Centralized vs. Decentralized

1
Centralized vs. Decentralized Revisiting the
Concept for the National Fingerprint File
SEARCH Membership Meeting Washington, DC July 2005
2
(No Transcript)
3
Why Now?

• Events leading to the re-examination of the
  NFF concept
• Goal of 100 of Texas Offenders Indexed in III
• Changes at the FBI
• Proposed policy change in submission to the FBI
• Examination of NFF statutory requirements

4
Texas Submissions To FBI Pre 1998
The Goal
The Exception
Result Only 30 of Texas arrests submitted to
FBI
The Reality
5
Texas Submissions To FBI Post 1998
Livescan submission go directly to AFIS
NIST/ EFTS
Result 100 of Texas arrests submitted to FBI
Hardcopy fingerprint cards are converted to NIST
and forwarded to AFIS
6
Filling the Pre 1998 Gaps
Pre-1998 arrest cards are scanned in NIST Type 4
format and indexed by SID and DOA
Image data and arrest data are merged together to
produce NIST / EFTS record
Result 100 of Texas offenders eligible to be
indexed in III
Arrest data is extracted into NIST Type 2 record
formatted and indexed by SID and DOA
Texas CCH
7
Does That Account For All Texas Arrest Data?

• No
• Non-criterion Offenses
• The FBI has traditionally accepted only
  criterion offenses.
• Starting in May 2005, the FBI began retaining
  non-criteria offenses from some states.

8
Non-Criterion Offenses
9
Does That Account For All Texas Arrest Data?

• No
• Non-criterion Offenses
• The FBI has traditionally accepted only
  criterion offenses.
• Starting in May 2005, the FBI began retaining
  non-criteria offenses from some states.
• Arrests for which the original fingerprint card
  no longer exists
• In the past, if DPS identified a fingerprint
  against an existing record, the subsequent arrest
  card would be microfilmed and then destroyed.
• Subsequent re-arrest fingerprint cards were not
  available for backfile scanning.
• Texas DPS proposal for submission of arrest data.

10
Texas DPS proposal for submission of arrest data

• Texas DPS is drafting an APB proposal to allow
  for the submission of arrest data to the FBI
  without an accompanying fingerprint card. The
  proposal would require that
• the subject of the arrest submission was
  biometrically identified by the state submitting
  the arrest
• the record the subject was identified with has
  been identified at the FBI and contains an FNU.
  

11
DPS Proposal
SID TX12345678 DOA 01/01/1997
DOA 01/01/1997 DOA 02/01/1997 DOA
03/01/1997 DOA 04/01/1997
Fingerprint Image Retained on 1st Submission
DOA 01/01/1997 DOA 02/01/1997 DOA
03/01/1997 DOA 04/01/1997
FBI 1235X SID TX12345678 DOA
02/01/1997 DOA 03/01/1997 DOA 04/01/1997
.A Message containing FBI 1235X
SID TX12345678 DOA 01/01/1997
Texas CCH
12
What Does All This Have To Do With NFF?

• If the APB and FBI endorse this concept for
  the enhanced updating of III, that decision could
  also serve as a catalyst to re-examine the
  current decentralized NFF concept. This new
  update concept would support a centralized NFF
  concept that produces the same major benefit of
  the current decentralized NFF (enhanced access to
  CHRI), while allowing the criminal and
  non-criminal justices communities to realize the
  benefits of a centralized CHRI database.

13
Advantages of a Centralized Database

• Faster III returns - FBI will not have to wait on
  NFF states to supply records for responses to
  inquiries.
• Greater Non-Criminal Justice Use - Non-CJ users
  like NICS will be able to have more information
  with which to make adjudication decisions.
• Enhanced Homeland Security Use A centralized
  file will allow for data mining that can be used
  in the war on terrorism.
• Enhanced Quality Control With a central
  repository, all fingerprints would be verified
  twice once at the state level and once at the
  FBI. This double verification process will aid
  in lowering the number of miss identifications.
• Enhanced Database Quality IAFIS will have the
  opportunity to update the quality of the images
  it stores through an assessment of the images
  received from the states. Currently, for NFF
  states, images are only updated based upon the
  quality determinations made by a dissimilar state
  AFIS system.

14
NFF Definition
It is important to realize that the current
version of NFF is just that - a version of an
implementation of the National Fingerprint File.
USC 42 and 28 CFR define NFF in the same manner
  "National Fingerprint File" means a database
of fingerprints, or other uniquely personal
identifying information, relating to an arrested
or charged individual maintained by the FBI to
provide positive identification of record
subjects indexed in the III System.
15
Questions

• Can NFF be a hybrid of decentralized and
  centralized databases?
• Does a centralized NFF implementation fulfill
  Compact Council requirements for NFF
  participation?
• Would this allow states to get rid of their state
  AFIS?

16
(No Transcript)