[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2649, SCHOOLS SAFELY ACQUIRING FACULTY EXCELLENCE ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
of the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 28, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-73
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-150 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California
Chairman Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Cass Ballenger, North Carolina Major R. Owens, New York
Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
California Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Sam Johnson, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Fred Upton, Michigan Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan David Wu, Oregon
Jim DeMint, South Carolina Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Johnny Isakson, Georgia Susan A. Davis, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Ed Case, Hawaii
Ric Keller, Florida Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Denise L. Majette, Georgia
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Tim Ryan, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Timothy H. Bishop, New York
John Kline, Minnesota
John R. Carter, Texas
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Max Burns, Georgia
Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director
John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON 21st CENTURY COMPETITIVENESS
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
Johnny Isakson, Georgia, Vice Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Chairman John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
John A. Boehner, Ohio Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin David Wu, Oregon
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Sam Johnson, Texas Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Fred Upton, Michigan Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Tim Ryan, Ohio
Ric Keller, Florida Major R. Owens, New York
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
John R. Carter, Texas George Miller, California, ex
Phil Gingrey, Georgia officio
Max Burns, Georgia
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 28, 2004............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the
Workforce, prepared statement of........................... 4
Porter, Hon. Jon, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada.................................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Asselin, Chief Butch, Chief of Police, Skowhegan Police
Department, Skowhegan, Maine, on behalf of Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids, Washington, DC............................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Belak, Barbara, Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for
Human Resources, Clark County Schools, Las Vegas, Nevada... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Dean, Dr. William, Superintendent, Frederick County Public
Schools, Winchester, Virginia.............................. 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Uzzell, Donna, Director, Criminal Justice Information
Services, Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
Tallahassee, Florida....................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Additional statement submitted for the record............ 29
. H.R. 2649, SCHOOLS SAFELY ACQUIRING FACULTY EXCELLENCE ACT
----------
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McKeon, Porter, and Holt.
Staff Present: Kevin Frank, Professional Staff Member;
Catharine Meyer, Legislative Assistant; Whitney Rhoades,
Professional Staff Member; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Rich Stombres, Assistant
Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; Brad Thomas,
Legislative Assistant; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/
Intern Coordinator; Denise Forte, Legislative Associate/
Education; Ricardo Martinez, Legislative Associate/Education;
Alex Nock, Legislative Associate/Education; and Joe Novotny,
Legislative Associate/Education.
Chairman McKeon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee
on 21st Century Competitiveness of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce will come to order.
We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony on H.R.
2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of
2003.
Under Committee Rule 12(b), opening statements are limited
to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the
Committee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, they
will be included in the record.
With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record
to remain open 14 days to allow Members' statements and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so
ordered.
I think it was several months ago we were out in Nevada and
held a hearing on this bill at the request of Mr. Porter. And
it was the first I learned of the problem that they were having
out there, where they had to hire 2,000, 2,500 teachers a year,
and how difficult it was to really verify the character of some
of the teachers. And so I thought it was an outstanding thing
that Mr. Porter was doing in putting forward this bill.
And when he asked if we would hold a hearing here in
Washington, I thought it was very important that we do so. With
that, I would like to turn to Mr. Porter and have him give the
opening statement, if he would, to begin this hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON C. PORTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Porter. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you holding this really important hearing in our
Committee on 21st Century Competitiveness. I would like to
thank you all for joining us today so we can discuss this
important topic and find ways to find a safe place for all of
our children across the country.
I would also like to thank our distinguished panel of
witnesses who we will be introducing shortly. Students,
parents, teachers and taxpayers have made great strides in the
past 4 years in bringing better educational services to our
elementary and secondary school children. While we continue to
see the product of these efforts, there are still several
aspects that remain problematic. Chief among these is the
safety of children in our schools. The dangers that threaten
our children are widespread, from the threat of terrorism, to
the presence of sexual predators in the classroom, and in the
hallways of our campuses.
We are here today to explore ways to prevent this last type
of abuse. In May, with the help of the Chairman, this
Subcommittee held a field hearing in my home district, Clark
County, Nevada, where we heard about the issues that currently
face the fast-growing school districts as they attempt to hire
large numbers of highly qualified, reliable individuals to fill
the important positions that allow our children to succeed.
Many school districts around the Nation rely on out-of-
State recruitment of teachers in order to meet the standards
and the needs of those growing communities. In order to ensure
students' safety, many school districts require potential hires
to be fingerprinted for background checks through the FBI.
However, current practice often results in incomplete data
for noncriminal purposes. The Clark County School District, the
school district that I represent, is constantly faced with
these issues. As the district grows an average of 15,000 new
students a year, we need to hire over 2,000 new teachers. We
have one of the fastest growing school districts where we also
need to build 18 new schools in a given year. Imagine the
challenges.
The majority of teachers that we have hired come from
outside of the state, because we are a small state. But, there
are other States that have similar challenges with their
growth. We depend upon other States to share with us any
information that will help remove the threat of sexual
predators in our classrooms. As recently as this summer,
charges of sexual abuse by individuals employed by the school
district became public.
There must be zero tolerance for this type of behavior, and
I believe that Congress has the ability to make significant
strides in reducing the occurrence of sexual assault in our
schools.
As I mentioned earlier, it is just not Clark County,
Nevada, it is a problem across the country. And while I see no
reason to oppose the intent of the legislation, I am also aware
that we need to make some adjustments to the mechanisms that
have been suggested.
I look forward to working on this legislation with all of
the stakeholders so that we can effectively make strides in
improving this situation.
Mr. Chairman, the National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact signed into law on October 10th of 1998, established an
infrastructure by which States can exchange criminal records
for noncriminal justice purposes. The Compact organizes an
electronic information sharing system among the Federal
Government and the States to exchange criminal history records
for noncriminal justice purposes, such as background checks for
governmental licensing and employment.
Under the Compact, the FBI and the member States agree to
maintain detailed data bases of their respective criminal
history records and to make them available to the Federal
Government and to member States for authorized purposes.
The Compact requires the FBI to permit use of the national
identification index and the national fingerprint file by each
member State and to provide, in a timely fashion, Federal and
State criminal history records to requesting member States.
It also requires member States to provide information and
records for the national identification index and the national
fingerprint file and to provide criminal history records in a
timely fashion through criminal history repositories of other
member States and the Federal Government for noncriminal
justice purposes.
As a result, when the Compact member States apply for a
criminal history background check, they receive information
from all participating States with a single application. The
legislation we are examining today would require States to
partake in this nationwide information sharing system that
would provide human resources directors and administrators with
the background information that they need to hire qualified
individuals without records of sexual abuse to serve in our
schools and to teach our children.
Unfortunately only 21 States have currently ratified this
Compact. 21 States. While the remaining 29 States still have
the opportunity to ratify this Compact, I believe that we must
encourage this action with thoughtful and effective
legislation. By providing a more compelling reason to join the
Compact, H.R. 2649 would close one of the cracks through which
potentially harmful individuals might slip.
As we examine H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring
Faculty Excellence Act of 2003, I urge the Subcommittee to
consider the importance of a safe learning environment. But I
would also like to gain greater insight in how this Committee
can craft legislation that best addresses this very important
issue.
The immediate and long-term harm that these few
unscrupulous individuals can cause is immense. Certainly the
immediate physical affects of sexual abuse can be devastating.
That said, the long-term psychological affects have proven to
be incredibly harmful throughout the life of the victim of the
crime.
I believe we can all agree that these atrocities and
atrocious acts must be removed from our schools, and our
children should be able to attend school without the fear of
this deprived behavior. It is my hope that we can learn from
our witnesses today about the scope of the problem, as well as
some of the best practices currently being used to deal with
this issue.
I would also like to point out to my colleagues that--the
fact that is a very small number of individuals that are
endangering the security of our children. We have many, many
outstanding teachers across this country, the best of the best
are in our school districts, but there are a few.
With the vast majority of teachers and staff, our children
are safe and of course in good hands. But we must, however,
ensure that these few corrupt individuals are unable to enter
our schools and abuse our children.
Mr. Chairman, I again say thank you for convening this
panel of witnesses who can help this Committee further
understand the need to protect our children from any
individuals who might wish to harm them, but also from the
experts that are with us today. I look forward to working with
the Committee on this important legislation in the future, and
am anxious to hear our testimony today. Again, thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman McKeon. Mr. Kildee is not able to be with us here
today, but we will let him insert his statement in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 21st
Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning, today marks the second time this subcommittee has
held a hearing on H.R. 2649. While this legislation deserves the
Subcommittee's consideration just as much as any other bill, I am not
sure what the Subcommittee might learn that it didn't learn in May of
this year. Regardless, I look forward to joining my Chairman and friend
as we renew our discussion of this bill.
H.R. 2649 has been introduced by our colleague Representative
Porter from Nevada. I am aware that the educational system in Las Vegas
is facing an especially difficult situation. With the rapid population
growth in and around Las Vegas, I am sure that hiring a sufficient
number of teachers is a real challenge. I am equally convinced that
Nevada's school administrators want to ensure that children do not have
teachers who have a criminal history.
While background checks on teachers and other personnel that deal
with children is growing in use, several questions remain about this
bill.
This bill denies education funds to a State which doesn't comply
with its requirements. Is this a realistic requirement for States to
meet in one year? Do States need to pass legislation to meet this
requirement? Is it fair to the State Education Department to put their
funds at risk when they have little or no control over whether a State
will participate?
The bill also requires information on individuals suspected of a
felony, as far back as 15 years. I have been told that reporting this
information may be impossible for some States.
While I am aware that the Subcommittee does not intend to markup
this legislation before the end of this Congress. I believe these
concerns do need to be heard and addressed.
In addition, I think it is important that we explore other ways of
helping schools maintain safe and healthy environments for their
children. This includes the hiring of additional counselors and
increasing efforts to reduce bullying. Leading school safety experts
believe that any program focused on the safety of students must include
anti-bullying programs and techniques. These experts have found that
the root cause of some of the worst school safety disasters were that
the perpetrators were bullied or did not receive appropriate counseling
or intervention when they needed it. I hope Members keep this in mind
in our discussion today.
In conclusion Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from today's
witnesses and yield back the balance of my time.
______
Chairman McKeon. I now yield to Mr. Porter for the purpose
of introducing our witnesses.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have experts
with us today that can share with us firsthand the challenges
that our schools are facing and our families are facing.
With us today is a special guest from Clark County, Nevada,
Ms. Barbara Belak, who is the assistant to the associate
superintendent for human resources in the Clark County School
District in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Prior to assuming this position, in July of 2003, she
served the Clark County School District in numerous other
capacities. She began her career teaching elementary school and
special education students. As a teacher she developed an
interest in teacher-management issues. As a result, she worked
for 2 years on employee bargaining issues while in special
assignment to the assistant superintendent, and served as
director of employee-management relations.
She also served as past president of the Las Vegas Teachers
Association for 2 years, as a professional advocate for the
organization for over 5 years. Welcome, Barbara. Appreciate you
being here.
We also have Ms. Donna Uzzell. For the past 8 years she has
been the director of Criminal Justice Information Services in
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. In this position,
she oversees the missing children information clearinghouse in
the Crimes Against Children Program, and leads the Department's
efforts to provide telecommunications capabilities, training
and documentation analysis of criminal activity for law
enforcement throughout the State.
She has been recognized for her expertise in child safety,
and juvenile justice issues. She is a member of Search a
consortium of criminal justice agencies, and is currently
chairperson of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy
Compact Council, and an appointee to the FBI's criminal justice
information service policy advisory board.
And immediately to her left is Dr. William Dean. Dr. Dean
has been the superintendent of the Frederick County Public
Schools, in Frederick County, Virginia, since July 1998. Prior
to his service with Frederick County, Dr. Dean served 8 years
as superintendent of the Grand Haven Public Schools in Grand
Haven, Michigan, 4 years as superintendent of the Rapid City
School District in Rapid City, South Dakota, and for 4 years as
assistant superintendent for instruction in Ft. Collins,
Colorado.
Dr. Dean has also served as the assistant State
superintendent with the Colorado Department of Education. He
began his career teaching elementary school in Michigan.
Additionally, Dr. Dean is an active member of the American
Association of School Administrators.
And to Dr. Dean's left is Mr. Butch Asselin. He is
currently the chief of police for Skowhegan Police Department
in Skowhegan, Maine. He was promoted to the position in 1997
after serving 22 years with the Department as a patrol officer,
detective and patrol sergeant.
He has been an active member of the Maine Chiefs of Police
Association, serving as the organization's president from
September 2003 to September of 2004, also an active member of
the Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, an organization of law
enforcement officials dedicated to preventing crime and
violence.
Before the witnesses begin their testimony, I would like to
remind the Members that we will be asking questions of the full
panel after we have heard their presentations. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porter follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter, A Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada
Good Morning. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, for holding this
important 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee hearing, and thank
you all for joining us as we discuss this important topic. I would also
like to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses, who will be
introduced shortly.
Students, parents, teachers and taxpayers have made great strides
in the past four years in bringing better educational services to our
elementary and secondary school children. While we continue to see the
product of these efforts, there are still several aspects that remain
problematic. Chief among these is the safety of children in our
schools. The dangers that threaten our children are widespread, from
the threat of terrorism to the presence of sexual predators in the
classrooms and hallways of our campuses. We are here today to explore
ways to prevent this last type of abuse.
In May, this Subcommittee held a field hearing in my home district
of Clark County, Nevada, where we heard about the issues that currently
face fast-growing school districts as they attempt to hire large
numbers of highly-qualified, reliable individuals to fill the important
positions that allow our children to succeed. Many school districts
around the nation rely on out-of-State recruitment of teachers in order
to meet the needs of their growing communities. In order to ensure
students' safety, many school districts require potential hires to be
fingerprinted for background checks through the FBI. However, current
practice often results in incomplete data for non-criminal purposes.
The Clark County School District, the school district that I
represent, is constantly faced with these issues. As the district grows
by an average of 15,000 students per year, we need to hire an average
of 2,000 new teachers. The majority of these teachers come from outside
of the state. We depend upon other states to share with us any
information that will help remove the threat of sexual predators in our
classrooms. As recently as this summer, charges of sexual abuse by
individuals employed by the school district became public. There must
be zero tolerance for this type of behavior. I believe that Congress
has the ability to make significant strides in reducing the occurrence
of sexual assault in our schools. While I see no reason to oppose the
intent of my legislation, I am aware of some of the flaws in the
mechanism that it uses. I look forward to working on this legislation
with all stake holders so that we can effectively make strides in
improving this situation.
The National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, signed into law
October 10, 1998, established an infrastructure by which States can
exchange criminal records for non-criminal justice purposes. The
Compact organizes an electronic information sharing system among the
federal government and the States to exchange criminal history records
for non-criminal justice purposes, such as background checks for
governmental licensing and employment. Under the Compact, the FBI and
the member States agree to maintain detailed databases of their
respective criminal history records and to make them available to the
federal government and to member States for authorized purposes.
The Compact requires the FBI to permit use of the national
identification index and the national fingerprint file by each member
State and to provide, in a timely fashion, federal and State criminal
history records to requesting member States. It also requires member
States to provide information and records for the national
identification index and the national fingerprint file and to provide
criminal history records, in a timely fashion, to criminal history
record repositories of other member States and the federal government
for non-criminal justice purposes. As a result, when Compact member
States apply for a criminal history background check they receive
information from all participating States with a single application.
The legislation we are examining today would require States to
partake in this nation-wide information sharing system that would
provide human resources directors and administrators with the
background information that they need to hire highly qualified
individuals without records of sexual abuse to serve in our schools.
Unfortunately, only 21 States have currently ratified this Compact.
While the remaining 29 States still have the opportunity to ratify this
Compact, I believe that we must encourage this action with thoughtful
and effective legislation. By providing a more compelling reason to
join the Compact, H.R. 2649 would close one of the cracks through which
potentially harmful individuals might slip.
As we examine H.R. 2649, the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty
Excellence Act of 2003, I urge the Subcommittee to consider the
importance of a safe learning environment. I would also like to gain
greater insight into how this Committee can craft legislation that best
addresses this important issue.
The immediate and long-term harm that these few unscrupulous
individuals can cause is immense. Certainly, the immediate, physical
effects of sexual abuse can be devastating. That said, the long term
psychological effects have proven to be incredibly harmful through out
the life of the victim. I believe we can all agree that these atrocious
acts must be removed from our schools, and that our children should be
able to attend school without the fear of this depraved behavior.
It is my hope that we can learn from our witnesses today about the
scope of the problem, as well as some of the best practices currently
being used to deal with this issue. I would also like to point out to
my colleagues the fact that a very small number of individuals can
endanger the security of all our students. With the vast majority of
teachers and staff, our children are safe and in good hands. We must,
however, ensure that these few, corrupt individuals are unable to enter
our school and abuse our children.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for convening this panel of
witnesses who can help this Committee further understand the need to
protect our children from any individual who might wish them harm. I
look forward to working with the Committee on this important
legislation in the future and am anxious to hear the testimony of our
four witnesses today.
______
Chairman McKeon. Thank you very much. We have a little
light there in front of you that goes on green, and when you
have a minute left, yellow, and red. But as you can see, we
don't have too many questioners here today.
So feel free, don't worry too much about the time. We will
be fine. Let's hear first from Ms. Belak.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA BELAK, ASSISTANT TO THE ASSOCIATE
SUPERINTENDENT FOR HUMAN RESOURCES, CLARK COUNTY SCHOOLS, LAS
VEGAS, NEVADA
Ms. Belak. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members
of the Committee. On behalf of the Clark County School
District, which is the Nation's sixth largest school district,
I thank you sincerely for this opportunity to present this
information to your Committee.
I do so out of a strong belief in an ideal that I hope we
all share, that all students in our Nation's schools have the
right to be educated by dedicated professionals, who will teach
them, inspire them and nurture them, not target, victimize or
abuse them.
With regard to the language in H.R. 2649, the Clark County
School District does have some serious reservations about the
prohibition consequences in Provision A of Section 3. We fully
support, however, the provisions described in Section 3(b), and
we commend the Committee for considering this important issue.
I am deeply saddened to have to admit that CCSD has found
itself in the news media too often, as another employee is
arrested for sexual misconduct with a student. Besides the
obvious embarrassment to the school district and the effect
that has on the public trust in our schools, the real tragedy,
as always, is the harm done to the victim, a child, one who has
been entrusted to our care.
Even if the sharing of the criminal information as covered
in H.R. 2649 would result in only one less child predator in
our schools, I would still be glad to be here today to testify
on behalf of it.
For background purposes, I would like to share some
contextual data with you. Geographically, the Clark County
School District in Las Vegas is roughly the size of the States
of Connecticut and Delaware combined. With the 14 new schools
that we just opened last month, we now have over 300 school
sites, including everything from a one-teacher schoolhouse in
Good Springs, to urban high schools that have over 3,000
students. In less than 20 years, we have built nearly 160 new
schools.
We in human resources have the daunting task of staffing
those 300 schools. We generally hire between 1,500 and 2,000
new teachers each year, not to mention support staff and
administrators. However, Nevada's higher education system only
graduates approximately 600 new teachers each year.
So, like many other districts, we have to turn to other
States to find the teachers to bring to our classrooms and to
our students. In recruiting for the current school year, we
sent approximately 170 recruiters to 39 States, and we maintain
a dynamic Web site so that anyone who has Internet access can
learn about our growing district, and consider Las Vegas for
their teaching career.
As a result, we have already hired over 1,000 teachers for
the 2004-2005 school year alone from outside the State of
Nevada, and we are still hiring.
Other data, unfortunately, are more unsettling to consider.
Every school year, CCSD initiates dismissal proceedings against
employees for incidents involving controlled substances. Every
year we dismiss employees for incidents involving violence
against students. And each year, employee dismissal proceedings
are initiated for incidents involving sexual misconduct with
students.
The harsh realty is this: CCSD has over 16,000 teachers
spread throughout its classrooms. If only 1 percent of the
teachers' commit misconduct egregious enough that it brings
harm to a child, that is 160 teachers.
If only 1/10 of 1 percent commit such misconduct, that is
still 16 teachers. And if only 1/100 of 1 percent of our 16,000
is a sexual predator, that is still 1 or 2 teachers who may
sexually molest in the coming year, and that is one or two too
many.
Having been both a union advocate who assisted teachers
accused of such misconduct, and an administrator involved in
the disciplinary action taken against those teachers, I could
provide you with some specific scenarios, but I am hoping today
that that is not necessary, because I hope I am preaching to
the choir.
The question is not whether or not we must accept a certain
percentage of bad apples as the inevitable reality of this
imperfect world, the question is, what can we do to better
identify those bad apples and keep them away from our schools?
It has often been said knowledge is power. In this
technological age, that has been translated into information is
power; cliches perhaps overused, but true nonetheless.
School districts need complete information on the
applicants who are looking to work in our schools. We need to
know about the domestic battery arrests. We need to know about
the drug arrests. And we need to know about the arrests for
lewdness with a minor. Please note that I deliberately used the
word ``arrests,'' not ``convictions.'' We certainly recognize
that innocent people can be accused falsely.
But, if Mr. Jones was arrested for lewdness with a minor in
New Jersey in 1988, and again in Florida in 1992, and again in
Mississippi in 1997, and again in Oregon in 2002, would you
want your son or daughter in Mr. Jones's classroom?
CCSD routinely asks approximately 20 background questions
related to misconduct on its teacher application forms, and we
fingerprint everyone we hire. We even fingerprint the volunteer
coaches. But we need to do so with the confidence that the
report that comes back is complete, that it includes arrest and
conviction information from all States, not just some of them,
especially with the State-to-State mobility that we enjoy in
this great Nation.
School districts everywhere are hiring employees who will
spend hours each day working with, supervising and guiding
children, oftentimes alone. It is imperative that those
districts be made aware of any and all arrests for and
convictions of felonies and crimes involving violence or
controlled substance, child abuse, or sexual misconduct.
In closing, I would like to express my gratitude for the
opportunity to present this testimony, and I would like to
refer the Committee to my written testimony, which included
additional information. Thank you very much for your time and
for considering this important issue.
Chairman McKeon. Your complete written testimony will be in
the record. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Belak follows:]
Statement of Barbara Belak, Assistant to the Associate Superintendent
for Human Resources, Clark County Schools, Las Vegas, Nevada
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the
Committee.
As the representative today of the nation's 6th-largest school
district, I would like to thank you sincerely for the opportunity to
present this information to you today. I do so out of a strong belief
in an ideal that I hope we all share: the ideal that all students in
our nation's schools have the right to be educated by dedicated
professionals who will teach them, inspire them, and care for them--not
target, victimize or abuse them.
On the bright side, not long ago, we had some discussions with a
private security company regarding employee background checks. As a
result of those discussions, the president of the company concluded, in
essence, that the Human Resources Division of the Clark County School
District (CCSD) already does everything in its power to protect its
students and screen out undesirable job applicants. That's good news
coming from an outside company that would have loved to sell its
services to us. The bad news is: it isn't enough.
I am deeply saddened to admit that the Clark County School District
has found itself in the news media far too often as the public is
informed that another school district employee has been arrested for
sexually molesting a student. Besides the obvious embarrassment to the
district and the deleterious effect on the public trust in our schools,
the real tragedy, as always, is the harm done to the victim--a child--
one entrusted to our care. In addition to the trauma of the actual
incident--or incidents, as is often the case--the child is subsequently
subjected to re-living it over and over again, in everything from
repeated police interviews and school administrative interviews, to
employee dismissal arbitrations and criminal court trials. Even if the
sharing of criminal information as covered in HR 2649 would only keep
one single child predator away from the schools, I would still want to
be here today to support this bill.
To provide you with a background context for our position, I would
like to note the following data.
First, statistics you may find interesting:
The Clark County School District is a somewhat complex school
system. We are a central-city school system, a suburban school system,
and a rural school system all in one. Geographically, our district
covers nearly 8,000 square miles, roughly the size of Connecticut and
Delaware combined. A few months ago, I would have reported that we have
289 schools, but now that a new school year has started, 14 new ones
have opened, so we now have over 300 school sites. More than 200 of
them are in Las Vegas, over 70 of them are in the surrounding suburban
areas, and about 25 are outside the greater metropolitan area in rural
Clark County. We have everything from the good, old-fashioned one-
teacher school-house in Goodsprings, Nevada, to urban elementary
schools with 1,200-1,300 students, to senior high schools with over
3,000 students, and in less than 20 years, we have built nearly 160 new
schools. We are just now calculating our student count for this year;
last year we approached 270,00 students!
The Human Resources Division is charged with the daunting
responsibility of staffing all 300 schools. Each year, CCSD generally
hires between 1,500 and 2,000 new teachers, and that's without saying a
word about support staff and administrators; nor does it include our
100+ vacancies, particularly in the high needs areas of special
education, school psychology and speech pathology.
Meanwhile, however, Nevada's state institutions of higher learning
only graduate about 600 new teachers per year. CCSD alone needs far
more than what Nevada's colleges can produce, even if every single
graduating teacher in the state came to Clark County, leaving our
sister counties with none. So, like many other districts nationwide, we
turn to other states to find teachers to bring to our classrooms and
our students. In recruiting for the current school year alone, we made
approximately 170 trips to 39 states, and we maintain a dynamic web-
site so that anyone with Internet access to the World Wide Web can
learn about our growing district and consider teaching and living in
Las Vegas. As a result, we have already hired over 1,000 teachers for
the 2004-05 school year from outside Nevada, and we're still hiring.
Please consider now some facts more startling in nature:
Every school year, the Clark County School District initiates
dismissal proceedings against teachers and support staff for incidents
involving controlled substances, including safety-sensitive employees
testing positive for illegal drugs.
Every year, we initiate dismissal proceedings against teachers and
support staff for incidents involving violence against students.
And every year, dismissal proceedings are initiated against
teachers and support staff for incidents involving sexual misconduct
with students.
On the one hand, even if there were as many as 70 such dismissal
actions over the last three years, an employer might be proud to
proclaim that record. After all, out of more than 25,000 employees, 70
dismissal actions over a three-year period equate to an approximate
average of 23 dismissals per year--less than one-tenth of one percent
of a 25,000-employee workforce. That's really very good!
On the other hand, this employer feels that if CCSD dismisses on
average 23 employees each year for incidents involving controlled
substances, violence against children, and sexual misconduct, then we
need to do even more than we now do to protect our students better.
I have already mentioned our appearances in the media when
employees are arrested for crimes stemming from misconduct with
children in our schools. Every time it happens, the press re-caps the
former list of arrests, using such comments as, ``This is the third
time in the last six months . . .,'' or ``This is the ninth time in
just three years . . .'' Often they summarize former details as well,
reminding the public of a particular arrest or two. Each time, we are
all reminded that the world can be very unfair for an innocent child.
And each time, a former victim gets to re-live their own tragedy yet
again.
Here is the harshest reality:
The data above included teachers and support staff, but if we leave
out total support staff figures (since many of them are in central
offices or service centers), CCSD has over 16,000 teachers spread
throughout its schools. If only one percent of the teachers--and one
percent is a pretty slim margin by most standards--commit misconduct
egregious enough that it can harm a child, that is still 160 teachers,
with potentially many more victims. If only 1/10 of one percent commits
such misconduct, that is still 16 teachers. Even if only 1/100th of one
percent of our 16,000 teachers is a sexual predator, that is still one
or two teachers who will molest one or more children in the coming
year--just in our one district--and that is one or two too many.
Having been both a union advocate who assisted teachers accused of
harmful misconduct, and an administrator involved in the disciplinary
actions taken against such teachers, I could provide you with some
specific scenarios. But I hope that is unnecessary, because I would
like to believe I would be preaching to the choir. The question is not
whether or not we should accept a certain percentage of bad apples as
an inevitable reality in an imperfect world. The question is what we
can do to identify those bad apples better and keep them away from
schools.
It has often been said, particularly in business and political
circles, that ``knowledge is power.'' In this technological age, that
has been translated into ``information is power.'' The cliches,
perhaps, are overused, but true nonetheless--and just as true for
school districts as they are for business owners and elected leaders.
School districts need complete information on the applicants who are
looking to work in our schools. We need to know about the domestic
battery arrests. We need to know about the drug arrests. We need to
know about the assault and battery arrests. And we need to know about
the arrests for lewdness with a minor. Please note that I deliberately
use the word ``arrests,'' not just ``convictions.'' We certainly
recognize that innocent people can be accused falsely. But if Mr. or
Mrs. Jones was arrested for lewdness with a minor in New Jersey in
1988, then again in Florida in 1992, then again in Mississippi in 1997,
and again in Oregon in 2002--with or without a conviction--would you
want your son or daughter in Mr. or Mrs. Jones' classroom getting some
personal attention after school? CCSD may or may not be getting
complete arrest and conviction information at present, since we
currently process our new-hire fingerprints through our CCSD police.
But due to factors not pertinent to this discussion, we might not
always have our own police force, and many, many school districts
throughout the nation never will.
We know first-hand how powerful information can be. We know it
because we have seen first-hand occasions when we should have been
given information that we weren't. Sometimes it is a school district in
a non-criminal matter that ``cuts a deal'' to ``clean a file'' in
return for a resignation. Sometimes it is another state that
sugarcoats, for some inexplicable reason, a confidential reference
knowing full well and good that a teacher has engaged in misconduct
with a student. HR 2649 won't help those cases; we have to look for
state relief for them. But, HR 2649 can give school districts access to
relevant information on applicants' criminal backgrounds that may be
being withheld at present. The Clark County School District routinely
asks about 20 different background questions related to misconduct on
its teacher application forms, and CCSD fingerprints everyone it hires,
from the classroom teacher to the office clerk to the volunteer coach
(who, technically, isn't even ``hired''). But we need to do so with the
confidence that the report that comes back is complete--that it
includes arrest and conviction information from all states as defined
in the bill, not just some of them, especially in light of the state-
to-state mobility we all enjoy in this country. As the demand for
quality teachers continues to exceed the supply, we must stretch our
recruiting efforts far across this vast country as we intensify our
efforts to find the best teachers. Other districts may not need as many
new hires as CCSD does, but school districts everywhere are hiring
teachers, administrators, and support staff who will spend hours each
day working with, supervising, and guiding children, oftentimes alone.
It is imperative that school districts be made aware of any and all
contacts that applicants have had with law enforcement agencies for any
arrest for or conviction of a felony or a crime involving violence, a
controlled substance, child abuse, and sexual misconduct or abuse.
In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to the committee
for the opportunity to present this testimony. Thank you very much for
your time and for your consideration of this important legislation.
______
Chairman McKeon. Ms. Uzzell.
STATEMENT OF DONNA UZZELL, DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATION SERVICES, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
Ms. Uzzell. Thank you. I am appearing here today as the
Chairman of the Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council,
as well as director of the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement's Criminal Justice Information Services.
But I think it is relevant for you to know that I am also a
former school board member for 8 years, and the mother of two
daughters. I, like you, share a strong interest in making sure
that when criminal background checks are done on people working
with our children, we are able to screen out those who present
a danger.
What we have today is a decentralized partnership between
the States and the FBI for the collecting, exchanging, and
sharing of criminal history information. That decentralized
national system is known as the Interstate Identification Index
or III. All 50 States, the U.S. territories and Federal law
enforcement agencies participate. The criminal history records
for more than 48 million people are referenced in the
Interstate Identification Index. A complex set of rules govern
the dissemination of criminal history information in response
to more than 156 million inquires annually for both criminal
justice and civil purposes.
In every instance, a complete response comes from either
the State holding criminal history information, or the FBI,
which provides criminal history information on behalf of the
States, as well as other Federal law enforcement agencies.
The passage of the Compact in 1998 by Congress was a way
for States to improve this process. 21 States have ratified the
Compact which requires the State to directly respond with all
of their information when a record request is made for
noncriminal justice purposes.
Additionally, the FBI is a Compact participant, which means
the FBI provides the records for States who have not yet met
the Compact requirements.
What is the bottom line? When a fingerprint card on a
teacher applicant is sent to the FBI, the response is based on
the search of information from all 50 States. Some States, and
today the number is seven, will provide the records directly
from their files. And for the others, the FBI will provide what
is housed in files.
All 50 States do submit records to the FBI and records from
all 50 States are queried and included in the response to an
applicant fingerprint card. So why the Compact? The best
information is held closest to the source of the record. That
is why when you enact Federal laws mandating background checks,
you should encourage both State and national level checks.
When States respond to requests for information, they can
provide the most complete information available for the
identified subject. For example, States may have disposition
information in their files that is not duplicated in the FBI
file, or additional arrest fingerprints that were rejected for
quality when submitted to the FBI.
When the Compact is fully implemented, the vision of a
truly cooperative criminal justice enterprise will be realized.
Efficiencies will be attained by eliminating unnecessary
redundancy, quality will be easier to ensure, and States on the
receiving end of criminal history information will have better
information to pass on to their customers. And that information
will be disseminated in accordance with their own State laws.
I was also asked to mention some innovative processes in my
State. In addition to school personnel being checked, the
legislature in Florida has expanded that mandate to include
contractors employed by schools. In today's world, school
administrators should know about the vendors who are providing
food to the school, contractors who have access to the
ventilation and security systems. And actually, as we have
learned from the Russian school tragedy, you can make the same
argument for people who do school renovations. In many States,
more and more of these services are privatized, which is why we
chose to include them in the background requirements.
In addition, we now retain fingerprints and check them
against incoming arrests so that the school district is
immediately made aware if a current employee is arrested in
Florida. This procedure, which is followed by several States,
and it is growing, is ineffective, a perpetual background
check.
Our school districts receive both State and the national
information within 48 hours of submitting the fingerprints. We
use secure telecommunications via the Internet to submit the
prints electronically after State processing to the FBI, and we
respond back using the same technology. This enables the
schools to continue conducting their business of providing
services and assuring bus drivers, cafeteria workers and
schoolteachers are hired and in place while not compromising
the safety of the school community. And this is the direction
most States are going.
Technology, the ease that these checks can be processed,
and the continued improvement in the time it takes to receive a
response has created a new awareness and interest from States.
In fact, 45 States and the District of Columbia require
national background checks for education personnel or teacher
certification.
The safety of our children is of paramount importance to
all of us, and I appreciate the interest you have shown in the
State's perspective on the criminal history records screening
process and in the Compact itself. And I thank you for this
opportunity.
Chairman McKeon. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Uzzell follows:]
Statement of Donna Uzzell, Director, Criminal Justice Information
Services, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Tallahassee, Florida
Thank you...
I am appearing here today as the Chairman of the National Crime
Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, as well as the Director of the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Criminal Justice Information
Services. But I think it is relevant for you to know that I am also a
former School Board member in Leon County Florida and the mother of two
daughters. I, like you, have a strong interest in making sure that when
criminal background checks are done on people working with our children
and other vulnerable populations, we are able to screen out those
applicants who present a danger.
For over 80 years, the FBI has been the central point of collection
of information about criminal offenders in the U.S. The information was
originally collected in a single central database at the FBI, and the
primary use of the information was to support criminal justice
decisions. Over time, two changes have occurred: 1) the value of this
information has been recognized for non-criminal justice screening for
sensitive employment and licensing, and more recently, for firearm
purchase approvals; and 2) it has become clear that a decentralized
system for collecting and sharing this information is more effective in
providing complete and accurate records.
The FBI remains a key part of this system, and all 50 states, the
U.S. territories and federal agencies participate. The decentralization
of the criminal history files is a process that is not yet fully
realized. Some states, only 3 actually, continue to rely on the FBI to
maintain their records. For others, the FBI acts as a central index for
identifying states that hold criminal records on offenders. This system
is known as the Interstate Identification Index (triple I) and contains
more than 48 million subjects. A complex set of rules govern the
dissemination of criminal history information in response to more than
156 million inquiries annually for both criminal justice and civil
purposes. Through this index, or pointer system, states make their
records available directly for criminal justice purposes, but some
continue to rely on the FBI to respond on their behalf when civil
background checks are done.
The passage of the Compact in 1998 by Congress was a way for states
to improve this process. Because some states have statutes or policies
that restrict the dissemination of records for non-criminal justice
purposes, the Compact provides the states the means to release their
records provided the check is fingerprint based and authorized by state
or federal law.
Since 1998, 21 states have ratified the Compact; seven states are
already providing their records directly for all non-criminal justice
requests, and 15 \1\ are moving toward this final step of
decentralization. Additionally, the FBI is a Compact participant, which
means the FBI provides records for these background checks on behalf of
non-Compact states as well as those Compact states that have not yet
fully implemented this capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oregon provides their records directly but has not yet ratified
the Compact
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the bottom line? When a fingerprint card on a teacher
applicant is sent to the FBI, the response is based on a search of
information from all 50 states. Some states, today the number is seven,
will provide the records directly from their files, and for the others,
the FBI will provide what is housed in its files. All 50 states do
submit records to the FBI, and records from all 50 states are queried
and included in the response when an applicant fingerprint card is
submitted.
The states obviously have the most complete information available
to them. This is one of the reasons why it is important that federal
laws mandating background checks you should encourage both a state and
national level check. The concept behind the Compact and the
decentralization of records is that the best information is held
closest to the source of the record. When states can respond to
requests for information by using the FBI's pointer system, they can
provide the most complete information available for the identified
subject. For example, states may have disposition information in their
files that is not duplicated in the FBI file. Some will have additional
arrests that did not meet FBI criteria or which were rejected for some
reason when submitted to the FBI.
We believe that the appropriate role for the FBI in the long term
is to maintain the III--the index of criminal subjects--and for each
state to respond directly with the records in its files. When III and
the Compact are fully implemented, the vision of a truly cooperative
criminal justice enterprise will be realized. Efficiencies will be
attained by eliminating unnecessary redundancy in data capture and
processing. Quality will be easier to ensure when records are
maintained closer to their source.
I was asked to respond to a few specific questions:
How does a state benefit from belonging to the Compact?
The Compact Council provides an opportunity for a joint management
structure and states can participate in the policy issues such as
privacy concerns, standards, and record processing.
Additionally, states will see an efficiency that is realized by not
having to support their system and records housed at the FBI. The
duplication of effort is eliminated.
Finally, the major benefit for a state comes when other states
ratify the Compact as the information received as a result of non-
criminal justice requests contains the best information available from
that state.
Has belonging to the Compact assisted the State in getting information
for teacher background checks?
By participating in the Compact and by encouraging other states to
become participants the overall information available to each state on
any authorized background check becomes more complete.
Does belonging to the Compact make the background check process more
effective?
The Compact process eliminates redundant handling of records,
reduces opportunities for error, and provides for the most complete
records to be supplied. In particular, hiring decisions generally must
be based on convictions, so making court disposition data available is
truly value added. Again, the effectiveness will be fully realized
through the expansion of the Compact, through the full participation of
all states in this cooperative venture.
What sort of hurdles did the State have to overcome in order to join
the Compact? Was it worth the effort?
Florida was one of the pilot states for decentralization therefore,
passage of the Compact was made easy because all of the processes were
already in place. What we hear from other states is that the major
concerns or obstacles deal with personal privacy and the costs
associated with making necessary programming changes. In several
instances, these concerns were easily nullified when the legislature
learned the records were already being distributed by the FBI and that
that overall efficiencies from the system would outweigh any upfront
programming costs.
The system is not perfect and there is still work to be done. The
changes in technology afford options to our users today that were not
even contemplated when these systems were built. With the help of
Congress, grants such as the Crime Identification Technology Act, or
CITA, and the National Criminal History Improvement Program, or NCHIP,
have had a tremendous impact on local and states agency efforts to
improve the quality and accessibility of the nation's criminal history
records as well as upgrade criminal justice information systems and
identification technologies. States continue to strive to improve the
record screening process, amid the increasing demand to use this
information for a variety of screening purposes. The states rely on
this funding to meet these new challenges. Additionally, state leaders
need to be educated on the Compact so that they can make informed
decisions on whether to participate.
Knowing how important complete, timely and accurate criminal
records are for teacher screening, I would urge this committee not to
focus fully on whether the state or the FBI provides the response.
Rather, I would urge continued support for the improvement of these
criminal records, for improved automation of both arrest and court
disposition reporting and for the continuing decentralization of these
records by expansion of the Compact.
I was also asked to provide for the committee a brief example of
some innovative processes occurring at the state level in the area of
school employee background checks. In Florida, we have had a statute in
place for a number of years requiring all instructional and non
instructional personnel to be screened. Effective this year, however,
in addition to those personnel, the Florida Legislature has mandated
checks for student teachers, interns, substitute teachers and
contractors. I wanted to particularly highlight the contractors. In
reviewing best practices for emergency preparedness plans for schools,
it is highly recommended that school administrators know about the
vendors who are providing food to the school and contractors who have
access to the heating, cooling, ventilation and security systems. And
actually, as we have learned from the Russian school tragedy, you can
make the same argument for people who do renovations in our schools.
According to press accounts of the incident, Russian security officials
indicated that the gunmen and women had pre-planned extra weapons and
explosives, smuggled into the school during rebuilding work over the
summer holidays, and hidden them beneath floorboards. In Florida and I
believe in many other states, more and more of these services are
privatized which is why our state chose to include them in the
background requirements.
In addition to conducting state and national fingerprint based
checks, the Florida Legislature has now required that we retain these
prints and check them against incoming arrests so that the school
district is immediately made aware if a current employee is arrested in
Florida, as opposed to waiting for their 5 year recheck.
Thanks to the funding support of Congress through NCHIP and the
support of our state, Florida has advanced technology in this arena and
our school districts who are conducting these checks receive the state
and the federal information within 48 hours of submitting the
fingerprint. In Florida, we use secure applications via the Internet to
submit the prints electronically and respond back using the same
technology. This enables the schools to continue conducting their
business of providing services and assuring bus drivers, cafeteria
workers and school teachers, are hired and in place, while not
compromising the safety of the school community. This is the direction
most states are going.
There are approximately 39 other states that take advantage, in
some form or another, of this technology and are seeing similar
advances in facilitating the ease and timeliness of these checks.
According to the FBI, 79% of the FBI's total non-criminal justice
fingerprint submissions are submitted using digital technology that
enhances the response time and eliminates the need for the paper
fingerprint card.
I mentioned that the use of criminal history information for the
non-criminal justice community has seen a tremendous increase over the
past few years. In fact, nationally at the FBI, the incoming
fingerprints for background checks are now exceeding the incoming
fingerprints processed for arrests. In Florida, over the past few years
we went from 300,000 requests to now 600,000 requests. States see the
benefit of requiring these checks for persons employed in sensitive
positions and with vulnerable populations. The availability of
technology, the ease in which these checks can be processed and the
continued improvement in the time it takes to receive a response has
created a new awareness and interest from states. In fact 45 states and
the District of Columbia have now enacted statutes requiring federal
background checks for education personnel or teacher certification.
The safety of our children is of paramount importance to all of us.
Today that is the issue we address. Of course, we all realize that
these records have a much greater use and importance. I appreciate the
interest you have shown in the state's perspective on the criminal
history record screening process and in the Compact itself and I thank
you for this opportunity...
______
[Attachments to Ms. Uzzell's statement are located at the
end of the hearing.]
Chairman McKeon. Dr. Dean.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DEAN, SUPERINTENDENT, FREDERICK COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
Dr. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter, good
morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to H.R. 2649. As
you indicated, my name is William Dean. I am superintendent of
schools in the Frederick County, Virginia, School District.
This is my 7th year as superintendent in Frederick County, my
18th year as superintendent, and my 42nd year in the
profession.
But, as I recall back a few years, in 1968, as a brand new
high school principal in Michigan, I had to hire a number of
teachers. And in particular, I hired a journalism teacher with
impeccable credentials. Unfortunately, 6 weeks after school
started, that teacher's photo appeared in the local newspaper.
And I was called by one of our local ministers who said that
the teacher that I had hired, let's call him Mr. Jones, had
actually been married by this minister in Oregon using the name
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Jones, it turns out, was a bigamist and wanted in two
States by local authorities. Now, the possibility of that
happening 36 years later is slim, but not impossible. But it is
significantly less possible because of safeguards that many
States, including Virginia have enacted.
In our local school district of nearly 12,000 students and
2,200 employees, we follow the Virginia Code on background
checks emphatically. All employees are fingerprinted, and using
an electronic State system that has been merged with the FBI
data base, we know within 30 minutes to 24 hours whether a
potential employee has an arrest record in Virginia, or in most
places in the United States.
If the system finds a match, we are informed by e-mail that
the record is being processed. That is code for essentially
saying that somebody has an arrest record. We process more than
500 a year at $37 per request. And perhaps 3 percent of those
come back as record being processed.
Generally the only error in the process is a candidate, who
may embarrassingly confide that they did not complete the
application honestly. We have two employees in our human
resource office operating that system, the full-time
equivalency of this task is approximately a quarter of an FTE.
The Virginia State Police and our local FBI office in
Winchester verify that not all States contribute to an
interstate criminal network. That not all States do not
participate creates a dilemma for school districts in all
States.
For example, most of us in Northern Virginia travel to a
dozen or more States to recruit staff for our growing student
enrollment. It would be reassuring to know that the States
where our candidates come from participate in a national
criminal record network so that our background checks are
completely, not partially, reliable.
While I agree with the intent and purpose of H.R. 2649, I
question whether penalizing State Departments of Education by
denying Federal education dollars is the most appropriate way
to accomplish this worthwhile legislation. As influential as
State Departments and State Boards of Education may be, their
influence does not extend to directing State law enforcement to
participate in a statewide Compact of information sharing.
And while I think my colleagues in the superintendency and
the boards of education who employ us would all feel better if
H.R. 2649 were enacted, as school employees and elected
officials, we also recognize our inability to compel law
enforcement to accede to the bills requirements.
So, on closer examination, perhaps the U.S. Department of
Education may be the wrong Federal agency to endorse compliance
with a well-intended piece of legislation. H.R. 2649 is
important to educators who are asked to ensure that children in
the public schools are protected from criminals whatever their
crime.
Let's just be sure we use the right mechanisms to see this
legislation to fruition. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dean follows:]
Statement of Dr. William Dean, Superintendent, Frederick County Public
Schools, Winchester, VA
Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to HR 2649. My name is Dr.
William C. Dean and I am Superintendent of Schools in Frederick County,
Virginia. This is my 7th year as superintendent in Frederick County, my
18th year as a superintendent and my 42nd year in this profession.
In 1968, as a brand new high school principal in Michigan, I hired
a Journalism teacher with impeccable credentials. Six weeks after
school started the teacher's photo appeared in the local paper. I was
called by a local minister who said the teacher I hired--let's call him
Mr. Jones--had actually been married by this minister in Oregon using
the name Mr. Smith. Mr. Jones, it turns out, was a bigamist and wanted
in two states by local authorities.
The possibility of that happening 36 years later is slim--not
impossible--but significantly less possible because of safeguards many
states, including Virginia, have enacted.
In our local school district of nearly 12,000 students and 2,200
employees, we follow the Virginia code on background checks
emphatically.
All employees are finger printed and using an electronic state
system that has been merged with the FBI data base, we know within 30
minutes to 24 hours whether a potential employee has an arrest record
in Virginia or most places in the United States. If the system finds a
match, we are informed by e-mail that the ``Record is being
processed.'' This usually means that someone has an arrest record.
We process more than 500 a year, and perhaps 3% come back as
``Record is being processed.'' The only error in the process is usually
a candidate who embarrassingly confides they did not complete the
application honestly. Two employees in our human resource office
operate our system. The full-time equivalency of this task is
approximately .25.
The Virginia State Police verify that not all states contribute to
an interstate criminal record network. That not all states do not
participate creates a dilemma for school districts in all states.
For example, most of us in northern Virginia travel to a dozen
states to recruit staff for our growing student enrollment. It would be
reassuring to know that the states where our candidates come from
participate in a national criminal record network so that our
background checks are completely, not partially, reliable.
While I agree with the intent and purpose of HR 2649, I question
whether penalizing state departments of education by denying federal
education dollars is the most appropriate way to accomplish this
worthwhile legislation. As influential as state departments and state
boards of education may be, their influence does not extend to
directing state law enforcement to participate in a statewide Compact
of information sharing.
And while I think my colleagues in the superintendency and the
boards of education who employ us would all feel better if HR 2649 were
enacted, as school employees and elected officials, we also recognize
our inability to compel law enforcement to accede to HR 2649's
requirements.
So, on closer examination, perhaps the U.S. Department of Education
may be the wrong federal agency to enforce compliance with a well-
intended piece of legislation.
HR 2649 is important to educators who are asked to ensure that
children in the public schools are protected from criminals, whatever
their crime. Let's just be sure we use the right mechanisms to see this
legislation to fruition.
______
Mr. Porter. [presiding.] Thank you very much, Doctor,
appreciate it. Chief.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF BUTCH ASSELIN, FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Chief Asselin. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on school safety. My name is Butch Asselin. I have been
in law enforcement for nearly 30 years. I spent the past 7
years as police chief of the Skowhegan Police Department in
Maine.
During the past year I have served as president of the
Maine Chiefs of Police Association. I am also a member of the
anti crime group, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. More than 2,000
police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and victims of violence
from across the country, we have come together to take a hard-
nosed look at what really works to prevent school and youth
violence and keep kids from becoming criminals.
To help ensure that kids are safe at school, I strongly
support criminal history background checks on individuals
seeking employment in schools. However, today, I would like to
focus on a widespread critical safety issue in our Nation's
schools that demands the urgent attention of Congress.
Bullying affects 1 out of 3 children in the 6th through the
10th grades, and can lead to violent crime and death. A
national survey found that nearly 1 in 6 American children in
6th through 10th grade, more than 3.2 million children, are
victims of bullying each year, while 3.7 million bully other
children.
When bullies are allowed to progress through school without
their intimidating and violent behavior being addressed they
often become a danger not only to the school but also to the
whole community. A survey found out that most bullies were
seven times more likely to carry weapons to school.
Furthermore, the more serious bullies were also 3-1/2 times
more likely to have been in a fight where they sustained injury
serious enough to require treatment by a nurse or doctor.
Bullying is an early warning that bullies may be headed toward
more serious antisocial behavior, including violent crime.
A study found that 40 percent of boys who were bullies in
grades 6 through 9 had three or more criminal convictions by
the age of 24. Moreover, victims of repeated bullying can
explode in ways that threaten not just the bullies, but many
others as well.
Experts from the Secret Service were called in to help
develop profiles of the Columbine and other school shooters.
They found that most of the shooters had been bullied before
choosing to attack their perceived tormentors. The Secret
Service experts reported almost three-quarters of the attackers
felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, or attacked or injured by
others prior to the incident.
In addition, one study found that boys who were frequently
bullied were four times more likely to be suicidal, while
frequently bullied girls were 8 times more likely to be
suicidal.
Fortunately there are programs that are proven to reduce
bullying in schools. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has
been implemented in several hundred schools in the United
States and around the world. This program includes a school
survey to determine the prevalence of bulling, training for all
school personnel, a bullying prevention coordinating committee
to implement the program, school rules prohibiting bullying and
appropriate consequences, adequate adult supervisions in
specific areas where bullying is likely to take place,
including hallways, lunchrooms and playgrounds, class meetings
to discuss the problem of bullying, and meetings with bullies,
their parents and school staff and meetings with victims, their
parents and school staff.
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program produced a 50
percent reduction of bullying in Norway, and a 20 percent
reduction when it was replicated in South Carolina. There were
also lower rates of school misbehavior and vandalism, and
general delinquency for students enrolled in a bullying
prevention program, compared to students who do not receive the
program.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention in
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
have recognized the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program as a
model program.
Five years ago, the Nation watched in horror as two
students killed 12 classmates and a teacher before taking their
own lives at Columbine High School. The Columbine shootings
were a shock to our collective conscience. Never before had
parents, especially in quiet suburbs, so questioned their kid's
safety in school.
Now, 5 years later, school violence continues to occur. In
the aftermath of Columbine, and other school shootings, America
can no longer view bullying as simply one of the rights of
passage kids must endure. Bullying is a ticking time bomb in
our schools and our society. Before more children are harmed,
killed or take their own lives, Congress should facilitate the
implementation of research proven bullying prevention programs
throughout our Nation's schools.
I am pleased that Representative John Shimkus, along with
Representative Danny Davis, has introduced a bipartisan
bullying prevention bill, H.R. 4776, which would amend the Safe
and Drug Free Schools Act to add several bullying related
provisions. This bill would encourage schools receiving funding
to implement key components of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program. I urge Congress to move Representative Shimkus's bill
to enactment.
This Committee can further help us make us all safer by
strengthening early childhood education, child abuse, and
neglect prevention and after school programs.
Research confirms that law enforcement leaders know from
our firsthand experience such programs dramatically reduce
crime and violence. I request that the School and Youth
Violence Prevention Plan, as well as the Bullying Prevention is
Crime Prevention report of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids be
entered in the hearing's record.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on how
your Committee can enhance school safety. I would be happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
Mr. Porter. Thank you very much, Chief, and the full panel.
[The prepared statement of Chief Asselin follows:]
Statement of Chief Butch Asselin, Chief of Police, Skowhegan Police
Department, Skowhegan, Maine, on behalf of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids,
Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on school safety. My
name is Butch Asselin. I've been in law enforcement for nearly thirty
years, and I've spent the past 7 years as police chief of the Skowhegan
Police Department in Maine. During the past year, I served as President
of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association. I am also a member of the
anti-crime group Fight Crime: Invest in Kids--more than 2,000 police
chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and victims of violence from across the
country who have come together to take a hard-nosed look at what really
works to prevent school and youth violence and keep kids from becoming
criminals.
To help ensure that kids are safe at school, I strongly support
criminal history background checks on individuals seeking employment in
schools. However, today, I would like to focus on a widespread,
critical safety issue in our nation's schools that demands the urgent
attention of Congress. Bullying affects one out of three children in
sixth through tenth grades and can lead to violent crime and death. A
national survey found that nearly one in six American children in sixth
through tenth grade--more than 3.2 million children--are victims of
bullying each year, while 3.7 million bully other children.
When bullies are allowed to progress through school without their
intimidating and violent behavior being addressed, they often become a
danger not only to the school, but also to the whole community. A
survey found that the most serious bullies were seven times more likely
to carry a weapon to school. Furthermore, the more serious bullies were
also three-and-a-half times more likely to have been in a fight where
they sustained an injury serious enough to require treatment by a nurse
or doctor. Bullying is an early warning that bullies may be headed
toward more serious antisocial behavior including violent crime. A
study found that 40 percent of boys who were bullies in grades six
through nine had three or more criminal convictions by the age of 24.
Moreover, victims of repeated bullying can explode in ways that
threaten not just the bullies but many others as well. Experts from the
Secret Service were called in to help develop profiles of the Columbine
and other school shooters. They found that most of the shooters had
been bullied before choosing to attack their perceived tormentors. The
Secret Service experts reported: ``Almost three-quarters of the
attackers felt persecuted, bullied, threatened, attacked or injured by
others prior to the incident.'' In addition, one study found that boys
who were frequently bullied were four times more likely to be suicidal,
while frequently bullied girls were eight times more likely to be
suicidal.
Fortunately, there are programs that are proven to reduce bullying
in schools. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has been implemented
in several hundred schools in the United Sates and around the world.
This program includes: a school survey to determine the prevalence of
bullying; training for all school personnel; a bullying prevention
coordinating committee to implement the program; school rules
prohibiting bullying and appropriate consequences; adequate adult
supervision of specific areas where bullying is likely to take place
including hallways, lunchrooms, and playgrounds; class meetings to
discuss the problem of bullying; and meetings with bullies, their
parents and school staff, and meetings with victims, their parents, and
school staff.
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program produced a 50 percent
reduction of bullying in Norway and a 20 percent reduction when it was
replicated in South Carolina. There were also lower rates of school
misbehavior, vandalism, and general delinquency for the students
enrolled in the bullying prevention program compared to students who
did not receive the program. The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration have recognized the Olweus Bullying Prevention
approach as a model program.
Five years ago, the nation watched in horror as two students killed
12 classmates and a teacher before taking their own lives at Columbine
High School. The Columbine shootings were a shock to our collective
conscience. Never before had parents, especially in quiet suburbs, so
questioned their kids' safety in school. Now, five years later, school
violence continues to occur. In the aftermath of Columbine and other
school shootings, America can no longer view bullying as simply one of
the rites of passage kids must endure. Bullying is a ticking time bomb
in our schools and our society. Before more children are harmed,
killed, or take their own lives, Congress should facilitate the
implementation of research-proven bullying prevention programs
throughout our nation's schools.
I am pleased that Representative John Shimkus, along with
Representative Danny Davis, has introduced a bipartisan bullying
prevention bill, H.R. 4776, which would amend the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Act to add several bullying prevention-related provisions. This
bill would encourage schools receiving funding to implement key
components of the Olweus Bullying Prevention program. I urge Congress
to move Representative Shimkus's bill to enactment.
This Committee can further help make us all safer by strengthening
early childhood education, child abuse and neglect prevention, and
after-school programs. Research confirms what law enforcement leaders
know from our firsthand experience: such programs dramatically reduce
crime and violence. I request that the School and Youth Violence
Prevention Plan, as well as the ``Bullying Prevention Is Crime
Prevention'' report of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids be entered into this
hearing's record.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views on how your
Committee can enhance school safety. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Porter. I have numerous questions. And I will submit
some from other members after today's hearing.
First of all, I guess, Barbara, let me comment again that
we appreciate you being here. I want to make it clear that
because of the Clark County School District, we are having this
hearing today. And we appreciate the district bringing this
problem to the U.S. Congress.
And yes, there are areas that need to be adjusted, but it
is a great start. And thank you very much for being here.
Specific to Las Vegas, it was mentioned, of course, the
challenges that we have at home. What challenges does it
present to the district as you ask recruits information? Do you
find that many recruits then don't come back for a second
interview, or what happens after you ask these specific
questions?
Ms. Belak. Well, it varies, since we are talking about
hiring approximately 1,500 to 2,000 teachers. We probably look
closer in the neighborhood of 5,000 applicants. So we have just
about every end of the spectrum that one can imagine.
Certainly we have some that have been known to call human
resources to ask for clarification on some questions, and
sometimes it is hard to imagine how one can need clarification
when the question is: Have you ever been convicted of a crime
involving sexual misconduct, or words to that effect?
But, there will sometimes be conversations on the phone,
and lo and behold, we never hear from that person again.
However, there are unfortunately many other times when the
person chooses to answer no to the key questions, only to find
out later through fingerprint results, luckily, that the answer
no was not necessarily an honest answer, and that usually
begins a very lengthy process then of investigation. Sometimes
it is nothing, and sometimes it ends up in a dismissal
proceeding.
Mr. Porter. What has been the reaction to possibly more
senior teachers that are moving--wish to move there from other
States? When do you put them through this questioning? Has
there been a problem with the profession itself or do they
encourage this information?
Ms. Belak. No. The typical teacher out there is supportive
of these kinds of efforts, because as I mentioned in my
records, any time there is a headline about another teacher or
support staff person arrested for sexual misconduct, that is
something that embarrasses everybody and appalls everybody.
The good teachers don't go into the profession to victimize
children and to ruin their lives, they go into the profession
to help them and nurture them, and they don't want the sexual
predators in there any more than anyone else does.
Mr. Porter. Realizing that being with the home team, I have
an opportunity to also brag about the district. As an
innovative school district in the country, again, sixth largest
and one of the fastest growing, I think Clark County has done a
phenomenal job.
Even from the private sector perspective, if you were
recruiting 2,500 new employees, I don't care if you are IBM or
the Clark County School District, there is a major challenge.
But, the reason we are here today is to elevate the
importance of this challenge in the classroom, to make sure
when we drop our kids off we know they are safe.
And, Barbara, we have heard some pretty diverse opinions
this morning as to how different States are handling the
problem, which is really why we are here. But, from some of the
testimony, it appears that other districts aren't having the
problem that we are having in Nevada.
What do you think is the real crux of the problem? Is there
something we are missing here? If Clark County is not getting
information, but possibly Florida is, what is happening
different in Nevada that isn't happening in Florida?
Ms. Belak. Well, if I knew that, we would correct it in
Clark County. As best we can tell, we are doing everything that
we can do. In fact, I had included in my written testimony the
fact that we had met recently with a security firm that does do
background checks. And as a result of that recent meeting, the
president of the company concluded in fact in a letter to Dr.
Rice, who is our associate superintendent, that we are already
doing everything that is within our power to try to identify
bad apples, if you would, and to screen them out at the
application process.
So that is good news for us, particularly coming from a
private company that would love to sell us its services. But,
even though we are doing what we can do, like I said, we not
only fingerprint everyone we hire, we fingerprint people we
don't hire, like the volunteers that work in our classrooms.
But it is not enough, because people are still getting through.
We don't know for certain if some of those people are
getting through because they happen to have come from a State
that is not a member of Compact, or if there is some other
breakdown in the process. What we do believe, of course, is
that most offenders offend again and again and again and again.
I don't believe that they are usually caught the first
time. I believe that when they are caught it is beyond the
first time. So we are trying to take advantage of as many means
as possible to get as much complete information as possible
before we put the offender in a school setting.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Barbara.
Ms. Uzzell, can you explain, in your comments you mentioned
that sometimes States have better and more information than the
FBI. Explain that, could you, please? What information do they
have and how better can we share that information with other
States?
Ms. Uzzell. Well, like I said the information is always
better closest to the source. So States have maybe more
complete disposition information, and that information was not
submitted back up to the FBI, because that may be a duplicative
effort on the State level.
Additionally, the FBI may have rejected a fingerprint card
that was sent to the repository up there because of a quality
issue. And the State may have accepted that record so, there
may be fingerprint rejections that may not be included,
although I have to say that they are probably small in
comparison to numbers, a very low percentage.
And then additional, there is what we call noncriterion
offenses. Those would be minor offenses, for instance, city
ordinances or county ordinances, loitering may be one,
unfortunately prostitution may be one too where a State or an
agency arrests under the ordinance rather than a State statute.
And the FBI is moving now toward accepting those
noncriterion offenses, but those hadn't been accepted in the
past.
Mr. Porter. So are you having similar problems in Florida
that we are having in Nevada?
Ms. Uzzell. No. I would have to say I don't believe that we
are. Now, I will say that the beauty of the Compact is that the
State can disseminate on its own State laws.
So with that, I must say that Florida is an open records
State. So we disseminate everything. We disseminate juvenile
arrests, we disseminate arrests alone without conviction
information. So every information that comes to us either from
our own repository or from other States, because of our State
law, is able to be passed on to the school district.
Mr. Porter. What can we do through this legislation to help
the States that don't have that type of information available?
Ms. Uzzell. Well, I think the first thing that you hit upon
was the expansion of the Compact. And from talking to other
Compact States and non-Compact States, what has traditionally
been helpful is the NCHIP money, because in order to become a
Compact State, there are certain programming issues and
regulations and requirements that they have to do in order to
be able to make their repositories respond in the fashion that
I had mentioned.
So I think the continued support of NCHIP and CITA and
other grant monies is a very good way to help States get to
that point.
Education is the key. And as chairman of a Compact council,
and even my former colleague, who was chairman, we have
continued to put non-Compact States on different committees,
letting them see the benefits of being involved in a
participatory process where you can make these regulations on
behalf of the States. It is truly a decentralized process.
Five States have enacted the Compact since 2003. That is a
good start. And I think we just need to keep encouraging more
States to become Compact States.
Mr. Porter. So do you think that the umbrella of the
Compact is good? We need to make sure that the other States
have, either the funding or incentive to use the system as it
has been proposed?
Ms. Uzzell. Yes. I definitely agree with that. I also would
suggest, and I would be very willing to help Ms. Belak on this
issue, but if there were crimes that she was missing in a
fingerprint check, I would be willing to help analyze what the
problem was.
Because, as I said, I don't understand why we are not
seeing that in many other States. Maybe if we took a look and
saw where the gaps were, we might be able to figure out if
there were other problems that we are missing here at this
meeting that we could identify to assist her.
Mr. Porter. I appreciate your involvement in many statewide
agencies for children. But what I have discovered in preparing
this legislation, there is not a lot of information available
on the subject of students and abuse in the classroom or on the
school properties.
There was one recently done by No Child Left Behind, which
I think is a start. But it seems to me there is not a whole lot
of information being compiled. And I guess as this legislation
hopefully moves forward in some shape or form, that we get the
proper information to help us make these decisions also.
But I know that you are active in a fast growing State
also. So you have similar challenges that we have in Nevada.
And any help would be appreciated.
Ms. Uzzell. If I may. I would say that the issues that are
important to schools from my experience in the school board as
well as in Florida Department of Law Enforcement is quick
information back. As I mentioned to you, the technology that we
have today allows that information to be available back to the
school district within 48 hours.
And I know in Florida, and I am sure in many other school
districts, you know when a bus driver needs to be there on that
side of the road, they can't be waiting for that background
check to come back to get that bus driver hired.
So anything we can do to continue that technology to ease
and facilitate those background checks is a great stride.
Mr. Porter. Thank you. And, Dr. Dean, you mentioned you
didn't feel that this type of legislation really is the right
mechanism. How would you suggest States that are having
challenges better find the information they need to make the
right choice in their teachers?
Dr. Dean. I am not sure that I said exactly that it was not
the right mechanism. I think the legislation is good
legislation. My only concern is punishing education for
something that we can't oversee. We have no control over law
enforcement or whether other agencies which to contribute that
information to the Compact.
I think from our State superintendent down, we all
encourage and engage in a system now that works for Virginia.
But, when we go outside Virginia, as I said in my testimony, we
may go to as many as a dozen or more States to find teachers
for our school districts.
It is the unreliability of that information about someone
from another State that troubles us. So the law--sorry, the
bill, is a wonderful mechanism. The difficulty I have is only
the punishment of withholding Federal dollars from departments
of education in the event a State doesn't join the Compact.
Mr. Porter. And I think that is well said, Doctor, because
I would concur, that in the initial writing of the language,
that was one alternative.
What I would like to ask is what can we do to help to
provided incentives to get the districts and actually the
States and the districts get involved in the Compact? What
would you suggest?
Dr. Dean. I think Ms. Uzzell's comments in terms of
engaging more and more non-Compact States in the activities of
the Compact to begin to see the advantages of it, have them
involved in some of the strengths of this, have them involved
in some of the problemsolving of the Compact.
I think, certainly, a key issue would be the bringing
together of a variety of law enforcement groups and school
people, to see how they can work together to make this work.
Because, unless they come together to work together on
solving this, there will be suspicion about why is it you want
my information, how will you use my information, and I am not
interested in sharing it if I don't feel as though it is going
to be used in a profitable, helpful way.
Mr. Porter. So you feel comfortable you are able to get the
information you need right now? You are not having a problem?
Dr. Dean. I wouldn't suggest we are not having problems. I
mean, the scale that we work on is nothing compared to Clark
County or Loudoun County, for instance, in Virginia. But for
our school division, which is large but not as large as
certainly these mega districts, I would suggest that our
difficulty only comes when we find that--if, for instance, we
recruit a teacher out of Indiana, and Indiana does not
contribute information to the FBI, or Indiana doesn't provide,
Ohio doesn't, Michigan doesn't, provide information to a source
that we can readily access to determine background, hiring
Virginia teachers in Virginia works well, because of the State
law that we follow.
Mr. Porter. Yes. And historically hiring from within the
community you have a better understanding. Again, with a fast-
growing State, our university system has a hard time keeping up
with the demand. You know, we are growing 6, 7,000 people a
month. Add to that the number of students and--you have heard
that discussion.
And, Dr. Dean, I will comment also. And the school
districts and the school professionals get blamed for most
every social problem there is. And I appreciate your comments
that we also need to look at law enforcement to make sure that
they are compiling the right information.
And on that, Chief, I appreciate your comments on the
bullying and what is happening in the classroom. Have you seen
any problem with any of the other discussions we have had today
with any folks that you know in your communities?
Chief Asselin. Well, with regards to the background checks,
I was talking to Dr. Dean. The information that we receive, I
think as between police departments, or between the repository
in Maine, which is the State Bureau of Identification, I think
is far more concise or accurate than what the school districts
would receive.
I think they would receive conviction data only, and not
arrests as it may be. I don't know a remedy for that. In fact,
it may have changed. I know that Jeff Harman, who was a former
member--who was the lieutenant colonel of the State police
worked hard on this system, and inroads are still being made to
make it work better. I think that we have some time to go
before it is perfect, but we are working on it continuously.
On a local level, I am seeing--I was seeing resistance. My
own daughter is a teacher. And she resisted. But she--obviously
she wanted a job, she did comply. We had one teacher to sort of
circumvent the system came to me and wanted me to take her
fingerprints rather than the State police who was doing it at
the time.
But by now we have gone over the hump, it has been a couple
of years now. And, you know, I think it is working well. The
processing custodians, volunteers, aides. And, yes there are a
few that have failed to divulge their criminal history and have
been terminated. We try to work very well with the schools in
my area.
But, when school superintendents call me and say, Butch,
what can you tell me about Mr. Jones, we are very reluctant to
provide that information at a local level, only because we are
not sure that the information is always accurate. There could
be some mistakes made on the person who inputs the data into
the system.
You know, they might put an incorrect disposition. So we
don't rely on that. We always refer them to the State Bureau of
Identification, which does work. But we don't--but again,
people that are arrested are not necessarily guilty of
anything.
But, at the same token, those people that are arrested,
just say for a sexual-related offense, may have the indictment
dismissed or the charges dismissed because of the age of the
victim, they are not willing to testify. So I can see a
balancing act being done here to get the information out, but
make sure that we are not unjustly labeling someone as a
predator or someone who has--may have been at one time made a
mistake.
But, anyway, I think we are making headway in Maine.
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
Well, what I have heard so far, if I can summarize some
suggestions. We should look at possibly expanding the Compact,
in individual districts, to include maybe contractors, those
that do renovation, or other services. We should look at that.
Make sure that that is consistent.
Encourage, not penalize, as far as the Act itself, would
help these other 29 States find a way to--financially if they
are having a challenge, to take care of it, or at least have
the incentive in place, whether it be in the form of grant
dollars or something else to encourage.
And I sense that there is a consensus that the Compact is
still a good direction to go. As long as it is--the other 29
States have the ability to be involved. Also, I am going to
encourage that we do additional study to get some additional
information as we move forward with the legislation.
So I appreciate everyone's testimony today. Is there
anything else that you would like to add?
Ms. Uzzell. At the risk of doing this, but I feel like I do
need to correct an issue, because I think I have heard several
times people say that some States don't contribute their
fingerprints to the FBI. And all 50 States do contribute. There
are probably three States, it is a very complex process. I
actually thought how I was going to do this in 5 minutes or
less.
But, the--the III is a pointer index system. III is a
fingerprint based system that the FBI has. FBI went to III,
because then they could point to an individual's record and
reach out to the States and grab all of the arrests that State
had for that individual that was indexed--their fingerprints
have been submitted.
There are only three States that I am aware of that are not
III participants, but those States still take their fingerprint
cards of arrested individuals and submit it up to the FBI. So
when you do a query, you do get information from all 50 States.
You probably are missing some records that are either, as I
said rejected or noncriterion offenses, or if some local agency
never sent that card up there.
But, I think that it would be a mistake to walk away, not
thinking that all 50 States are submitting their criminal
history information. The Compact allows that dissemination to
be more complete. But the system we have in place now is a very
effective system. And for the most part, it captures what we
are looking for.
The Compact is a way to enhance and further that
decentralization that was started back in 1978 when III went
into effect. So I just feel the need to clarify that. And then
again, I would like to offer, as chairman of the Compact
council, any services I can to do some good analysis on these
records that are brought up, and help you, Congressman Porter,
be able to bring that information with real factual analysis of
what we are missing.
If there is something that we are not aware of, we need to
fix it. And finally, the other thing I will just say is that as
the chairman of the Compact, a member of that council, we are
so appreciative that you have taken the time to think about the
Compact as a mechanism. We thought we were really our own
little venture out there pushing this issue. So I really
commend you for recognizing the value of this and having this
hearing.
Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. Anyone else like to add?
Ms. Belak. Thank you. You had asked me earlier about where
some things possibly go wrong. And do I want the Committee to
be aware that we do not believe that passage of H.R. 2649 will
solve all of the problems of the Nation.
Certainly we have had some problems where we found out that
the employee had encountered similar misconduct in other
districts, but that misconduct might not have risen to the
level of a crime. So it is something that we would hope and
expect other school districts to share with us, particularly
through confidential references, but for some reason they do
not.
We can't turn to Congress to solve that problem, we have to
turn to the States and the boards of education to work on that.
But where we do turn to Congress for assistance is to help us
make sure that the information that we have that is relevant to
criminal background is made available to every school district
that asks for employment purposes for the people in our
schools.
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
Chief Asselin. I would just make a quick comment. When
police departments share information between each other, it is
intelligence information. And it may involve actions of a
person where he hasn't been charged, but it is questionable
behavior.
I think the law prevents us, I think, from disseminating
that information to schools. I think we need to look at opening
up the portal, so to speak, to be allowed to share that
information with school administrators. For instance, if a
juvenile was to commit a crime of violence outside of the
school district area, we can't share the information with the
school district. But if he commits, the same juvenile was to
commit a crime on school property, we can talk about it freely
with the school administrator.
But to expand that further to adults, I think the police
departments have a great deal of information in our files, in
our computer systems, database about the particular activity,
and being able to have the freedom to share that, my--because I
think we shouldn't rely totally on criminal history checks. I
think pick up the phone and, you know, doing background checks,
a thorough background check will bring up a lot of this
information, and probably the first people that should be
contacting is the police department where this person once
resided in.
Mr. Porter. I know we spent a lot of time today talking
about criminal activity, sexual predators. I do appreciate also
that whole other area of concern, especially after the
catastrophe and the crises in Russia and what is happening
around the world.
And I know that this Committee is going to spend additional
time looking at safety in the classroom. But, as we look at the
world since September 11th, it has changed a lot of things that
we do. But, as parents we also trust in our local governments
and our school districts to make sure that they take every step
available.
And with that, I again want to applaud the districts and
certainly Clark County, but those folks that are here today for
your concerns and your insights, because I can't imagine the
pain of a parent that would have a son or daughter that was
hurt while at school. And what pain that can cause for a child
in his whole lifetime, in that area where they trust their
teacher and trust their community.
So, again, I want thank you all for being here for your
testimony. I appreciate your insights and your written
testimony, and note that there will be opportunity to submit
additional testimony. So thank you all for being here. And
thank you again for your input. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Additional Statement of Donna Uzzell, Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.011
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Signatories
Montana
Georgia
Nevada
Florida
Colorado
Iowa
Connecticut
South Carolina
Arkansas
Kansas
Oklahoma
Maine
Alaska
New Jersey
Minnesota
Arizona
Tennessee
North Carolina
New Hampshire
Missouri
Ohio
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6150.013
List of States and Territories Submitting Civil User Fee Fingerprints
Electronically
Alabama
Alaska (Compact State)
Arizona (Compact State)
California
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida (Compact State)
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas (Compact State)
Louisiana
Maine (Compact State)
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota (Compact State)
Mississippi
Missouri (Compact State)
Montana (Compact State)
Nebraska
New Jersey (Compact State)
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (Compact State)
North Dakota
Ohio (Compact State)
Oklahoma (Compact State)
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee (Compact State)
Texas
Utah
US Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
Compact States That Do Not Submit Civil User Fee Fingerprints
Electronically
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia
Iowa
Nevada
New Hampshire
South Carolina