Bill would direct DHS to review duplicative criminal background checks across Oregon

The House Committee on Early Childhood and Human Services opened a public hearing Feb. 27 on House Bill 3,224, a bill that would require the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) to review existing statutes and report options to consolidate and reduce duplicative criminal background checks for occupations that serve children, older adults and people with disabilities.

Rep. Nancy Nathanson, sponsor of the bill, told the committee that dozens of occupations already require background checks and that similar jobs frequently require separate, sequential checks. “Dozens of occupations in the private and public sector require a criminal background check, like home care workers, school employees, dentists, physicians, counselors and therapists,” Nathanson said. She outlined examples in which the same worker has been required to get multiple checks for the same client or workplace because different agencies or programs use different clearance processes.

The bill would have DHS identify where statutes require background checks, note similarities and differences, and report options to consolidate checks so clearances can be completed more quickly. Nathanson said she will offer an amendment to narrow the study to statutes relevant to occupations covered by the DHS background check unit and to rely on an existing Department of Administrative Services (DAS) work group report as a starting point.

Why it matters: Multiple witnesses said current processes delay hiring and the delivery of services. Meredith Koba of the Oregon Health Care Association said delays “cause applicants to reconsider waiting 30 to 60 days for a job in caregiving.” She added that the state background unit handles more than 100 different types of background checks for human services and health-care occupations. Rachel Hansen of SEIU Local 503 described the paperwork burdens and lack of portability across programs: workers “are required to submit multiple forms, track numerous dates, navigate inconsistent requirements” that can delay workers entering the workforce and disrupt continuity of care.

Testimony and examples: Adrienne Anderson, government relations counsel for the Oregon School Boards Association, described inconsistencies on the so‑called “forever crimes” lists used by licensing boards. Anderson said the work group she participated in found examples where similar convictions are treated differently across agencies — for example, “someone who was convicted of delivery of cocaine…[was on] the forever crimes list, but someone who was convicted of delivery of heroin was not.” Committee members asked whether the review would include background checks run by the Oregon Health Authority; the sponsor indicated that would be considered.

Process questions: Committee members pressed on causes of backlog and the bill’s scope. Nathanson and testimony from advocates and provider groups described a mix of volume and processing‑capacity problems as drivers of delays and said the bill’s study should look at weighing processes, differences in disqualifying criteria and possible portability of results across programs.

What the bill directs: As introduced, HB 3,224 requires DHS to review statutes requiring background checks, identify duplication and report recommendations to improve speed and portability. The sponsor plans an amendment to focus DHS’s review on statutes related to occupations handled by the DHS background check unit and to ground DHS’s work in the DAS work group report already produced.

Next steps: Committee members and witnesses expressed support for studying consolidation and for pairing the study with implementation work addressed in other bills this session. The public hearing was closed and the committee moved to its scheduled work sessions.