On September 28, the House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness held a hearing on the Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence (SAFE) Act (H.R. 2649). Sponsored by Rep. John Porter (R-NV), the measure would require the Department of Education to encourage states to participate in the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact. Under the compact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and member states maintain detailed databases of criminal history records that are made available to the federal government and other member states for authorized purposes. To date, only 21 states have ratified the compact.
Rep. Porter said that the purpose of the bill is to prevent “the presence of sexual predators in the classrooms and hallways of our campuses.” Explaining that the Clark County School District (CCSD) in Nevada must rely on out-of-state recruitment for teachers and other school personnel, he stated, “We depend upon other states to share with us any information that will help remove the sexual predators in our classrooms. As recently as this summer, charges of sexual abuse by individuals employed by the school district became public. There must be zero tolerance for this type of behavior. I believe that Congress has the ability to make significant strides in reducing the occurrence of sexual assault in our schools. While I see no reason to oppose the intent of my legislation, I am aware of some of the flaws in the mechanism that it uses. I look forward to working on this legislation with all stakeholders so that we can effectively make strides in improving this situation.”
In conclusion, Rep. Porter stated, “The immediate and long-term harm that these few unscrupulous individuals can cause is immense. Certainly, the immediate, physical effects of sexual abuse can be devastating. That said, the long-term psychological effects have proven to be incredibly harmful throughout the life of the victim. I believe we can all agree that these atrocious acts must be removed from our schools, and that our children should be able to attend schools without the fear of this depraved behavior.”
Barbara Belak, assistant associate superintendent of human resources for the Clark County School District, said that school districts “need complete information on the applicants who are looking to work in our schools. We need to know about the domestic battery arrests. We need to know about the drug arrests. We need to know about the assault and battery arrests. And note that I deliberately use the word ‘arrests,’ not just ‘convictions.’ We certainly recognize that innocent people can be accused falsely. But if Mr. or Mrs. Jones [were] arrested for lewdness with a minor in New Jersey in 1988, then again in Florida in 1992, then again in Mississippi in 1997, and again in Oregon in 2002 with or without a conviction would you want your son or daughter in Mr. or Mrs. Jones’ classroom getting some personal attention after school?” She argued that the bill would “give school districts access to relevant information on applicants’ criminal backgrounds that may be…withheld at present,” adding, “The Clark County School District routinely asks about 20 different background questions related to misconduct on its teacher application forms, and CCSD fingerprints everyone it hires, from the classroom teacher to the office clerk to the volunteer coach (who, technically, isn’t even ‘hired’). But we need to do so with the confidence that the report that comes back is complete that it includes arrest and conviction information from all states as defined in the bill, not just some of them, especially in light of the state-to-state mobility we all enjoy in this country.”
Chairman of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council Donna Uzzell stressed the importance of states sharing their criminal histories with one another: “The states obviously have the most complete information available to them. This is one of the reasons why it is important that federal laws mandating background checks…should encourage both a state and national level check. The concept behind the Compact and the decentralization of records is that the best information is held closest to the source of the record. When states can respond to requests for information by using the FBI’s pointer system, they can provide the most complete information available for the identified subject. For example, states may have [at their] disposition information in their files that is not duplicated in the FBI file. Some will have additional arrests that did not meet FBI criteria or which were rejected for some reason when submitted to the FBI.” With regard to the SAFE Act, she urged the subcommittee “not to focus on whether the state or the FBI provides the response. Rather, I would urge continued support for the improvement of these criminal records, for improved automation of both arrest and court disposition reporting and for the continuing decentralization of these records by expansion of the Compact.”
Dr. William Dean, superintendent of Frederick County Public Schools in Winchester, Virginia, explained that the school district follows Virginia code in regard to background checks of prospective employees. “All employees are fingerprinted and using an electronic state system that has been merged with the FBI database, we know within 30 minutes to 24 hours whether a potential employee has an arrest record in Virginia or most places in the United States. If the system finds a match, we are informed by e-mail that the ‘Record is being processed.’ This usually means that someone has an arrest record. We process more than 500 a year, and perhaps 3 percent come back as ‘Record is being processed.’ The only error in the process is usually a candidate who embarrassingly confides they did not complete the application honestly.” In examining the bill, Dr. Dean stated, “While I agree with the intent and purpose of H.R. 2649, I question whether penalizing state departments of education by denying federal education dollars is the most appropriate way to accomplish this worthwhile legislation. As influential as state departments and state boards of education may be, their influence does not extend to directing state law enforcement to participate in a statewide compact of information sharing.”
