Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interstate Background Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would authorize state to join compact for interstate fingerprint checks in care settings
Summary
House Bill 13 85 would direct the Washington State Patrol to execute the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, allowing qualified entities and federally recognized tribes to conduct interstate fingerprint‑based background checks for noncriminal‑justice purposes involving children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
Committee counsel provided a staff briefing and the Washington State Patrol offered agency testimony at the hearing on House Bill 13 85. The bill would authorize the Washington State Patrol to execute the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact on behalf of Washington state, enabling interstate exchange of unsealed criminal history for noncriminal‑justice purposes such as background checks required under the National Child Protection Act.
Staff explained the federal legal framework: the National Child Protection Act authorizes qualified entities to use FBI fingerprint‑based checks for volunteers and employees who work with children, the elderly, or people with disabilities; the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact establishes infrastructure for interstate exchange of fingerprint‑supported checks. The briefing noted that 35 states have ratified the compact.
Sponsor Representative Jamila Taylor emphasized the bill's practical impact on provider onboarding timelines, particularly for developmental‑disabilities individual providers and other care workers. "One of the things that takes much, much longer than it should is background checks," Taylor said, describing the bill as reducing red tape and expediting applicants' ability to begin caregiving work.
Captain Dion Glover of the Washington State Patrol, representing the agency, supported the bill as an agency request, saying it is necessary to align state law with federal guidance and to preserve authorized access to national criminal-history information for specified purposes. Staff noted the state patrol may charge fees to cover processing and dissemination costs and that qualified entities must follow notification and contestation requirements for subjects of checks.
Committee members had no substantive objections during the hearing; staff and the state patrol said they would provide details on fees and operational timelines for implementation if the committee advances the bill.
