Comparison of Criminal-History Information Systems in the United States and Other Countries

Published in: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs website (2020)

Posted on RAND.org on September 24, 2021

by Jirka Taylor, Lucy Strang, Kristy Kruithof, Beau Kilmer, Fook Nederveen, Emma Disley, Lisa Wagner, Jörg-Martin Jehle

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.ojp.gov

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The comparisons address the uses and sources of criminal-history data, procedures for assessing record accuracy and completeness, efforts to improve the systems, and the availability of criminal-history records to governmental and non-governmental entities for operational and research purposes. The study concludes that there is considerable variation among the criminal-history information systems of the countries examined regarding how they approach the collection, management, and uses of criminal-history information through their national information systems. Notable differences include the scope of criminal-history data collection, retention of criminal-history information, and access arrangements for both operational and civilian purposes. These differences assist in shaping how criminal-history data can be used in the work of various criminal-justice agencies and their partners. It can also be used in the rehabilitation of individuals involved in the criminal justice system. Information systems that begin collecting data at earlier stages of individuals' involvement with the criminal justice system and/or retain data for longer periods of time can provide criminal justice agencies with more information. This can be used in law enforcement, criminal investigations, and sentencing decisions. Large-scale data collection and/or retention may be more likely to confront privacy and civil rights issues, however, particularly regarding non-conviction data. On the other hand, systems with more restrictive data collection and dissemination rules tend to foster the rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals involved with the criminal justice system. Common characteristics and their benefits pertain to automation and standardization.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.