Basic principles of screening
To prevent abuse and to reduce the corresponding fiscal burdens of investigations, prosecutions, and treatments for the victims and their families, it is in the interest of States to analyze their screening laws and to pass new or amended legislation, as appropriate. The decisionmaking model outlined in these guidelines can assist legislators and others in such an analysis. At a minimum, however, States are encouraged to require basic screening practices, consider the adoption of statutes authorizing criminal record checks, and encourage abuse prevention education and training.

• States are encouraged to have statutes and regulations requiring the use of basic screening practices such as appropriately developed applications, personal interviews, and reference checks for all workers, including volunteers. Depending on the circumstances, additional screening practices may be warranted for specific types of workers in certain settings. As outlined in the decisionmaking model, confirmation of education status may also be an appropriate screening practice.

  Methods to encourage screening could include incentive programs that provide funds and/or recognition for the use of model screening practices. Screening practices could also be included in certification or licensing requirements, with penalties for noncompliance. Generally, these statutes and regulations should apply to all workers, including volunteers.

• In keeping with the spirit of the National Child Protection Act of 1993, States should consider the adoption of statutes and regulations authorizing the use of national and/or State criminal record checks, as appropriate. The decisionmaking model provides a mechanism to assist States in determining when legislation authorizing such checks might be appropriate.

• In authorizing screening practices, States are encouraged to prescribe appeal and review procedures that meet constitutional muster, which may include written notification to applicants concerning any records that will be searched and may provide the applicant an opportunity to refute the information found, as appropriate.

  Moreover, notification that records will be searched may act as a deterrent to unsuitable applicants. (If the process conveys a sense of respect for the applicant while explaining the need for screening, it need not alienate prospective workers.)

• States are urged to consider enacting and implementing statutes and regulations that encourage abuse prevention training for all workers (including employees and volunteers) at service agencies, organizations, and facilities for children and dependent adults.

Criminal record repositories
An accurate and complete criminal record repository with records that can be efficiently accessed is the goal. Toward this end, States are encouraged to consider:

• Passing or revising statutes and regulations on the appropriate use of criminal history information and developing specific criteria for using these records to screen persons working with children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities. States should review the National Child Protection Act, as amended (see appendix A), for limitations on the use/disclosure of FBI criminal record checks and the requirements to complete records lacking disposition data.

• Passing laws allowing access to State criminal record information to permit broad screening of persons who work with children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities. Such laws are warranted because the current national criminal record system does not include all records in all States (many States have limited computerized records).

• Reducing the financial burden of conducting background checks. This could be done by incorporating at-cost fees and providing discounts for both volunteers at nonprofit organizations and workers at daycare centers in poverty areas and by providing volume discounts to employers. For States requiring checks, the cost to those seeking the checks should be minimal and subsidized by the State, to the extent feasible.

State central abuse and neglect registries
Almost all States currently have central child abuse and neglect registries. In addition, although most States do not maintain elder or dependent adult abuse registries, all have statutes providing for the investigation of elder or dependent adult abuse and almost all have some form of mandatory reporting of abuse. States are encouraged to consider:

• Creating and maintaining registries where they do not exist.

• Establishing clear policies for abuse, licensing, and certification registries for purposes of screening. These policies should include definitions and specific guidelines consistent with due process in regard to the use of registries for screening and guidelines on retention of information, including methods for purging names and cases and methods for accurately reflecting the results of dispositions, hearings, and appeals by those listed in the registries.

• Separating the employment or volunteer screening function from the use of civil abuse and neglect registries as a tool for research, diagnosis, and risk assessment.

• Collaborating with other jurisdictions to create standardized definitions of abuse. This would make registries more consistent and ease the exchange of information among jurisdictions. A national network of abuse registry directors or other interstate panels could facilitate the development of these standardized definitions.

• Defining "abuse" in registries of dependent adult abuse to include fiduciary abuse or exploitation and mental harm.

• Ensuring that abuse registries are indexed by perpetrator, nature of offense, and locale to ease access to information; enacting statutes or implementing policies and procedures enabling cross-referencing between child and adult abuse registries.

State sex offender registration
All States currently have laws requiring sex offenders released from custody to register with State or local law enforcement agencies where they reside. The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (Wetterling Act), 42 U.S.C. 14071, sets forth Federal law requirements for these registries. States are encouraged to consider:

• Permitting access to organizations serving children and dependent adults for screening purposes.

• Developing a flagging system for those sex offenses in which the victim was a child or dependent adult.

• Compiling an automated, up-to-date, statewide listing of registered sex offenders to facilitate screening.

• Implementing procedures that ensure offender compliance with registration requirements. One method of ensuring compliance would be to increase awareness among local jurisdictions and offenders regarding registration requirements immediately after every move. One possibility would be not only to require the individual offender to register, but also to require the institution from which he or she was released or the legal entity that rendered the offender guilty of a sex crime to forward the information. Another compliance measure is the address verification process found in the Wetterling Act.

• Increasing the sharing of information among criminal justice agencies, particularly from the local to the State level, to enable screening to be conducted.

Information, interstate communication, and coordination
In conjunction with Federal guidelines, States have the power to enhance communication both within their own State agencies and with other States. In order for interstate information to be accessed effectively through registries, criminal record repositories, and other data banks used in screening, States are encouraged to consider:

• Establishing a mechanism to develop appropriate, common statutory definitions of abuse and neglect and to clarify the rights and responsibilities of all parties.

• Increasing communication, coordination, and cooperation between the various repositories, other law enforcement/criminal justice entities, State regulatory/licensing bodies, and community agencies.

• Working with interstate organizations representing State interests (e.g., National Governors Association) toward the development of uniform offense codes, reporting procedures, and standardized training for personnel who enter and document data in criminal record repositories and other information registries.

• Modifying current criminal history information systems so that all records containing crimes involving children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities are flagged for easy and immediate identification during background screening.

• Developing computer systems that efficiently and quickly transmit screening information and that may ultimately help decrease the cost of accessing this information. In the 1990's, the number and extent of online computer systems has increased significantly. Facilitating access to specialized computer networks would be one means of increasing the number of organizations able to use this information. Some States are experimenting with assisting agencies in accessing computer networks and could continue this trend by creating specialized user lists for organizational access to certain information in the registries.

Special considerations
In addition to directly encouraging or requiring screening by agencies serving children and youth, States regulate a wide range of activities that also impact screening. States may wish to consider using these other regulatory powers further to systematize identification of unsuitable workers:

• Increase the role of State licensing agencies. Many aspects of services provided to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities are subject to licensing regulations and professional certification. The following efforts could be useful:
  • Establish clear procedures for timely disposition of abuse cases.

  • Implement a system for sharing reported complaints of abuse among social services and agencies. This system should include appropriate due process safeguards, a clear statement of investigative responsibilities, and a checklist of the duties to notify other agencies regarding those committing relevant crimes.

  • Adopt clearly written policies on information sharing between agencies.

  • Develop and implement mechanisms within and between States to track convicted offenders and prevent their continued work with children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

  • Develop licensing/registration laws and regulations that include minimum staff qualifications, professional and personal reference checks, training (includes abuse-awareness instruction), clearly defined requirements for adequate supervision, a written application with a signed affidavit verifying the truthfulness and accuracy of the information in the application coupled with a clear statement that untruthfulness is a basis for suspension or termination of employees/volunteers, and authorization of the licensing agency to impose fiscal penalties and/or revocation of the license.

    In revising licensing/registration laws, particular consideration should be given to reviewing existing exemption or exception clauses so that licensing/registration provisions will encompass entities providing services to children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, as appropriate. In addition, agencies should be equipped with sufficient staff to monitor compliance with laws and regulations.

• Consider developing incentives for insurance companies to expand their role in providing coverage to entities providing services to children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities. State regulations encouraging insurance coverage of employers may promote careful review of agency screening mechanisms and consequences of screening in order to maintain coverage. The insurance industry could take the lead in addressing concerns regarding the suitability of persons to work with or around vulnerable populations.

• Consider statutory amendments that would require employers to report employee or volunteer terminations from employment due to inappropriate conduct toward a consumer.

OJJDP Summary: Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working with Children, the Elderly, and Individuals with Disabilities in Need of Support, April 1998