1 / 20

Washington State Criminal Records Audit: Presentation to the Justice Information Network

Washington State Criminal Records Audit: Presentation to the Justice Information Network. Elizabeth Drake Washington State Institute for Public Policy ekdrake@wsipp.wa.gov www.wsipp.wa.gov (360) 586-2767 November 20, 2007. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

kali
Download Presentation

Washington State Criminal Records Audit: Presentation to the Justice Information Network

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Washington State Criminal Records Audit:Presentation to the Justice Information Network Elizabeth Drake Washington State Institute for Public Policy ekdrake@wsipp.wa.gov www.wsipp.wa.gov (360) 586-2767 November 20, 2007

  2. Washington State Institute for Public Policy • Created in 1983 by the state Legislature • Mission: Carry out non-partisan research on projects assigned either by the legislature or the Institute’s Board of Directors • 8 legislators • 4 higher education provosts or presidents • 4 state agency directors

  3. Authority • OFM contracted with the Institute to conduct an audit of the Washington State criminal history record systems as part of the National Criminal History Improvement Program. • This project was approved by the Institute Board.

  4. Objective of the Criminal Records Audit • Analyze Washington State’s criminal history databases for adult felons to determine completeness and accuracy among the databases. • Databases to be studied: • Washington State Patrol (WSP) • Department of Corrections (DOC) • Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) • Sentencing Guidelines Commission (SGC) • Time Period: 1992 through 2005.

  5. Importance of Complete and Accurate Criminal Records • Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 -Convictions are counted in a sentence calculation. • DOC’s risk assessment tool. • Other reasons include: background checks, voter registration, professional licensing, sex offender registration, rental housing decisions, etc.

  6. Criminal Records Oversight Committee • Representing nine state and local criminal justice agencies. • Responsibilities: • To provide the Institute with technical guidance on data and business practices. • To ensure analyses accurately reflect the status of the criminal history databases and records. • The Institute did not ask the Committee to take an official position on each recommendation.

  7. Three Study Questions • How uniquely can a defendant be identified? • Are defendant’s criminal records accurately recorded? • Are criminal records consistently associated with the same defendant throughout the system?

  8. Presentation Outline • For each of the three study questions, we will: • Review data and findings. • Provide recommendations.

  9. 1) How uniquely can a defendant be identified? Percentage of Person IDs Within the Criminal Justice Databases With at Least One Other Person ID Similar in Name and DOB Number of Unique Percentage of Criminal Justice Database Person IDs Person IDs Washington State Patrol 302,700 14% Administrative Office of the Courts 206,512 18% Sentencing Guidelines Commission 154,879 6% Department of Corrections 214,642 9%

  10. 1) How uniquely can a defendant be identified? • Fingerprint-based State Identification number (SID) exists for: • 100 percent of WSP arrest records • 86 percent of convicted felons in AOC’s database • 98 percent of offenders under the DOC authority • 67 percent of the judgment and sentence documents in SGC’s database

  11. 1) How uniquely can a defendant be identified? Percentage of Person IDs Matched to WSP by Name and Date of Birth With More Than One SID in WSP Database • Fingerprints are not exclusively used to identify an offender by AOC, SGC, and DOC. • It is difficult to reliably identify a person using only name, date of birth. Percentage of Person IDs With Multiple Matches in WSP Database Criminal Justice Database Based on Name and DOB Admin istrative Office of the Courts 10% Sentencing Guidelines Commission 11% Department of Corrections 8%

  12. 2) Are criminal records accurately recorded? • Not all AOC felony conviction cases are found in the criminal justice databases. • WSP: 87 percent found • SGC: 88 percent found • DOC: 91 percent found • When cases match from AOC to the criminal justice databases: • between 69 and 90 percent of all charges match.

  13. 2) Are criminal records accurately recorded? • Process Control Number (PCN) - unique number linking disposition of fingerprinting event to an arrest record. • Records with a PCN as of 2005: • 100 percent of WSP records • 72 percent of AOC records • Dispositions are transferred from AOC to WSP through a data exchange process. • 4 percent of the dispositions were updated automaticallyin WSP’s database (April 2007).

  14. 3) Are criminal records consistently associated with the same defendant throughout the system? • AOC case numbers were matched to case numbers in the criminal justice databases. We found that the SID is the same in both databases: • WSP: 91 percent • SGC: 64 percent • DOC: 93 percent

  15. 3) Are criminal records consistently associated with the same defendant throughout the system? PCNs in AOC’s Database Matched to PCNs in WSP’s Database 100% 80% 60% 40% Percentage with same AOC Case Number 20% Percentage with same SID Number 0% 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year Case Was Filed

  16. Recommendations toImprove Person Identification • Require the SID be the official state identifier for all databases for criminal defendants from superior court. • Committee Comments: Some defendants are summoned to court without being booked. • An option is to assign a temporary ID until the defendant appears in court. • Transmit the SID electronically from WSP to all other agency databases (e.g., email).

  17. Improve Person Identification – cont’d • Eliminate name and date of birth identification and use live-scan devices (in the courtroom). • Comment: Allow time before court appearance to fingerprint summoned defendants. • Require SID on the prosecutor’s charging document for booked defendants booked. • Based on fingerprint from law enforcement. • Discuss methods to guarantee that an SID appears on every judgment and sentence document signed by a judge. • SGC and the Superior Court Judges Association

  18. Recommendations to Improve Accuracy and Consistency of Criminal History Records • Develop an oversight committee charged with managing the consistent recording of RCWs. Responsibilities could include: • Establish a common RCW table for all agencies. • Simplify charges requiring more than one RCW. For example, theft charges. • Review ambiguous RCWs. • “Undefined” - can not distinguish if it’s a felony • “Combined” - subparagraphs are felonies and misdemeanors

  19. Recommendations to Improve Accuracy and Consistency of Criminal History Records • Require the PCN (or PCNs) on the judgment and sentence document. • Eliminate WSP manual data entry of dispositions, by improving transmission from AOC. • Create distinct sentence structure data fields.

  20. Targeting Areas for Future Improvements • Fingerprints become the exclusive method for recording an offender identification. • Databases become more integrated. • assist each organization to align its database with the requirements of an integrated criminal justice database system. • Rely on data transmission without manual intervention. • AOC capture conviction information from the judgment and sentence for transmission to WSP, SGC, and DOC.

More Related