement staff did not track what proportion of statutorily mandated arrests were fingerprinted and submitted to the Central State Repository. Therefore, law enforcement agencies were not able to ascertain the degree to which they were in compliance with statutes requiring fingerprinting and subsequent submittal to the Central State Repository. County Attorney Feedback from county attorney staff indicated that their role in the process is quite limited, and therefore, the priority is quite low. In some areas, this responsibility is abdicated to another agency for the submission of criminal history records to the Central State Repository containing "No File" information. This function was cited as a low priority relative to other day-to-day operations performed by the County Attorney's Office. Similar to what was stated by the Clerk of the Court these positions are often assigned to new or inexperienced staff. They also indicated that the disposition form is usually not available at the time the case is being processed for court. Even more concerning is that often the County Attorney might never see the disposition form on a case. There are significant differences as to how cases are submitted to the Central State Repository by each of Arizona's County Attorney offices. In Maricopa, there is a partially automated system allowing for the electronic submission of disposition information to the Central State Repository. It is important to note that this process does not allow for the submission of certain types of offenses. Specifically, any offense that is categorized as attempted, facilitation, solicitation, or conspiracy can not be submitted electronically as of the writing of this report. Overall Agency All agencies were receptive to additional training for the purpose of improving the process for submitting records to the Central State Repository. Additionally, agencies noted that this job task is often taken on by new staff in areas with a high degree of turnover. Job turnover and inexperience were cited as major barriers in working towards continuity in the Criminal History Records process. All agencies expressed strong frustration with this process. Generally, the feedback was that there was not a clear understanding of how their agency



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 37



could improve the process. Additionally, each agency provided a perspective that the potential for improvement resided outside their individual agency. There did not seem to be a clear understanding that individuals arrested for a felony and filed as a misdemeanor still required submission of disposition information to the Central State Repository. There were several questions statewide regarding this statutory mandate. There was consensus that the mishandling of "Failure to Appear" (FTA) was widespread and a significant contributory factor for inaccurate reporting to the Central State Repository. All agencies expressed concern that fingerprints for summons cases may not be routinely completed. This concern was based upon procedures that could not assure the successful completion of fingerprinting. A general comment was that defendants were ordered to submit themselves to be fingerprinted; however, there was no one charged with the task of assuring this order was actually completed. Finally, there was general consensus among agencies that there needed to be more coordination with a specific entity charged with the responsibility to improve the process. It was noted that even if individuals were aware of a problem, their agency did not have the authority to mandate the desired outcome as it would impact an outside agency. Often agencies had no concept of how well they were doing in terms of cases being sent to the Central State Repository. In essence, the Central State Repository is viewed as a "black hole" providing little or no feedback regarding their overall contributions. Across the board, agencies described this function as being quite important, but a low priority within day-to-day operations. Department of Public Safety Criminal Support Division The Criminal Information Services Bureau, Access Integrity Unit, and the Fingerprint Identification Bureau fall under the Department of Public Safety's Criminal Justice Support Division. As noted previously, the Department of Public Safety is statutorily mandated to serve as the Central State Repository of criminal history records in Arizona. The Criminal Justice Support Division has the primary responsibility of assuring the accuracy and completeness of criminal history records and appropriate use of the criminal history information contained within the Central State Repository in Arizona. Managers and/or supervisors for the respective departments under this division were interviewed as part of this evaluation process.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 38



Department of Public Safety Criminal Information Services Bureau This bureau of DPS has three sections: 1) the Criminal History Records Section; 2) the Sex Offender Compliance Section; 3) and the Department Records Section. It is important to note that this department has responsibilities that extend beyond criminal history records. There are 24 staff members within the Criminal Information Services Bureau, Criminal History Records Section that operate seven days-a-week, 24 hours-a-day. In addition to providing ongoing support for information pertaining to warrants, the unit enters criminal history records information received from all criminal justice agencies throughout the state. This information is entered directly into the database known as the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) System, which acts as the Central State Repository. The data entry of information into the ACCH database is closely monitored for accuracy. All data entry of newly hired staff is monitored until an error rate of less than 2 percent is achieved by that staff person. Once the staff person passes this probationary period, random criminal history records are selected to assure data entry errors are kept to a minimum. Through this process, disposition forms are routinely returned to the submitting agency for problems that prevent the entry of the information into the Central State Repository. Staff indicated that the most common reason for a rejection of a disposition form is due to lack of information. Table 8 indicates that approximately 74 percent of all rejections have been returned to the submitting agency for the reason "Lack of Information". Finally, staff indicated that t e records that are returned to h agencies do not have a high rate of return with corrections. Table Eight: Disposition Rejections 1999

Non-Auto, No Arrest No Matching Record Lack of Information Auto, No Arrest Total 7 5466 8769 7184 21426



2000

6 1241 12645 3109 17001



2001

15 3084 16749 2729 22577



3 YEAR AVERAGE

9 3264 12721 4341 20335



The manager of the Criminal Information Services Bureau estimates that an average of 5,000 disposition records are received weekly for processing. Of these records, approximately 10 percent are rejected due to problems indicated in table 8 and returned to the submitting criminal justice agency. It is important to note that a large number of rejections from Maricopa County are not included in the 2001 count as they were returned without being entered. Therefore, the 10 percent estimate could reach as high as 15 percent. The Criminal Information Services Bureau was able to take advantage of grant funds to eliminate a

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 39



backlog of approximately 100,000 records over the last several years. The NCHIP grant allowed for the reduction for data entry into the ACCH database from 18months to approximately 20-days. Currently, the internal performance objective for processing dispositions is 30-days from receipt. Even though the number of dispositions submitted has increased. The Criminal Information Service Bureau staff indicates that they have been able to maintain this average timeline since the backlog elimination a few years ago. It is important that the average timeline has been maintained even though the number of dispositions submitted has increased dramatically in the same time span. The manager of the Criminal Information Services Bureau participates in numerous projects dedicated to the improvement of the submission of criminal history records to the Central State Repository. One of the more promising projects involves the electronic submission of disposition information to the Central State Repository. Bi-monthly teleconference calls are conducted between agencies participating in these projects and the Criminal Information Services Bureau. The Criminal Information Services Bureau recommends that criminal justice agencies submitting dispositions electronically develop quality control measures to assure accurate entry of information into the Central State Repository. Access Integrity Unit In 1999, the Access Integrity Unit implemented an evaluation and training team as a pilot project through grant funding. Since that time this team has been conducting ongoing audits of selected counties in Arizona. These are formal audits whereby records are randomly selected from the Central State Repository for review within the specified county. Additionally, law enforcement agencies are asked to provide a small sample of arrest records from their system based upon the size of that county. This team utilizes a formal process for conducting the audit by involving key criminal justices agencies responsible for the submission of records to the Central State Repository. This process is initiated through a letter informing the agency head of the upcoming audit. The audit unit works with the individual agency in evaluating the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of the records contained within the random samples. The process for conducting these audits may take three to four months in order to complete. Through this process, staff from the Access Integrity Unit's Audit team provide customized training for participating criminal justice agencies in that county. The department head of each criminal justice agency is provided with an individual audit report discussing their performance as observed and understood through this process. In addition to the individual reports, the Access Integrity Unit provides each agency with an overview sheet highlighting the performance of the overall county. Since the implementation of this program there have been 5 formal audits conducted by the Department of Public Safety. As of January 2002, Graham,

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 40



Greenlee, La Paz, Navajo, and Pinal counties have participated in this process. The staff from the audit team at the Department of Public Safety indicates that these audits have been quite successful in addressing breakdowns in key processes for the submission of records to the Central State Repository. It also provides the opportunity for criminal justice agency staff to form partnerships for the improvement of the system. The Access Integrity Unit Audit team has scheduled audits for two additional counties in the year 2002. Upon conclusion of these two audits, the next anticipated audit will be Maricopa County. Due to the size of Maricopa County, the strategy for conducting the audit will be broken into five separate processes. Further, the Department of Public Safety is conducting ongoing training that is available to criminal justice agencies regarding the processing of criminal history records for submission to the Central State Repository. There were 20 in-service trainings provided by the Access Integrity Unit in 2001 held at the Department of Public Safety. During 2002, the Access Integrity Unit has scheduled another 21 criminal history record trainings (Appendix D). Unfortunately, the resources for this effort are quite limited. Initially, there were three grant funded staff assigned with this pilot program. As grant funding for this project became scarce, the number of staff assigned to the audit team was reduced as well. The Access Integrity Unit anticipates that they will be able to conduct approximately three audits each calendar year. Given the current scheduling pattern, a county could anticipate a formal audit of their county every five years. It is apparent that this will not yield the changes necessary to substantially improve records submitted to the Central State Repository. As noted previously, the processes associated with the criminal history records program are often performed by newly hired staff in departments that experience high turnover. Additionally, the complexity of the processes for the submission of criminal history records can be daunting and are best learned over time. Given the limited resources, there should be consideration regarding changing the methodology for these audits. One option available to the Access Integrity Unit is to reduce the detail and formality of the current process in order to reduce the time and resources dedicated to each audit. The focus of the audit could be geared for the individual agencies to perform the audits and provide the results of the audit back to the Access Integrity Unit. In addition to revising the audit process, the Department of Public Safety should organize a monthly user group to work in conjunction with this process. Many of the problems associated with the submission of accurate criminal history records are quite complex and are best addressed through ongoing meetings scheduled on a regular basis. For this purpose, each county could designate a county representative to attend the criminal history records user group. Through these groups, instructors could provide information regarding the current status of each particular county as well as setting a standard for the handling of

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 41



performance audits. In order to assure for continuity and the sharing of available resources, it is further recommended that DPS conduct these groups in collaboration with the Administrative Office of the Courts. Regardless of methodology, it is apparent that a system for ongoing monitoring and communication must be devised in order for the Criminal History Records Program to realize significant improvements. Fingerprint Identification Bureaus The Fingerprint Identification Bureau has 55 full time staff assigned to the department. The Arizona Fingerprint Identification System Section is the primary unit dedicated to the receipt and submission of criminal fingerprints into the Central State Repository. This unit has 17 full time staff that operate 7 days-aweek 24 hours-per-day. Over the past 10 years, significant gains have been made toward the submission of criminal fingerprints. These gains can be attributed to the implementation of Livescan equipment and the increase of electronic arrest fingerprints into the Central State Repository. Staff indicated that approximately 90 percent of criminal fingerprints are currently received electronically. There is a five step process for the electronic submission of the arrest fingerprints for the purpose of positive identification of the defendant and the entry of the record into the ACCH database acting as the Central State Repository. The process begins with fingerprinting the individual utilizing the Livescan workstation. This fingerprint is then submitted to a local personal computer for internal evaluation and audit purposes. Once this fingerprint is accepted internally, the image is submitted to the AZAFIS where a search is conducted to find potential candidates for a match. From this search a candidate list is generated in the list of priorities with an attached score. Finally, a technician makes a side-by-side comparison of the fingerprints to make a determination if there is a match. If the technician is able to make a positive match with the record a SID number is selected. Otherwise, the system provides a SID number for the new defendant. Fingerprint Identification Bureau staff estimate that the search process takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. Additionally, new SID numbers are provided for approximately 50 percent of the fingerprint submissions. Chart two on the follow page illustrates this process.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 42



Chart Two: Process Diagram



STEP 1 Livescan Workstation, Take Fingerprints



STEP 5 Assign appropriate SID and PCN to Defendant



No Match: Assign New SID Number



STEP 2 Submit to PC for Evaluation & Audit



STEP 4 Side-by -Side Comparison By Technician For Match



Match: Assign Active SID Number



STEP 3 Image Sent to AZAFIS



Livescan (IISI) workstations produce computerized forensic-quality fingerprint records that are electronically transmitted to an AZAFIS workstation site for search processing, eliminating the delays inherent in mailing fingerprint cards. To further reduce mail delays, AZAFIS Image Scanner Interface (AISI) card scanners have also been placed in several of the smaller police agencies that have lower arrest print volumes to allow them to scan and digitize inked arrestee prints for electronic submission (along with the required demographic data) to a designated AZAFIS workstation site for automated fingerprint search processing. The widespread implementation of the Livescan workstations has contributed significantly to the accuracy and timeliness of record submissions to the Central State Repository. The ink and roll sites that are potential candidates for a Livescan workstation in the future are: (1) Sierra Vista Police Department; (2) Goodyear Police Department; (3) Surprise Police Department; (4) Holbrook Police Department; and (5) Sedona Police Department. These sites represent law enforcement agencies operating with ink and roll fingerprint submissions, and have the greatest workloads in the state based upon information provided by the Department of Public Safety. Contingent upon available funding, these sites represent opportunities for increased implementation of electronic fingerprint submissions to the Central State Repository.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 43



Due to limited resources, 24-hour service is not currently available to provide positive identification through fingerprint comparisons at all local law enforcement agencies. However, the Fingerprint Identification Bureau does provide this 24-hour fingerprint identification to agencies choosing to take advantage of this service. Recent modifications to the system allow for increased traffic and multiple submissions within the basic flow of information. Additionally, future modifications will allow for the changes to the disposition form to be accepted within the AZAFIS system. Special Projects There are numerous statewide efforts directed toward the improvement of the criminal history records program in Arizona. First, there are four pilot projects that have implemented the electronic submission of dispositions. The Peoria Municipal Court, Flagstaff Municipal Court, Flagstaff Justice Court, and Coconino Superior Court are all submitting dispositions electronically through a collaborative project with the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Department of Public Safety. These projects are continuing to go through a process in which the paper disposition form is compared to the electronic submission for accuracy. The goal is to move to a total reliance on the electronic submission. Peoria Municipal Court is in the process of achieving this goal at the writing of this report. The Administrative Office of the Courts plans to use these pilot projects for implementation throughout all 180 courts in the state using the AZTEC computer system. The goal for 2002 is to implement the submission of electronic dispositions in 50 additional courts throughout the state. Additionally, the Administrative Office of the Courts will be utilizing an "E-Trainer" as of March 1, 2002, to assist courts transitioning from paper to electronic disposition submissions to the Central State Repository. For the past year a committee was organized through the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission for the purpose of reviewing the disposition reporting process. The Final Disposition Reporting Committee (FDR) has been conducting ongoing meetings since the beginning of 2001. One of the primary problems identified as a barrier for the submission of accurate disposition data is associated with arrests made as a result of warrants. The FDR committee has been well attended by criminal justice agencies from Maricopa County and the Department of Public Safety. Through the efforts of this committee modifications to the Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (37.1) were accepted in October 2001. Additionally, proposed modifications to the current disposition form have been recommended and are due to be implemented in late spring of 2002. Third, Maricopa County has devoted significant resources toward the development of an Integrated Criminal Justice System. "The Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) exists for the purpose of facilitating the integration of information systems among criminal justice departments in Maricopa County." (Doktor, 2001). To this end, extensive resources and staff have been directed in developing an automated solution for exchange of criminal justice information in Maricopa County. In that Maricopa represents a large portion of the number of

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 44



arrests being submitted to the Central State Repository, the ICJIS project can contribute significantly to improving statewide efforts related to criminal history records in Arizona. Finally, IBM has been contracted to perform a statewide systems analysis to assess the information needs for the criminal justice system in Arizona. The needs assessment conducted by IBM has been an extensive study and has worked in collaboration with relevant criminal justice agency stakeholders in the state. Additionally, interviews were conducted with the ICJIS project to assure for continuity of efforts targeting a statewide solution to an integrated criminal history records program. Search Institute and other Central State Repositories As part of this research project it was deemed appropriate to speak with Program Managers from other Central State Repositories across the nation. For this purpose, SEARCH was contacted to solicit suggestions for potential interview sites. As part of this discussion, SEARCH staff provided feedback pertaining to their national audit that is conducted throughout the year. SEARCH indicated that there had been discussion and concern noted about measures addressing the proportion of records contained within the Central State Repository as compared with the local law enforcement agency. SEARCH also indicated that they were hoping to add this as a question and/or a measure for the upcoming 2001 survey. Additionally, based upon their experience, SEARCH staff recommended five states that have demonstrated success in the completion of disposition records in a timely manner. The contact individuals for these states were provided by SEARCH and through discussions with individuals at these sites.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 45



The contact was often an individual that had participated in the Criminal History Records Improvement effort. As part of this analysis the five states that were contacted were: (1) Connecticut; (2) Delaware; (3) New Jersey; (4) South Dakota; and (5) Vermont. There were some consistent themes that emerged from the 5 states that were contacted. The most notable statements pertained to the significance of automation efforts towards the improvement of the system. With the exception of a smaller state, the need for automation for both arrest and disposition submission was critical. Additionally, most states have an established system in place for auditing state criminal history records for the purpose of assessing and completing their records. Finally, these individuals encouraged ongoing monitoring and feedback to the local level agencies to provide performance information.



D. Survey Responses

All Criminal Justice Agencies All agencies were asked whether the Grant Manager at ACJC was responsive to their agency. Also, all agencies were asked whether they perceived the grant funding process as fair and impartial. Responses were quite positive pertaining to both the Grant Manager and the overall process with 87 and 89 percent respectively indicating a favorable response. Has your agency found the grant manager for the Criminal Justice Records Program to be responsive to your agencies' needs?



Grant Manager Responsive

Yes No Total Number 45 7 52 Percentage 87 13 100



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 46



Do you perceive the grant funding process for the Criminal Justice Records Program to be fair and impartial?



Perceive Grant Funding Fair & Impartial

Yes No Total Number 42 5 47 Percentage 89 11 100



All agencies were also asked whether the Process Control Number (PCN) and State Identification Number (SID) used by the Central State Repository were utilized in their process and within their local database. Only seven of the respondents indicated that the PCN was used as part of their local process. Approximately 13 percent indicated that the SID was actually stored in their local database. There were a high number of respondents that were unable to provide an answer to either question. For the two questions, respondents were "Unable to Determine" an answer 56 percent and 27 percent of the time. Has your agency incorporated the Process Control Number (PCN) into the paperwork or the electronic systems to assist in matching dispositions to the charges originally submitted to the Central State Repository?



PCN Integrated Into Process

Yes No Unable to Determine Total Number 12 65 98 175 Percentage 7 37 56 100



Does your agency currently store the DPS State Identification (SID) generated by AZAFIS on your database?



Store SID# in Agency Database

Yes No Unable to Determine Total Number 22 106 47 175 Percentage 13 61 27 100



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 47



Criminal justice agencies were asked to provide a discussion as to what the agency viewed as barriers to the improvement of the Criminal History Records Program. The survey asked for specific suggestions related to the identified barriers. There were four general themes suggested as barriers from all agencies. Some agencies provided more than one suggestion for this question. The most frequently cited issue was that greater resources and funding is necessary to impact Criminal History Records. The following figure presents the survey responses related to barriers to the improvement of criminal history records. Chart Three: Barriers to Criminal History Record Improvement

20%

Lack of Funding/Resources Lack of Training Improved Electronic System Integration Improved Process System Integration



39% 23% 18%



The most commonly cited issue regarding the improvement of the Criminal History Records Program was to increase funds and resources for this purpose. Thirty nine percent of the respondents indicated there was a shortage of funds and resources to adequately address the goal of improving the Criminal History Records Program. Another 23 percent recommended an electronic solution as the method for an improved Criminal History Records Program. The respondents also reported a need for increased training. Almost as many respondents indicated improvements in their processes for submitting records to the Central State Repository as their primary suggestion. Approximately 18 percent of the respondents attributed a lack of training as the primary issue blocking improvements in the Criminal History Records Program. LAW ENFORCEMENT Law Enforcement agencies were queried regarding the impact of the implementation of Livescan and/or scanners within their agency. Very positive feedback was generated from these questions. Ninety-four percent of the respondents indicated that the implementation of this technology has improved fingerprint submission. Further, 88 percent of the respondents indicated that there are less fingerprint rejections due to the implementation of Livescan and/or scanners as illustrated on the tables presented on the following page.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 48



Have the Livescan or Portable Scanner systems improved the submission of fingerprints and arrest information to the Central State Repository?



Has Livescan/Scanner Improved Fingerprint Submission

Yes No Total Number 32 2 34 Percentage 94 6 100



Has your agency received less fingerprint rejections from the Central State Repository since the implementation of the Livescan or Portable Scanner System?



Less Fingerprint Rejections Due to Livescan/Scanner

Yes No Total Number 29 4 33 Percentage 88 12 100



Law enforcement agencies were asked whether there was a backlog of returned arrests and/or dispositions. Approximately, 31 percent of law enforcement agencies indicated that they did have a current backlog at their agency. The responses regarding the actual number of returned arrests and/or dispositions that were backlogged range from 30 to 2000. Do you have a backlog of returned arrests and/or dispositions from DPS and/or the courts?



Backlog of Returned Arrests/Dispositions

Yes No Total Number 16 36 52 Percentage 31 69 100



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 49



COUNTY ATTORNEYS Prosecuting agencies were asked questions relating to the current status of their Case Management System. Approximately 22 percent indicated that their system was capable of and used for evaluating success/conviction rates and assisting them in balancing their caseloads. Approximately 53 percent indicated that their current Case Management System could provide general statistical information through query requests. Is the case management system being utilized to evaluate success and/or conviction rates?



CMS Used to Evaluate Success/Conviction

Yes No Total Number 8 28 36 Percentage 22 78 100



Is the case management system being utilized to balance the caseload between attorneys?



CMS Used to Balance Caseload

Yes No Total Number 8 28 36 Percentage 22 78 100



Can your agency produce statistical information from t e case management h system?



CMS Produce Statistical Info

Yes No Total Number 16 14 30 Percentage 53 47 100



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 50



What is the average length of time for a case to move through the County Attorney's Office?



Average Case Processing Time (Days)

Less Than 2 Months 2-4 Months 4 Months or More Number 2 14 4 20 Percentage 10 70 20 100



Only six percent of responding prosecuting agencies indicated that there was a current backlog of dispositions at their agency. Approximately, 34 percent of the respondents were unable to determine if a backlog existed at their agency. Is there a current backlog of dispositions needing to be processed?



Store SID# in Agency Database

Yes No Unable to Determine Total Number 2 21 12 35 Percentage 6 60 34 100



COURTS Court Agencies were asked whether there was a current backlog of dispositions at their agency. Of the 62 respondents to this question, approximately 19 percent indicated that their agency was experiencing a current backlog in the processing of dispositions. Is there a current backlog of dispositions needing to be sent to the Central State Repository at DPS?



Current Backlog of Dispositions

Yes No Total Number 12 50 62 Percentage 19 81 100



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 51



Approximately 74 percent of the agencies responding to this survey question indicated that they spent one hour or less in performing tasks related to completing dispositions for submission to the Central State Repository. Approximately, how many hours are devoted per day to completing disposition forms per day?



Hours Devoted to Completing Dispositions Per Day

Less than Hour More than Hour Total Number 46 16 62 Percentage 74 26 100



Court Agencies were asked what amount of time would be adequate to assure that backlogs did not continue to occur. As noted previously, most agencies spent less than an hour per day on this task. Approximately 58 percent of court agencies believed that less than one hour of time devoted daily on completing disposition forms could prevent a backlog of dispositions from occurring. Further, 84 percent of court agencies believe that a backlog could be prevented through the dedication of two to three hours per day towards the completion of disposition forms. The responses regarding the actual number of dispositions that were backlogged range from 30 to 1500. Approximately, how many hours would need to be devoted to prevent a backlog of disposition forms?



Time Needed Per Day to Remove Backlog

Less than Hour 2-3 Hours 4-6 Hours 10 or More Hours Total Number 18 8 3 2 31 Percentage 58 26 10 6 100



Court agencies noted three primary issues preventing the accurate and timely completion of disposition forms. Staff from these agencies indicated that often the disposition forms are inaccurate or do not contain complete information. The second reason cited was that these disposition forms are not received in a timely manner consistent with the actual completion of the process. Finally, survey results indicate that disposition forms are not received from Law Enforcement agencies.

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 52



The following information was identified by the courts as the three primary barriers to completing dispositions: � Inaccurate/Incomplete Info; � Dispositions Not Received in a Timely Manner; and � Dispositions Not Received from Law Enforcement or County Attorney. Court Agencies were asked whether there was a systematic process for assuring for the quality of data submitted to the Central State Repository. Only 29 percent of the responding agencies indicated that there was some form of quality control for the data. As noted previously most agencies spent less than an hour per day on this task. Is there a systematic process utilized by your agency to verify the quality of data being sent to the Central State Repository?



Systematic Process for Quality of Data

Yes No Unable to Determine Total Number 18 32 19 62 Percentage 29 52 31 100



AGENCIES FUNDED BY ARIZONA CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION All agencies that were funded through the Criminal History Records Program were asked questions specific to the overall program, the process for grant funding, and regarding the Program Manager. Grant funded agencies were asked whether they found the Program Manager for the Criminal History Records program to be responsive. All but one agency, 96 percent, indicated that they found the Program Manager at the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to be responsive to their needs.



Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 53



Has your agency found the grant manager for the Criminal History Records Program to be responsive to the agencies' needs?



Grant Manager Responsive

Yes No Total Number 27 1 28 Percentage 96 4 100



Grant Funded agencies were also asked whether they perceived the grant funding process to be fair and impartial. Feedback received for this question indicated that 25 of the 27, or 93 percent, of the respondents perceived the grant funding process to be fair and impartial. Do you perceive the grant award process for the Criminal Justice Records Program to be fair and impartial?



Perceive Grant Funding Fair & Impartial

Yes No Total Number 25 2 27 Percentage 93 7 100



These agencies were also asked whether the grant award was completed in a timely manner upon submission of the application for the grant. Thirty of the 32 respondents indicated that the award was made in a timely manner. Was the grant award provided to your agency in a timely manner after the application was submitted, approved by the Commission, and the agreement completed between the agency and the Commission?



Grant Award Provided in Timely Manner

Yes No Total Number 30 2 32 Percentage 94 6 100



Additionally, the grant funded agencies were requested to provide suggestions and general feedback on how to improve the Criminal History Records Program.

Arizona Criminal History Records Evaluation 54



The following information identifies additional feedback or suggestions provided by the agencies regarding the grant funding process. Comments with more than one agency responding on this topic are highlighted in the following chart. The most common response indicated th