NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Swissstack |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
629/aHJC |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Child Care Facility Staff Fingerprinting |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Responses
Received From
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of HJC Amendment
The House Judiciary
Committee has amended House Bill 629 to expressly provide that the fingerprinting
and background check requirements set forth in the bill will also apply to all
prospective and licensed foster parents.
Synopsis of Original Bill
House Bill 629 amends
NMSA 1978, Sections 32A-15-1 through 3 to permit the Children, Youth and
Families Department to conduct background checks, including fingerprinting, on
prospective operators, staff and employees of childcare facilities. The bill provides certain confidentiality
protections for these records, and the current records of the Department for
operators, staff and employees of child care facilities.
Significant
Issues
1.
This bill seeks to promote the safety of
2.
The child care facilities covered
include:
·
Every facility or program that has
primary custody of children for 20 hours or more per week, and
·
Juvenile detention, correction and
treatment facilities.
3. Criminal history records obtained pursuant to the provisions of this section shall not be used for any purpose other than conducting background checks. Criminal history records obtained pursuant to the provisions of this section, and the information contained in those records, shall not be released or disclosed to any other person or agency, except pursuant to a court order or with the written consent of the person that is the subject of the record.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There will be fiscal
implications for the Children, Youth and Families Department in obtaining and
submitting the fingerprints.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
In its review of this
bill, the Office of the Attorney General notes:
1.
Sections 32A-15-1 through –3, even with
the additions made in this bill, are still not as comprehensive as the
Caregivers Criminal History Screening Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 29-17-1 to
–5. This bill copies some of the language
from this other law (dealing with confidentiality issues), but not all of it.
2.
The Caregivers Criminal History Screening
Act includes explanatory language on who can work, who can’t work, when they
can start working, and the application of the Criminal Offender Employment Act,
NMSA 1978, Sections
In addition to the Office of the Attorney General’s comments, these questions are raised:
3.
For clarification purposes, does this
provision apply only to state/CYFE facilities and programs and those childcare
facilities providing services under contract to the state?
Does
the Caregivers Criminal History Screening Act similarly cover non-state
daycares that operate with a state license?
4. Should CYFD be permitted to share information regarding an applicant to work at a children’s facility with law enforcement if it is determined that the applicant is currently wanted (i.e., there exists a warrant) in another state for criminal conduct, which may include a crime against a child? Would a bench warrant constitute a “court order” exception to the confidentiality requirements of this provision?
Should
the ability to share such criminal record information with law enforcement
personnel be contingent on such factors as:
i.
there is a current, unresolved legal
matter;
ii.
the matter is criminal in nature, and/or
iii.
the matter involves serious charges,
violent behavior and/or a child (i.e., the
matter is not a such that it is a traffic violation)?
Arguably,
this sort of exception to sharing information with law enforcement personnel
will result in greater general safety for all
SJM/sb:yr