1. Washington State Auditor’s Office Troy Kelley Independence Respect Integrity Performance Audits of Background Checks and Criminal History Records Washington State Patrol Criminal Records Division 2015 Conference March 10, 2015 Susan Hoffman, Principal, Performance Audit

2. Washington State Auditor’s Office 2  The role of the State Auditor  An introduction to Performance Audit  An overview of SAO’s body of performance audit work related to background checks About today’s presentation

3. Washington State Auditor’s Office Troy Kelley, State Auditor  Three term legislator  Chaired Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee  Led audit teams at SEC  Worked on white collar crime in federal prosecutor’s office  Elected State Auditor in 2012 3

4. Washington State Auditor’s Office Our mission The State Auditor's Office holds state and local governments accountable for the use of public resources. Our vision Government that works for citizens. Our strategic goals 1. Government that works better, costs less, and earns greater public trust. 2. High audit quality and operational efficiency. 3. Highly skilled, engaged and dedicated employees. 4 Our mission and goals

5. Washington State Auditor’s Office 5  Washington voters approved Initiative 900 in 2005  Gave the State Auditor authority to conduct performance audits of state agencies and local governments  Performance audits evaluate government efficiency, effectiveness and economy  Audit topics are developed through a strategic topic development process based on risk  Audits are selected by the State Auditor Performance Audit

6. Washington State Auditor’s Office 6 Agencies respond to our recommendations Since 2007, 86 percent of recommendations have been adopted or are in progress Self-reported by agencies; we do not independently verify recommendation status or cost savings Implemented or In Progress 86% Not Implemented 14%

7. Washington State Auditor’s Office 7 Cumulative cost savings Since 2007, agencies have reported an average $187 million in annual cost savings or new revenue, totaling more than $1 billion

8. Washington State Auditor’s Office 8 1.Protecting Children from Sex Offenders in Child Care, Foster Care, and Schools  Published August 1, 2012 2.Enhancing Background Checks in Washington  Published May 7, 2013 3.Accuracy and Completeness of Washington’s Criminal History Records  Expected publication June 2015 Performance audits related to background checks

9. Washington State Auditor’s Office 9 Protecting Children from Sex Offenders in Child Care, Foster Care, and Schools  Can Washington’s sex offender database be used to enhance monitoring of state-regulated facilities with children? Our first background check performance audit

10. Washington State Auditor’s Office 10 Matching and investigation process Data match Investigations 29 matches Results Schools S-275 Database 129,233 employees 48% classified 52% certificated Social Service Payment System 36,919 providers FamLink Database 19,933 providers Child and Foster Care Registered Sex Offenders Database: Offender Watch 29,414 offenders 109,480 addresses 25,940 Social Security numbers Approximately 600 investigations of possible matches that included the collaboration of: State Auditor’s Office Department of Social and Health Services Department of Early Learning Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs Washington State Patrol Department of Corrections More than 20 local law enforcement agencies

11. Washington State Auditor’s Office 11 Child and foster care settings Our audit found and confirmed 28 sex offenders lived in child or foster care homes between 2002 and 2012  13 sex offenders lived in regulated homes  15 sex offenders lived in state-subsidized homes  In 25 cases, sex offenders lived in the home while children were in care  In 2 cases, children were adopted while sex offenders were in the home In most cases, sex offenders went undetected because providers failed to inform agencies offenders lived in their homes.

12. Washington State Auditor’s Office 12 Child and foster care settings Recommendations To ensure that children are safe from sex offenders in child and foster care settings, DEL and DSHS should continue to work together and:  Develop and put in place a strategy for periodically matching registered sex offender addresses, provided by either WASPC or the State Patrol, to those who provide care for vulnerable children and adults  Ensure the databases used to identify child and foster care provider addresses for the quarterly matching process are complete and accurate  Clarify administrative rules in the Working Connections child care program to specify who in the household is required to undergo a background check when unregulated child care providers and children receiving care live in the same home

13. Washington State Auditor’s Office 13 Public schools Our audit found one sex offender worked as a high school janitor undetected for nine years  Hired in 2000 after a clean criminal background check. Convicted of voyeurism in 2002, but continued working until our audit identified him in 2011. Neither OSPI nor the State Patrol completely followed the current statutory monitoring process for school employees  Between 2005 and 2011, OSPI did not review all school employees in its quarterly criminal conviction monitoring, as required by law.  State Patrol conviction data sent to OSPI was incomplete: it did not include all convictions that would prohibit an individual from working in schools.

14. Washington State Auditor’s Office 14 Public schools To comply with state law and ensure sex offenders and individuals with prohibited criminal convictions do not work in schools:  OSPI’s quarterly criminal conviction monitoring must include all school employees  The State Patrol must give OSPI complete information on all convictions and guilty pleas that prohibit individuals from working in schools, including sex offenders living in Washington but convicted in other states Recommendations

15. Washington State Auditor’s Office Agencies reacted quickly to improve processes  DEL and DSHS convened a workgroup to establish a quarterly address matching process for all providers serving vulnerable populations, including children, elderly and developmentally disabled people.  The State Patrol updated its conviction data to include revised crime codes, new crime codes of qualifying laws, and registered sex offenders, which will include offenders convicted outside of Washington.  In April 2012, OSPI officials began checking criminal convictions of certificated and classified school employees employed since 2005. Improved safety for children in child care, foster care, and schools 15 Results

16. Washington State Auditor’s Office Enhancing Background Checks in Washington Can an automatic notification system (called a rap back service), enhance Washington’s current background check process, and if it can, what are the potential barriers to implementation? 16 Our second background check performance audit

17. Washington State Auditor’s Office 17 How does “rap back” work?

18. Washington State Auditor’s Office Most states already operate or plan to operate a rap back service 18 A rap back service is a nationwide leading practice 18

19. Washington State Auditor’s Office Washington is one of ten states that does not use a rap back service or retain civil fingerprints 19 A rap back service is a nationwide leading practice

20. Washington State Auditor’s Office  Identified federal fingerprint checks authorized in Washington by surveying state agencies that order these checks  Interviewed FBI staff, officials from other states with a rap back service, and potential Washington users  Compared DSHS background check data with criminal history records 20 What we did Our audit included the following positions of trust: Behavioral health providers Residential care providers Aging & disability service providers Childcare workers Foster parents

21. Washington State Auditor’s Office 21 Foster parents Teachers Childcare workers Adult family homes Foster parents Teachers Childcare workers Adult family homes Many healthcare professionals Unlicensed, subsidized childcare School volunteers Many healthcare professionals Unlicensed, subsidized childcare School volunteers  In 2012, about half of Washington background checks were based on name alone: without fingerprints, a rap back service could not be used.  Only a federal check can detect out-of-state offenses. We estimate 3,000 people in our study had arrests that took place outside Washington  Other states found that, on average, 6% of applicants were disqualified solely on the federal background check Fingerprints maximize rap back benefits

22. Washington State Auditor’s Office More timely identification of new offenses for those in positions of trust through a rap back service would improve public safety 22 Rap back improves public safety

23. Washington State Auditor’s Office To improve public safety, we recommend the Legislature:  Revise state law to expressly allow the Washington State Patrol and Federal Bureau of Investigation to retain civil fingerprints.  Authorize and appropriate funding for the Washington State Patrol to implement a state and federal rap back service as part of background check processes. If the Legislature takes these steps, we recommend the Washington State Patrol:  Implement a state and federal rap back service as part of background check processes. 23 Recommendations

24. Washington State Auditor’s Office Accuracy and completeness of Washington‘s criminal history records  Are criminal history records in Washington accurate and complete, and if not, why not? 24 Our third background check performance audit

25. Washington State Auditor’s Office 25 Washington's criminal history record process Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) Washington State Identification System (WASIS) Judicial Information System (JIS) Law enforcement agency makes criminal arrest and books individual into jail FBI Outputs: Investigations, Background Checks, Judicial Decisions, Prosecutorial Decisions Outputs: Investigations, Background Checks, Judicial Decisions, Prosecutorial Decisions Court Prosecuting Attorney

26. Washington State Auditor’s Office 1.Matched dispositions found in the Judicial Information System (JIS) to those found in the Washington State Identification System (WASIS)  Included dispositions for gross misdemeanors and felony charges 2.Identified local jurisdictions (law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, and courts) with either a low or high percentage of matching dispositions  Contacted them to learn about their processes for creating and updating criminal records 3.Identified leading practices for process improvement through literature review and interviews with staff at WSP, AOC, and local jurisdictions 26 What we did

27. Washington State Auditor’s Office 27 State criminal records repositories are missing dispositions

28. Washington State Auditor’s Office 28 Process breakdowns impact record completeness Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) Washington State Identification System (WASIS) Judicial Information System (JIS) Law enforcement agency makes criminal arrest and books individual into jail FBI Outputs: Investigations, Background Checks, Judicial Decisions, Prosecutorial Decisions Outputs: Investigations, Background Checks, Judicial Decisions, Prosecutorial Decisions Court Prosecuting Attorney

29. Washington State Auditor’s Office  Completeness of criminal history records improves when a Process Control Number (PCN), created when a person is fingerprinted following an arrest, is present  PCNs are critical for dispositions to get attached to corresponding arrests  PCNs could be missing if: o A person is arrested, but not fingerprinted (cite & release) o A person is arrested and fingerprinted, but the PCN is not transferred to the courts or entered into JIS Having effective processes at local jurisdictions are vital to ensuring PCNs are assigned to every arrest and used for reporting of dispositions 29 Reasons for incomplete criminal records

30. Washington State Auditor’s Office  Establish uniform, automated reporting procedures for fingerprint and disposition submissions  Establish procedures to obtain the information necessary to monitor and track missing arrests and dispositions  Develop procedures to ensure fingerprints are taken for all cases involving reportable offenses  Establish a regular, systematic and targeted training program  Use a tracking number to link dispositions to arrests  Conduct periodic audits of criminal history record database to ensure completeness of records 30 Leading practices for process improvement

31. Washington State Auditor’s Office 31  Developing our recommendations and finalizing our report draft  Expected publication June 2015  Hearing before the Joint Legislative and Audit Review Committee scheduled for June 24, 2015 Next steps

32. Washington State Auditor’s Office 32 Contacts Chuck Pfeil, CPA Director of State and Performance Audit (360) 902-0366 Chuck.Pfeil@sao.wa.gov Susan Hoffman Principal, Performance Audit (360) 725-5620 Susan.Hoffman@sao.wa.gov Website: www.sao.wa.govwww.sao.wa.gov