NICS Improvement Amendments Act: State Records Estimates Development and Validation Project, Year Two Report

• NCJ Number: 236908
• Author(s): Richard Schauffler; Shauna Strickland; Anne Gallegos; Owen Greenspan; Dennis DeBacco; Alecia Webb-Edgington
• Date Published: December 2011
• Length: 81 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2009-NS-BX-K050
• Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-NS-BX-K050 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.

Annotation

This report details the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA), which requires states to report reasonable estimates of the number of records available to the NICS.

Abstract

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) requires states to report reasonable estimates of the number of records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This report presents the Year 2 analyses of the NIAA state records estimates survey. Findings include: 1) 79% (44 out of 56) of states and territories surveyed provided records estimates, compared to 75% for the Year 1 NIAA survey. 2) State record repository estimates appear to be reasonable estimates of the seven categories of records. State originating agency estimates appear reasonable in light of the challenges documented that inhibit the ability to make more precise estimates. 3) State record repositories contain 74% of the records housed by originating agencies. 4) The Year 2 statistical model validated the reasonableness of the overall estimates at the repository and the originating agencies. Additionally, the category specific model validated the reasonableness of estimates provided for Category 1 (Felony convictions). However, the models for the remaining categories were limited by a lack of data and were unable to validate additional category-specific estimates. 5) The statistical model could not be used to develop reasonable estimates of data from non-responding states and territories, due to: a) the dissimilarities between responding and non-responding states and b) the survey's unavoidable small sample size. 6) Due to the technical assistance provided by BJS and its Federal partners several states noted that definitions were clarified and counting/estimation methods were improved in their Year 2 estimates. 7) After three cycles of data collection are complete, work should be done to assess the value and use of the state estimates and to plan for the future of improving NICS reporting. Specific recommendations are provided in the Recommendations section of this report.