Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Background Checks Ncmec topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee re-refers bill to ensure background checks reflect NCMEC alerts after daycare abuse case
Summary
House File 2,226, which would allow state background-check processes to show whether an individual has been flagged in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) alerts, was re-referred to the Judiciary Committee after emotional testimony from families and childcare providers about a local abuse case.
The Minnesota House Children and Families Committee voted to re-refer House File 2,226 to the Judiciary Committee after testimony about gaps in how criminal and civil data is shared with the agencies that perform background studies for people who work with children.
Representative West, sponsor of the bill, framed it as a targeted change to existing background-study procedures that would permit the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and other law-enforcement alert systems to share a minimal flag with the Department of Human Services' background-study unit when an individual appears in an NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) alert because of suspected possession or distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
Multiple witnesses told the committee a local childcare worker was found to be in possession of CSAM and had continued working while alerts existed in law-enforcement systems. Adrian Lundeen Hornung, whose daughter was among children affected in the case, described the family’s trauma: "My daughters are everything to me," he said, and recounted being notified by the center that an employee had been arrested. Hornung urged lawmakers to support the bill so other families would not face the same uncertainty.
Huang Murphy, CEO of People Serving People — which operates family homeless shelters and child-care centers — said the BCA had received multiple NCMEC alerts about the offender but that DHS background-study results given to providers had not reflected that risk. Murphy described the requested change as a limited data-sharing adjustment: "We are simply asking that the data that 1 agency has is shared with another in a very minimal way. Just a yes or no, is this person safe?" she said.
Committee members acknowledged the seriousness and the technical and legal complexities. Members raised privacy and law-enforcement-investigation concerns and discussed language in the bill that would withhold investigative details from employers while still allowing employers to learn that a background check identified a safety concern. Representative Coulter asked whether restricting the reason for disqualification was a privacy protection; Representative West and witnesses said the design aimed to balance child safety, investigative integrity and individual privacy.
Action: The committee approved Representative West’s motion to re-refer House File 2,226 to the Judiciary Committee by voice vote.
Why it matters: Witnesses described a gap between law-enforcement alerts and the background-study information employers receive; the bill would create a mechanism for minimal, targeted data sharing to give childcare providers notice that an individual has been flagged while preserving investigative confidentiality.
What’s next: The bill will be considered in the Judiciary Committee, where members and staff said they will work with the BCA and DHS on technical language and data-privacy safeguards.
