Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:38 am
Time: 3:38 am
Results for criminal history records
5 results foundAuthor: Beliski, Matthew Title: State Criminal History Records Improvement: Arizona Felony Case Processing Summary: In 2009, the Arizona Statistical Analysis Center (AZSAC) of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) received a grant award1 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) through the Justice Research & Statistics Association (JRSA) to investigate, collect, and analyze data available throughout Arizona related to felony case processing. Per the original grant proposal and subsequent project meetings, each state grant recipient is expected to give special attention to the data readily available within each state’s criminal history record repository. Project analysts are also encouraged to utilize data from other sources in order to meet the project requirements. In order to better understand the felony case processing data supplied in this report, it is important to briefly review the structure of Arizona’s criminal history record repository. The Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) is the state repository for all arrest and disposition criminal history record information collected across all criminal justice state agencies. Housed at the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS), the ACCH repository is an electronic warehouse of criminal justice information for all felony, DUI, aggravated domestic violence, and sexual offenses, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute §41-1750. Although these are the mandatory ACCH offenses, other offenses are voluntarily deposited in the ACCH repository as well. The ACCH is initially populated by information collected at the time of arrest. An arrest entry does not process without fingerprints being taken; thus, any citation arrest (i.e. cite and release for DUI, etc.) requires that the alleged offender submit to fingerprinting at a later date. Once the prosecutor or the court disposes a case, the data from the final disposition is linked to the arrest data already in the ACCH. If for any reason an arrest leading to fingerprinting has not taken place, the subsequent disposition data will not be entered into the repository, and AZDPS renders the disposition back to the disposition agency for follow-up with law enforcement. Originating disposition agencies also have the ability to amend their dispositions, and as a result, override the disposition data previously available through the original disposition. The felony case processing project is the latest installment in a number of AZSAC projects employing the use of ACCH data provided by the AZDPS. AZSAC staff received multiple ACCH extracts to assess the timeliness, completeness, and overall quality of criminal history records throughout the state. The AZSAC published several reports and fact sheets addressing the quality of state criminal history records, and staff continues to work directly with the Access Integrity Unit at the AZDPS to provide valuable records quality data and information to the records auditors. In the past, AZSAC staff requested additional data extracts to investigate sexual offender recidivism as well as to enhance existing data for the 2004 Arizona Homicide Study. In collaboration with researchers at Arizona State University, AZSAC staff merged data from the Arizona Department of Corrections with ACCH data from the AZDPS to conduct rearrest and reconviction recidivism analyses of sexual offenders released from the Arizona correctional system in 2001. A comprehensive sexual offender recidivism report was published in 2009 and is available on the ACJC web site. Staff at AZDPS recently provided the AZSAC with available criminal history record data for all offenders and victims of homicide in 2004. AZSAC staff continued to work with the data for a later supplement to the report, titled “Homicide in Arizona, 2004.” Finally, Arizona Revised Statute §41-2406 mandates that the ACJC use criminal history record data to examine the reporting of sexual assault throughout Arizona. AZSAC staff established a data sharing agreement with the AZDPS to provide AZSAC with the appropriate annual extract for this reporting requirement. Staff at the ACJC has since institutionalized this report on an annual basis, and continuing improvements to the report add to the report’s value to stakeholders. As a result of the annual data agreement with the AZDPS, the AZSAC requested a full “snapshot” of ACCH arrest and disposition data for the previous 10 years back in January 2009. Because of the relative proximity of the data request to the BJS/JRSA request for proposals, AZSAC staff proceeded with a proposal to investigate and analyze ACCH data as it pertains to felony case processing from the initial arrest through the sentencing/appeals process. More definitively, the felony case processing project assists the AZSAC in joining with the BJS and the JRSA to accomplish the following initiatives: 1) Exploring the feasibility of utilizing statistical analysis centers to provide criminal history data and analyses to produce national studies of felony case processing; 2) Analyze felony case processing in Arizona; and 3) Continue our identification and reporting of critical data quality issues in Arizona’s criminal history record repository. With these goals in mind, the AZSAC will provide equal emphasis on the methodology of the felony case processing project as on the data results within the report. In addition to the following project report, the BJS and the JRSA are requesting the dataset containing all individuals indicted for a felony in 2006 as a project deliverable. After the initial project meeting in Washington, D.C., both BJS and JRSA project officials provided the state grantees with a codebook of variables to be included in the project dataset. The codebook of variables is modeled after the data elements captured through the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) program and the National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP). After discussions in July among project officials and grantees regarding the lack of available indictment data, all parties agreed that the dataset should consist of all felony offenders (both arrested for a felony and/or later accused of a felony offense) who were subsequently arrested in 2006. Details: Phoenix: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Statistical Analysis Center Report, 2010. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2011 at: http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2010_Felony_Processing_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2010_Felony_Processing_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 122793 Keywords: Case ManagementCase Processing (Arizona)Criminal History RecordsFelony CourtsFelony Offenders |
Author: Bileski, Matt Title: Completeness of Criminal History Records in Arizona, CY2002-2011 Summary: As mandated by Arizona Revised Statute §41-1750, Arizona criminal justice agencies are required to submit arrest and associated case disposition information for all felony, sexual, domestic violence-related, and driving under the influence (DUI) offenses to the central state repository, called the Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) records system. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission’s Statistical Analysis Center used annual ACCH data provided by the Arizona Department of Public Safety to analyze the completeness (i.e., arrest charges with associated case disposition information attached) of ACCH records. The data used in this brief and presented in Tables 1, 3, and 4 exclude all arrest records leading to appellate court decisions and those records containing specific date errors (e.g., case disposition date information precedes date of arrest information). Details: Phoenix: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, 2013. 2p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2013 at: http://acjc.state.az.us/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/Completeness%20of%20Criminal%20History%20Records%20in%20Arizona,%20CY2002-2011.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://acjc.state.az.us/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/Completeness%20of%20Criminal%20History%20Records%20in%20Arizona,%20CY2002-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 128138 Keywords: Arrest RecordsCriminal History RecordsCriminal Records (Arizona, U.S.) |
Author: Hamilton, Melissa Title: Back to the Future: The Influence of Criminal History on Risk Assessment Summary: Evidence-based practices providing an empirical basis for predicting recidivism risk have become a primary focus across criminal justice decision points. Criminal history measures are the most common and heavily weighted factors in risk assessment tools, yet is such substantial reliance fully justified? The empirical and normative values placed on criminal history enjoy such commendation by criminal justice officials, practitioners, and the public that these practices are rarely questioned. This paper fills the gap by introducing and exploring various issues from legal, scientific, and pragmatic perspectives. As a general rule, a common assumption is that past behavior dictates an individual's likely future conduct. This axiom is often applied to criminal behavior, more specifically, in that prior offending is considered a primary driver to predict future recidivism. Criminal justice officials have a long history of formally and informally incorporating risk judgments into a variety of criminal justice decisions, ranging from bail, sentencing, parole, supervisory conditions, and programming. A more contemporary addendum represents empirically informed risk assessment practices that integrate actuarial tools and/or structured professional judgments. Various criminal history measures pervade these newer evidence-based practices as well. Instead of presuming the value and significance of prior crimes in judging future recidivism risk, this Article raises and critically analyzes certain unexpected consequences resulting from the significant reliance upon criminal history in risk assessment judgments. Among the more novel issues addressed include: (1) creating a ratchet effect whereby the same criminal history event can be counted numerous times; (2) resulting in informal, three-strikes types of penalties; (3) counting nonadjudicated criminal behaviors and acquitted conduct; (4) proportionality of punishment; (5) disciplining hypothetical future crime; (6) punishing status; and (7) inadequately accounting for the age-crime curve. In the end, criminal history has a role to play in future risk judgments, but these issues represent unanticipated outcomes that deserve attention. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2015. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Houston Law Center No. 2015-A-1 : Accessed January 28, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2555878 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2555878 Shelf Number: 134484 Keywords: Criminal History RecordsEvidence-Based Practices (U.S.)Juvenile RecordsPreventive DetentionRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Westley, Christine Devitt Title: Assessing the quality of Illinois Criminal History Record Information System data on juveniles Summary: The Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, in partnership with the Illinois State Police, has access to records in the Illinois Criminal History Record Information (CHRI) System for research purposes. One such purpose is the derivation of statistical information from those records, especially on aspects of the justice system not covered by other statewide sources. The juvenile justice system is particularly in need of detailed statewide statistical data to inform policy decisions, as no comprehensive data collection program currently exists to capture individual-level data on justice-involved youth. The CHRI System offers promise, and has been used with some success, but its full potential for statistical purposes has not been systematically evaluated. This report provides such an assessment, focusing on the completeness of the juvenile arrest and court information collected by the CHRI System in light of state statutes that govern reporting practices. It provides a comprehensive statewide look at arrest and court records submitted for youth ages 10 to 17 during the year 2013, a time period chosen to allow sufficient time for court cases to be resolved and reported to the system. The findings of this assessment are aimed at educating researchers and policymakers on the strengths and limitations of juvenile CHRI System data as a source of useful statistical information. Data derived from the CHRI System offers several benefits for juvenile justice research not found elsewhere. Illinois' Uniform Crime Reporting (I-UCR) System, the state's official source for crime and arrest statistics, does not collect any demographic information on persons arrested. Without the age of the offender, it is not possible to isolate juvenile arrests. Further, no other statewide system is designed to track the outcomes of specific arrests, or to track an individual's contact with the justice system over time. However, the CHRI System has its own limitations that need to be understood. While there are many similarities between juvenile and adult criminal history records, reporting requirements for juvenile records focus on the most serious offenses for the purpose of creating a youth's transcript (or rap sheet). Since 2000, the Illinois Criminal Identification Act [20 ILCS 2630/5-5] and the Illinois Juvenile Court Act [705 ILCS 405/5-301] have mandated reporting of felony arrests and prosecutions to the CHRI System. The acts allow discretion in the reporting of Class A and B misdemeanor arrests and prosecutions. In actuality, the CHRI System will accept any arrest submitted with fingerprints, including petty offenses and local ordinance violations. Discretionary reporting poses a challenge for researchers using CHRI System data to examine Illinois' juvenile justice system. Even with all relevant juvenile records extracted from the system, it is difficult to determine the extent to which they adequately represent the true nature of juvenile justice system activity. In this study, comparative methodologies were used to assess the utility of CHRI data for research purposes and pinpoint areas for system improvement. Findings are presented by county and region to provide an overview of juvenile CHRI reporting practices. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 9, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Final%20Juvenile%20CHRI%20Assessment%20Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Final%20Juvenile%20CHRI%20Assessment%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 139345 Keywords: Criminal History RecordsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Records |
Author: Hartstein, Barry A. Title: Update on Criminal Background Checks: Impact of EEOC v. Freeman and Ongoing Challenges in a Continuously Changing Legal Environment Summary: The latest chapter in the ongoing saga of employment-related criminal background checks in the United States has been written, and one of the authors had some particularly strong words for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On February 20, 2015, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Freeman, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer in a case involving a challenge to the employer's use of criminal background and credit history checks in the hiring process. The EEOC had alleged that the criminal checks had a disparate impact on African American and male applicants, and that the credit checks had a disparate impact on African American job applicants. In a unanimous decision by a three judge panel, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, which stemmed from the exclusion of the EEOC's expert reports, noting the "district court found a 'mind-boggling' number of errors and unexplained discrepancies." A separate concurring opinion was written to address what one judge referred to as "disappointing litigation conduct" by the EEOC, including continued reliance on an expert whose testimony was "fatally flawed in multiple respects," who previously had been used by the EEOC despite a "record of slipshod work, faulty analysis, and statistical sleight of hand." The concurring opinion further cautioned: "The EEOC must be constantly vigilant that it does not abuse the power conferred upon it by Congress, as its 'significant resources, authority, and discretion' will affect all 'those outside parties they investigate or sue' - The Commission's conduct in this case suggests that its exercise of vigilance has been lacking. It would serve the agency well in the future to reconsider how it might better discharge the responsibilities delegated to it or face the consequences for failing to do so." While the Fourth Circuit's decision in EEOC v. Freeman offers some comfort to employers, the bottom line is that this is a constantly evolving area of the law, and an employer's reliance on criminal history records in the hiring or employment process continues to present significant risk, especially for employers with high attrition for hourly workers. This is aptly illustrated by two additional large-scale lawsuits filed by the EEOC on June 11, 2013, which are being vigorously litigated and most likely will continue in litigation throughout 2015. Aside from Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) issues, employers also continue to face additional legal hurdles based on various legislative developments at the state and even the local level (e.g., Seattle, Washington, and San Francisco, California), such as "ban the box" restrictions and related limits on the use of criminal history in hiring and employment decisions. Employers also have been battling against a massive surge in class action litigation under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) based on gathering criminal history through third-party consumer reporting agencies when conducting background checks on applicants and/or employees. This Insight provides important takeaways for employers regarding this evolving area of the law, and to put those takeaways in context, highlights key portions of the EEOC's Criminal History Guidance; reviews in detail the Freeman case and lessons learned based on EEOC systemic charges and litigation that challenge an employer's use of criminal history in the employment process; summarizes the EEOC's additional pending litigation on the topic; and reviews another key federal appellate court decision discussing criminal history. Details: San Francisco, CA: Littler Mendelson, 2015. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.littler.com/update-criminal-background-checks-impact-eeoc-v-freeman-and-ongoing-challenges-continuously-changing Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.littler.com/files/press/pdf/2015_2_Insight_Update_Criminal_Background_Checks_Impact_EEOC_v_Freeman.pdf Shelf Number: 154088 Keywords: Ban the BoxCredit History ChecksCriminal Background ChecksCriminal History RecordsEmployersEmployment Background ChecksEqual Employment OpportunityEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFair Credit Reporting ActFreeman |