United States General Accounting Office

GAO 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

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

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

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.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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.

Background 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.

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.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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 allowing5

 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

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.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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 entity6

 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.

Results in Brief 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

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.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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.

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.

10Tennessee 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.

11While 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.

12We did not audit or verify the actual costs reported by the FBI or California.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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.

Variations in Scope or

Coverage of Statutes

in the Five Study

States

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

13FBI, Status Report on Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (Third Quarter, Fiscal

Year 1996).

14At 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.

15The 13 states without national access are Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,

Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Utah.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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.

Even When National

Fingerprint Checks

Have Been

Authorized, Few

Volunteers Have Been

Checked

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

County18 told us that state name-based searches generally meet their

clients’ needs because the fee ($4) is reasonable and the results are

16Big 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.

17In Tennessee, for example, as an option under state law, organizations can choose to provide

awareness training rather than request national background checks.

18The 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.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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.

Fees for Fingerprint

Checks Varied, and

Some States Have Not

Calculated Their

Actual Costs

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

19In contrast, a national fingerprint-based background check would cost $33 ($15 payable to the state

and $18 to the FBI).

20We did not audit or verify the actual costs reported by the FBI and the states.

21For 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.

22Tenn. Code Ann. 38-6-103.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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.

Voluntarism

Apparently Not

Affected by

Background Check

Laws and Related

Fees, Although

Concerns Exist

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

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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

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

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

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.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

IAFIS Completion

Targeted for July 1999

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.

23FBI, Status Report on Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (March 19, 1996).

24FBI, Status Report on Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (Third Quarter, Fiscal

Year 1996).

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
B-272098 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

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.

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

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

18

Overview of Our Scope and Methodology 18

Scope and Methodology of Our Work Regarding States’ Statutes

and Background Check Fees and Costs

22

Scope and Methodology of Our Work Regarding the Effect of

State Laws and Fees on Voluntarism

23

Scope and Methodology of Our Work Regarding the Usefulness of

National Fingerprint Checks as a Screening Tool

23

Scope and Methodology of Our Work Regarding IAFIS Status and

Selected States’ Participation Plans

24

Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws

Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National

Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History

Records Checks of

Persons Interacting

With Youth

26

California Statutes Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

26

Florida Statutes Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

29

Tennessee Statutes Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

30

Texas Statutes Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

31

Virginia Statutes Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

33

Appendix III 

Fingerprint-Based

Background Check

Fees and Actual Costs

34

FBI Fees and Actual Costs 34

States’ Fees and Actual Costs 35

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Contents

Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and

Results of

Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

in Selected States

40

Appendix V 

IAFIS: System

Components,

Incremental

Development

Approach, States’

Participation, and

Automated Criminal

History Records

48

Major Components of IAFIS 48

Incremental Development Approach 49

General Observations Regarding States’ Participation in IAFIS 51

Selected States’ Criminal History Record Systems 52

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to

This Report

53

Tables Table I.1: Public and Private Organizations Contacted 21

Table II.1: Summary of California Statutes Authorizing National

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Child Care Providers

28

Table II.2: Summary of Florida Statutes Authorizing National

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Child Care Providers

29

Table II.3: Summary of Tennessee Statutes Authorizing National

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Child Care Providers

31

Table II.4: Summary of Texas Statutes Authorizing National

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Child Care Providers

32

 Table II.5: Summary of Virginia Statutes Authorizing National

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Child Care Providers

33

 Table III.1: FBI’s Fees for Conducting Fingerprint-Based

Searches of Criminal History Records

34

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Contents

Table III.2: FBI’s Costs for Conducting Fingerprint-Based

Searches of Criminal History Records

35

Table III.3: Selected States’ Fees for Conducting

Fingerprint-Based Checks of Child Care Providers

35

Table III.4: California’s Fees for Conducting Fingerprint-Based

Checks of Child Care Providers

36

Table V.1: Timelines, Users, and Description of Each IAFIS Build 50

Table V.2: Overview of Selected States’ Criminal History Records

Systems

52

Abbreviations

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System

NCPA National Child Protection Act of 1993

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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?

Overview of Our

Scope and

Methodology

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

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).

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

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.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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)

(continued)

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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)

Scope and

Methodology of Our

Work Regarding

States’ Statutes and

Background Check

Fees and Costs

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

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

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

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

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

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

4

SEARCH Group, Inc., based in Sacramento, California, is The National Consortium of Justice

Information and Statistics.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History Records Checks of Persons

Interacting With Youth

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.

California Statutes

Authorizing National

Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

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

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.

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History Records Checks of Persons

Interacting With Youth

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.

2

The official also told us that 12 of the 97,357 national checks were submitted for volunteers at

nonprofit youth-serving organizations.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History Records Checks of Persons

Interacting With Youth

Table II.1: Summary of California Statutes Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Child Care

Providers

California statutes Statute covers: Personnel covered

National criminal records

checks

Cal. Educ. Code 44340 and

44341

Teacher certification Applicants to be teachers State checks permitted; no

reference to national checksa

Cal. Educ. Code 45125 Positions in certain school

districts that do not require

certification

New and current employees State checks required; no

reference to national checksa

Cal. Vehicle Code 12517.3 and

12517.4

Certification to drive a school

bus

Applicants to be drivers Permitted

Cal. Educ. Code 44237 Private school personnel who

do not possess valid state

teaching credentials

New employees who have

contact with minors

Required

Cal. Educ. Code 58751 Staff for extended school day

programs with frequent and

routine contact with participants

Volunteers and employees Required

Cal. Health and Safety Code

1522 and 1596.871

Personnel of day care facilities,

foster family homes, family day

care facilities, community care

facilities, and certified family

homes for children

Applicants, persons other than

clients residing in the facilities,

and employees having frequent

and routine contact with children

State checks required; no

reference to national checksa,b

Cal. Family Code 8712, 8811,

8908, and 9000-9007

Adoptions (various types) Applicants for adoptions State checks permitted; no

reference to national checksa,b

Cal. Penal Code 11105.3 Human resource agency

(public or private) positions

involving supervisory or

disciplinary power over persons

under care

Applicants for a license, or for a

volunteer or an employment

position

State checks permitted; no

reference to national checksa

Cal. Educ. Code 10911.5 Public recreation program

positions involving direct

contact with children

New and current employees State checks required; no

reference to national checksa

Cal. Educ. Code 8171 and 8172 Registered child care providers Applicants to be providers Permitted

aOver 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.

bCalifornia 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.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History Records Checks of Persons

Interacting With Youth

Florida Statutes

Authorizing National

Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

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

Florida statutesa Statute covers: Personnel covered

National criminal records

checks

Fla. Stat. Ann. 231.17 and

231.173

Teacher certification Applicants for certification Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 231.02 School district personnel

(instructional and

noninstructional) in positions

requiring direct contact with

studentsb

New employees Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 231.1725 Substitute teachers,

nondegreed teachers of career

education, and noncertified

teachers in critical teacher

shortage areas

New employees Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 231.1712 Instructional positions requiring

a teaching certificate in public

and nonpublic schools

New employees Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 232.258 After-school programs New employees Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 230.2305 Prekindergarten early

intervention programs

New employees Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 110.1127 Staff at the Florida Department

of Health and Rehabilitative

Services in positions providing

care to children for 15 hours or

more per week

Employees Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 402.301-402.319

and 409.175

Licensed positions—in child

care facilities, family foster

homes, residential child care

facilities, and child placing

agencies—that involve direct

contact with children

Volunteers,c employees,

owners, and operators

Required

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History Records Checks of Persons

Interacting With Youth

Florida statutesa Statute covers: Personnel covered

National criminal records

checks

Fla. Stat. Ann. 285.18 Certain Indian tribe programs

(education, Head Start, and day

care)

Employees Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 397.311 and

397.451

Substance abuse provider

personnel having direct contact

with specified clients under the

age of 18

Owners, directors, employees,

and volunteersc

Required

Fla. Stat. Ann. 39.001 Personnel in facilities providing

state-contracted programs for

children

Owners, operators, employees,

and volunteersc

Required

aThe 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.

bA 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.

cA 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

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.

Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History Records Checks of Persons

Interacting With Youth

Table II.3: Summary of Tennessee Statutes Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Child Care

Providers

Tennessee statutesa Statute covers: Personnel covered

National criminal records

checks

Tenn. Code Ann. 49-5-413 Public schoolteachers Applicants to be teachers Permitted

Tenn. Code Ann. 71-3-533 Child welfare agency positions

that involve working with

children

Applicants to be volunteers or

employees

Permitted

Tenn. Code Ann. 37-1-414 Religious, charitable, scientific,

educational, athletic, or youth

service institutions or

organizations that work with

children

Applicants to be volunteers or

employees

Permitted

aThe 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

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.

Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History Records Checks of Persons

Interacting With Youth

Table II.4 : Summary of Texas Statutes Authorizing National Fingerprint-Based Background Checks of Child Care Providers

Texas statutesa Statute covers: Personnel covered

National criminal records

checks

Tex. Code Ann. 411.090 Applicants for teacher

certification

Applicants to be teachers Permitted

Tex. Code Ann. 411.097 Instructional and

noninstructional positions in

schools b

Applicants to be volunteers,

employees, or transportation

contractors

Permitted

Tex. Code Ann. 411.114 License, registration, or

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

Americac

Volunteers and employees Permitted

Tex. Code Ann. 411.102 Adults living in a McGruff

Housed

Residents Permitted

Tex. Code Ann. 411.103 Participant in a child watch

program who has given written

consent to disclosure of

criminal history record

informatione

Volunteers Permitted

aThe 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.

bThe statute covers public schools, charter schools, private schools, regional educational service

centers, and educational shared services arrangements.

cThis is a partial listing of positions covered.

dA McGruff House is a temporary haven for school-age children.

eA 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.

Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix II 

Selected States’ Laws Authorizing the FBI to

Conduct National Fingerprint-Based

Criminal History Records Checks of Persons

Interacting With Youth

Virginia Statutes

Authorizing National

Fingerprint-Based

Background Checks

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

Virginia statutes Statute covers: Personnel covered

National criminal records

checks

Va. Code Ann. 22.1-296.2 Positions in designated public

schoolsa

Applicants Required

Va. Code Ann. 63.1-248.7:2 State-regulated or

state-operated residential

juvenile facility positions that

involve providing services alone

on a regular basis to juveniles

Volunteers and employees—if

not employed at that facility

before July 1, 1994

Required

aAt 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.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix III 

Fingerprint-Based Background Check Fees

and Actual Costs

Under NCPA, the fees collected by the FBI and authorized state agencies,

respectively, for fingerprint-based records checks of volunteers with a

qualified entity1

 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.

FBI Fees and Actual

Costs

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 Effective date

Fees for billing

statesa

Fees for nonbilling

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 16b 24 and 18b

aMost 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.

bThe 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.

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).

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix III 

Fingerprint-Based Background Check Fees

and Actual Costs

Table III.2: FBI’s Costs for Conducting

Fingerprint-Based Searches of

Criminal History Records (Fiscal Year

1996) 

Cost or object classification

Average costs for each

set of 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 2.00a

Subtotal $18.00

Surcharge 6.00b

Total $24.00

aAs 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.

bUnder 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

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

State Paid employees Volunteers

California $0, $32, $42, or $52 $0, $32, 42, or $52

Floridaa not applicable not applicable

Tennessee 24 18

Texas 15 15

Virginia 13 13

aAt the time of our review, Florida did not perform state fingerprint-based checks of criminal

history records for purposes of employment and licensing.

Source: Information provided to GAO by applicable state agencies.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix III 

Fingerprint-Based Background Check Fees

and Actual Costs

California As table III.4 shows, California’s fees for fingerprint checks of child care

provider applicants ranged from $0 to $52, depending on the type of

organization or agency involved and the speed of processing required.

Table III.4: California’s Fees for Conducting Fingerprint-Based Checks of Child Care Providers

$0 $32 $42 $52

Nonprofit youth-serving

organizations and human

resource agencies

For-profit youth-serving

organizations and human

resource agencies

School bus drivers Residential care for children

and day care facilities with

more than six children

Foster care Private and noncertified public

school employees

Santa Clara County Department

of Social Services/unlicensed

foster care (a pilot program)

Adoptions (stepparent) Adoptions (agency,

independent, and intercountry)

Residential care for children and

day care facilities with six

children or fewer

Trustline Registry (registered

child care workers)

Family day care Parks and recreation employees

Source: California Department of Justice.

State fingerprint checks are free for all employees and volunteers at

nonprofit youth service organizations and human resource agencies

covered under California Penal Code section 11105.3. These organizations

include Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, sports leagues, nanny services,

YMCAs, YWCAs, and newspapers (youth carrier supervisors).

Volunteers at other nonprofit entities, including those licensed by the

California Department of Social Services, can also get free state fingerprint

checks under section 11105.3. However, information disseminated from

these checks is restricted to arrests resulting in conviction (and arrests

pending adjudication) for sex crimes, drug crimes, or crimes of violence.

This limited dissemination does not permit a volunteer to perform the

duties of a paid employee. Before being allowed to perform such duties,

the individual would be required to have a more comprehensive $52 state

check through the Department of Social Services, during which all arrest

and conviction information is obtained.

Employees and volunteers at for-profit youth-serving organizations and

human resource agencies pay a $32 fee, which is California’s standard

fingerprint processing fee. This fee is based on the California Department

of Justice’s reported costs for processing applicant fingerprints.

Page 36 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix III 

Fingerprint-Based Background Check Fees

and Actual Costs

Department officials told us the processing costs per applicant averaged

$32.62, which consisted of $13.84 in direct processing costs, $11.30 for file

improvements, and $7.48 for workload enhancements. According to

California Department of Justice officials, the maintenance costs for

applicant processing are high because the Department retains most

applicant fingerprint cards and, thus, is able to later notify applicable

organizations and entities of any subsequent arrests of the individuals.

The $42 fee consists of the standard $32 fee plus an extra $10 for

expedited service (guaranteed turnaround in 17 working days). According

to California Department of Justice officials, the extra $10 supports

additional staff dedicated solely to processing requests for expedited

service.

The $52 fee applies to employees and volunteers not exempt from fees at

facilities licensed by the California Department of Social Services’

Community Care Licensing Division. This fee consists of the standard $32

fee, plus $10 for expedited service and an additional $10 to help subsidize

state checks done for the Division’s fee-exempt providers (foster care,

family day care, and residential child care and day care facilities with six

or fewer children). According to statistics provided by the California

Department of Justice, about one-half of the approximately 118,000 state

checks done for the Department of Social Services during July 1995

through June 1996 were fee-exempt.

Florida Florida Department of Law Enforcement officials told us that the state

does not perform fingerprint-based checks of criminal history records for

purposes of employment and licensing. These officials explained that the

state’s computer system for fingerprint searches was not sufficient to

handle such applicants, either for paid employees or for volunteers. Thus,

our questions regarding the fees for and the actual costs of fingerprint

checks were not applicable to Florida. However, for these noncriminal

justice purposes, the state was performing name-based background

checks and charging a fee of $15 for most applicants. The only exception

is the $8 fee charged for applicant background checks required by the

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

For calendar year 1995, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement

performed a total of 1,134,013 name-based searches for employment and

Page 37 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix III 

Fingerprint-Based Background Check Fees

and Actual Costs

licensing and in response to public requests.2 Further, 535,941 (or

47 percent) of the total requests for criminal history searches were

accompanied by fingerprint cards, which the Department forwarded to the

FBI for national checks.3 The state’s records were insufficiently detailed for

us to determine how many of these national checks involved child care

positions. However, many of the requests for national checks were

submitted by various state agencies, such as the Florida Department of

Banking and Finance and the Florida Department of Insurance, that

obviously have no child care responsibilities. One exception is the Florida

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, which is responsible for

licensing and certifying facilities for the care of children. During 1995, this

department requested over 100,000 national background checks.

Tennessee By state statute, Tennessee’s fee structure mirrors that of the FBI, which

currently is $18 for volunteers and $24 for all others. 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 Texas’ fee is $15 for fingerprint checks of applicants, whether volunteers

or nonvolunteers. This fee amount, according to Texas Department of

Public Safety officials, was established in 1990 on the basis of a study that

calculated actual costs totaling $11.42 per applicant. According to the

study, this total consisted of employee costs ($5.81); supervisory costs

($1.46); utility, materials, and supply costs ($3.65); and data entry costs

($0.50). Even though these costs for fingerprint searches totaled $11.42 per

applicant, the study recommended a fee of $15. This amount, according to

the study, would ensure that Texas fees were consistent with other states’

fees for similar services. Texas officials told us that the fee was later

changed to $17.25, as part of a general, across-the-board increase of

15 percent of all the state’s applicable fees. The officials explained,

however, that the state legislature “rolled back” the fee to $15 in 1996.

In calendar year 1995, the Texas Department of Public Safety conducted

115,398 fingerprint-based searches of applicants.4

 Of this total, the

2

Because Florida is an open records state, anyone residing in the state can request (for any reason) a

name-based search on any other person residing in Florida. According to Florida Department of Law

Enforcement statistics, public requests accounted for 593,308 (or 52 percent) of the total name-based

searches conducted in 1995.

3

None of the public requests were forwarded to the FBI. Those requests were for name-based searches

only, which were conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

4

Major categories included persons applying for concealed handgun permits (38,863 applicants) and

private investigator licenses (34,390 applicants).

Page 38 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix III 

Fingerprint-Based Background Check Fees

and Actual Costs

Department forwarded 15,287 requests to the FBI for national searches. Of

these national searches, 1,195 involved applicants for positions involving

interaction with children.5

Virginia 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.6

 The

officials said that the state has not calculated or analyzed the actual costs

of conducting fingerprint checks. On the other hand, the officials noted

that in 1993, the Department did analyze the costs for conducting

name-based checks. At that time, according to these officials, the

Department’s actual costs for a name-based check averaged $14.48 per

applicant.

5

The 1,195 national fingerprint searches were performed for the Texas Department of Protective and

Regulatory Services, which licenses foster homes and child care facilities. Also, the Department serves

as the conduit for certain nonprofit entities to request national fingerprint searches.

6

Effective October 1, 1989, the FBI’s fee for billing states was $13 (see tab. III.1).

Page 39 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and Results of

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks in

Selected States

The specific uses and results of fingerprint-based background checks were

difficult to quantify in many cases because there were no reporting

requirements and statistics were not routinely kept. Starting with the FBI,

we tried to obtain the number of fingerprint-based criminal history checks

relating to NCPA. The FBI performed 1,834,369 fingerprint-based criminal

history checks in fiscal year 1995 for civil nonfederal applicants. However,

the FBI was unable to disaggregate that figure to identify how many checks

relating to NCPA were performed for child care purposes or volunteer

organizations.

For each of the five study states, we had similar difficulties obtaining

comprehensive statistics on the use and results of national

fingerprint-based checks for NCPA purposes. However, 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.

California: Results of

Background Checks of

Teachers and Other

Credentialed School

Employees

According to California officials, state and FBI fingerprint-based

background checks are requested on all individuals applying for

credentials to work in California public schools, including new teachers,

counselors, and administrators. The officials indicated that state checks

have been conducted since 1951, and FBI checks since at least the 1970s.

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing is responsible for

requesting the checks, reviewing the results, and determining whether

applicants are or are not qualified. A California statute contains a list of

offenses (e.g., drug-related and sexual assault offenses) that result in

mandatory denials or revocation of credentials.1

 In addition, a California

statute provides the Commission with discretionary authority to deny

credentials to any applicant who is guilty of the offenses listed therein.2

The Commission performs this function centrally for all of the state’s 7,818

public schools (as of October 1994). These schools had a total of 213,389

full-time credentialed employees for the period July 1994 through

June 1995. Applicants pay $32 for the California Department of Justice

state check and $24 for the national FBI check. These fees are part of the

total fee to obtain California credentials, and applicants are not

reimbursed. According to Commission officials, obtaining background

check results from the FBI takes approximately 4 months.

1

Cal. Educ. Code 44425 and 44346.

2

Cal. Educ. Code 44345.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and Results of

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks in

Selected States

For the period July 1995 through June 1996, the California Commission on

Teacher Credentialing requested 27,564 state and FBI background checks.

Of these total checks, 540 criminal history reports (“rap sheets”) were

received from the California Department of Justice, and 66 rap sheets were

received from the FBI via the California Department of Justice.

From July 1995 through June 1996, a total of 45 initial applicants were

denied credentials for various reasons. Commission officials estimate that

the fingerprint-based background checks were used as the basis for denial

in about 95 percent of all denials. The officials added that in one or two

cases each year, the background checks result in an automatic denial of a

certification.

The Commission did not have detailed statistics on the number of hits that

resulted from FBI checks after the search of California’s records found no

criminal histories. Commission officials told us that national checks are a

key component in protecting the safety of schoolchildren and are worth

doing even if they reveal only a few criminal histories not covered in

California. The officials provided the following example of the usefulness

of national checks:

• In 1996, an individual with a lifetime teacher certification from Texas

noted on his California application that he had never been convicted of a

felony. However, the FBI check requested by the Commission showed that

the applicant had been convicted of sexual battery (rape) in Florida. This

offense occurred before he was credentialed in Texas, which does not do

national background checks as part of the teacher certification process.

The California Commission may not have learned about this crime if not

for the FBI check. The individual was teaching a special education program

in California for 6 months before the results of the FBI check were

received.3

 There was no indication that any children were abused. The

employee was dismissed.

In addition to applicant background checks, if a credential holder is

subsequently arrested or convicted of a crime, the California Department

of Justice sends a “subsequent arrest notice” to the Commission.4

 For the

period July 1995 through June 1996, these notices resulted in 53

mandatory revocations, i.e., the individuals were convicted of a specified

3

California statutes permit the issuance of temporary credentials while the results of the FBI’s

background checks are pending. Cal. Educ. Code 44332 and 44332.5.

4

The criminal charges reviewed by the Commission may be as minor as petty theft or as serious as

murder and child molestation.

Page 41 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and Results of

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks in

Selected States

criminal offense involving drugs or sex.5 Also, on another 39 individuals,

the Commission imposed “interim suspensions,” which are required by

California law when an individual is criminally charged with a specified

sex offense or when an individual pleads “no contest” to specified serious

criminal offenses.6

Florida: Results of

National Background

Checks of Teachers and

Other School Employees

In calendar year 1995, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement

forwarded to the FBI 270,435 requests for national fingerprint-based checks

of noncriminal justice applicants. The Department’s statistics did not show

which agencies or entities in the state requested these checks.

We focused our work in Florida on teachers and other school employees.

Regarding applicants for certified instructional positions in Florida

schools, state law does not specify disqualifying crimes. However, one of

the requirements for qualification is good moral character. The Florida

Bureau of Teacher Certification officials told us that requesting

fingerprint-based background checks, reviewing the results, and

determining whether the applicants are or are not qualified are their

responsibilities. The officials added that the Bureau performs this function

centrally for all of the state’s 67 public school districts, which had a total

of 132,080 teachers in 1995.

Florida Bureau of Teacher Certification officials disqualified a total of 56

applicants for the 1995 school year (July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996).

However, the officials noted that even though the Bureau may disqualify as

many as 100 applicants a year on the basis of criminal history records,

most of these decisions are reversed on appeal. More specifically, these

officials commented substantially as follows:

• The Florida Bureau of Teacher Certification has requested a total of about

25,000 national fingerprint-based checks annually in recent years. Checks

conducted on applicants during school year 1995 resulted in identification

of 1,079 individuals with criminal history records.7

 Of these total hits, the

Bureau determined that 56 individuals should not be certified to teach, and

the Bureau provided each of these individuals a written notification of

disqualification. After receiving such notification, 37 of the 56 individuals

appealed to a centralized review board, which reversed all but 5 of the

5

California law provides for no hearing or administrative appeal for an individual convicted of a

specified mandatory revocation offense. Cal. Educ. Code 44425.

6

Cal. Educ. Code 44425.

7

The Florida Bureau of Teacher Certification does not keep specific information on each hit, and

therefore could not separate these hits into state hits versus FBI hits.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and Results of

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks in

Selected States

Bureau noncertification decisions. Thus, after the appeals process, the

remaining number of adverse personnel actions based upon criminal

histories was 24 (i.e., the 5 unsuccessful appellants, plus the 19 applicants

who did not appeal their disqualification notifications). In making its

decisions, the review board considered the date of the offense, the severity

of the offense, and any rehabilitation measures the applicant had taken

(e.g., drug abuse counseling and treatment). The review board does not

view offenses such as petty theft or bad check writing to be serious

offenses.

Similar to the Florida provision relating to instructional positions, Florida

law also does not specify disqualifying crimes regarding applicants for

noninstructional positions in the state’s schools. But, one of the

requirements for qualification is good moral character. Each school

district is responsible for determining whether the applicants or hirees are

or are not qualified.

We obtained available information from one school district in

Florida—Leon County School District. In calendar year 1995, the district

had a total of 5,653 teachers and noninstructional personnel, of which

1,260 were newly hired. The district requested national fingerprint-based

background checks on the 1,260 new personnel. In response to our

inquiries, the district’s personnel office could not readily disaggregate the

total number of new hires into teacher and noninstructional staff

categories. However, office staff did provide the following information:

• Of the fingerprint-based background checks requested in 1995 for

noninstructional personnel, about 40 percent resulted in identification of

criminal records. Of these staff, about 100 had a criminal history serious

enough for the district to send each individual a letter asking for

explanations about the crimes. After the Affirmative Action Director

received full explanations and documentation from the employees, about

10 people were fired because of their criminal history records. Of those

fired, about four or five appealed those decisions, and, as a result, two or

three were reinstated. In summary, seven or eight noninstructional

personnel remained fired based on the criminal history records checks.8

The records showed that each individual had been convicted for a serious

offense, such as drug possession or trafficking and aggravated battery,

within the previous 7 years.

8

Because the criminal history record information from both the state criminal history check and the

FBI criminal history check was returned to the school district combined, the district’s personnel office

staff could not estimate how many criminal history records came from the state check and how many

came from the FBI check.

Page 43 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and Results of

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks in

Selected States

Tennessee: Results of

Background Checks of

Foster Care Applicants

Under a Tennessee law, which took effect in January 1994 (see app. II),

child welfare agencies can require state and national fingerprint-based

background checks on all persons applying to work with children. In

October 1995, the Tennessee Department of Human Services started

requiring such checks on prospective foster care parents and social

services employees who will be working with children.9

 The Department

did not plan to check foster care parents who were already in the system

as of October 1995. The Department pays the $24 state fee and the $24 FBI

fee. State check results are received in less than a month, and FBI results

are received in 6 weeks to 2 months.

From October 1995 through May 1996, the Tennessee Department of

Human Services requested 1,293 state and FBI fingerprint checks for foster

care applicants and social services employees. Of the 1,293 checks, 120 (or

9.3 percent) showed felony criminal records. Felony records included

enticing a child to enter a house for immoral purposes, accessory to

murder, aggravated assault with weapons on a family, smuggling drugs,

delivery of drugs, receiving and concealing stolen property, and grand

larceny. The national check identified 58 of the 120 felony records, which

were not found via the state check.

In one case, the FBI check revealed that a new foster care parent for four

children had served a 3-year prison sentence in Alabama for enticing a

child to enter a house for immoral purposes. As a result of the background

check, the Tennessee Department of Human Services immediately

removed the four children from the convicted felon’s home.10 Department

officials told us there was no evidence that any of the children had been

abused.

In another case, a foster care applicant told Department officials he was in

the FBI’s witness protection program but did not disclose why. The FBI

check revealed that the applicant had been arrested in another state for

accessory to murder. Therefore, the foster child already placed in his

home was removed.

9

Some foster care placements are contracted out to private organizations. These organizations are not

required to request fingerprint checks.

10Because of the time lag between requesting FBI checks and receiving results, children were placed in

foster care homes before the FBI’s results were received. Since January 1995, children are not placed

until the results from all fingerprint checks are received.

Page 44 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and Results of

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks in

Selected States

Texas: Results of

Background Checks of

Applicants at One Local

Affiliate of Big

Brothers/Big Sisters of

America

Under Texas law (see app. II), Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America is one

of four nonprofit organizations specifically authorized to request national

fingerprint-based background checks through the Texas Department of

Protective and Regulatory Services.11 We selected Big Brothers/Big Sisters

because it is the only nonprofit organization of the four authorized that

requested national fingerprint-based criminal history checks. Of the 21 Big

Brothers/Big Sisters affiliates in Texas, only 1 affiliate requested national

fingerprint-based checks. In response to our inquiries, affiliate

representatives commented substantially as follows:

• The affiliate requested a total of 98 national fingerprint-based checks

during the period August 1, 1995, through July 17, 1996. Of this total, two

applicants were found to have criminal records. The affiliate still accepted

one of these individuals as a volunteer because the criminal history record

involved an incident (theft under $20) that occurred about 22 years ago,

and the other indicators in the screening process (e.g., interviews and

references) showed no concerns. The other applicant was rejected as a

volunteer because the criminal history record showed a drug possession

conviction about 6 years ago; also, during the interview and screening

process, the applicant exhibited behavior that raised some concerns.

Virginia: Results of

Background Checks of

Applicants at Two Public

School Districts

Under Virginia law (see app. II), 42 of the state’s 135 school boards are

required to request state and national fingerprint-based background

checks of applicants as a condition of employment. Under the law, the

school boards must take into account charges or convictions of specified

crimes. In calendar year 1995, approximately 10,000 state and national

checks were conducted. The background checks are not part of a

centralized credentialing process. Rather, each school board is responsible

for requesting the checks, reviewing the results, and determining whether

applicants are or are not qualified. The results are not shared with other

counties. Therefore, a teacher moving from one county to another would

require new checks, and a substitute teacher working in multiple counties

would require multiple checks.

We contacted personnel offices in 2 of the 42 school districts—

Chesterfield and Henrico counties—to obtain views on the usefulness of

11During calendar year 1995, the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, which is

responsible for foster care and child care facilities, submitted to the FBI a total of 1,195 requests for

national fingerprint-based checks. In response to our inquiry, the Department was unable to

disaggregate this total among the specific organizations that requested the checks. Also, we contacted

the Big Brothers/Big Sisters office in Austin, Texas; however, the office did not have Texas-wide

statistics regarding background checks of individuals applying to be volunteers.

Page 45 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and Results of

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks in

Selected States

state and FBI background checks. According to responsible officials, since

the background checks have begun, over 100 individuals in these 2 school

districts have been fired on the basis of their criminal history records. The

officials commented that the background checks have revealed only two

individuals with criminal records involving child abuse. In one case, for

example, the criminal history record showed that the individual set fire to

a house with children inside. Officials from both counties told us the

checks are definitely a deterrent. One of the officials added that the

checks would still be worth the cost even if they revealed no criminal

records. Another official told us the checks are worth the cost if only one

child is saved from abuse.

Chesterfield County Public

Schools

In response to our inquiries, school personnel officials in Chesterfield

County commented substantially as follows:

• With 55 schools, approximately 50,000 students, and about 5,800

employees (not including substitute teachers and volunteers), Chesterfield

County is one of the largest public school districts in Virginia. The county

has been conducting state and FBI fingerprint checks since July 1990.

These checks cover all new full-time and part-time hires (teachers,

janitors, food service workers, etc.) and rehires who have not been

employed by the school district for more than 2 years. Substitute teachers

and volunteers are not checked at this school district. Employees who

were on board in July 1990 were not checked, and employees are not

periodically rechecked. Chesterfield County pays the $13 state fee and the

$24 FBI fee. State check results are received in about 2 weeks, and FBI

results are received in about 2 months.

• From July 1, 1995, through June 5, 1996, Chesterfield County requested

about 675 to 700 state and FBI checks, of which 32 (or about 4.6 percent)

found criminal records. Although not specifically quantifiable, the majority

of these criminal records involved Virginia offenses. The number of hits

resulting from FBI checks (i.e., hits after the state’s checks found no

criminal histories) has been relatively small. Since July 1990, the total in

this category has been five or six hits. Of these, two or three cases resulted

in the employee’s being dismissed. In one case, for example, a custodial

worker in a Chesterfield County public school was found to have an

outstanding fugitive warrant in Maryland for a traffic violation. After this

was learned, the police were notified and the employee was dismissed.

• Also, in about six cases each year, employees are dismissed because the

state or FBI check revealed that the employee falsified the application.

Most of these employees worked in the custodial area, which raised a

Page 46 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix IV 

Specific Uses and Results of

Fingerprint-Based Background Checks in

Selected States

concern about theft, since these employees had unsupervised access to

equipment and supplies.

Henrico County Public Schools In response to our inquiries, school personnel officials in Henrico County

commented substantially as follows:

• With 58 schools, over 38,000 students, and about 4,200 full-time

employees, Henrico County is one of the 10 largest public school districts

in Virginia. The county has been requesting state and FBI fingerprint

background checks since July 1993. These checks cover all new full-time,

part-time, and temporary employees (teachers, substitute teachers,

janitors, food service workers, etc.) and rehires who have not been

employed by the school district for more than 2 years. Employees who

were on board in July 1993 were not checked, and employees are not

periodically rechecked. County officials want to do state and national

checks on all volunteers, but the school board historically has not wanted

the checks.

• Henrico County pays the $13 state fee and the $24 FBI fee. State check

results are received in about 2 to 3 weeks, and FBI results are received in

about 4 weeks to 2 months.

• From July 1993 through June 1996, Henrico county requested

approximately 3,800 state and FBI checks (about 1,200 a year) on new

hires. Of this total, 137 (or 3.6 percent) resulted in identification of

applicants with criminal records. The majority of these hits involved

Virginia criminal records. As a result of these hits, 111 of the 137 new hires

were fired. The other 26 new employees were not fired because the

individuals (1) showed that information in the criminal history records

was inaccurate or (2) had acknowledged their criminal history in

completing the application form. The 111 firings were justified on the basis

that the individuals had lied on their applications (claiming no criminal

conviction) and not because of the nature of their criminal records. Ten or

fewer of these 111 employees had criminal records identified by the FBI,

following a state check showing no records.

Page 47 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix V 

IAFIS: System Components, Incremental

Development Approach, States’

Participation, and Automated Criminal

History Records

The FBI describes IAFIS as being a large, technologically complex system

that will support the exchange of criminal history information among

federal, state, and local agencies using a variety of media, standard

formats, and communication protocols. Presently, fingerprint checks are

initiated through the submission of criminal or civil 10-print fingerprint

cards. During fiscal year 1995, the FBI received and processed over

9 million fingerprint cards submitted by federal, state, and local criminal

justice organizations for criminal and applicant purposes.

Major Components of

IAFIS

For many users, the development of IAFIS should eliminate the need to

transport and process paper fingerprint cards. Fingerprints are to be

captured electronically1

 at booking stations or other locations and

transmitted through a high-speed telecommunications network to an

applicable state agency and the FBI for processing. Also, the FBI’s present

inventory of criminal fingerprint cards is to be electronically scanned,

converted into digital images, and stored in an IAFIS database to facilitate

on-line retrieval.

To meet the goal of providing computerized criminal history and

identification services, IAFIS is designed to have three major subsystems or

components:2

• The Interstate Identification Index is an existing federal-state cooperative

system for exchanging criminal history records. The Index contains

federal criminal history files and also provides access to state-level

centralized repositories of criminal history records. With the development

of IAFIS, some or all of the Index’s hardware and software is to be replaced.

• A new Identification Tasking and Networking subsystem is to provide the

workstations, workflow control, internal telecommunications, and image

files necessary to support “paperless” processing.

• A new Automated Fingerprint Identification System is to provide

fingerprint searching capabilities. The System is to first digitize the

fingerprint image (if not already digitized, as it is when received from a

scanning device). Then, in processing the digitized image, searchable

fingerprint characteristics are to be extracted (e.g., ridge-ending locations

and orientations). In a background check, the appropriate subfile of

1

For example, certain scanning equipment can capture fingerprint images directly (without the

application of ink to the fingers) and also allow the user to combine the images with narrative data to

produce a standard electronic fingerprint card.

2

Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) Planning Guide (April 30, 1993),

produced by the Advisory Policy Board to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center, with

assistance from SEARCH (The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics).

Page 48 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix V 

IAFIS: System Components, Incremental

Development Approach, States’

Participation, and Automated Criminal

History Records

fingerprints is to be searched for the applicable characteristics. A resulting

candidate list of file fingerprints (the most probable matches) is to be

generated and provided to a fingerprint examiner, who decides which (if

any) of the candidates represents a positive identification.

By “integrating” these three components—an upgraded Interstate

Identification Index capability, a new Identification Tasking and

Networking subsystem, and a new Automated Fingerprint Identification

System—IAFIS is to provide a more efficient interface for state and local

users.3

Incremental

Development

Approach

In 1996, in response to concerns about cost increases and schedule

slippages, the FBI adopted a new approach for developing and deploying

IAFIS. This approach, as shown in table V.1, involves six separate segments,

or “builds.” The build dates will not be finalized until the completion of the

negotiations with the various development contractors.

3

In addition to the three major components, the IAFIS project also includes the interrelated

development of (1) the “Fingerprint Image Conversion Operation,” which involves the scanning and

digitizing of nearly 32 million 10-print fingerprint cards already in the FBI’s master fingerprint file;

(2) the “Fingerprint Image Capture System,” which is to provide the completed IAFIS with the

scanning capability to accommodate users who have no electronic transmission equipment and, thus,

continue to submit fingerprints on paper cards; and (3) a “Management Information and Decision

Support” program to facilitate IAFIS performance analyses and other administration and monitoring

functions, including accounting for service-based fees.

Page 49 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix V 

IAFIS: System Components, Incremental

Development Approach, States’

Participation, and Automated Criminal

History Records

Table V.1: Timelines, Users, and Description of Each IAFIS Build

Build Scheduled on-line by: Users Description

A August 1996 FBI Developed and deployed an

automated capability to

conduct searches from

fingerprints found at a crime

scene against a 200,000 record

database.

B December 1996 FBI Increase the searchable

database in build A to 500,000

files.

C November 1997 FBI Provide a limited fingerprint

search capability (about 10

percent of eventual capacity)

and a stand-alone fingerprint

image repository.

D February 1998 FBI Integrate a high-volume

fingerprint scanning capability

and the capability to compare

images on a computer screen.

This build is intended to

decrease fingerprint card

processing time and decrease

retrieval time for candidate

matches.

E October 1998 FBI; a few states Allow some selected remote

users to search IAFIS database

and retrieve images.

F July 1999 FBI; all other states Complete the development.

Also add several new services,

including the storage and

retrieval of mug shots.

Source: FBI.

Although the FBI does not have a schedule specifically showing when the

states, or which states, will use IAFIS for applicant criminal history check

purposes, table V.1 does show that state participation in the system is not

to begin until “build E,” which is scheduled to be on-line in October 1998.

At that time, according to the FBI, a “small number” of other federal and

state users are to be selected to implement IAFIS capabilities on a trial

basis. FBI officials told us that build E would provide an opportunity for

checking the system in an operational environment before the remaining

users are accepted in build F.

Page 50 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix V 

IAFIS: System Components, Incremental

Development Approach, States’

Participation, and Automated Criminal

History Records

General Observations

Regarding States’

Participation in IAFIS

For nearly a century, the criminal justice community has used fingerprint

identification. Over the last 2 decades, manual fingerprint processing has

given way to increased use of automation. Today, many states and cities

have some form of automated fingerprint identification system. Thus, in

designing IAFIS, the FBI was very cognizant that the “connectivity” of the

integrated system with the state and local law enforcement community

would be a challenge.

To prepare for this challenge, the FBI worked with the National Institute of

Standards and Technology to hold a series of workshops nationwide

during 1990 and 1991. These forums were attended by officials from

federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and by representatives

from all of the major vendors for automated and live-scan fingerprint

equipment. The resulting national standards for the transmissions of

fingerprint data have been approved by the American National Standards

Institute.4

Among other purposes, these standards were to provide a basis for state

and local law enforcement officials to begin planning to ensure that their

agencies had the capability to participate in the new federal system.

However, it is important to note that no agency is required to participate in

IAFIS. Each state can decide the extent to which it wants to be “connected”

to and compatible with IAFIS. That is, each state must decide for itself what

equipment and system changes or upgrades are needed (if any), desirable,

and affordable.

Recognizing that the various states are at different stages of automation

with respect to fingerprint identification services, the FBI is planning to

accommodate different levels of participation in IAFIS—ranging from

minimal to full participation. At the minimal end, for example, some states

may decide to continue using the U.S. Postal Service to transmit paper

fingerprint cards. For this reason, as noted earlier, IAFIS will have a

“Fingerprint Image Capture System” that will allow the FBI to scan and

digitize data from these cards. The fuller levels of participation will be

dependent upon the states’ already having or later acquiring

(1) standards-compatible equipment and/or (2) special purpose computer

programs (“controllers”) to provide format conversions.

4

Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint Information (ANSI/NIST-CSL 1-1993).

Page 51 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix V 

IAFIS: System Components, Incremental

Development Approach, States’

Participation, and Automated Criminal

History Records

Selected States’

Criminal History

Record Systems

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. As of the time of

our review, the most recent biennial survey (conducted by SEARCH

Group, Inc.) provided a report of each state’s status as of the end of

calendar year 1995. At that time, as table V.2 shows for the five states

covered in our review, all five had fully automated the master name index,

and three of the five had fully automated the arrest records. Also, as

further shown in table V.2, even though Virginia had the lowest percentage

of automated arrest records among the five selected states, Virginia also

had the highest percentage of automated records for arrests within the

past 5 years that had final dispositions (e.g., dismissals, acquittals, or

convictions) recorded.

Table V.2: Overview of Selected States’ Criminal History Records Systems (as of December 31, 1995) 

Master name index

Number of subjects (individual offenders) in

state criminal history file

State

Fully

automated

Percent

of

records

in index Total Automated

Percent

automated

Percent of arrests

within past 5

years in database

that have final

dispositions

recorded

California Yes 100 4,630,800 4,085,500 88 43

Florida Yes 100 3,158,200 3,158,200 100 73

Tennessee Yes 100 655,400 655,400 100 40

Texas Yes 100 4,912,100 4,912,100 100 40

Virginia Yes 100 1,015,400 819,600 81 86

Note: This information is based upon survey information reported by the administrators of the

state criminal history record repositories. The survey was performed by SEARCH Group, Inc.,

under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Source: Preliminary findings provided to GAO by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics. In 1997, the Bureau is scheduled to publish these findings.

Page 52 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

James M. Fields, Senior Social Science Analyst

Michael H. Little, Communications Analyst

Pamela V. Williams, Communications Analyst

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Ronald B. Bageant, Assistant Director

Brian C. Spencer, Technical Assistant Director

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney

Dallas Field Office Danny R. Burton, Assistant Director, Administration of Justice

 Issues

Jeanne M. Barger, Evaluator-in-Charge

R. Eric Erdman, Evaluator

Donna B. Svoboda, Evaluator

(182024) Page 53 GAO/GGD-97-32 Fingerprint-Based Background Checks
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100