THE REPORT IS BASED ON ASSESSMENTS OF IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS AND STATUS IN ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, FLORIDA, IOWA, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEW YORK, OHIO, OREGON, PENNSYLVANIA, TEXAS, WASHINGTON, AND WYOMING. THE GENERAL PROBLEMS CONFRONTING STATES IN THEIR EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE ARE DISCUSSED, AS ARE THE OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION ENVIRONMENT AND THE COLLECTIVE PROGRESS OF THE STATES RELATIVE TO FIVE AREAS OF THE REGULATIONS (COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY, INDIVIDUAL ACCESS AND REVIEW, LIMITATIONS ON DISSEMINATION, SECURITY, AND AUDIT.) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FACILITATING PROGRESS TOWARD COMPLIANCE ARE PRESENTED. COMPLIANCE LEVELS WERE JUDGED TO BE SUBSTANTIAL IN TWO STATES, MEDIUM IN NINE, AND MINIMAL IN SEVEN. LONG-TERM PRIOR INVOLVEMENT WITH PRIVACY AND SECURITY IMPLEMENTATION IS A RELIABLE INDICATOR OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLIANCE, ALTHOUGH COMMITMENT TO IMPROVED PRIVACY AND SECURITY ALSO IS IMPORTANT. THE EXISTENCE OF COMPREHENSIVE STATE LEGISLATION ON PRIVACY AND SECURITY APPEARS TO FACILITATE COMPLIANCE, AS DOES THE EXISTENCE OF HIGHLY SPECIFIC MANDATES REGARDING THE CONTENT OF CENTRAL STATE REPOSITORY FILES. LACK OF SUFFICIENT RESOURCES, CONFUSION REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF THE REGULATIONS, RELUCTANCE TO CHANGE, AND TENDENCIES TO LINK COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSED AUTOMATION APPEAR TO IMPEDE COMPLIANCE PROGRESS. PHASED IMPLEMENTATION DEADLINES AIMED AT BRINGING ABOUT FULL COMPLIANCE BY DECEMBER 31, 1982, ARE SET FORTH. SUPPORTING DATA AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED. FOR VOLUME II, SEE NCJ-46222. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)