Fingerprint-Based Background Checks: Implementation of the National Child
Protection Act of 1993 (Letter Report, 01/15/97, GAO/GGD-97-32).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed certain implementation
issues under the National Child Protection Act of 1993, focusing on: (1)
the extent to which selected states have enacted statutes authorizing
national background checks of child care providers, the fees charged for
background checks of volunteers, and how these fees compare with the
actual costs in these states; (2) the effects these states' laws and
related fees had on volunteerism; (3) whether selected state agencies
and other organizations found national background checks a useful
screening tool, and how often fingerprint-based background checks
identified individuals with criminal histories; and (4) the status of
the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) being
developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the selected
states' plans for using the system when it becomes available.
GAO found that: (1) although there are considerable differences in scope
or coverage, each of the five study states has enacted statutes
authorizing national fingerprint-based background checks regarding paid
and, or volunteer positions at various types of child care-related
organizations; (2) three of the five states, California, Tennessee, and
Texas, have authority to request national checks of volunteers at
nonprofit youth-serving organizations; (3) however, these states do not
require that national checks be done, and few checks have been
requested; (4) a complete check of criminal history records has both FBI
and state agency components; (5) the FBI's fee for national
fingerprint-based background checks of volunteer applicants is $18; (6)
the FBI projected that its costs for a national check would average $18
in 1996; (7) state laws and related fees did not appear to have
negatively affected volunteerism at the various nonprofit youth-serving
organizations GAO contacted, since applicable statutes permitted rather
than required fingerprint-based background checks, and few had been
requested; (8) officials at the various organizations GAO contacted said
that national checks are or could be a useful tool that should
supplement rather than supplant other important screening practices; (9)
these officials told GAO that they believe the prospect of being
subjected to a national background check deters an indeterminate but
significant number of individuals with unacceptable criminal histories
from even applying for certain positions; (10) for selected job
positions, organizations, or local jurisdictions in the five study
states, GAO found that national checks detected some applicants with
criminal histories who may not have been detected by less comprehensive
practices, including state background checks; (11) according to the FBI,
in October 1998 IAFIS is scheduled to be available to a few selected
states, for the purposes of conducting national fingerprint checks of
applicants, with all other states that have appropriate technology
coming online by July 1999; and (12) once IAFIS is fully implemented,
the FBI expects that the processing time for national fingerprint checks
will be reduced from 7 weeks (not including mailing time) under current
processes to about 24 hours.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-97-32
TITLE: Fingerprint-Based Background Checks: Implementation of the
National Child Protection Act of 1993
DATE: 01/15/97
SUBJECT: Crime prevention
Child abuse
Volunteer services
Non-profit organizations
Fees
Statutory law
Crimes or offenses
Criminals
Day care centers
IDENTIFIER: California
Florida
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
FBI Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Honorable
Fred Thompson, U.S. Senate
January 1997
FINGERPRINT-BASED BACKGROUND
CHECKS - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF
1993
GAO/GGD-97-32
Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
(182024)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
IAFIS - Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
NCPA - National Child Protection Act of 1993
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-272098
January 15, 1997
The Honorable Fred Thompson
United States Senate
Dear Senator Thompson:
This report responds to your January 3, 1996, request that we review
certain implementation issues under the National Child Protection Act
of 1993 (NCPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 5119 et seq.). This federal
legislation encourages states to enact statutes authorizing
fingerprint-based national searches of criminal history records of
individuals seeking paid or volunteer positions with organizations
serving children, the elderly, or the disabled. As agreed with you,
we conducted work in five states (California, Florida, Tennessee,
Texas, and Virginia) to address the following questions:\1
-- To what extent have selected states enacted statutes authorizing
national background checks of child care providers? Also, what
fees are charged for background checks of volunteers, and how do
these fees compare with the actual costs in these states?
-- What effects have these states' laws and related fees had on
volunteerism? For instance, have the laws and fees discouraged
volunteers from participating in child care programs at
nonprofit entities?
-- Have selected state agencies and other organizations found
national background checks a useful screening tool? More
specifically, for selected job or position categories in
selected jurisdictions, how often have fingerprint-based
background checks identified individuals with criminal
histories?
-- What is the status of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS) being developed by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and what are the selected states'
plans for using the system when it becomes available?
Initially, we identified and reviewed relevant child care-related
statutes enacted by each of the five states. Also, we identified the
FBI's and the selected states' fees for background checks. We
compared these fees to the actual costs of such checks, as reported
by the FBI and the respective state agencies; however, we did not
independently verify the accuracy of these amounts. To determine the
effects (if any) of these laws and related fees on volunteerism, we
reviewed applicable studies and interviewed officials of 3 national
and 20 local nonprofit youth-serving organizations. Regarding the
usefulness of national checks, we obtained views from officials at
relevant national, state, and local organizations. Also, for at
least one job or position category in each of the five states, we
analyzed available statistics on the number and the results of
national fingerprint-based background checks of applicants. To
determine the status of IAFIS, we interviewed FBI officials and
reviewed documentation regarding the system's schedule and progress.
Also, we contacted responsible officials in each of the five states
to determine their plans for interfacing with IAFIS.
We did our work from March to October 1996 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Because our work
covered only selected child care organizations and/or positions and
selected locations within five states, our findings (1) should not be
considered representative of statewide conditions in the selected
states and (2) are not projectable to other states. Appendix I
provides further details about our objectives, scope, and
methodology.
--------------------
\1 On the basis of your specific interest, we focused our work on
workers who interact with children. Factors we considered in
selecting the states to study were the scope of the states' laws
authorizing background checks, whether the states had any automated
fingerprint identification services, the number of youth under age 18
in the states, and geographical coverage. Also, you expressed
specific interest in Tennessee.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Over 87 million children in the United States participate in
activities provided by child- and youth-serving organizations each
year. Many of these organizations have formalized and structured
environments, such as schools, which children are required to attend.
Others are voluntary, extracurricular activities, such as clubs and
sports activities. The known adult-child interactions that involve
child abuse in these out-of-home settings, although a relatively
small percentage of child abuse overall,\2 have drawn public
attention and generated parental alarm about the safety of children
in such settings.\3 In 1996, the Department of Justice issued a
report that examines the most serious crimes against children.\4 For
example, the report provides analyses of more than 35,000 cases of
child murder that occurred between 1976 and 1994.
Criminal history records checks are one of several methods of
predicting the suitability of individuals seeking paid or volunteer
positions with organizations that interact with children. National
fingerprint checks can help identify criminal histories of
individuals convicted of a crime anywhere in the United States who
are seeking a volunteer or paid position in any state.
The checks of criminal history records for civil (noncriminal
justice) purposes have long been a part of the FBI's workload.
Public Law 92-544, which was enacted in 1972 and preceded NCPA,
authorizes the FBI to exchange identification records with officials
of state and local governments for purposes of licensing and
employment--if such exchanges are also authorized by a state statute
that has been approved by the U.S. Attorney General.
NCPA did not give the states any new access to national
fingerprint-based background checks and did not mandate the states to
pass laws. Rather, NCPA highlighted the need for such background
checks and encouraged the states to pass appropriate legislation.
Thus, under NCPA, background checks must be handled in accordance
with the requirements of Public Law 92-544. For example, each state
that wants the FBI to conduct national criminal history records
checks of child care or youth service workers must have in place a
law defining what categories of jobs or positions require the
background checks. It is left up to each state to decide how broadly
to extend the background check requirement. But, whatever the scope,
there must be a state law requiring fingerprinting of the employee or
volunteer and allowing\5 the FBI to conduct criminal history
background checks of persons in or applying for the specified
categories of jobs or positions.
Further, NCPA specifies that the criminal records search must be
based upon fingerprints. Thus, each request for a criminal history
background search must be accompanied by a set of 10-print
fingerprint cards. These submissions must be made by (and the
results returned to) a designated governmental agency, such as a
state Department of Education, Department of Social Services, or a
state public safety or police department. NCPA requires that these
designated agencies be responsible for determining whether the
provider has been convicted of, or is under pending indictment for, a
crime that bears upon the provider's fitness to have responsibility
for the safety and well-being of children. However, the act does not
provide a specific list of disqualifying offenses; rather, each state
must make these determinations.
When enacted in 1993, NCPA specified that fees collected by the FBI
and authorized state agencies, respectively, for fingerprint-based
background checks of volunteers with a qualified entity\6 could not
exceed the actual cost. The provision was amended in 1994 to specify
that the fee for these volunteers could not exceed $18 or the actual
cost, whichever is less.\7 Also, the act specifies that the states
shall ensure that fees to nonprofit entities for fingerprint-based
background checks do not discourage volunteers from participating in
child care programs.\8
According to the FBI, advances in electronic communications,
expanding legislative mandates, and increased sophistication of law
enforcement technology are expected to double the number of all types
of criminal history information requests by the end of the century.
IAFIS, which has been under development since the early 1990s, is
being designed to provide more efficient identification services by,
among other means, eliminating the need to transport and process
paper fingerprint cards.
--------------------
\2 Most instances of reported child maltreatment involve in-home or
family situations. For example, according to reports from the states
to the National Center For Child Abuse and Neglect, in 1994
approximately 80 percent of perpetrators of child maltreatment were
parents, and an additional 10 percent were other relatives of the
victim.
\3 American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, Effective
Screening of Child Care and Youth Service Workers, January 1995.
\4 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Child
Victimizers: Violent Offenders and Their Victims, NCJ-153258, March
1996.
\5 In commenting on a draft of this report, U.S. Department of
Justice officials noted that NCPA does not recommend that these
checks of criminal history records be mandatory.
\6 NCPA defines "qualified entity" as a business or organization,
whether public, private, for-profit, not-for-profit, or voluntary,
that provides child care or child care placement services, including
a business or organization that licenses or certifies others to
provide child care or child care placement services. 42 U.S.C.
5119c(10).
\7 The fee cap applies separately to the states and the FBI. Thus,
$36 is the total maximum fee for a complete background check (by a
state and the FBI) of a volunteer. NCPA does not set fee levels for
background checks of paid employees.
\8 Under provisions of the act (42 U.S.C. 5119 note), the Department
of Justice is developing guidelines to address the cost, timeliness,
and effectiveness of criminal history background checks and to help
ensure that fees for background checks do not discourage volunteers
from participating in care programs. According to Justice officials,
these guidelines are expected to be issued in spring 1997 and will
address the types of screening mechanisms that the Department
encourages for both paid and volunteer service providers.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Although there are considerable differences in scope or coverage,
each of the five study states has enacted statutes authorizing
national fingerprint-based background checks regarding paid and/or
volunteer positions at various types of child care-related
organizations, such as public schools, day care centers, and youth
sports leagues. For 1995, available (but incomplete) information
indicates that the number of national checks of child care providers
in the 5 states ranged from about 1,200 in Texas to about 125,000 in
Florida, with the majority involving paid positions (e.g.,
schoolteachers) rather than volunteers. Three of the five states
(California, Tennessee, and Texas) have authority to request national
checks of volunteers at nonprofit youth-serving organizations.\9
However, these states do not require that national checks be done,
and few checks have been requested.\10 In Tennessee, for example,
although all nonprofit youth-serving organizations are authorized to
request national checks, only two such checks were requested in 1995.
A complete check of criminal history records has both FBI and state
agency components. The FBI's fee for national fingerprint-based
background checks of volunteer applicants is $18.\11 Also, the FBI
projected that its costs for a national check would average $18 in
1996. In the three states with authority to request national checks
of volunteers at nonprofit youth-serving organizations, the
respective state's fees were zero (California), $18 (Tennessee), and
$15 (Texas). Of these states, only California had recently (in 1996)
calculated its actual costs for a state fingerprint check.\12
State laws and related fees did not appear to have negatively
affected volunteerism at the various nonprofit youth-serving
organizations we contacted, since applicable statutes permitted
rather than required fingerprint-based background checks, and few had
been requested. However, the fees charged for background checks were
a concern to officials at many of the nonprofit organizations we
contacted--a concern that would be heightened, they said, if state
laws were changed to require fingerprint checks.
Officials at the various organizations we contacted said that
national checks are or could be a useful tool that should supplement
rather than supplant other important screening practices. These
officials told us they believe the prospect of being subjected to a
national background check deters an indeterminate but significant
number of individuals with unacceptable criminal histories from even
applying for certain positions. In this sense, according to these
officials, national checks are useful irrespective of how often the
checks identify individuals with criminal histories ("hit rates").
For selected job positions, organizations, or local jurisdictions in
the five study states, we found that national checks detected some
applicants with criminal histories who may not have been detected by
less comprehensive practices, including state background checks.
Perhaps the most dramatic example occurred in 1996 in Tennessee,
where four children were removed from a foster care placement after a
national check showed that the foster parent had a previous
conviction in Alabama for enticing a child into his home for immoral
purposes. Due to an absence of reporting requirements, we were
unable to obtain comprehensive statistics on the use and results of
national fingerprint background checks in the five states we studied.
According to the FBI, in October 1998 IAFIS is scheduled to be
available to a few (to be selected) states, for purposes of
conducting national fingerprint checks of applicants, with all other
states that have appropriate technology coming on-line by July
1999.\13 Once IAFIS is fully implemented, the FBI expects that the
processing time for national fingerprint checks of applicants will be
reduced from 7 weeks (not including mailing time) under current
processes to about 24 hours.\14 Responsible public agency officials
in the five states we visited told us they are aware of the
requirements for interfacing with IAFIS and that their respective
states plan to use the system.
--------------------
\9 The organizations include the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, camp
groups, and others that work with children and depend largely upon
volunteers. The other two states (Florida and Virginia) do not have
statutes authorizing national fingerprint checks of volunteers at
nonprofit youth-serving organizations.
\10 Tennessee and Texas have statutes that specifically permit
national background checks of such volunteers. The California
statute refers to state background checks of such volunteers.
California and FBI officials interpret this provision as implying
authorization for national checks.
\11 While each organization or individual is required to pay the $18
fee, in most states, a responsible state agency retains a small
portion ($2) of this fee. Specifically, the state agency responsible
for (1) forwarding the applicant's fingerprint card to the FBI, (2)
collecting the $18 fee, and (3) serving as the agency that the FBI
bills monthly for processing such cards, retains $2 to offset the
administrative handling costs in connection with collection of the
fee and serving as the billing agency and submits only $16 to the
FBI. See tables III.1 and III.2 in appendix III.
\12 We did not audit or verify the actual costs reported by the FBI
or California.
\13 FBI, Status Report on Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 1996).
\14 At the time of our review, FBI officials told us that they had
not projected the actual cost of (nor the appropriate fee for) a
fingerprint-based background check under a fully implemented IAFIS.
VARIATIONS IN SCOPE OR COVERAGE
OF STATUTES IN THE FIVE STUDY
STATES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
According to the FBI, 37 of the 50 states have enacted legislation
authorizing use of national fingerprint-based checks of criminal
history records for purposes of checking applicants for paid or
volunteer positions involving interaction with children.\15 The 5
states we selected for review are among these 37. Applicable
statutes in the five states vary considerably in scope or coverage
(see app. II). For example, Tennessee's statute covers a broad
range of positions or work settings involving interaction with
children, while Virginia's statutes cover only selected school
districts and juvenile residential facilities. Also, some statutes
cover new applicants only, while other statutes cover both current
employees and new applicants. The statutes also differ regarding
whether national checks are required or permitted. For example, the
Florida child care-related statutes shown in appendix II require
national checks, whereas Tennessee's statutes permit but do not
require national checks.
--------------------
\15 The 13 states without national access are Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Utah.
EVEN WHEN NATIONAL FINGERPRINT
CHECKS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED,
FEW VOLUNTEERS HAVE BEEN
CHECKED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Three of the five states (California, Tennessee, and Texas) have
authority to request national checks of volunteers at nonprofit
youth-serving organizations, such as the Boy Scouts of America and
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. Within these states, in
reference to these volunteers, the use of fingerprints to nationally
check criminal history records has been limited. For example, in
California, although all nonprofit youth-serving organizations have
authority to request national checks, only 12 checks had been
requested from January through June 1996. In Tennessee, only two
such checks were requested in 1995. In Texas, four nonprofit
youth-serving organizations are authorized to request national
checks.\16 From August 1, 1995, through July 17, 1996, a total of 98
national checks were requested, all by one local affiliate of the Big
Brothers/Big Sisters of America.
Officials at most of the nonprofit youth-serving organizations we
contacted suggested several reasons why the use of national checks of
volunteers has been limited. One reason suggested was that the
states' statutes permit rather than require such checks.\17 The
officials commented that the fact that state statutes permit rather
than require national fingerprint-based checks of volunteers may
derive from concerns about the fees for such checks. According to
these officials, the use of national background checks may also have
been limited because the FBI's response or turnaround time can be
weeks or months, which may be unacceptable for many organizations
that use volunteers for seasonal or part-time positions. In Texas,
for instance, officials at the Volunteer Center of Dallas County\18
told us that state name-based searches generally meet their clients'
needs because the fee ($4) is reasonable and the results are
available in a week or less.\19 Thus, Center officials told us that
they do not plan to push for legislation requiring national
fingerprint checks.
Another reason for limited fingerprint-based background checks of
volunteers may be lack of authorization awareness by certain groups.
For example, two of the youth-serving organizations that we contacted
in California were not aware that they are allowed to request
national fingerprint-based background checks.
--------------------
\16 Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America, "I Have a Dream/Houston,"
court-appointed special advocates for abused or neglected children,
and the Make a Wish Foundation.
\17 In Tennessee, for example, as an option under state law,
organizations can choose to provide awareness training rather than
request national background checks.
\18 The Volunteer Center of Dallas County is a centralized unit
through which nonprofit entities in Texas can submit requests for
name-based background searches of the state's criminal history
records. From September 1993 through April 1996, the Center
requested a total of about 34,200 name-based searches.
\19 In contrast, a national fingerprint-based background check would
cost $33 ($15 payable to the state and $18 to the FBI).
FEES FOR FINGERPRINT CHECKS
VARIED, AND SOME STATES HAVE
NOT CALCULATED THEIR ACTUAL
COSTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
A complete check of criminal history records has both FBI and state
agency components. At the time of our review, the FBI's fee for
national fingerprint-based background checks was $18 for volunteers
and $24 for all others. The fee amount for volunteers equates to the
FBI's reported costs. That is, according to expenditure and workload
data provided us by the FBI, the Bureau projected that actual costs
would average $18 for each fingerprint-based background search of
criminal history records during fiscal year 1996.\20
Of the five states we studied, only California had recently (in 1996)
calculated its actual costs ($32.62) for conducting a
fingerprint-based check of state records. This reported cost figure
was considerably higher than the NCPA-imposed fee cap for volunteers
of $18. However, California was not charging a fee for
fingerprint-based checks of volunteers at nonprofit youth-serving
organizations.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement officials told us that the
state does not perform fingerprint-based checks of criminal history
records for purposes of licensing and employment.\21 These officials
explained that the state's computer system for fingerprint searches
was not sufficient to handle such requests. Thus, our questions
regarding the fees for and the actual costs of state fingerprint
checks were not applicable to Florida.
By state statute, Tennessee's fee structure matches that of the FBI;
thus, the state's fee is $18 for volunteers and $24 for all
others.\22 Tennessee Bureau of Investigation officials told us that
given this statutory basis for setting fees, the state has not
attempted to calculate its actual costs.
Texas' fee is $15 for fingerprint checks of applicants, whether
volunteers or nonvolunteers. This fee amount, according to Texas
Department of Pubic Safety officials, was first established in 1990
on the basis of a study that calculated actual costs totaling $11.42
per applicant. However, the study recommended a fee of $15 to ensure
that Texas was consistent with other states' fees for similar
services.
Virginia's fee is $13 for fingerprint checks of applicants, whether
volunteers or nonvolunteers. Virginia Department of State Police
officials told us that this fee amount has been in effect for several
years and, at the time of implementation, was set to match the FBI's
then-current fee.
Without knowledge of actual costs, states that charge fees cannot
ensure compliance with federal law. Specifically, as amended in
1994, NCPA provides that fees collected by authorized state agencies
for fingerprint-based background checks of volunteers may not exceed
$18 or the actual cost, whichever is less.
--------------------
\20 We did not audit or verify the actual costs reported by the FBI
and the states.
\21 For these noncriminal justice purposes, the state agency is to
perform name-based searches even though the search requests may be
accompanied by fingerprint cards. However, if the requests are for
national searches, the state agency is to forward the fingerprint
cards to the FBI.
\22 Tenn. Code Ann. 38-6-103.
VOLUNTARISM APPARENTLY NOT
AFFECTED BY BACKGROUND CHECK
LAWS AND RELATED FEES, ALTHOUGH
CONCERNS EXIST
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
In the states we studied, because nonprofit youth-serving
organizations had requested relatively few national fingerprint-based
checks on volunteers, the applicable statutes and related fees do not
appear to have negatively affected volunteerism. However, officials
at the various nonprofit organizations we contacted were concerned
about state and FBI fees. Many of these officials commented that the
fees were too high and, thus, if state laws were changed to require
fingerprint checks, the number of volunteers and/or the scope of
program services probably would be reduced.
On the basis of discussions with officials at various national and
local nonprofit entities, we identified only two studies--completed
in 1994 and 1995, respectively--that had attempted to assess the
potential effects of background check fees on volunteerism. Both
studies were conducted or sponsored by the Boy Scouts of America.
The respondents to both studies generally endorsed the concept that
adult volunteers should be required to have a background check, but
the respondents also indicated that personal cost was a factor
influencing their willingness to maintain their volunteer status.
Due to sampling and other methodological limitations, however,
neither study can be used to draw conclusions about the overall
scouting volunteer population. Also, the reported results are
speculative because reactions were solicited regarding fees not
actually in place.
A minority view was presented by officials at 2 of the 20 nonprofit
organizations we contacted in the study states (see table I.1 in app.
I). These officials--who represented entities located in
California--commented that the current fees for national checks were
reasonable and easily could be borne by applicant volunteers. Here
again, however, these views are speculative because, at the time of
our review, neither of the two groups had requested any national
fingerprint-based background checks of volunteers.
NATIONAL CHECKS MAY SERVE AS A
DETERRENT AND ALSO CAN IDENTIFY
SOME UNSUITABLE APPLICANTS NOT
READILY DETECTABLE BY OTHER
MEANS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
In the opinion of officials at the organizations we contacted, the
authority to request national fingerprint-based checks is useful
irrespective of the hit rates. These officials emphasized that
although it is not quantifiable, the deterrent effect of the prospect
of national background checks is significant--and, indeed, is a
factor perhaps more important than any other aspect of such checks.
Where applicable, for example, experienced officials told us of
instances where individuals reconsidered their interest or withdrew
their applications after learning that criminal history records would
be checked. These officials acknowledged that such background checks
may also deter a few qualified applicants who object to such checks
due to privacy or other concerns. On balance, however, the officials
said that the deterrent effect of national background checks was
largely positive, that is, unsuitable applicants were being deterred
from applying for child care-related positions.
Further, officials at most of the organizations we contacted said
that national fingerprint-based checks can be an important supplement
to traditional screening tools, such as personal interviews,
reference queries or follow-ups, and checks of local and state
records. According to these officials, in screening applicants,
child care entities should not rely solely upon checks of criminal
history records--whether national, state, or local--because such
records may be incomplete or even nonexistent for many unsuitable
applicants. On the other hand, national fingerprint-based background
checks may be the only effective way to readily identify the
potentially worst abusers of children, that is, the pedophiles who
change their names and move from state to state to continue their
sexually perversive patterns of behavior. Further, national checks
can identify out-of-state criminal histories involving certain
offenses that although not directly involving child abuse, may
nonetheless be important in considering an applicant's suitability.
These offenses include, for example, offenses involving drug
possession or trafficking, assault or other violent acts, and
theft--and even the offense of driving while intoxicated, which may
have particular relevance in checking prospective applicants for
positions involving transportation of children.
By focusing on selected job positions, organizations, or local
jurisdictions within each state, we were able to identify situations
clearly showing the usefulness of national fingerprint-based checks.
For example:
-- An individual moved from Texas to California and obtained a
teaching position in a special education program. In conducting
a national background check in 1996, as requested by the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the FBI
identified records showing that the individual had been
convicted of sexual battery (rape) in Florida.
-- In one school district in Florida, national fingerprint checks
of noninstructional staff hired in 1995 resulted in the firing
of at least seven individuals. The search of criminal history
records showed that each individual had been convicted for a
serious offense, such as drug possession or trafficking or
aggravated battery.
-- Fingerprint searches of prospective foster parents in Tennessee
during the period October 1995 through May 1996 showed that 120
(or 9.3 percent) of 1,293 applicants had criminal felony
records. Of the 120 criminal history records, 58 involved
out-of-state records, which were not identifiable based solely
upon a search of Tennessee records.
-- In Texas, a local nonprofit youth-serving organization requested
a total of 98 national fingerprint-based checks from August 1,
1995, through July 17, 1996. One applicant was rejected as a
volunteer, in part, because the criminal history records showed
a drug possession conviction.
-- In Virginia, from July 1993 through June 1996, one county
requested approximately 3,800 state and national fingerprint
checks on new-hire school employees. A total of 111 individuals
were subsequently fired on the basis that they had lied on their
applications (claiming no criminal conviction).
Appendix IV presents more details about these and related examples.
However, due to an absence of reporting requirements, we were unable
to obtain comprehensive statistics on the use and results of national
fingerprint background checks requested by applicable groups within
the five states.
IAFIS COMPLETION TARGETED FOR
JULY 1999
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
In 1993, the FBI estimated that IAFIS development would extend into
fiscal year 1998, with costs totaling about $520.5 million. In
October 1995, the FBI revised its schedule and cost estimates,
projecting that completion of system development would slip 18 months
(to about June 1999) and that costs would increase by over 20 percent
(to between $630 million and $640 million). In a March 1996 status
report submitted to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the FBI
acknowledged that problems with various components prompted a
decision (in February 1996) to adopt a new approach for developing
and deploying IAFIS, which may lead to further revision of schedule
and cost estimates.\23 In its next status report, the FBI's schedule
and cost estimates were unchanged.\24 However, in December 1996, in
commenting on a draft of our report, FBI officials told us that the
IAFIS completion date had been revised to July 1999.
The new approach for developing and deploying IAFIS--reflecting the
February 1996 decision mentioned above--called for the incremental
availability of certain functions earlier in the process, rather than
offering all IAFIS services at the final completion date. This
incremental approach consists of six distinct segments or "builds,"
with sequentially targeted completion dates (see app. V).
For purposes of NCPA-related national fingerprint-based background
checks, initial state participation in IAFIS is targeted for October
1998. At that time, according to the FBI, a "small number" of other
federal and state users will be selected to implement IAFIS
capabilities on a trial basis, which would provide the FBI an
opportunity to test the system in an operational environment before
accepting all other users in July 1999.
State officials in California, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and
Virginia told us that they are aware of the equipment and software
specifications and compatibility criteria necessary for interfacing
with IAFIS and that their respective states plan to use the system.
California and Florida plan to electronically process applicant
fingerprint-based background checks when the FBI allows selected
states to test this process, currently scheduled for October 1998.
Tennessee and Virginia plan to interface with IAFIS whenever the
system is available, which may be the system's planned final
completion date of July 1999. Texas plans to interface with IAFIS in
2000 after making necessary equipment purchases.
--------------------
\23 FBI, Status Report on Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (March 19, 1996).
\24 FBI, Status Report on Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 1996).
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9
On December 6, 1996, we met with officials from the Department of
Justice, including the Senior Counsel to the Director, Executive
Office of the United States Attorneys, and representatives from the
FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services to obtain comments on a
draft of this report. Agency officials commented that the
conclusions reached in the report are reasonable and that the report
is sound and consistent with Department of Justice studies, reports,
and other information on the subject of fingerprint-based background
checks. Also, in addition to suggesting that the discussion of
certain background topics be expanded, the officials provided
technical comments and clarifications. We have incorporated these
suggestions, comments, and clarifications where appropriate in this
report.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1
We are sending copies of this report to the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary; the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee
on Crime, House Committee on the Judiciary; the Attorney General; the
Director, FBI; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and
other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to
others upon request.
Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If you
have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-8777.
Sincerely yours,
Laurie E. Ekstrand
Associate Director, Administration
of Justice Issues
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
By letter dated January 3, 1996, the then-Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Youth Violence, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
requested that we review certain implementation issues under the
National Child Protection Act of 1993 (NCPA) (P.L. 103-209), as
amended by section 320928 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). On the basis of the
requester's specific interest, we focused our work on children, even
though NCPA's provisions also apply to workers who have
responsibility for the safety and well-being of the elderly and the
disabled.\1 As agreed with the requester, we conducted work in five
states (California, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) to
address the following questions:
-- To what extent have selected states enacted statutes authorizing
national background checks of child care providers? Also, what
fees are charged for background checks of volunteers, and how do
these fees compare with the actual costs in these states?
-- What effects have these states' laws and related fees had on
volunteerism? For instance, have the laws and fees discouraged
volunteers from participating in child care programs at
nonprofit entities?
-- Have selected state agencies and other organizations found
national checks a useful screening tool? More specifically, for
selected job or position categories in selected jurisdictions,
how often have fingerprint-based background checks identified
individuals with criminal histories?
-- What is the status of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS) being developed by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and what are the selected states'
plans for using the system when it becomes available?
--------------------
\1 The scope of our work did not include individuals who work with
children at federal facilities, such as child care centers at federal
offices or military bases. Fingerprint-based background checks of
these workers are required by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 13041).
OVERVIEW OF OUR SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
Initially, to obtain a broad understanding of NCPA requirements and
implementation, state laws authorizing background criminal history
checks, and available statistics and related information regarding
child abuse, we contacted relevant public and private organizations
that could provide national perspectives. At the federal level, for
example, the FBI is responsible not only for developing IAFIS but
also for reviewing and approving state laws that authorize national
fingerprint-based searches of criminal history records. Another
federal agency we contacted is the Department of Health and Human
Service's National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. The Center
administers the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
Information.
A January 1995 report (Effective Screening of Child Care and Youth
Service Workers) by the American Bar Association Center on Children
and the Law also provided useful overview perspectives.\2 Among other
information, for example, the report presented the results of a
national survey of the screening practices of approximately 3,800
child- and youth-serving agencies.
Further, we contacted the National Collaboration for Youth, which is
an affinity group of the National Assembly of National Voluntary
Health and Social Welfare Organizations.\3 The Collaboration has
published guidance entitled Principles for Model State Legislation
Implementing the National Child Protection Act (January 15, 1995).
To obtain more detailed information about specific states' automated
fingerprint systems and statutory criminal history check provisions,
as well as the views and concerns of organizations that recruit or
use volunteers, we contacted relevant public agencies and at least
three nonprofit entities in each of five judgmentally selected
states--California, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Generally, these selections were among the states suggested to us by
officials at the public and private organizations mentioned above,
that is, knowledgeable officials with national perspectives. Among
other considerations, we selected states to reflect a range of (1)
laws authorizing background checks and (2) experiences with automated
fingerprint services. Also, in addition to geographical coverage,
some specific factors we considered in selecting these five states
are as follows:
-- California leads all states in number of youth under age 18,
according to U.S. Bureau of the Census data.
-- Florida, according to Census Bureau data, is the fourth most
populous state in terms of youth under age 18. Also, Florida
law requires that instructional and noninstructional personnel
hired to fill positions involving direct contact with students
shall, upon employment, file a complete set of fingerprints.
-- Tennessee was of specific interest to the requester. Under
Tennessee law, effective January 1994, all persons applying for
work (as a paid employee or as a volunteer) with children at a
child welfare agency or with a religious, charitable,
scientific, educational, athletic, or youth-serving organization
may be required to (1) submit a fingerprint sample for criminal
history background checks, or (2) attend a comprehensive youth
protection training program, or (3) both submit a fingerprint
sample and attend training.
-- Texas, according to Census Bureau data, is the second most
populous state in terms of youth under age 18. Also, the
Volunteer Center of Dallas County (which recruits volunteers for
more than 100 nonprofit entities located in the North Texas
area) is the largest such centralized referral agency in the
nation.
-- According to the Virginia Department of Police, as of 1996, 42
of the state's 135 public school district boards are required by
state law to have school employee applicants undergo a national
fingerprint check.
In each of these states, we contacted the public agency responsible
for criminal history records and/or fingerprint identification
services to determine automation status and plans for connecting with
IAFIS. Also, to determine trends in the number of reported child
abuse cases, we contacted each state's applicable social services
agency. Further, in these 5 states, we contacted a total of 20
nonprofit entities--at least 3 in each state. Generally, we tried to
ensure that we selected a variety of nonprofit entities on the basis
of such factors as size (including some large, nationally affiliated
entities as well as some smaller, independent local entities); gender
of the youth served (boys, girls, or both); and functions (e.g.,
sporting, educational, and religious activities).
Table I.1 lists all of the public (federal and state) and private
organizations we contacted. Also, further details about the scope
and methodology of our work regarding each of the objectives are
presented in separate sections below.
Table I.1
Public and Private Organizations
Contacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal organizations:
Department of Health and Human Services:
--National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
Department of Justice:
--Bureau of Justice Statistics
--Criminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
--FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
--Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
National organizations:
American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law (Washington,
DC)
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America (Philadelphia, PA)
Boy Scouts of America (Irving, TX)
National Assembly of National Voluntary Health and Social Welfare
Organizations
(Washington, DC)
National Association of State Directors for Teacher Education and
Certification (Seattle, WA)
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (Arlington, VA)
National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse (Alexandria, VA)
National Collaboration for Youth (Washington, DC)
National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse (Chicago, IL)
National Conference of State Legislatures (Denver, CO)
SEARCH Group, Inc. (Sacramento, CA)
California public organizations (Sacramento):
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Department of Justice
--Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information
Department of Social Services
--Adoptions Services Bureau
--Community Care Licensing Division, Criminal Records Clearance Bureau
California private organizations:
Children's Receiving Home of Sacramento
Sacramento Court Appointed Special Advocate Program
Sacramento Student Buddy Program
Florida public organizations (Tallahassee):
Bureau of Teacher Certification
Commission on Community Service
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Division of Children
and Family
Services
--District Two
--Florida Abuse Registry
Department of Law Enforcement, Division of Criminal Justice
Information Systems
Leon County School District
Florida private organizations:
American Red Cross, Capital Area Chapter (Tallahassee)
Boy Scouts of America, South Florida Council (Miami)
East Hill Baptist Church (Tallahassee)
Florida Recreation and Park Association, Inc. (Tallahassee)
Volunteer Center of Tallahassee, Sponsored by the United Way of the
Big Bend
(Tallahassee)
Tennessee public organizations (Nashville):
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
--Information Systems Division
--Records and Identification Unit
Department of Human Services
Tennessee private organizations:
Boy Scouts of America, Middle Tennessee Council (Nashville)
Buddies of Nashville (an affiliate of Big Brothers/Big Sisters)
Volunteer Center of Nashville
Texas public organizations (Austin):
Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
Texas Education Agency
Department of Public Safety
Texas private organizations:
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America (Austin)
North Texas State Soccer Association (Carrollton)
St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church (Plano)
Tejas Girl Scout Council, Inc. (Dallas)
Volunteer Center of Dallas County (Dallas)
YMCA of Metropolitan Dallas (Dallas)
Virginia public organizations:
Chesterfield County Public Schools (Chesterfield County)
Department of Social Services (Richmond)
--Child Abuse and Neglect Information Systems Division
--Foster Care and Adoptions
--Office of Volunteerism
Department of State Police, Criminal Records Division (Richmond)
Department of Youth and Family Services, Background
Investigations Unit (Richmond)
Henrico County Public Schools (Henrico County)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\2 The report was prepared under a grant by the Department of
Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
\3 Collaboration members are: American Red Cross; Association of
Junior Leagues International; Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America;
Boy Scouts of America; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Camp Fire Boys
& Girls; Child Welfare League of America; 4-H, Extension Service;
Girl Scouts of the USA; Girls Incorporated; National Network of
Runaway and Youth Services; WAVE, Inc.; YMCA of the USA; and YWCA of
the USA.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF OUR
WORK REGARDING STATES' STATUTES
AND BACKGROUND CHECK FEES AND
COSTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
To identify applicable legislation, we contacted the FBI's Criminal
Justice Information Services Division, which is responsible for
approving state statutes that authorize child care-related
organizations to request national fingerprint-based background
checks. The FBI provided us its list of applicable state statutes,
which were approved as of March 1996. In reference to the five study
states, we verified the accuracy and completeness of the FBI's list
by contacting appropriate officials in each state and by reviewing
each statute. Also, in reviewing the statutes, we looked for
similarities and differences in terms of the various positions or
work settings covered and whether national background checks were
mandatory or simply permitted.
Further, we contacted the FBI and applicable law enforcement agencies
in the five selected states to determine their fee policies and
amounts. During these contacts, we inquired whether the respective
jurisdiction's fees for background checks differentiated, for
example, between for-profit and nonprofit entities and between paid
employees and volunteers. Further, at the FBI and in the five state
jurisdictions, we inquired about the availability of records,
studies, or formulas showing how fees compare to the actual costs of
conducting a background check. We reviewed available data on actual
costs, but the scope of our work did not constitute a financial audit
of costs.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF OUR
WORK REGARDING THE EFFECT OF
STATE LAWS AND FEES ON
VOLUNTARISM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3
To identify whether any nonprofit entities have studied or
self-reported on the effects of criminal history background check
laws and the related fees applicable to volunteers at their
organizations, we interviewed officials at (1) the National
Collaboration for Youth; (2) the headquarters of two member
organizations of the Collaboration, i.e., Boy Scouts of America and
Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America; and (3) at least three nonprofit
entities in each of the five selected states. As applicable and
permitted by available data, we reviewed the scope and methodology of
the studies identified by these contacts. To supplement the findings
of any available studies regarding whether fees discourage volunteers
from participating in child care programs, we obtained opinions,
anecdotes, and other pertinent information from officials at the
various national and local nonprofit entities contacted. The
interview data--opinions and related information--are not projectable
to nor representative of all nonprofit entities in the respective
states.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF OUR
WORK REGARDING THE USEFULNESS
OF NATIONAL FINGERPRINT CHECKS
AS A SCREENING TOOL
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4
Regarding the usefulness of national fingerprint-based background
checks of applicants for positions involving interaction with
children, we obtained both quantitative data (e.g., number of
applicants disqualified on the basis of criminal histories) and
qualitative data (e.g., opinions offered by experienced managers
responsible for personnel decisions at various organizations). In so
doing, we first reviewed the five study states' criminal history
background check laws, which are approved by the FBI and authorize
national fingerprint-based background checks for paid or volunteer
positions involving child care. Within each of the five states, for
selected jobs, work settings, or jurisdictions, we obtained available
data on the number of national fingerprint checks requested from the
FBI and, in turn, the number of "hits" based on criminal histories.
Further, to determine whether these criminal history records were
used or considered in actual personnel decisions, we followed up and
contacted one or more applicable organizations at the local level.
For example, if we were able to obtain hit data for schoolteachers in
a given state, we contacted one or more local school districts to
determine how many applicants were denied employment on the basis of
the fingerprint-based background check.
To obtain additional information about the usefulness of national
fingerprint-based background checks of child care workers, we
discussed the merits and problems of such checks with applicable
public agency officials in each of the five selected states, as well
as with officials of various national and local nonprofit
organizations (see tab. I.1).
Because our work covered only certain child care positions and
locations within selected states, our findings may not be
representative of statewide conditions in the respective state.
Further, the findings cannot be projected to other states with
similar positions because, among other reasons, state laws vary as to
what constitutes a disqualifying crime.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF OUR
WORK REGARDING IAFIS STATUS AND
SELECTED STATES' PARTICIPATION
PLANS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5
In determining the status of IAFIS, we focused on the FBI's
implementation schedule by reviewing available planning documents and
status reports prepared by the Bureau. We did not undertake a
detailed systems review; that is, we did not evaluate the technical
merits of the design configurations nor of the performance
objectives.
Similarly, in contacting relevant agencies in five states, we did not
undertake detailed systems reviews. Rather, our primary inquiries
involved the extent to which each state planned to participate in
IAFIS. Thus, for example, we inquired as to whether each state's
existing (or planned) automated fingerprint identification system was
(would be) compatible with the standards necessary to connect or
interface with IAFIS. Further, because effective background checks
depend upon the availability of reliable records, we obtained
information about the status of the five states' efforts to automate
their criminal history records, including final dispositions of
cases. To obtain this status information, we contacted the
applicable state agencies responsible for managing criminal history
records, and we also reviewed the results of the most recent biennial
survey conducted by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice
Statistics and SEARCH Group, Inc.\4
On December 6, 1996, we met with officials from the Department of
Justice, including the Senior Counsel to the Director, Executive
Office of the United States Attorneys, and representatives from the
FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services to obtain comments on a
draft of this report. Agency officials commented that the
conclusions reached in the report are reasonable. The officials
suggested that the discussion of certain background topics be
expanded, and provided technical comments and clarifications. We
have incorporated these suggestions, comments, and clarifications
where appropriate into the report.
--------------------
\4 SEARCH Group, Inc., based in Sacramento, California, is The
National Consortium of Justice Information and Statistics.
SELECTED STATES' LAWS AUTHORIZING
THE FBI TO CONDUCT NATIONAL
FINGERPRINT-BASED CRIMINAL HISTORY
RECORDS CHECKS OF PERSONS
INTERACTING WITH YOUTH
========================================================== Appendix II
The authority for the FBI to conduct criminal record checks for civil
(noncriminal justice) licensing or employment purposes is based upon
Public Law 92-544, enacted in 1972. Pursuant to the 1972 act, the
FBI is authorized to exchange identification records with officials
of state and local governments for purposes of licensing and
employment if authorized by a state statute that has been approved by
the U.S. Attorney General. The Access Integrity Unit within the
FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division is responsible
for reviewing state statutes to determine if the statutes meet the
applicable standards. The current standards used by the FBI in
approving state statutes have been established by a series of
memoranda issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of
Justice. Among other things, a state's statutes must (1) specify the
categories of jobs or positions covered; (2) require fingerprinting
of the employee, licensee, or volunteer; and (3) authorize the use of
FBI records for checking criminal history records of the applicant.
NCPA did not give the states any new access to national
fingerprint-based background checks and did not mandate the states to
pass laws. Rather, NCPA highlighted the need for such checks of
criminal history records and encouraged the states to pass
appropriate legislation.
According to Access Integrity Unit officials, as of March 1996, a
total of 37 states had enacted one or more child care-related laws
meeting the requisite criteria for the FBI to conduct
fingerprint-based national checks of criminal history records.\1 The
following sections and tables summarize the applicable child
care-related criminal history background check statutes for each of
the states covered in our review--California, Florida, Tennessee,
Texas, and Virginia.
--------------------
\1 The other 13 states, those without FBI-approved criminal history
background check statutes, are Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Utah, and Vermont.
CALIFORNIA STATUTES AUTHORIZING
NATIONAL FINGERPRINT-BASED
BACKGROUND CHECKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1
According to California officials, as early as the 1970s, California
statutes authorized national fingerprint-based criminal history
background checks for selected child care groups. Since then, as
summarized in table II.1, California laws have been enacted or
amended to either require or permit background checks on many
categories of persons (including volunteers in some instances)
applying to work with or provide care for children in California.
Although several of the California statutes do not specifically refer
to a national check, the statutes either require or permit a state
background check. According to California Department of Justice
officials, the state statutes under which agencies submit applicant
fingerprints for national background checks have all been previously
approved by the FBI. However, in recognizing that some of these
statutes need to be revised to meet current federal standards, the
officials commented substantially as follows:
-- Over the years, the requirements or standards for access to FBI
criminal history record information have evolved from a series
of memoranda issued by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office
of Legal Counsel. Therefore, not all of California's previously
approved statutes meet the current requirements or standards.
However, because California was granted prior authorization, the
FBI has indicated that it will accept all fingerprint submission
categories that were previously approved. The California
Department of Justice has plans to advise relevant licensing and
employment agencies that certain state statutes need to be
revised to meet current standards for FBI access.
According to statistics provided by the California Department of
Justice, from July 1995 through June 1996, California requested
147,791 national fingerprint checks for applicant background checks,
of which 50,434 were for peace officers and criminal justice
employees. A California Department of Justice official told us that
the majority of the remaining 97,357 national checks were submitted
under child care-related statutes.\2 For example, the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing requested 27,564 national checks
for applicants from July 1995 through June 1996.
Table II.1
Summary of California Statutes
Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based
Background Checks of Child Care
Providers
California National criminal
statutes Statute covers: Personnel covered records checks
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Cal. Educ. Code Teacher Applicants to be State checks
44340 and 44341 certification teachers permitted; no
reference to
national checks\a
Cal. Educ. Code Positions in New and current State checks
45125 certain school employees required; no
districts that do reference to
not require national checks\a
certification
Cal. Vehicle Code Certification to Applicants to be Permitted
12517.3 and drive a school bus drivers
12517.4
Cal. Educ. Code Private school New employees who Required
44237 personnel who do have contact with
not possess valid minors
state teaching
credentials
Cal. Educ. Code Staff for extended Volunteers and Required
58751 school day employees
programs with
frequent and
routine contact
with participants
Cal. Health and Personnel of day Applicants, State checks
Safety Code 1522 care facilities, persons other than required; no
and 1596.871 foster family clients residing reference to
homes, family day in the facilities, national checks\a,b
care facilities, and employees
community care having frequent
facilities, and and routine
certified family contact with
homes for children children
Cal. Family Code Adoptions (various Applicants for State checks
8712, 8811, 8908, types) adoptions permitted; no
and 9000-9007 reference to
national checks\a,b
Cal. Penal Code Human resource Applicants for a State checks
11105.3 agency (public or license, or for a permitted; no
private) positions volunteer or an reference to
involving employment national checks\a
supervisory or position
disciplinary power
over persons under
care
Cal. Educ. Code Public recreation New and current State checks
10911.5 program positions employees required; no
involving direct reference to
contact with national checks\a
children
Cal. Educ. Code Registered child Applicants to be Permitted
8171 and 8172 care providers providers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Over the years, there have been changes in federal standards for
access to criminal history information maintained in FBI files.
Although current federal standards require that state statutes must
expressly or by implication authorize use of FBI records for
applicant background checks, several California laws do not contain
explicit language regarding this requirement. However, according to
California Department of Justice officials, the FBI has indicated it
will continue conducting national checks on California applicants
while California updates its laws to meet current standards.
\b California Department of Social Services regulations require FBI
background checks only for applicants who have not lived in
California for the past 2 years or when there is suspicion that the
applicant committed an offense in another state.
Source: GAO summary of California statutes.
--------------------
\2 The official also told us that 12 of the 97,357 national checks
were submitted for volunteers at nonprofit youth-serving
organizations.
FLORIDA STATUTES AUTHORIZING
NATIONAL FINGERPRINT-BASED
BACKGROUND CHECKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2
As table II.2 shows, Florida statutes call for mandatory rather than
permissive checks and cover a range of positions or work settings
dealing with children. The statutes cover personnel in most child
care-related settings, except youth-serving organizations. In
calendar year 1995, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement
received 270,435 requests for national fingerprint-based checks of
noncriminal justice applicants. Department officials, however, were
unable to quantify exactly how many of these requests were for
personnel in or applying for positions in work settings involving
child care. However, officials at the Florida Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services said they requested around 100,000
national checks in 1995, and officials at the Florida Department of
Education said they requested around 25,000 that year.
Table II.2
Summary of Florida Statutes Authorizing
National Fingerprint-Based Background
Checks of Child Care Providers
National criminal
Florida statutes\a Statute covers: Personnel covered records checks
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Fla. Stat. Ann. Teacher Applicants for Required
231.17 and 231.173 certification certification
Fla. Stat. Ann. School district New employees Required
231.02 personnel
(instructional and
noninstructional)
in positions
requiring direct
contact with
students\b
Fla. Stat. Ann. Substitute New employees Required
231.1725 teachers,
nondegreed
teachers of career
education, and
noncertified
teachers in
critical teacher
shortage areas
Fla. Stat. Ann. Instructional New employees Required
231.1712 positions
requiring a
teaching
certificate in
public and
nonpublic schools
Fla. Stat. Ann. After-school New employees Required
232.258 programs
Fla. Stat. Ann. Prekindergarten New employees Required
230.2305 early intervention
programs
Fla. Stat. Ann. Staff at the Employees Required
110.1127 Florida Department
of Health and
Rehabilitative
Services in
positions
providing care to
children for 15
hours or more per
week
Fla. Stat. Ann. Licensed Volunteers,\c Required
402.301-402.319 positions--in employees, owners,
and 409.175 child care and operators
facilities, family
foster homes,
residential child
care facilities,
and child placing
agencies--that
involve direct
contact with
children
Fla. Stat. Ann. Certain Indian Employees Required
285.18 tribe programs
(education, Head
Start, and day
care)
Fla. Stat. Ann. Substance abuse Owners, directors, Required
397.311 and provider personnel employees, and
397.451 having direct volunteers\c
contact with
specified clients
under the age of
18
Fla. Stat. Ann. Personnel in Owners, operators, Required
39.001 facilities employees, and
providing state- volunteers\c
contracted
programs for
children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The state's general statutory authority for conducting employment
background checks is Florida Statutes Annotated Chapter 435. This
chapter applies whenever background checks for employment are
required by another provision of Florida law.
\b A 1996 amendment extended coverage to include all personnel
currently employed who have not been fingerprinted, in addition to
new employees. All certified personnel must be fingerprinted by
January 1, 1997, and all other personnel must be fingerprinted by
January 1, 1998.
\c A volunteer who assists on an intermittent basis for less than 40
hours per month need not be checked if the volunteer is under direct
and constant supervision by persons who meet the background
requirements.
Source: GAO summary of Florida statutes.
TENNESSEE STATUTES AUTHORIZING
NATIONAL FINGERPRINT-BASED
BACKGROUND CHECKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3
Tennessee statutes authorizing national fingerprint-based criminal
history background checks became effective January 1, 1994. As table
II.3 shows, the laws cover a broad range of positions or work
settings involving interaction with children in Tennessee. The
statutes permit rather than require national checks and apply to new
applicants only; that is, the statutes do not cover persons who were
already in paid or volunteer positions as of January 1, 1994. Under
these statutes, Tennessee agencies and organizations requested 1,522
national fingerprint checks for child care provider applicants during
calendar year 1995. Only 2 of the 1,522 checks were for volunteer
applicants.
Table II.3
Summary of Tennessee Statutes
Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based
Background Checks of Child Care
Providers
Tennessee National criminal
statutes\a Statute covers: Personnel covered records checks
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Tenn. Code Ann. Public Applicants to be Permitted
49-5-413 schoolteachers teachers
Tenn. Code Ann. Child welfare Applicants to be Permitted
71-3-533 agency positions volunteers or
that involve employees
working with
children
Tenn. Code Ann. Religious, Applicants to be Permitted
37-1-414 charitable, volunteers or
scientific, employees
educational,
athletic, or youth
service
institutions or
organizations that
work with children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The state's general statutory authority for requesting the FBI to
conduct national fingerprint checks is Tennessee Code Annotated
38-6-114. This statute authorizes the Tennessee Bureau of
Investigation to submit fingerprints for local boards of education
and other organizations to the FBI.
Source: GAO summary of Tennessee statutes.
TEXAS STATUTES AUTHORIZING
NATIONAL FINGERPRINT-BASED
BACKGROUND CHECKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4
All the child care-related provisions of Texas law permit rather than
require national checks. As table II.4 shows, many child
care-related organizations in Texas are authorized to request
national fingerprint-based background checks. However, in response
to our inquiries, officials at the Texas Department of Public Safety
said they were aware of very few child care-related national checks.
Similarly, officials at the Texas Education Agency said they did not
know if any school districts in the state had requested such checks.
Officials at the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory
Services said the Department requested 1,195 national
fingerprint-based checks in calendar year 1995, primarily on
applicants providing child care.
Table II.4
Summary of Texas Statutes Authorizing
National Fingerprint-Based Background
Checks of Child Care Providers
National criminal
Texas statutes\a Statute covers: Personnel covered records checks
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Tex. Code Ann. Applicants for Applicants to be Permitted
411.090 teacher teachers
certification
Tex. Code Ann. Instructional and Applicants to be Permitted
411.097 noninstructional volunteers,
positions in employees, or
schools \b transportation
contractors
Tex. Code Ann. License, Volunteers and Permitted
411.114 registration, or employees
certification for
child care
facility or
registered family
home; Texas
Department of
Protective and
Regulatory
Services positions
involving direct
delivery of
protective
services to
children;
volunteer
positions at
specified
nonprofit
organizations,
including the
"I Have a Dream/
Houston" program
and the local
affiliates of Big
Brothers/Big
Sisters of
America\c
Tex. Code Ann. Adults living in a Residents Permitted
411.102 McGruff House\d
Tex. Code Ann. Participant in a Volunteers Permitted
411.103 child watch
program who has
given written
consent to
disclosure of
criminal history
record
information\e
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The state's general statutory authority for requesting the FBI to
conduct national fingerprint checks is Texas Code Annotated 411.087.
This statute permits authorized entities to obtain criminal history
record information maintained by the FBI.
\b The statute covers public schools, charter schools, private
schools, regional educational service centers, and educational shared
services arrangements.
\c This is a partial listing of positions covered.
\d A McGruff House is a temporary haven for school-age children.
\e A child watch program is designed to protect schoolchildren by
having parents or volunteers patrol their residential neighborhoods
and schools to watch for suspicious activity, dangers, and threats to
children.
Source: GAO summary of Texas statutes.
VIRGINIA STATUTES AUTHORIZING
NATIONAL FINGERPRINT-BASED
BACKGROUND CHECKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5
At the time of our review, Virginia statutes authorizing national
fingerprint-based criminal history background checks of persons
interacting with children in Virginia were limited to public schools
and juvenile residential facilities, as table II.5 shows. The
statutes are mandatory rather than permissive and apply only to
persons who accept a paid or volunteer position, as applicable, after
the effective date of the respective statute. According to Virginia
Department of State Police officials, in calendar year 1995,
approximately 10,000 national fingerprint-based criminal history
background checks were conducted for the state's public schools, and
approximately 3,000 national checks were conducted for the state's
juvenile residential facilities.
Table II.5
Summary of Virginia Statutes Authorizing
National Fingerprint-Based Background
Checks of Child Care Providers
National criminal
Virginia statutes Statute covers: Personnel covered records checks
------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
Va. Code Ann. Positions in Applicants Required
22.1-296.2 designated public
schools\a
Va. Code Ann. State-regulated or Volunteers and Required
63.1-248.7:2 state-operated employees--if not
residential employed at that
juvenile facility facility before
positions that July 1, 1994
involve providing
services alone on
a regular basis to
juveniles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a At the time of our review, 42 of Virginia's 135 school boards were
required to request state and national fingerprint-based background
checks of applicants as a condition of employment. A 1996 provision
extended Virginia law to require a national fingerprint-based
background check as a condition of employment at certain private or
parochial schools. The effective date of this law is July 1, 1997
(Va. Code Ann. 22.1-296.3).
Source: GAO summary of Virginia statutes.
FINGERPRINT-BASED BACKGROUND CHECK
FEES AND ACTUAL COSTS
========================================================= Appendix III
Under NCPA, the fees collected by the FBI and authorized state
agencies, respectively, for fingerprint-based records checks of
volunteers with a qualified entity\1 may not exceed $18 or the actual
cost, whichever is less. Also, the act specifies that the states
shall establish fee systems (for fingerprint background checks) that
ensure that fees to nonprofit entities for background checks do not
discourage volunteers from participating in child care programs.
--------------------
\1 NCPA defines "qualified entity" as a business or organization,
whether public, private, for-profit, not-for-profit, or voluntary,
that provides child care or child care placement services, including
a business or organization that licenses or certifies others to
provide child care or child care placement services. 42 U.S.C.
5119c(10).
FBI FEES AND ACTUAL COSTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1
At the time of our review, the FBI's fee for national
fingerprint-based criminal history checks was $18 for volunteers and
$24 for all others. Before NCPA was amended in 1994, the FBI's user
fee policy was to charge $24 for processing each applicant's
fingerprint card. Table III.1 shows FBI fees for conducting
fingerprint-based searches of criminal history records since October
1989.
Table III.1
FBI's Fees for Conducting Fingerprint-
Based Searches of Criminal History
Records
Fees for Fees for
billing nonbilling
Effective date states\a states
--------------------------------------- ------------ ---------------
10-01-89 $13 $14
03-01-90 19 20
10-01-90 21 23
01-03-94 22 24
07-17-95\ 22 and 16\b 24 and 18\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Most states (45) have cumulative fee accounts, with balance
amounts paid each month to the FBI; these states are referred to as
"billing" states. As an incentive for this type of consolidated
accounting arrangement, the FBI allows these states to offset their
administrative costs by retaining a "handling charge" portion ($2) of
the normal fees, which is applicable to the "nonbilling" states. The
five nonbilling states are Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine,
Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania.
\b The lower fee amount applies to volunteers.
Source: FBI.
According to expenditure and workload data provided to us by the FBI,
the Bureau's costs were projected to average $18 for each
fingerprint-based background search of criminal history records
during fiscal year 1996. As table III.2 shows, this average included
a handling charge of $2. Also, a surcharge of $6 was applied for
each set of fingerprints processed for nonvolunteers.
Table III.2
FBI's Costs for Conducting Fingerprint-
Based Searches of Criminal History
Records (Fiscal Year 1996)
Average costs
for each set of
Cost or object classification fingerprints
---------------------------------------------------- ----------------
Personnel $9.37
Payroll benefits 2.42
Rent, mail, and other 2.29
Equipment 0.37
Supplies 0.22
Travel 0.13
Printing 0.02
Other services 1.18
Handling charge 2.00\a
Subtotal $18.00
Surcharge 6.00\b
======================================================================
Total $24.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a As noted in table III.1, the "billing" states do not pay the FBI
this amount partly because cumulative fee accounts reduce the FBI's
need to process or handle individual checks.
\b Under 28 U.S.C. 534, the FBI was authorized to use a surcharge to
offset the costs of automation of fingerprint identification services
beginning in fiscal year 1991.
Source: FBI.
STATES' FEES AND ACTUAL COSTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2
A complete check of criminal history records has both FBI and state
agency components. Thus, in addition to the national check, four of
the five states we studied (California, Tennessee, Texas, and
Virginia) performed a fingerprint-based search of state records.
Table III.3 shows selected states' fees for conducting
fingerprint-based checks of individuals seeking paid or volunteer
positions with organizations serving children.
Table III.3
Selected States' Fees for Conducting
Fingerprint-Based Checks of Child Care
Providers
*** Error occurred during conversion. Document is incomplete. ***