According to BJS data, a total of $165.2 million in NCHIP grants was  awarded during fiscal years 2000 through 2003. Of this total, a majority— over 75 percent—was used for NICS-related purposes that encompassed a  broad range of activities, such as converting manual records to automated  formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized systems or  upgrade existing systems. All other uses of NCHIP grants during this  period, according to BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to  building an infrastructure of nationally accessible records, such as  implementing technology to support the automated transfer of fingerprint  data to IAFIS. Automating Records and Making Them Accessible Nationally

Using their own funds, in addition to NCHIP grants and other federal  funds, states have made progress in automating criminal history records  and making them accessible nationally. For example, the percentage of   the nation’s criminal history records that are automated increased from   79 percent at the end of 1993 to 86 percent at the end of 1995 and to   89 percent at the end of 2001, according to BJS’s most recent biennial  survey of states. On the other hand, progress has been  more limited for some NICS-related purposes. The number of states  participating in III increased from 26 at the end of 1993 to 30 at the end of  1995 and to 45 by May 2003. Overall, as table 4 indicates, a national system for domestic violence  misdemeanor records is not available, only 10 states have provided mental  health records to the NICS Index, and only 3 states have provided  substance abuse records. Various Factors Are Relevant Considerations for Policymakers in Debating the Future of NCHIP

One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when  debating the future of NCHIP is the extent of cumulative progress (and  shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems that cover all  needed types of information. While states have made progress, more work  remains. Furthermore, technology is not static, which necessitates periodic  upgrades or replacements of automated systems for them to remain  functional. Continued progress toward establishing and sustaining a  national infrastructure inherently will involve a partnering of federal, state,  and local resources and long-term commitments from all governmental  levels. Managed by the Department of Justice’s  Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), NCHIP is a federal grant program to  build a national infrastructure to facilitate the interstate exchange of  criminal history and other relevant records—that is, to improve the  accuracy, completeness, and accessibility of records used by various  national systems. One of the primary systems is the National Instant  Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is managed by the  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and is used to conduct presale  background checks of persons purchasing firearms. As agreed with the  requester’s office, this report presents information on    how states have used NCHIP grant funds, particularly the extent to  which they have been used by states for NICS-related purposes;  the progressusing NCHIP grants and other funding sourcesthat  states have made in automating criminal history and other relevant  records and making them accessible nationally; and  the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers in  debating the future of NCHIP.
Why GAO Did This Study

Public safety concerns require that criminal history records be accurate, complete, and accessible. Among other purposes, such records are used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure that prohibited persons do not purchase firearms. Initiated in 1995, the National Criminal History Improvement Program represents a partnership among federal, state, and local agencies to build a national criminal records infrastructure. Under the program, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) annually provides federal grants to states to improve the quality of records and their accessibility through NICS and other national systems maintained by the FBI. GAO examined (1) how states have used program grant funds, particularly the extent to which such funds have been used for NICS-related purposes; (2) the progress--using program grants and other funding sources--that states have made in automating criminal history and other relevant records and making them accessible nationally; and (3) the various factors that are relevant considerations for policymakers in debating the future of the program.

What GAO Found

States have used program grants primarily to support NICS in conducting presale background checks of firearms' purchasers. BJS data show that over 75 percent of the total $164.3 million in program grants awarded in fiscal years 2000 through 2003 was used for NICS-related purposes. These uses encompassed a broad range of activities, such as converting manual records to automated formats and purchasing equipment to implement computerized systems or upgrade existing systems. All other uses of program grants, according to BJS, also had either direct or indirect relevance to building an infrastructure of nationally accessible records. Using their own funds, in addition to the program and other federal grants, states have made progress in automating criminal history records and making them accessible nationally. The percentage of the nation's criminal history records that are automated increased from 79 percent in 1993 to 89 percent in 2001, according to BJS's most recent data. Also, the number of states participating in the Interstate Identification Index--a "pointer system" to locate criminal history records anywhere in the country--increased from 26 at year-end 1993 to 45 by May 2003. But, progress has been more limited for some NICS-related purposes. A national system for domestic violence misdemeanor records is not available. Also, as of May 2003, only 10 states had made mental health records available to NICS, and only 3 states had provided substance abuse records. One of the most relevant factors for policymakers to consider when debating the future of the program is the extent of cumulative progress (and shortfalls) to date in creating national, automated systems. While states have made progress, more work remains. Also, the demand for background checks is growing, and technology is not static, which necessitates periodic upgrades or replacements of automated systems. Continued progress toward establishing and sustaining a national infrastructure inherently will involve long-term commitments from all governmental levels. Justice commented that GAO's report fairly and accurately described the program and its accomplishments.