Can The Government Force Fingerprint Background Checks

Skip to Highlights

Highlights

What GAO Found

Most states that responded to GAO's nationwide survey reported conducting Federal Agency of Investigation (FBI) criminal history record checks for individuals working with vulnerable populations—such as children and the elderly—and other employment sectors that GAO reviewed (see fig. below). States that did non conduct FBI tape checks said this was because the state lacked a designated agency to review check results, among other challenges. In 2006, the Attorney Full general proposed that nongovernmental entities also serve in this role but noted that this would require considerations about securing data and protecting personal information.

States Conducting FBI Criminal Record Checks for Selected Employment Sectors

States have improved the completeness of criminal history records used for FBI checks—more records now contain both the arrest and final disposition (e.g., a conviction)—just in that location are still gaps. Twenty states reported that more than 75 percentage of their abort records had dispositions in 2012, up from xvi states in 2006. Incomplete records can delay checks and impact applicants seeking employment. The Department of Justice has helped states amend the completeness of records through grant funding and other resources, but challenges remain. For case, the FBI'southward Informational Policy Board—which includes representatives from federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies—created a Disposition Chore Forcefulness in 2009 to address bug regarding disposition reporting, amongst other things. The chore force has taken actions to improve mensurate the completeness of state records and identify state requirements for reporting disposition data. However, the task force does non take plans with time frames for completing remaining goals, such as examining and recommending improvements in national standards for collecting and reporting disposition data.

According to stakeholders GAO contacted, the use of private companies to comport criminal history record checks appears to be increasing because of employer demand and can provide benefits, such as faster response times. Federal agencies regulate these companies and have settled complaints, such as in cases where the wrong records were sent to employers. Private companies can confront challenges in obtaining consummate and accurate records, in part considering non all states brand their criminal record information attainable for private companies to search.

Why GAO Did This Written report

Authorized employers use information from FBI criminal history record checks to assess a person'southward suitability for employment or to obtain a license. States create criminal records and the FBI facilitates admission to these records past other states for nationwide checks. GAO was asked to assess efforts to address concerns virtually incomplete records, among other things.

This report addresses to what extent (i) states conduct FBI record checks for selected employment sectors and face any challenges; (ii) states have improved the completeness of records, and remaining challenges that federal agencies tin can help mitigate; and (3) private companies conduct criminal record checks, the benefits those checks provide to employers, and any related challenges.

GAO analyzed laws and regulations used to carry criminal record checks and assessed the completeness of records; conducted a nationwide survey, which generated responses from 47 states and the District of Columbia; and interviewed officials that manage checks from the FBI and 4 states (California, Florida, Idaho, and Washington). GAO selected states based on geographic location and other factors.

Skip to Recommendations

Recommendations

GAO recommends, among other things, that the FBI plant plans with time frames for completing the Disposition Task Force's remaining goals. The Department of Justice concurred with all of GAO's recommendations.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected	Recommendation	Status
Federal Bureau of Investigation	To improve disposition reporting that would aid states update and complete criminal history records, the Managing director of the FBI should task the FBI Advisory Policy Board to institute a programme with time frames and milestones for achieving its Disposition Task Force's stated goals.	Airtight - Implemented In 2015, we reported that the FBI'south Advisory Policy Board's (APB) Disposition Task Forcefulness did not have a plan with time frames and milestones for completing a best practices guide or for achieving iii of its five goals. As a result, nosotros recommended that the APB plant a plan with time frames and milestones for achieving the task force's stated goals. In September 2017, the Disposition Task Strength met to discuss implementing its remaining goals, including (1) examining and recommending improvements to the national standard for collecting and reporting disposition information and (ii) promoting the adoption of national standards for sharing dispositions by state judicial systems. At the September meeting, the Disposition Task Strength discussed national standards for collecting and reporting dispositions and how to promote the adoption of standards. The task force decided to promote best practices in the "Preliminary Finding of the Disposition Task Strength: Best Practices Guide" as national standards because these practices were proved to have a positive touch on disposition reporting. The job force requested that FBI create documents to promote the implementation of the best practices and requested the first product, focused on bureau self-auditing to identify areas of missing dispositions, be delivered in January 2018. By December 2018, the Disposition Chore Forcefulness plans to create products on the implementation of boosted all-time practices, including providing feedback to contributing agencies regarding dispositions and engaging in outreach with stakeholders. These actions should help the Task Force accomplish its goals. Therefore, we consider this recommendation closed as implemented.
Federal Bureau of Investigation	To better equip states to meet the regulatory requirement to notify individuals of their rights to challenge and update information in their criminal history records, and to ensure that inspect findings are resolved, the Managing director of the FBI--in coordination with the Meaty Council-- should determine why states do not comply with the requirement to notify applicants and use this information to revise its land educational programs accordingly.	Closed - Implemented In 2015, we reported that Federal Agency of Investigation (FBI) audits conducted from 2011 through 2013 showed that 31 of the 44 states (about 70 per centum) audited had at to the lowest degree one state agency that was out of compliance with federal regulations related to applicant notifications. Specifically, the land agency did non provide all of the required notifications to a job or license applicant on the individual's rights to challenge and correct that person's criminal history records. Equally a consequence, we recommended that the FBI decide why states do not comply with the requirement to notify applicants and use this information to help revise the state'southward educational programs. In May 2015, the FBI'south Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division implemented audit and sanctions procedures to formally include the reasons why inspect participants are not compliant with requirements for applicant notification. In July 2017, the FBI provided examples of how information technology has shared this information with states. Specifically, The CJIS Sectionalisation's Audit Unit presents an annual audit summary topic newspaper to the Meaty Council's Planning and Outreach Committee. (The Compact Council is the primary state and federal body for setting policy around the interstate sharing of criminal history records for not-criminal-justice purposes.) Each summary includes a discussion of mutual issues, such as why audit participants are not coming together requirements. The audit unit likewise educates federal, state, tribal, and local agencies during audits and through participation in a number of state-sponsored training conferences. During these conferences, auditors discuss requirements for applicant notification and provide educational documents published past the Compact Council, to include the Guiding Principles for Noncriminal Justice Applicant's Privacy Rights, which was updated in May 2017. In addition, and when advisable, agencies are besides educated about the requirements during informal communications. These actions satisfy the intent of our recommendation.
Federal Bureau of Investigation	To potentially help states heighten the abyss of their criminal history records, the Director of the FBI and the Director of the Office of Personnel Direction should clarify what disposition information the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will provide to the FBI and formally concur on how OPM volition provide it. This would enable the FBI to forwards the information to states and let each state to determine if the information tin exist used to update their criminal history records.	Closed - Implemented In Feb 2015, we reported on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) efforts to help states improve the abyss of criminal history records used for employment and licensing groundwork checks (GAO-15-162). We constitute that DOJ had several initiatives underway to help states amend the completeness of criminal history records, such every bit grant programs, all-time practise sharing, criminal records task forces, and periodic record audits. Nonetheless, nosotros plant that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Office of Personnel Direction (OPM) had not determined how the FBI could use background data obtained during OPM security clearance investigations to help states update criminal history records. Specifically, in June 2010, the FBI approved the do of having the FBI supply states with source documents that OPM personnel obtain during the approximately two.5 1000000 security clearance and employment investigations OPM conducts each year. Still, the agencies did not enter into a formal written understanding for this information-sharing organisation, and the FBI was unable to utilise whatever of the information provided by OPM. OPM and FBI officials said that there were misunderstandings regarding what information OPM would be transmitting to the FBI and how it would do so. Consequently, we recommended that the FBI and OPM clarify what data OPM will provide to the FBI and formally agree on how OPM volition provide it. This would enable the FBI to forrard the information to states and allow each state to determine if the information could be used to update their criminal history records. In March 2015, OPM and FBI officials signed a letter formally concurring on the methodology to substitution criminal history information. Specifically, OPM agreed to provide the FBI with specific and appropriate disposition-related fields in an extensible markup linguistic communication (XML)-tagged report data format, and would provide the data electronically through OPM'due south secure portal. OPM plans to begin transferring the data by October i, 2015, and had provided the FBI with access to the secure portal as of March 2015. Given the development of a formal understanding and agreed-upon data sharing methodology, this recommendation is closed every bit implemented.
Office of Personnel Direction	To potentially help states enhance the completeness of their criminal history records, the Managing director of the FBI and the Director of the Role of Personnel Management should clarify what disposition data the Part of Personnel Management (OPM) volition provide to the FBI and formally agree on how OPM will provide it. This would enable the FBI to frontwards the data to states and permit each country to decide if the information can exist used to update their criminal history records.	Closed - Implemented In February 2015, we reported on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) efforts to help states amend the abyss of criminal history records used for employment and licensing background checks (GAO-15-162). Nosotros plant that DOJ had several initiatives underway to aid states improve the completeness of their criminal history records, such every bit grant programs, best do sharing, criminal records task forces, and periodic record audits. All the same, we found that the Federal Agency of Investigation (FBI) and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had not determined how the FBI could use criminal history information obtained during OPM security clearance and employment investigations to help states update their criminal history records. Specifically, in June 2010, the FBI approved the practise of having the FBI supply states with source documents that OPM personnel obtain during the approximately 2.v meg security clearance and employment investigations that OPM conducts each yr. However, the agencies did not enter into a formal written understanding for this information-sharing arrangement, and the FBI was unable to use whatsoever of the information provided by OPM. FBI and OPM officials said that at that place were misunderstandings regarding what data OPM would transmit to the FBI and how it would do so. We recommended that the FBI and OPM analyze what information OPM will provide to the FBI and formally agree on how OPM volition provide information technology. This would enable the FBI to forward the information to states and permit states to decide if the data could be used to update their criminal history records. In March 2015, OPM and FBI officials signed a letter formally concurring on the methodology to exchange criminal history data. Specifically, OPM agreed to provide the FBI with specific and appropriate disposition-related information in an extensible markup linguistic communication (XML)-tagged report data format, and would provide the data electronically through OPM's secure portal. OPM plans to brainstorm transferring the information to the FBI by October one, 2015, and provided the FBI with access to the secure portal in March 2015. Given the evolution of a formal agreement and agreed-upon data sharing methodology, this recommendation is closed as implemented.