. -

INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT

of the

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS

COURT EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, PHASE I11

COURT EVALUATION PROJECT, 1991-92

EVALUATION OF FELONY DISPOSITION REPORTING

IN LOUISIANA

NAME: Rona ld Wm. Stritzinger

DATE: May 9 , 1 9 9 2

.-.

. .-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my family, friends, and

especially my fellow workers who have put up with me during

the past few months of panic and nerves. They have seen the

real me when put under pressure, and no one including myself,

liked it.

This paper would not be possible without the

patience and understanding of my boss, Hugh M. Collins,

Ph.D., Judicial Administrator, Louisiana Supreme Court.

Being a Fellow of I.C.M., he knows what I have been going

through t o finish Phase I11 of the Court Executive

Development Program.

I would also like to thank the following people for

their assistance in obtaining the data that I needed to

prepare this paper: Robert L. Stewart (I.C.M. Fellow), Clerk

of Court of Rapides Parish; Lena R. Torres, Clerk of Court of

St. Bernard Parish; Sandra Smith, Judicial Administrator of

the 24th Judicial District Court, Jefferson Parish; and

Jerry O'Quin of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety.

--. I would a l s o like to thank Timothy J. Palmatier,

Chief Deputy Judicial Administrator Louisiana Supreme Court

(I.C.M. Fellow), for his critiques and assistance on my

paper. Also from my office, I would like to thank Paul

Turninello f o r his assistance in putting together the p i e

charts used in this paper.

And last but not least, I would like to thank my

I.C.M. supervisor, Maria Gibson, for her frequent but kind

remarks on each phase of this paper. Wait!!! I almost left

out Bob Roper. Without Bob's support, constant pushing, and

especially his Far Side humor, I probably would have thrown

my hands up in the air and given up on many occasions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations .............................. i

List of T a b l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , ii

List of Appendices ................................. iii

Abstract ........................................... iv

I. Introduction ....................................... 1

11. Review of Relevant Research ........................ 5

111. Methodology ........................................ 19

IV. Findings ........................................... 27

v. Conclusions ........................................ 3 4

VI. Appendices ......................................... 50

VI1 * Bibliography/Reference List ........................ 75

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE PAGE

A Pie Chart Showing Breakdown of Sample Data from Jefferson Parish .............................. 3 6

B Pie Chart Showing Breakdown of Sample Data from Rapides Parish..................... ........... 37

C Pie Chart Showing Breakdown of Sample Data from St. Bernard Parish.. ........................... 3 8

D Pie Chart Showing Breakdown of Sample Data from State Central Repository ...................... 39

E Pie Chart Showing Breakdown of Disposition Information from All Parish Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0

F Pie Chart Depicting Accuracy of Information of All Clerk Sample Against State Repository ....... 41

G State Chart Depicting Which States Are Improving Their Reporting to the State Central Repository .... 42

i

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

A Results of Chief Judge Survey ........................ 25

B Analysis of State Central Repository Record Sample . . . 32

C Summary of Clerk of Court Samples .................... 32

D Summary of Dispositions from Clerks' Samples ......... 33

ii

LIST OF APPENDICES

PAGE

1 Sample of Cases from Clerks of Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

2 Sample of Cases from State Central Repository . . . . . . . 53

3 Supportive L a w s Pertaining to CCH Files ............. 55

4 JAMIS Reporting Forms ............................... 66

5 Data Collection Forms .............................. 69

6 File Layouts and Data Entry Screen .................. 72

iii

ABSTRACT

This report evaluates the current process of "felony

disposition collection" in the State of Louisiana. A sampl

of court records from three parishes in Louisiana is compared

with a matching sample of records from the State Central

Repository at the Louisiana Department of Public Safety to

measure the completeness and accuracy of felony disposition

information. The evaluation o f this process is supported by

a survey of the Chief Judges of Louisiana Trial Courts

depicting the attitude of the judges toward the current

system and what they think should be done in the future.

Every trial judge must have complete and accurate

court case information in cr iminal matters before a decision

can be made for pretrial release or before final sentencing

of a defendant can be handed down. To adequately perform

these functions, a judge must have the tools to determine

bond amount and extent of sentencing. This can only be

accomplished with a complete and accurate criminal history

database.

iv

This report evaluates felony disposition records in

the State of Louisiana. The goal of this evaluation is to

determine the completeness and accuracy of State Central

Repository records for the disposition of felony arrests in

the first 6 months of 1989, compared to records in the offic

of the Clerks of Court. This sample study depicts:

the number and percentage of records that match

by name and charge and including matching

disposition information;

the number and percentage of cases which match

by name and charge but have no disposition

information;

the error rate of data in the State Central

Repository as compared with information from

the C l e r k of Court;

by measuring the frequency of errors, the

difference of error rates found between

automated and non-automated offices of t h e

Clerks of Court.

To measure these objectives, sample d a t a was

gathered from the State Central Repository and from the

Clerks of Court of Rapides Parish, Jefferson Parish, and

St. Bernard Parish. The data from each Clerk's sample was

compared with the sample from the State Central Repository

V

.. .

to measure these objectives. Additionally, the results of

a survey of Chief Judges of Louisiana general jurisdiction

trial courts implies a l a c k of confidence by Louisiana JuUges

in criminal history records in the State Central Repository.

Findings from.the sampling of data show that only

one (1) record was found in the State Central Repository

sample that had a disposition where the name and charge

information matched the samples from the Clerks of Court.

Also, over 53% of the samples of Clerks' records could not be

matched by name and charge to records from the State Central

Repository sample. As a result of the survey sent out to 41

Chief Judges, there were 34 responses. 83% of the judges

responding said that the State Central Repository W B S used

for pretrial and presentence investigations, but only 21%

felt that the information obtained was U v r e l i a u .

It is the recommendation of this report that the

Courts (Judicial Administrator's Office o f the Louisiana

Supreme Court) maintain their own case information system of

trial court dispositions and supply the State Central

Repository and other related criminal justice agencies with

extracted data as needed.

vi

This report evaluates the current process of "felony

disposition collection" in the State of Louisiana. A sample

of court records from three parishes in Louisiana is compared

with a matching sample of records from the State Central

Repository at the Department of Public Safety to measure the

completeness and accuracy of felony disposition information.

The evaluation of this process is supported by a survey of

the Chief Judges of Louisiana Trial Courts depicting the

attitude of the judges toward the current system and what

they think should be done in the future.

The Courts have an immediate need for the

information contained in the records of the State Central

Repository. Courts r e l y on arrest and disposition

information for determination of pretrial release,

presentence investigations, supportive documentation for

multiple billings, custody of minor children, etc.

A judge cannot wait days f o r a response to a request

for information on an arrested subject for pretrial release,

nor should a judge rely on incomplete or inadequate criminal

1

C.

history data to base his/her setting of bail for an arrested

subject. If a presentence investigation report fails to

indicate prior felony convictions, then it is possible to

have a convicted felon placed on probation instead of being

sentenced to serve jail time.

Federal programs to monitor the purchase of

handguns, the conviction of aliens on felony charges, and

drug related arrests have placed demands on the State Central

Repository and courts to have complete, up-to-date court case

information readily available.

A t this time felony dispositions are reported to the

State Central Repository by the arresting agency. Problems

arise when an arresting agency does not have a system for

notifying the State of a disposition. Furthermore, the

court s do not now have the responsibility for reporting

felony case information to the State Central Repository.

This study of Louisiana's State Central Repository provided

evidence of many incomplete records, missing records, and a

pattern of untimely reporting of information to the State

Centra 1 Repos i to ry .

This report evaluates felony disposition records in

the S t a t e of Louisiana. The goal of this study is to

2

determine the completeness and accuracy of State Central

Repository records for the disposition of felony arrests in

the first 6 months of 1989, compared to records in the offices

of the Clerks of Court. This sample study evaluates;

1) the number and percentage of records that

matched by name and charge and included matching

disposition information;

2) the number and percentage of cases which

matched by name and charge but had no

disposition information;

3) the error rate of data in the State Central

Repository as compared with information from the

Clerks of Court;

4) by measuring the frequency of errors, the

difference of error rates found between

automated and non-automated offices of the

Clerks of Court.

The results of a survey of Chief Judges of Louisiana

general jurisdiction trial courts imply a lack of confidence

by Louisiana Judges in criminal history records in the State

Central Repository. In Table A, question 2, only 20.6% of

the responding judges thought that the information obtained

from the State Central Repository was highly reliable. And

in question 3, 85.3% of the judges responded

3

by saying the level of accuracy acceptable to them should be

100%. Obviously, something is wrong with the current system.

The judges have only indirect contact with the State

Central Repository's criminal history files through

presentence investigation reports conducted by the probation

and parole office. From the results of these presentence

reports, the judges have mixed opinions on who should be

responsible for gathering dispositions on felony trials, as

their response to question 5 indicates.

There has been a trend across states to have the

trial courts report felony disposition data to the State

Central Repositories. Therefore, it is the objective of this

evaluation, to show that the Louisiana Courts should be given

the responsibility for reporting felony court case information

to the State Central Repository.

4

11. RE EA

. . efinitions:

, .

1) "Felonv" is any crime for which an offender may by

sentenced to death or imprisonment at hard labor. Louisiana

Revised Statute 14:2 .4 .

2) "Misdemeanor 'I is any crime other than a felony.

Louisiana Revised Statute 1 4 . 2 . 6 .

3) "Criminal Historv Record Informat ion" means

information collected by criminal justice agencies on

individuals consisting of identifiable descriptions and

notations of arrests, detentions, indictments, informations,

or other formal criminal charges, and any disposition arising

therefrom, sentencing, correctional supervision, and release.

The term does not include identification information such as

fingerprint records to the extent that such information does

not indicate involvement of the individual in the criminal

justice system. Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 1-18:1.10.

4) u m means only those public

agencies at a l l levels of government which perform as their

primary function activities relating to:

a) The apprehension, prosecution, adjudication,

5

. -

or rehabilitation of criminal offenders.

b) The collection and analysis of crime

statistics pursuant to statutory authority.

c) The collection, storage, processing,

dissemination, or usage of information originating

from agencies described in the LAC 1-18:1.11.

a means information disclosing that . . 5) "DisDosltl~

criminal proceedings have been concluded, including information

disclosing that the police have elected not to refer a matter

to a prosecutor or that a prosecutor has elected not to

commence criminal proceedings; or information disclosing that

proceedings have been indefinitely postponed. Dispositions

shall include, but not be limited to: acquittal, acquittal by

reason of mental incompetence, case continued without finding,

charge dismissed, charge dismissed due to insanity, charge

dismissed due to mental incompetency, charge still pending due

to insanity, charge still pending due to mental incompetence,

guilty plea, nolle prosequi, no paper, nolo contendere plea,

convicted, youthful offender determination, deceased, deferred

disposition, dismissed--civil action, found insane, found

mentally incompetent, pardoned, probation before conviction,

sentence commuted, adjudication withheld, mistrial--defendant

discharged, placed on probation, paroled, or released from

correctional supervision. LAC 1-18:1.17.

6) "State Cent r a l ReDositorY 'I means that collection of

6

. .

criminal history record information within the Louisiana

Department of Public Safety, which is jointly collected,

stored, and managed pursuant to mutual agreement between th

Division of State Police, Bureau of Criminal Identification and

the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement. Criminal Justice

Information System Division. LAC 1-18:1.24.

* . . . 1 History in Louisiana

By 1975, the Judicial Administrator's Office of the

Louisiana Supreme Court had developed a batch filing and

disposition reporting system called JAMIS (Judicial

Administrator's Management Information System), The Clerks of

Court would manually fill out the JAMIS forms (APPENDIX 4) and

mail them to the Judicial Administrator's Office. These forms

(civil, criminal and juvenile) were then forwarUed to the

Department of Data Processing in Baton Rouge, Louisiana for key

punching.

Once keypunched and edited, all forms found to have

errors were mailed back to the Judicial Administrator's Office

for correction. These forms were then mailed back to the

originating Clerk who was supposed to correct them and start

the procedure over again.

This system was never properly staff d or funded, so

7

, --

in 1979 the Clerks of Court were told to only fill out and

report every tenth case (cases ending in zero).

used as a ten percent sampling of cases for statistical

purposes. This lasted for almost two years, and in 1981 the

Clerks were advised to discontinue the system totally.

This would b

In the late 1970's the State, through the Louisiana

Criminal Justice Information System (LCJIS), began developing

an information system for collecting complete case information

on all major misdemeanor and felony arrests.

called the "Complete Disposition Reporting System."

This system was

The agency responsible for reporting this information

to the State Central Repository was the agency which initiated

the transaction (arrest or indictment, see APPENDIX 3, Title 22,

PP. 56-60).

In a statewide budget cutting program in 1981, the

funding for the Complete Disposition Reporting System was

eliminated and implementation was never completed. Since State

computers, local agency computers, and information systems have

changed since 1981, the original computer software systems

cannot be installed on existing equipment.

The condition of State Central Repositories is now

a topic of national concern. This is due to the impetus of

8

-.

federal grant money to clean up the backlogs of missing

disposition information and to provide the means to keep the

State Central Repositories up to date with court case

information.

Most states are currently in some form Of modification

of their State Central Repository. Figure G (page 42)

demonstrates the national trend to improve the quality of

Criminal History Records in State Central Repository. Figure G

shows 41 participating states, including Louisiana, and the

level of participation in the Bureau of Justice Statistics

Criminal History Record Improvement (CHRI) Program.

a1 Pol-

Section 6213 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988

(Implementation Status Report, Feb., 1992 E.J.S.) required the

Attorney General to report to Congress by November of 1989 on a

system for the immediate and accurate identification of felons

who attempt to purchase firearms. A Task Force on Felon

Identification in Firearms Sales was established to develop a

range of options that would comply with the statute. In

October 1989, the Task Force completed its final report and

forwarded it to the Attorney General for consideration. The

Task Force identified several possible options for systems to

identify felons who attempt to purchase firearms, but made no

specific recommendations. The report also identified major

problem in the quality and completeness of criminal history

records and in the ability to identify individuals convicted of

felony offenses.

In his report to Congress on November 20, 1989, the

Attorney General recommended a four-part program to enhance

efforts to stop firearms sales to felons. One recommendation

was to use $9 million of Anti-Drug Abuse Act Discretionary

Funds in each of Fiscal Years 1990, 1991, and 1992 (for a

$27 million, 8-year effort) to fund States for purposes that

included: achieving compliance with the BJWFedetal Bureau of

Investigation ( F B I ) voluntary reporting standards and improving

the data completeness and quality of State criminal history

record information. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

was selected to manage this effort and the Criminal History

Record Improvement (CHRI) program was announced in the Federal

Register, May 23, 1990.

The general purpose of the CHRI program is to make

systemic improvements in the quality and timeliness of State

criminal history record information throughout t h e country.

10

.L.

Fiscal and technical assistance to States is now available for

the following purposes: to identify accurately those

individuals convicted of an offense classified as a felony (or

equivalent) within the State; to improve reporting of criminal

justice actions and dispositions to State criminal history

record systems (particularly those arrests and dispositions

occurring in the last 5 years); to meet the voluntary reporting

standards of the BJWFBI; and to make felon conviction

information readily available to appropriate Federal and S t a t e

requesting agencies.

As reported in BJS publication NCJ-133532, January

1992, from a news release of May 15, 1989 by President George

Bush, "The quality of criminal history data is a critical

factor in crime control and prevention. . . . Timely and accurate reporting of conviction, sentencing and other case

disposition records is essential to the effective operation

of the Nation's criminal justice system.

From the "National Conference on Improving the Quality

of Criminal History Records" in Washington, D.C. on June 20-21,

1991, then-Attorney General Dick Thornburg outlined the gravity

of the quality of criminal history records in the overview of

his program to improve criminal history records:

11

The increased reliance on criminal history records - to identify persons ineligible to purchase firearms,

to identify individuals as habitual or repeat

offenders, to make appropriate bail release and

sentencing decisions, and to impose correctional

supervision requirements - highlights the importance of accurate information for effective crime control.

Similarly, the increased use of criminal history

information for such authorized purposes as licensing,

pre-employment screening, and other sensitive matters

mandates that criminal history records be complete,

accurate, timely and rapidly available to authorized

users.

Assistant Attorney General Jimmy Gurule from the

Office of Justice Programs, on the Survey of State Criminal

History Information Systems, summarized the results as follows:

- 60 percent of the criminal history records maintained by State repositories are already automated;

- 41 States and the District of Columbia report dispositions to the repository; and

- 23 States, representing half of the Nation's population, report that at least 70 percent of records of

arres t s within the past five years have dispositions recorded.

12

Louisiana does not fare well in categories such as

percent of arrest and dispositions in an automated database,

final dispositions reported, number of days from final trial

court disposition and entry into database (according to the

Bureau of Justice Statistics "Survey of Criminal History

Information Systems, March 19918 NCJ-125620).

Only one third of the t o t a l subjects in the State

Central Repository are entered in the automated files, and the

number of these records which have final dispositions could not

even be determined. By 1989 there were only 30,000

dispositions reported to the State Central Repository which

represents only two percent of the total subjects in the

files. According to this survey, the final dispositions from

trial courts take only 30 days to get to the State Central

Repository but 365 days to be entered into the database. As is

demonstrated later in this study, fewer dispositions are being

entered into the database now and/or it is taking much longer

to get the dispositions entered.

In a legislative bulletin from SEARCH (The National

Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Sacramento,

California), December 6, 1991, notice is provided of INS

(Immigration and Naturalization Service) legislation: "On

November 26th the Congress, at SEARCH'S urging, passed

H.R. 3049, the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and

13

Naturalization Amendments Act of 1991. The bill amends the

Immigration and Naturalization Services criminal record

reporting requirements so that states, under the new law, must

provide INS with a "notice" of a conviction of an alien within

30 days. If INS subsequently requests a certified record,

states will have an additional 30 days to respond.

A tentative agreement between INS, the Louisiana

Commission on Law Enforcement, and the Louisiana Supreme Court

will make the Judicial Administrator's Office of the Louisiana

Supreme Court responsible for obtaining any necessary records

from the Clerks of Court when an alien or suspected alien is

convicted of serious offenses (BJS, December 10, 1991 NCJ

133015).

The following is from the "Report of the National Task

Force on Criminal History Record Disposition Reporting,"

March 16, 1992. In 1990, SEARCH, the National Consortium f o x

Justice Information and Statistics, The National Center for

State Courts, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics established

a National Task Force comprised of senior-level and nationally

recognized judges, c o u r t administrators, criminal history

repository directors, a director of a pretrial services agency?

a prosecutor, and law enforcement officials to review

disposition reporting problems and to make recommendations f o r

14

improving disposition reporting of criminal history record

information to state central repositories.

From the findings of this National Task Force, the

following strategies for improving criminal history records

have been proposed:

1. In each state, appropriate court and executive

branch officials should establish a high-level

task force representing a l l components of the

criminal justice system. The state task force

should identify the needs of all legitimate users

of criminal history record information within the

state. In light of those needs, the 'state task

force should adopt recommendations for a plan for

a statewide, comprehensive criminal history record

system. Issues to be addressed by the task force

include the role of the State Central Repository

and the linkage of its databases to data

maintained by the courts and other components of

the criminal justice system, as well as timely and

effective access to criminal history record

information by the courts.

2. Each state should give high priority to

encouraging further automation in its criminal

justice system, including the information systems

of the State Central Repository and the courts

15

and, in particular, the establishment of uniform,

automated reporting procedures by the repository

and the courts.

3 . States should encourage the development of

electronic data interchange technologies which can

improve disposition reporting.

4 . Statewide task forces should examine existing

statutory and other reporting requirements and,

where appropriate, adopt recommendations to

address the needs of all u s e r s of criminal history

record information; the timeliness with which

information is accessed; expansion of the criminal

history data being reported to State Central

Repositories; and improvements in the efficiency

of criminal history disposition reporting.

5 . State Central Repositories should work with

appropriate components of the criminal justice

system to implement procedures for monitoring

missing arrests and/or missing dispositions and to

establish procedures to obtain this information.

6 . To ensure that fingerprints are obtained in all

reportable cases, each state should develop

procedures to ensure that fingerprints are taken

and submitted to the State Central Repository in

a l l cases involving reportable offenses, whether

such a case begins by arrest, by the issuance of a

16

summons in lieu of an arrest, o r by the filing of

a new case against a person already in custody in

connection with a prior case.

7. In order to ensure that all entries related to a

particular case are linked, and in order to e n s u r e

that, in turn, each case is properly linked to the

individual's criminal history record, each state

should assign a unique, fingerprint-supported

number ("tracking number") to each case upon

initiation of case processing.

8. Each state should establish a regular and

systematic training program for improving the

accuracy and completeness of criminal history

record information.

9 . Each state should perform routine, external audits

based upon uniform guidelines to measure the

reliability and completeness of criminal history

record information in the State Central

Repository, including the performance of all

components of the criminal justice system in

contributing to the reliability and completeness

of the repository's criminal history record

information.

10. Decisions about the apportionment of funding among

the components of the criminal justice system for

improvements in disposition reporting must be made

17

on a state-by-state basis, taking into account the

responsibilities and existing resources of the

various components of the criminal justice system

for ensuring an accurate and complete criminal

history record information system.

The National Task Force reached two conclusions with

long-term and profound implications for the nation's criminal

history record system:

1. The present format and content of the criminal

history record in many s t a t e s , as well a s the

response time for providing criminal history

record information, do not meet the needs of the

courts and, perhaps, of o t h e r components of the

criminal justice system, apart from law

enforcement.

2. Accordingly, each s t a t e i s urged to take a close

and comprehensive look at the format and content

of the criminal history record and the r o l e of the

State Central Repository, and should do so from

the standpoint of the legitimate needs of all

users of the criminal history record.

18

1 1 1 . METHODOLOGY

In order to determine if the records in the State

Central Repository are complete {including final disposition),

accurate, and filed timely, a comparison had to be made of

samples from court records and a similar sample from the State

Central Repository.

Sample data selected from the Clerks of Court were

mostly felony charges f rom the first six months of 1989. Some

misdemeanors were selected because of their severity or because

of being additional charges to a felony arrest.

After written approval by the Louisiana State Police

Bureau of Identification, the Department of Public Safety wrote

programs to extract all arrests made during the first six

months of 1989 from the Parishes of Rapides, Jefferson, and

St. Bernard.

The initial extract tape from the Department of Public

Safety contained 7 , 4 4 4 records. After loading this file onto

the Judicial Administrator's WANG mini-computer at the Supreme

Court, each record was examined for the severity of the

charge.

19

.-

All minor traffic and misdemeanor charges were eliminated from

the file leaving 6,218 arrest records.

The sample selected from Rapides Parish was made

through a computer program. The Clerk of Court of Rapides

Parish (a Fellow of ICM, Robert Stewart) has an integrated

computer system with the Sheriff's Department, the District

Attorney's Office, and the Courts. The Clerk had extracted

onto a computer tape, all arrests made in the first s i x months

of 1989 that were felonies o r misdemeanors associated with a

felony arrest that had a final disposition from the Court.

This extract provided a sample consisting of 4 4 5 records.

The St. Bernard Parish Clerk of Court has no computer

system set up for criminal filings. A Judicial Planner and

myself searched through the Clerk's criminal index log sheets.

The log sheets contained the charge, name of the defendant,

bill of information date, and whether the filing was for a

felony or misdemeanor violation. Only felonies were selected

that had a Bill of Information date within the first six months

of 1989.

After the sample record was selected, a search of the

minute books was made to obtain trial information and

disposition data on the 104 records from the St. Bernard Parish

20

sample in order to hand code the record layout sheets

(Appendix 6).

The criteria used to select Jefferson Parish cases

were: the filing date had to be within the first six months of

1969; the offense date (indicated by the police report number

which was listed on the commitment form) had to be in the first

six months of 1989; and, the majority of cases selected would

be felonies (the 24th Judicial District Court is mainly a

felony court).

The sample collected from Jefferson Parish also could

not be obtained by computer extract. The Judicial

Administrator of the 24th JDC (Jefferson Parish Courts),

Sandra Smith, was able to provide me with 293 of the Clerk's

commitment sheets (after several weeks of runaround by

the Offices of the Clerk, District Attorney, and Parish Data

*

* My first attempt to get this sample from the Clerk's computer records resulted in a two-week wait. 1 was then directed to speak with the District Attorney's office in Jefferson Parish because the dispositions were being entered into the D.A.'s computer. The District Attorney's office at this time directed me to speak with the management firm that r a n the Parish government computer, a consulting firm called G.S.I. Upon doing so, I was advised that less than 5 - 10 % of the dispositions were entered into the D.A.'s computer. At this time (about s i x weeks later) I went to the Office of the Administrator of the 24th Judicial District (Jefferson Parish) Court t o seek the information needed f o r this sample.

21

Processing Director) that are filled o u t f o r final dispositions

from that Court. These commitment forms were used as input for

the Jefferson Parish sample.

The data collected from both the 24th JDC and

St. Bernard Parish had to be manually entered into the Judicial

Administrator's computer through a data entry screen

(Appendix 6) by my Data Coordinator and myself. I designed

and coded the record layouts (Appendix 6) for files from the

State Central Repository, Rapides Parish Clerk of Court,

St. Bernard and Jefferson Parish Clerks of Court, I also

designed the programs to enter the data, and printouts of

a l l files f o r record comparisons. These w e r e created on the

Judicial Administrator's Wang VS-65 computer.

-

The quality of the comparative samples from the Clerks

of Court should be much higher than that of the State Central

Repository mainly due to having fewer individuals handling the

information and therefore less chance for error. Also, the

Clerk of Court is the source of the official court record .

In-house computer printouts (Appendix 1 and 2 ) of

records from the State Central Repository sample and from each

Clerk's sample were used to perform a record comparison. All

s a m p l e files were sorted by name then by charge to place the

22

. .

r eco rds in proper order. The results of the evaluation of all

data can be seen in Figures A through F and Tables A through D.

For the first objective of this evaluation (accurate data), the

names were compared to determine a match. If the names matched,

then the charges were compared. The next objective of the

evaluation was to see if a disposition was entered on the State

Central Repository record and if it matched the disposition on

the Clerk's record. As can be seen in Table B and Figure F,

the error rate was considerably high. And lastly, the records

of the Clerk of Court which had no criminal record automation,

St. Bernard, presented the highest frequency of non-matching

records.

After pretesting the survey of Chief Judges by two

Deputy Judicial Administrators, the survey (Table A ) , was sent

to all Chief Judges of the general jurisdiction courts in

Louisiana that have jurisdiction over felony filings.

This survey was intended to solicit a response, a s was

reflected in the pretest, demonstrating the lack o € confidence

that someone would have on the reliability of information

obtained from the State Central Repository through

presentencing reports. Also, the survey was intended to

identify who should maintain the felony disposition reporting

system.

23

The survey was sent to 41 Chief Judges of Louisiana

Trial Courts who have felony jurisdiction. The Chief Judges

wee believed to be more likely to give attention to surveys

like this, than Judges as a whole.

The results of this survey, Table A, shows 83%, or 34

judges who replied to this survey. In response to question 1,

the judges seemed to be trying all sources for criminal history

checks. This may be done to get the most complete data

possible or they may be doing this because they don't trust any

one source of information.

Question 2 definitely gives the impression that most

judges (79%) don't consider the information they get from the

(State Police) State Central Repository to be highly reliable.

The response to question 3 , that 91% of the judges responding

want the information obtained from a CCH file check to be 100%

accurate, gives the impression that accurate and complete

information is a necessity.

Questions 4 and 5 were included to show that the best

way to get accurate and complete information from CCH files is

to have one agency responsible for collecting dispositions.

The best way to eliminate delay in obtaining dispositions

(timely reporting) and reduce the number of errors

2 4

TABLE A

RESULTS OF CHIEF JUDGE SURVEY

NUMBER RESPONDING

INDICATE WHICH AGENCY'S FILES ARE USED FOR PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATIONS TO CHECK AN INDIVIDUAL'S CRIMINAL HISTORY (FELONY) RECORD. (CIRCLE AS MANY AS ARE APPLICABLE)

A ) STATE POLICE CCH FILES. B) LOCAL L A W ENFORCEMENT CCH FILES. C) FBI CCH FILES. D) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FILES.

WHAT DEGREE OF RELIANCE DO YOU HAVE ON DATA OBTAINED FROM THE STATE POLICE CCH FILES (CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION)? (CIRCLE ONE)

A) HIGHLY RELIABLE. B) SOMEWHAT RELIABLE. C) UNRELIABLE. D) DO NOT USE STATE POLICE CCH FILES.

WHAT LEVEL OF ACCURACY IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOU FOR FELONY DISPOSITION INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CCH FILES? (CIRCLE ONE )

A) 100% B) 90% C) 80% D) OTHER %

HOW MANY FELONY ARREST AND DISPOSITION REPOSITORIES SHOULD THE STATE MAINTAIN? (CIRCLE ONE)

A) ONE. B) SEVERAL (MORE THAT ONE). C) NONE.

WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COLLECTION, ACCURACY, AND DISSEMINATION OF FELONY DISPOSITION INFORMATION ON A STATEWIDE LEVEL? (CIRCLE ONE)

A) ORIGINAL ARRESTING AGENCY. B) STATE POLICE. C) JUDICIARY (STATE AOC) . D) OTHER

25

is to have the agency that is responsible for the information

be responsible for its collection and dissemination as was

proposed by the National Task Force on Disposition Reporting.

Therefore, the Courts should be responsible for the collection,

maintenance, and dissemination of a l l Trial Court dispositions.

26

IV. FINDINGS

For this evaluation, a frequency distribution was used

to compare sample records from the State Central Repository

with those records from the Clerks of Court of Rapides,

Jefferson, and St. Bernard Parishes. A record by record

analysis of each sample is the basis for this evaluation.

To meet the criteria of matching name, charge, and

disposition, there had to be a record within the State Central

Repository sample that matched as near as possible (but without

any doubt that the information is the same) a record from the

Clerk of Court sample, including a final disposition on the

case.

For the criteria of matching name and charge, with

no final disposition on the record from the State Central

Repository, the name and charge fields m u s t match without a

reasonable doubt.

To match name and charge, with minor errors, would

fall under one or more of the following: having an initial in

place of a first name on one of the records; a letter or two

27

..-

different in the last name, (but still knowing that this is the

same arrestee); the charge on one record being similar but not

exactly the same, such as theft instead of burglary, aggravated

battery instead of attempted murder, etc.

The final category, no match on name would occur when

there w a s no reasonable similarity between the names on the

records of the two files.

The sample from the State Central Repository consisted

of 6,218 records. Of this sample, only 419 records had any

form of disposition. As can be seen in Figure D and Table A,

of these 419 records, only 144 records had dispositions on

arrests made during 1989. The remainder of the dispositions

found within the sample (275 dispositions) were associated with

charges prior to 1989, mostly probation and parole notices.

The sample from Rapides Parish, Table B and Figure 8 ,

show that of the 4 4 5 records in the sample, 169 matched on name

and charge with the sample from the State Central Repository.

Seventy-nine records matched name and/or charge but with minor

errors in either the name (first name, middle initial, or last

name) o r the charge filed. One-hundred-ninety-seven records

could not be matched by name with the records in the State

Central Repository sample. None of the records with final

2 8

dispositions from the Rapides Parish sample had a matching

disposition on the record with the State Central Repository

sample.

The sample from Jefferson Parish had one record that

matched name, charge-and disposition as depicted in Table B and

Figure A . One-hundred-sixteen records matched name and charge,

but had no disposition on the State Central Repository record.

Twenty-five of the Jefferson Parish sample matched name and

charge with minor errors. And, 151 cases could not be matched

by name.

The sample from St. Bernard Parish, Table B and Figure

C, had the fewest matches. Only five cases matched name and

charge with 9 9 cases not matching by name. The possible cause

of such a disparity of results with St. Bernard Parish could be

due to any one of the following: the fingerprint card at

arrest either was not sent to the State Police Bureau of

Identification; or the fingerprint card sent was not legible.

A l s o , the arrests could possibly have been made prior to

January 1, 1989 and a delay in the filing of the Bill of

Information by the District Attorney's office could have

delayed the filing within the court.

The likelihood that such a large amount of cases were

29

arrests prior to 1989 is unlikely but still a possibility.

The most likely reason would probably be the failure of the

arresting agency to send the fingerprint cards or sending bad

fingerprints to the State Police Bureau of Identification.

Of the sample cases obtained from the Clerks of Court,

that were terminated through the courts (Figure E and Table D),

218 (25.89%) cases had sentences that turned defendants over to

the Department of Corrections. An additional 148 (17.58%)

cases that sentenced defendants to the Department of

Corrections were given suspended sentences.

There were 152 cases (18.05%) sentenced to P a r i s h

Prisons (local jails), and another 133 (15.80%) sentenced to

Parish Prison but suspended. Of the Clerk of Court samples,

only 191 cases led to no conviction, or 22.68%.

As formerly stated, the following are the objectives

that were to be measured to determine the completeness and

accuracy of State Central Repository records for the

disposition of felony arrests in the first 6 months of 1989,

compared to records in the office of the Clerks of Court:

1) the number and percentage of records that match by

name and charge and includes matching disposition

information;

30

the number and percentage of cases which match

by name and charge but have no disposition

information;

the error rate of data in the State Central

Repository as compared with information from the

Clerk of Court:

by measuring the frequency of errors, the

difference of error rates found between automated

and non-automated offices of the Clerks of Court.

Measurably, the State Central Repository's collection

of disposition data on felony arrests is almost non-existent.

There were too many non-match records, and those that matched

had a 12.35% error in either the name or the charge. As far as

determining whether a non-automated Clerk of Court, St. Bernard,

has a higher error rate, this is reflected by the lack of

matching records. Even though Jefferson Parish's Clerk of

Court does not have a complete criminal records management

system, their overall level of automation far exceeds that of

the Clerk of Court of St. Bernard Parish.

31

TABLE B

ANALYSIS OF STATE CENTRAL REPOSITORY RECORD SAMPLE

TOTAL DISPOSITIONS DISPOSITIONS NO SAMPLE ON CHARGES ON 1989 DISPOSITION

PRIOR TO 1 9 8 9 CHARGES ON 1 9 8 9 CHARGES

6,218 2 7 5 1 4 4 5 , 7 9 9

PARISH NAME

TABLE C

SUMMARY OF CLERK OF COURT SAMPLES

MATCH MATCH MATCH NO NAFE NAME b NAME b MATCH

CHARGE CHARGE NO CHARGE ON & DISPO DISPO W/ERRORS NAME

RAPIDES 0 169 79 197 JEFFERSON 1 116 25 151 ST, BERNARD 0 5 0 99

TOTAL 1 290 104 4 4 7

32

TABLE D

SUMMARY OF DISPOSITIONS FROM CLERKS' SAMPLES

PAR ISH GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY NOT NAME SENTENCE SENTENCE SENTENCE SENTENCE GUILTY

TO DOC TO PP TO DOC TO PP DISM SUSPENDED SUSPENDED PEND

RAPIDES 123 4 5 88 79 110 JEFFERSON 83 105 47 51 7 ST. BERNARD 12 2 13 3 74

TOTAL 218 152 14 8 133 19 1

PP - LOCAL PARISH PRISON DOC - STATE PRISON/DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

3 3

V. CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show the ineffectiveness of

the current system f o r collecting felony court case

information, and point to the need for consideration of

changing the existing reporting system. The Judicial

Administrator's Office of the Louisiana Supreme Court is the

most likely office to serve as the central agency collecting

Court case information from the entire state. The significance

of handling this function is that the Supreme Court has the

inherent power to mandate what information the State Courts

must report and to whom to report.

Louisiana is not alone in having backlogs and

incomplete court case information in their State Central

Repository, and there is a move to have the Courts become

responsible for reporting case disposition information.

It is obvious that the delay time, at least three

years, €or disposition data to get to the State Central

Repository is too long and is outrageous. Too many individuals

have been and will be let out of jail ( o r prison) because of

the current system.

34

The results of the Judges' survey (Table A) show that,

at best, there is little or no confidence in the current system

of disposition reporting to the State Central Repository's

computerized criminal history files. The ten strategies as

stated by the National Task Force on Criminal History Record

Disposition Reporting should be adopted by Louisiana Courts and

by all other criminal justice agencies.

The Judicial Administrator's office of the Louisiana

Supreme Court is currently working on a Federal Grant to

d e v e l o p a plan for statewide felony disposition reporting. The

Supreme Court is in the beginning phase of the plan and will

t r y to follow as many of the National Task Force's proposed

strategies as possible.

35

- .

51.54%

N O MATCH BY NAME

Figure A Comparison of Sample From Jeffenon Parish Clerk of Court

Records Against Central Repository Record Sample

FULL RECORD MATCH INCLUDING DlSPOSTlON

MATCHED NAME 0 34% 8 CHARGE .-

MATCHED RECORD BUT HAD ERRORS IN

NAME ANOlOR CHARGE

XSPOSITION

39.59%

3 6

Figure B Companson of Sample From Rapides Pansh Clerk of Court

Records Against Central Repository Records

FULL RECORD MATCH INCLUDING DISPOSITION

0.00%

MATCHED NAME 8 CHARGE YSPOSI

37.98%

TlON

44.27% -..

NO MATCH BY NAME

- 17.75%

MATCHED RECORD BUY HAD ERRORS IN

NAME AND/OR CHARGE

37

Figure C Comparison of Sample From St. Bernard Parish Clerk of Court

Records Against Central Repository Records

MATCHED NAME

NO DISPOSITION a CHARGE

FULL RECORD MATCH INCLUDING DISPOSITION

MATCHED RECORD

NAME OR CHARGE 0% BUT HAD ERRORS IN

NO MATCH BY NAME

38

. ..

Figure D Dispositions On 1989 Sample of

Louisiana State Police Central Repository Records

DISPOSITIONS ON ARRESTS

PRIOR TO 1989 OlSPOSlTlONS ON 1989 ARRESTS

93 26Oh

ARREST RECORDS WITH NO DISPOSITIONS

39

SE P.P.

Figure E Breakdown of Disposition Information

From AH Parish Samples

NOT GULP/, DISMISSED NOLLE PROSSE, ETC.

15.804b

INTENCE SUSPEN

22.68% -

TO OED

SENTENCED TO D.O.C.

18.05%

LL 25.89%

TO W E

SENTENCE TO P.P

P.P. LOCAL PARISH PRISON D.O.C. STATE PRISON/DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

D

40

53.09%

NO MATCI BY NAME

Figure F Accuracy of Name and Charge lnformatlon

of Entire Clerk of Court Sample Compared Against Central Repository Record Sample

FULL RECORD MATCH INCLUDING DISPOSITION

MATCH NAME &CHARGEBUT

'OSITION

..440!

0.12% NO OISP

MATCHED RECORD BUT HA0 ERRORS IN

NAME AND/OR CHARGE

4 1

F I G U R E G

E cd k hD 0 k

p4

M c ca a

.- 3

.r(

0 .4

3 L ca a

v) -0

coo 3 % J

[/)

M E:

a a

.- 3

i

J

01 ul aJ L

e

M C

a .d

J

p. U L) L

.1

.-

m a

4 2

BUREAU OF JUSTICE BTATILGTICS

BtMXARY OF CRIMINAL HIHTORY RECORD IMPROVEMENT G R A N T 6 TO PARTICIPATING BTATES

ootober 23, 1991

1. A l a b a m a $204,185 (1/1/91-12/31/91)--Contract with state courts to obtain missing disposition data from 1988. procedures and implement changes designed to improve disposition reporting in the future.

2 . Alaska $242 ,350 (lo/1/90-3/31/92)--Identify felony con- victions; create a uniquely numbered multi-part form that would replace the current fingerprint card, the District Attorney's SID form, and supplement court disposition documents; meet minimum standards for FBI Interstate Identification Index (111) participation; process backlog of 6 0 , 0 0 0 criminal histories.

Determine

3 . American Bamoa $112,842 (10/1/91-9/30/93)--Automate criminal history record information currently maintained manually within the Department of Public Safety.

convert data and to evaluate the project.

Funds will be used to perform a ~ .. baseline audit, to procure and install computer hardware, to

4 . Arizona $264,660 (9/1/91-8/31/92)--Conduct CHRI baseline audit, as well as a needs assessment, to identify the system enhancements needed to identify convicted felons and modifi- cations to the system to allow access to the information. A backlog of 95,000 dispositions will be cleared, and a multi- agency task force will be created to assist in planning.

5. Axkansas $497,320 (10/1/90-3/31/92)--Process backlog of over 70,000 arrests made within the last f i v e years which do not contain disposition information. Using State funds, AR implemented a new computerized criminal history system designed to capture arrest and disposition data from courts and l a w enforcement agencies.

6. California $144,196 (3/19/91-3/14/92)--The Criminal. Identification and Information Branch of the Department of Justice will establish internal and external advisory committees and develop an implementation plan for improving the quality of the California Automated criminal History System.

7. Colorado $220,443 (11/1/90-3/31/92)--Develop procedures designed to accurately identify persons convicted of at least one felony, meet the FBI voluntary reporting standards, and identify impediments and improve final charge disposition reporting. -

8. Connecticut $500,000 (10/1/91-9/30/92)--1mprove the quality and timeliness of criminal history records held by the Connect- icut Department of Public Safety. Project activities will in-

4 3

clude upgrading telecommunications links between State Police and Courts and improving the reporting by local law enforcement of fingerprintable arrests.

9. Delaware $375,976 (10/1/90-12/31/91)--As part of a coordinated proposal, Delaware will complete their statewide Master Name Index, eliminate a backlog of disposition data and develop a real-time state system which will ensure future data quality and timeliness of criminal justice information.

10. Distriot of Columbia $474,600 (10/1/90-9/30/92)--Design and implement an electronic interface with existing automated metro- politan and regional criminal justice agency data bases to create a comprehensive computerized criminal history record system.

11. Florida $325,759 (11/1/90-12/31/91)--Department of Law Enforcement will eliminate a backlog of disposition data, fingerprint arrest records and implement a felon t8flag" indicator in their automated files. Additionally, the Office of State Courts Administrator plans to implement a model integrated criminal justice information system for a judicial circuit.

12a. Georgia $401,900 (10/1/90-10/31/91)--A major 12-month effort to eliminate a 348,000 backlog of fingerprint cards and dis- position reports.

12b. Georgia $499,699 (10/1/91-9/30/92)--Develop an automated case disposition transmission system to allow Georgia Courts to immediately send felony status and sentence information to the AOC. This project is the second phase of CHRI in the state.

13. Hawaii $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 (9/30/90-9/30/92)--Conduct a data quality audit, develop a two-way interface with Judiciaryfs Circuit Court felony system, reduce backlog of delinquent dispositions, and flag convicted felons.

14. Idaho $235,341 (3/15/91-6/9/92)--The Criminal Identification Bureau of the Department of Law Enforcement will implement an automated court disposition reporting system, reduce a backlog of arrest and disposition documents, conduct a baseline audit and flag convicted felons.

15. Illinois $500,000 (9/1/91-11/30/92)--Improve quality and timeliness of criminal history record information maintained in the state repository. A major objective is to enhance the state's ability to accurately identify convicted felons, and comply with FBI standards.

16. Iowa $415,922 (10/1/90-6/30/92)--Develop systems to elec-

improve CCH records. , . - tronically extract and interface corrections and court data to

17. Kentucky $ 4 9 9 , 8 0 0 (8/01/91-7/31/92)--1nstall computer interfaces from the local circuit courts to permit the immediate

44

reporting of felony dispositions to the AOC. Each court w i l l receive a file server (for multi-terminal access within the court), printer, backup system, and communications modem.

18. Louisiana $120,711 (10/01/91-6/30/92)--Undertake a nine-month requirements analysis to determine what improvements need to be made to existing criminal history files. Once set, and approved by the state, this plan will be used as the basis for acquiring additional funds for further criminal history record improvement.

19. Maine $374,566 (10/1/90-9/30/92)--Design, develop and imple- ment an automated criminal history system within the State which will replace the existing manual records structure.

20. Maryland $ 8 3 , 8 3 2 (9/1/90-8/31/91)--Develop and implement a "live scan" booking system that will eventually be placed in every agency with responsibility for arrest processing. Automated systems will be developed to electronically interface such systems with State criminal history information.

2 1 . Massachusetts $431,672 (11/1/90-10/31/91)--Complete the work required to tie the state's Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) to offender disposition data to create a computer- ized criminal history system that meets state and FBI needs and

,. requirements.

2 2 . Michigan $230,970 (7/01/91-10/1/92)--Irnprove the complete- ness and accuracy of t h e Michigan State Police CHRI by improving the quality and completeness of disposition reporting. Efforts will include identifying and entering missing disposition data from county courts and developing an electronic system to enter dispositions directly from the courts into the MSP criminal h i s - tory files.

2 3 . Minnesota $267,284 (9/1/91-8/31/92)--Plan a multi-phase approach to irnprovinq the state's criminal history system. They will conduct a baseline audit of the current criminal records system, while also undertaking improvement in the system identi- fied by the states Criminal Justice Data Group. In addition to the audit, the MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will develop systems and procedures to identify felons, improve reporting from law enforcement and increase the degree of automated interface with courts and corrections agencies.

2 4 . Missouri $478,685 (3/1/91-2/28/92)--Identify convicted fe l - ons, improve CCH, participate in I11 and meet FBI standards. The MO State Highway Patrol and the Office of Prosecution Services will develop an automated interface to received disposition data.

.- 25. Montana $ 9 2 , 6 6 4 (10/1/90-4/30/92)--Implement statewide numbering system, establish a requirement that judges use state ID arrest number, achieve 90% compliance with fingerprint card submission, achieve 85% disposition reporting, begin auditing submission rates, and flag convicted felons.

4 5

26. Nebraska $160,000 (10/1/91-6/30/92)--Conduct a criminal history records audit and a detailed requirements analysis- Procedures will also be developed to identify and flag convicted felons in existing and new databases.

2 7 . New Jersey $442,171 (10/1/90-2/29/92)--Rewrite its computer- ized criminal history system to allow an automated interface with a new system to be developed by the courts. en-able reporting of dispositions and other criminal justice actions to the State repository.

28. New Mexico $549,593 (10/1/91-3/31/93)--Assist NM in estab- lishing a Computerized Criminal History (CCH) system which will interface with the existing Master N a m e Index (MNI), increase the number of case dispositions reported to the Department Public Safety (DPS), create a felony flag, and establish an AFIS database for use by DPS.

29. New York $382,529 (lo/1/9o-a/31/92)--Conduct an analysis of the basic causes of under reporting of disposition and o t h e r data to the central repository. Also, a collection unit will be established to in-crease disposition reporting from known delinquent agencies.

This program will

30. North Dakota $351,049 (3/1/91-2/28/93)--Using state funds, ND implemented CCH in 1988. Operational experience has identified areas of improvement. CHRI funds will be used to identify felons, link final dispositions to charges, implement systems to increase arrest and disposition reporting.

31. Ohio $458,249 (10/1/91-9/30/92)--Improve the quality and completeness of criminal history records by increasing the number of dispositional cycles reported by agencies at the local level, eliminating a backlog of dispositions, and increasing the accuracy and timeliness of reporting throughout the system.

32. Oregon $444,453 (10/1/90-12/31/91)--Develop a linkage between Oregon Judicial Information Network and the State Law Enforcement Data System, reduce disposition backlog of 32,000 dispositions, flag convicted felons, and monitor status of rejected fingerprint cards.

33 . Pennsylvania $502,690 (3/1/91-2/29/92)--The Pennsylvania State Police will improve criminal history records by adding a felon identifier, increasing the number of arrests i n t h e comput- erized data base, improving court dispositions and conducting an audit to identify additional problems.

3 4 . Rhode Island $272,025 (9/1/91-8/31/92)--Improve the quality and completeness of criminal history records by performing a series of t a s k s over the next year to improve fingerprint r e p o r t i n g , enter a felony flag f o r convicted felons, improving the inquiry methodology for criminal history records, and auditing disposition data on an ongoing b a s i s .

4 6

35. south Carolina $496,677 (9/01/91-8/31/92)--Establish a "felony-flag," reduce a 12-month backlog of dispositions being h e l d at the repository, and improve the automated interface between the Courts and the central repository.

36. Texaa $469,608 (11/1 /90-2 /29/92)- -Develop software and hardware designed to interface computerized criminal history records with county court automated systems to electronically capture d i s p o s i t i o n reports.

3 7 . Utah $ 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 (12/1/90-11/30/92)--Implement procedures to eliminate loss of data as it moves between criminal justice agencies, routinely obtain prosecution declinations, install systems to improve court data reporting, identify convicted felons, and improve the flow of information from the State Department of Corrections.

3 8 . Vermont $370,217 (10/1/91-9/30/93)--Improve criminal history record system in the State of Vermont. State criminal history records are currently manual. Award will support the purchase of computer hardware, in order to establish an automated capability to create and transmit criminal history files electronically.

3 9 . Virginia $499,991 (9/1/91-8/31/92)--Improve the existing automated disposition reporting system, establish an optical scanner interface between local courts and the central repository, reduce backlog, modify software to create a felony flag and extract offender-based transactions statistics data.

40a. Washington $423,799 (10/1/90-9/30/91)--Identify felony con- victions, eliminate disposition backlog, increase training in state and federal reporting, and develop a detailed implement- ation plan.

40b. Washington $497,870 (10/1/91-9/30/92)--Improve computerized criminal history record system, identify convicted felons, and meet the voluntary reporting standards of the F B I . Tasks include FBI I11 project participation, improved support for I . D . Divi- sion, a pilot electronic arrest project and an electronic disposition reporting project.

41. West Virginia $155,051 (10/1/90-9/30/9l)--With no existing automated system, West Virginia will conduct a needs analysis as well as a system design, which will lead to the development of a computerized criminal history system.

42 . Wisconsin $196,785 (lO/l/90-1/31/92)--Reduce a backlog of disposition reports and FBI identification data, develop a "tickler" system to monitor the submission of dispositions, and provide an interface between two automated files in order to identify convicted.fe1on.s.

4 7

4 3 . Wyoming $134,234 (10/1/91-9/30/92)--Enhance criminal history repository by automating 7,800 manual arrest records, modifying programs to identify f e l o n s , and installing 13 network con- trollers’state-wide.

TOTAL AWARDED: $15,652,368

CHRi ACTlVlrY PARTICIPATION LEVELS 10/3a/ot

ACTIVITY' Total Aclk+Ws

X X

X X X X X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X X

X

X

X X

25

58%

4

1 S 3 2

3 4 3 4

3 6

3 4

5 3 e 4

3 5 5 4 3 e e 3 3 4

5 4

7 3 5 6 4

4

4

4 5 5 6

1

5 5

188

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X

X X X X

X X

X

X

X X x X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X

X

X

X X X

X X

X X X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X X X X x X X X X

X

X X X X X X X

x X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X X

Summary

% d slate¶ ?2

51%

14 m 11

UY 67% 28%

4 13 10

QX 30% 23% 28

65% 13

30% 19

44%

* only hoso acrivities lunded by tho turtenl CHAl grant U. indicated

4 9

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST

Bureau of Justice Ass istance. "Guidance for the

Improvement of Criminal Justice R ecords" Seutember 1991 Draft.

Lists recommended standards f o r improving the quality of

criminal history records. Use of criminal history files as

grounds f o r removal of aliens from the United States.

Bureau of Justice Assistance CJ-133015, December 10.

1991. Guidance f o r the irnurovernent of Criminal Justice Records,

Bureau of Justice Statistics. N CJ-134 722. Februarv

1989, "Attornev G eneral's Proara m f o r ImDrovina the Nation's

Criminal Historv Records". Bureau of Justice Statistics

Implementation Status Report.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ-111458. April 1989,

"Strateaies f o r ImProvina Data Q uality". Article on the

accuracy and completeness of criminal history record

information, the purpose of and the results of improving data

qua 1 i ty .

75

Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1991,

NCJ-125620. Survey of Criminal History Informat ion Systems.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. N CJ- 13 3 53 2. Ja nuary

1992, “Na t iona 1 Conference on Improvina the Ou alitv of Cr imina 1

History Records.” Proceedings of a BJWSEARCH conference.

ary 1992, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Febru

NCJ-134722. Attorney General’s Program for Improving the

Nation’s Criminal History Records, Implementation Status

Report .

FEDERAL REGISTER 2 8 CFR Ch.1 Part 20--Criminal Justice

Information Systems, purpose, authority, definitions,

applicability, privacy and security, penalties.

Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure (C.Cr.P.1,

Stipulates the use of subjects’ prior criminal history record

in sentencing guidelines, eligibility for probation or parole,

and the determination of suspension of sentence.

Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement, “Louisiana

ComDuterized Criminal History ImDrovement Proar am,” a program

narrative citing the problems in the State Central Repository’s

CCH files.

76

Louisiana Revised Statutes Title 15, defines and

explains the use of criminal history records, the Department

responsible for the State Central Repository, duty to provide

information, access of criminal history records, and charges

which carry additional punishments for repeat convictions.

Louisiana Rev ised Statutes Title 4 4 , sets expungement

rights of arrestee.

Search Gr OUP. Inc. "Report of the Nat ional Task Force

on Criminal History DlSDO sition RePortina" March 16. 1992.

U. S. DeDartment of Just ice June 1991. N CJ-129896,

Statutes Requiring the U s e of Criminal History Record

Information Databases. A comparison of how states use criminal

records to determine bail, charging and sentencing, release on

probation and parole, and firearms violations.

77