ARIZONA STATE SENATE
RESEARCH STAFF
AMBER O'DELL
TO: JOINT LEGISLATIVE AUDIT COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ANALYST
PUBLIC SAFETY &
Senator Robert Blendu, Chairman HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
Representative John Nelson, Vice- Chairman Telephone: ( 602) 926- 3 171
Facsimile: ( 602) 926- 3833
DATE: November 27,2007
SUBJECT: Sunset Review of the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Attached is the final report of the sunset review of the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting, which
was conducted by the Senate Public Safety and Human Services and the House of Representatives
Natural Resources and Public Safety Committee of Reference.
The Committee of Reference recommends that the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting be
continued for five years and that the next audit of the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting include an
analysis of the criteria used to grant or deny waivers and whether the process is actually
screening out inappropriate people, including a comparison of the group given waivers with a
control group that received jobs but did not require waivers.
This report has been distributed to the following individuals and agencies:
Governor of the State of Arizona
The Honorable Janet Napolitano
President of the Senate
Senator Timothy S. Bee
Senate Members
Senator Linda Gray, Cochair
Senator Chuck Gray
Senator Jack W. Harper
Senator Leah Landrum Taylor
Senator Victor Soltero
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Office of the Auditor General
Arizona State Library, Archives & Public Records
Senate Majority Staff
Senate Research Staff
Senate Minority Staff
Senate Resource Center
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Representative James P. Weiers
House Members
Representative Judy M. Burges, Cochair
Representative John Kavanagh
Representative Barbara McGuire
Representative Lynne Pancrazi
Representative Jerry Weiers
House Majority Staff
House Research Staff
House Minority Staff
Chief Clerk
AOIjas
Attachments
Senate Public Safety and Human Services and
House of Representatives Natural Resources and Public Safety
Committee of Reference Report
ARIZONA BOARD OF FINGERPRINTING
Background
Pursuant to A. R. S. 4 41- 2953, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee ( JLAC) assigned the
sunset review of the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting ( Board) to the Committee of Reference comprised
of members of the Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee and the House of
Representatives Natural Resources and Public Safety Committee.
Created by the Legislature in 1999, the Board considers applications for good cause exceptions
from people who have been denied a fingerprint clearance card ( card) by the Department of Public
Safety ( DPS). Arizona statutes require a fingerprint clearance card for several types of professional
licensure, certification and state jobs. Jobs that require a card are primarily those that involve working
with children or vulnerable adults. DPS must deny a card if an applicant is subject to registration as a
sex offender, has been convicted of or is awaiting trial for certain crimes named in statute, or if it cannot
determine the outcome of an arrest for these crimes within 30 business days of receiving the criminal
records. The Board's ability to grant a good cause exception is designed to resolve those cases whose
outcome could not be determined by DPS and to allow convicted people to demonstrate that they have
been successfully rehabilitated.
Before the creation of the Board and the fingerprint clearance card, five agencies whose heads
now appoint members of the Board were responsible for decisions about the criminal records of the
people they licensed, certified or employed to work with children and vulnerable adults. Not only could
duplicate efforts occur, but there was no assurance that the same standards were applied across the five
agencies. These agencies are the departments of Economic Security, Education, Health Services and
Juvenile Corrections, and the Supreme Court.
The Board initially considers applications in a step called " expedited review" when it determines
whether to grant a good cause exception immediately or to refer the case to a hearing. If more
information is needed to make a decision, the application for a good cause exception proceeds to a
hearing, which is generally conducted by the Board's Executive Director. In some cases, the Executive
Director makes the final decision; in others, the Board receives the findings and recommendations from
the hearing and makes the final decision. According to the Board's database, the Board closed 1,769
appeals in FY 2005- 2006, granting good cause exceptions in 1,148 instances.
The Board has five full- time staff: the Executive Director, a hearing officer, an investigator and
two administrative assistants. The Board's revenues come from a $ 3.00 fee charged to all card
applicants, established in FY 2003- 2004. At the end of FY 2005- 2006, the Board had a fund balance of
$ 56 1,647.
Committee of Reference Sunset Review Procedures
The Committee of Reference held one public meeting on October 3,2007, to review the sunset
audit prepared by the Office of the Auditor General ( OAG) and to receive public testimony. The
1
Committee of Reference received testimony from the OAG and Dennis Seavers, Executive Director of
the Board.
The presentation summarized the OAG's findings and recommendations as follows:
Finding I: Although the Board is taking steps to help manage its hearings workload, further action is
needed to ensure timely decisions on applications for fingerprint clearance card good cause exceptions.
Recommendations:
1. The Board should continue to monitor the timeliness of its decisions, but if timeliness continues
to be a problem the Board should consider changes to improve its ability to use the Office of
Administrative Hearings ( OAH) as a back- up alternative for hearing cases.
2. The Board should modify its database to include more information, such as the dates of
rescheduled hearings, whether the case was heard by OAH or by the Executive Director and the
length of time between the hearing and the recommendation going to the Board.
3. The Board should expand its oversight of program operations by requiring staff to provide it
with regular reports that show how long beyond 60 days cases have been waiting for a decision.
4. The Legislature should consider establishing statutory time frames for the Board's decisions.
Finding 11: The Board needs to improve management and oversight of its decisions.
Recommendations:
1. The Board should implement management controls to prevent cards fiom being issued without
its final review, including:
a. Producing regular reports on case status.
b. Conducting regular reconciliations with DPS to verify that applicants have been
appropriately approved or denied a card.
2. The Board should continue to keep records of the meetings in which it determines good cause
exceptions.
Finding 111: The Board has inappropriately decided some cases and has also inappropriately requested
certain information for possible consideration in reaching its decisions.
Recommendations:
1. The Board needs to ensure that it follows statute when granting or denying good cause
exceptions.
2. The Board should modify the form completed by all applicants as follows:
a. Ask for information regarding professional license suspension or revocation and contact
with Child Protective Services ( CPS) only from applicants who have been convicted of a
precluding offense.
b. Ask for this information only when it relates to the type of offense for which the applicant
was convicted.
c. Ask about substantiated CPS reports, not all CPS contact.
Committee Recommendations
The Committee of Reference recommends the following:
1. That the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting be continued for five years.
2. That the next audit of the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting include an analysis of the criteria
used to grant or deny waivers and whether the process is actually screening out inappropriate
people, including a comparison of the group given waivers with a control group that received
jobs but did not require waivers.
Attachments
1. Meeting Notice
2. Minutes of Committee of Reference Meeting
3. Board Response to the Required Agency Factors and Additional Questions
4. 2006 Annual Report of the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
REVISED REVISED REVISED
Interim agendas can be obtained via the Internet at http: llwww. azleg. state. az. usllnterimCommittees. asp
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
INTERIM MEETING NOTICE
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN SERVICES AND HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES AND
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
Date: Wednesday, October 3,2007
Time: 2: 00 P. M.
+ Place: SHR 109 ( Note Room Change)
AGENDA
1. Call to order
2. Opening Remarks
3. Arizona Board of Fingerprinting Sunset Audit
Presentation by the Office of the Auditor General
Response by the Board of Fingerprinting
Public Testimony
Discussion and Recommendation by the Committee of Reference
4. Adjourn
Members:
Senator Linda Gray, Co- Chair
Senator Chuck Gray
Senator Jack Harper
Senator Leah Landrum Taylor
Senator Victor Soltero
Representative Judy Burges, Co- Chair
Representative John Kavanagh
Representative Barbra McGuire
Representative Lynne Pancrazi
Representative Jerry Weiers
Persons with a disability may request a reasonable accommodation such as a sign language interpreter, by contacting the
Senate Secretary's Office: ( 602) 926- 4231 ( voice). Requests should be made as early as possible to allow time to arrange the accommodation.
Page 1 of 1
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- eighth Legislature - First Regular Session
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN SERVICES AND
HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE OF REFERENCE
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, October 3,2007
Senate Hearing Room 109 - 2: 00 p. m.
Co- Chair Senator Linda Gray called the meeting to order at 2: 02 p. m. and attendance was noted
by the secretary.
Members Present
Senator Jack Harper
Senator Victor Soltero
Representative John Kavanagh
Representative Barbara McGuire
Representative Lynne Pancrazi
Representative Jerry Weiers
Senator Linda Gray, Co- Chair
Representative Judy Burges, Co- Chair
Members Absent
Senator Chuck Gray Senator Leah Landrurn Taylor
Auditor General Report on Board of Fingerprinting
Shan Hays, Performance Audit Manager, Auditor General's Office, gave a presentation on the
Performance Audit and Sunset Review of the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting ( Attachment 1).
Representative Kavanagh said he noticed that most of the auditing has to do with how the agency
is complying with the law in terms of what they have to do and the timeliness in which they do
it, which is good, so that people are not without jobs because of delays. He said he is also curious
as to whether or not any part of the audit was done to ascertain if the actual decisions that are
made concerning the granting of waivers are good decisions.
Ms. Hays stated they looked at the decisions in the context of whether or not the Board was
considering the factors that are laid out in statute. Mr. Kavanagh asked if anyone had ever done a
study to see if the criteria that is being applied is good criteria and therefore people are being
protected. Ms. Hays stated she is not aware of studies of this type and that perhaps the Executive
Director would be better able to answer that question.
Response by the Board of Fingerprinting
Dennis Seavers, Executive Director, Arizona Board of Fingerprinting, responded to
Representative Kavanagh's question about the consistency of decisions for similarly situated
individuals by saying that the closest thing they have is a performance measure to see whether
there is a consistent approval rate. The issue that they are looking at is not whether the approval
rate is high enough or low enough but whether it is consistent from year to year. He stated
generally, it is; that it hovers around 83 percent; this year being about 87- 90 percent.
Mr. Kavanagh commented he is glad they are looking at that, but the only thing that shows is
consistency in either making mistakes or doing good. He commented this situation is much like a
parole board and that feedback is necessary in order to know if the criteria upon which it is based
is good or bad in order to make any necessary changes.
Mr. Seavers said that there is a certain oversight only in those cases where an individual is
denied a waiver, and they are allowed an opportunity to request a review from the Board and
later they can choose to go to superior court and request a review. Other than that, he said
auditors did look at a sample of cases and only found two cases where the decisions were not
appropriate.
Senator Linda Gray asked Mr. Seavers if he knew how many people who came before the Board
for an exemption have come before the Board again for a violation that shows up under the
clearance card. He said he does not have the number but could provide it. He said it is not a high
number, probably under a hundred.
Representative Pancrazi asked if teachers have to go through this entire process every six years.
Mr. Seavers stated it is required for most individuals in the fingerprint system to have their card
renewed every six years. If a person is arrested in Arizona for an offense their card would be
suspended, but if they were arrested in another state, it would not be. So every six years there is a
check that there is nothing new on the record. There is a good cause exception to this rule
determined by the Department of Public Safety by looking at the history of the applicant. He
stated Senator Chuck Gray has introduced a new system to allow teachers to do one- time
fingerprinting and not have to go through the procedures over and over again.
Mr. Weiers asked about the Board's authority. Mr. Seavers said that according to a recent court
decision, the Board can delegate their authority to a hearing officer. Mr. Weiers asked why not
have the hearing officer make a recommendation to the Board and the Board make the decision.
Senator Gray commented that it is because the statute uses the word " or." Mr. Weiers
commented that this, then, is something the Legislature can change.
Mr. Seavers continued with his presentation and referred to a memorandum given to the Auditor
General's Office by the Board of Fingerprinting ( Attachment 2) and stated they took to heart the
recommendations the Auditor General made and tried to implement them as expeditiously as
possible.
He said he knows one of the issues this Committee is considering is what would be the negative
impact of eliminating the Board of Fingerprinting and offered several possibilities. One would be
to return the good cause process to the agencies. The problem that would then exist would be
similar to the problem that existed many years ago when each agency might have its own
standards to determine if a person should be given good cause. It also would impact the
caseloads and the work of those agencies who would not want to have the good cause process
revolve back to them. The other way would be to eliminate a good cause process. Mr. Seaves
commented that, unfortunately, this would mean that hundreds and thousands of individuals,
who otherwise would be eligible to work in human service and related activities, would not be
able to work, although this probably would have a positive long- term effect in terms of public
safety.
Mr. Seavers stated many of the providers, especially in rural areas, have indicated that they have
an extremely high turnover and not having some kind of a good cause process would effect their
ability to recruit individuals. He said he would also note that these are individuals who had
criminal offenses decades ago and nothing since. He stated the Board would ask that this
Committee continue the agency, considering not only the progress that has been made with the
Auditor General's recommendations but also the importance of the work that the Board does.
Representative Burges stated she is concerned with consistency in that individual hearing
officers can make individual decisions as to issuing a card but with the Board it takes five
individuals, all voting yes. Mr Seavers said this is something the Board discussed at a recent
meeting and something with which they are concerned. If one person is making the decision it is
not the level of scrutiny as when five members are making it. She said it seems almost easier to
get through the process. Mr. Seavers commented the Board has discussed other options. One is to
keep the review process and have the hearing officers conduct the initial hearing. He stated the
process in which the Board seems most interested is returning to the Board making the final
decision and the hearing officer making a recommendation. Mr. Seavers said it would take
legislation to make this option happen.
Mr. Seavers stated that in terms of timeliness it is a much better process. But there is definitely a
policy concern about the propriety of the hearing officer making the final decision.
Senator Linda Gray asked how much of a delay a process of this type would cause the employee.
Mr. Seavers said it would make the process a bit longer from what it is currently; it could be a
40- day wait. Senator Gray commented that for a teacher to wait 40 days is a long time. She asked
who hires the hearing officers. Mr. Seavers stated that the Board hires them and there are two
hearing officers. He stated that according to present statute, the decision of the five Board
members has to be unanimous which is very common.
Representative Kavanagh commented that all employees working in this area really need to have
behavior that is above reproach and asked if there are rules or guidelines that have been issued
about this. Mr. Seavers said they have not, but he can bring this to the Board for possible action
to be taken.
Mr. Weiers asked if there is a requirement that the Board, the director, or the hearing officers
have fingerprint checks. Mr. Seavers said there is not; that he relies on information that is
publicly available. It was commented that some already would have had this done if they are
coming from other agencies requiring it. Mr. Seavers said there would have to be legislation to
make fingerprinting a requirement in this case.
Senator Linda Gray asked if Mr. Seavers and the staff all received performance pay. Mr. Seavers
responded that they did. Senator Gray commented that it says in the auditor's report that it took
longer for people to receive a decision in 2006 than in 2005 and asked him if that fact was
considered in ascertaining whether they should receive performance pay. Mr. Seavers explained
why it was not possible to keep up with cases in 2006 and stated that currently that issue has
been corrected. He further explained that the process has become remarkably faster as to where it
was last year. Senator Gray asked about the new plan that was submitted so that performance pay
could be made. She asked him to explain why the standards were lessened and why, despite a
letter of reprimand, the performance pay was allowed. Mr. Seavers explained why the new plan
was adopted. Senator Gray asked about the performance targets and results since April. Mr.
Seavers made available to the Committee information on performance targets and results for
May 2007 through September 2007 ( Attachment 3).
In answering Representative Pancrazi's question, Mr. Seavers said there is some discussion as to
whether or not classified or non- certified personnel in a school district are required to have a
fingerprint clearance card or whether they just need current fingerprinting. He said there seems
to be some conflict in the statute and that it would involve a substantial increase in the caseload,
perhaps 100 percent, to require the fingerprint card. He said his understanding is that the
Department of Public Safety is working with Senator Chuck Gray to develop legislation to repeal
that requirement. He said these individuals should probably be fingerprinted but probably not
require a card.
Debbie Davenport, Auditor General, answered questions about the cost of the audit. She said this
particular audit so far only focuses on whether or not the screening process that is required is
being done efficiently, and nobody apparently has any idea if the screening process actually
works and screens out the people that need to be screened out.
Ms. Davenport stated that the scope of the audit Representative Kavanagh is recommending is a
much bigger audit and would take more resources from their office. If this Board is continued for
less than ten years, it would be up to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to determine if the
Board would be looked at by the Auditor General's office or just come up before the Committee
of Reference without a review of her office.
Senator Soltero moved that the Senate Public Safety and Human Services and House
Natural Resources and Public Safety Committee of Reference recommend that the
Legislature continue the Board of Fingerprinting for five years. The motion carried by a
roll call vote of 7- 0- 0- 3 ( Attachment 4).
Representative Kavanagh moved the recommendation that the next audit of the Arizona
Board of Fingerprinting include an analysis to see if the criteria that is being used to either
grant or deny waivers is actually screening out people inappropriate for these jobs based
on their either having been fired, arrested, or involved in negligent or criminal acts, and
comparing that group with a comparable group that received jobs but did not require a
waiver. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 4- 2- 0- 4 ( Attachment 5).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3: 05 p. m.
Patricia Hudock, Committee Secretary
October 3,2007
( Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk; video archives
available at http:// www. azleg . gov/)
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Agency Response to Committee of Reference Factors
1. Describe the role and function of the agency, including major activities or projects,
accomplishments, and obstacles to success.
Role and function
The Arizona Board of Fingerprinting ( the " Board"), along with the Department of Public Safety
(" DPS"), provides a supportive role for other state agencies. DPS and the Board together
administer the fingerprint- clearance- card system, which other agencies rely on for their
regulatory work. The fingerprint clearance card serves as a condition of licensure or
employment for a wide variety of regulated activities. A full list of these activities, including
activities that were added in the most recent legislative session but may not yet be effective,
appears in Appendix 1.
The Board's role is to consider appeals from individuals whose fingerprint clearance card has
been denied or suspended by DPS. The Board determines whether individuals who have certain
criminal- history profiles have successfully demonstrated rehabilitation and that they are not
recidivists. To determine whether an applicant is rehabilitated, the Board uses the following
statutory criteria.
1. The extent of the person's criminal record;
2. The length of time that has elapsed since the offense was committed;
3. The nature of the offense;
4. Any applicable mitigating circumstances;
5. The degree to which the person participated in the offense;
6. The extent of the person's rehabilitation, including:
a. Completion of probation, parole, or community supervision;
b. Whether the person paid restitution or other compensation for the offense;
c. Evidence of positive action to change criminal behavior, such as completion of a
drug- treatment program or counseling;
d. Personal references attesting to the person's rehabilitation.
The Board has a two- step process for evaluating cases. In the first step, after receiving a
complete application package, the Board conducts an expedited review. An expedited review is
an evaluation of a person's application without the person being present. The Board either grants
a good cause exception ( which allows the applicant to receive a fingerprint clearance card) or
refers the applicant to an administrative hearing. The hearing is typically conducted by a hearing
officer, although the Board itself may conduct the hearing. After the hearing, the application is
either granted or denied. The applicant may request a rehearing or review, or the applicant may
request judicial review in superior court.
Agency reponse to statutory factors
1
Major activities and accomplishments
The Board was established in 1998 and began operations in 1999. Originally envisioned as a
small agency, including a staff that consisted only of an executive director, the Board has grown
significantly, relative to its original size. For example, in FY 2000, the Board received 632
requests for a good cause exception; in FY 2007, the Board received 3,236 requests. Over the
past decade, the Board has responded, with varying degrees of success ( see " Obstacles to
success" below), to the increasing demand for fingerprinting services in Arizona.
In 2003, after experiencing an enormous backlog that persisted for multiple years ( see " Obstacles
to success below), the Board sought numerous legislative changes that essentially recreated the
Board. In particular, the legislation allowed the Board to shift from a legislatively appropriated
funding source to a fee- based fund. This change in funding structure allowed the Board to hire
additional staff members. Also, the legislation exempted the Board from Article 10 of the
Uniform Administrative Procedures Act and empowered the Board to employ a hearing officer
for expedited reviews and hearings. The Board itself had previously conducted hearings, but
Board members were unable to meet often enough to keep up with the caseload of hearings.
Employing a hearing officer would allow the Board to hold a sufficient number of hearings to
keep up with the caseload. By Fall 2003, the backlog had been essentially eliminated.
Also in 2003, the Board enacted its own policy and legislative initiatives. The Board
substantially revised its rules, both to reflect its new processes and to address deficiencies in the
previously existing rules. The Board adopted new policies, especially for the expedited- review
process. Under these new policies, the Board staff would prepare summaries of cases for Board
review, rather than have Board members individually review hundreds of files each week. By
relying increasingly on its staff, the Board was able to make significant reductions in its
processing times.
In 2006 and 2007, the Board took additional steps to address a minor backlog that arose in 2006.
The Board established a new hearing- officer position in August 2006. The Board also worked
with the Legislature to create appropriate time frames to govern the Board's application process.
To comply with those time frames, the Board created two new positions- an additional
investigator and an additional hearing officer. The growth of an agency is not necessarily a
positive step. But, in this case, the Board's growth has been necessary to meet the increased
demand for fingerprinting and regulation in Arizona.
Obstacles to success
For several years after its creation, the Board was plagued by a substantial backlog of cases. In
2002, the wait for an administrative hearing was longer than two years. The crisis created by the
backlog was substantial enough that member agencies, the Governor's Office, and the
Legislature were giving serious thought to eliminating the Board.
There were various factors that contributed to the backlog. Primarily, the Board did not meet
often enough to conduct a sufficient number of hearings. In order to keep up with the caseload
of hearings, the Board needed to meet weekly. Instead, the Board was meeting about once a
Agency reponse to statutory factors
2
month. Board members are employees of their respective agencies, and it would have been a
significant burden on those agencies to have Board members meet often enough to keep up with
the caseload. For example, the Board members representing the Department of Education
traditionally has been the chief investigator for the State Board of Education. If the Board were
to meet often enough to keep up with its caseload of hearings, the State Board of Education's
chief investigator would have spent two full days each week-- one day for hearings and one day
for expedited reviews- at the Board of Fingerprinting. Member agencies were not able to
sacrifice employees to the Board of Fingerprinting for the amount of time necessary to keep up
with the Board's caseload.
In addition to limitations on the availability of Board members, Board operations were also
negatively affected by financial limitations. The Board received less than $ 100,000 annually in
legislative appropriations. This level of funding allowed the Board to hire two employees- an
executive director and an administrative assistant. These staff members were considered DPS
employees, even though the Board was a separate agency and salaries were drawn from the
Board's funding. In addition to legislative appropriations, DPS provided supplementary funding
from its own resources.
Following the elimination of its pre- 2003 backlog, the Board experienced another backlog in
2006, although this backlog was minor in comparison to the pre- 2003 backlog. Through its
performance measures and management reports, the Board recognized that a backlog was
arising. At that time, the Board relied heavily on its executive director to conduct hearings.
However, the increasing demands of administration on the executive director prevented him
from keeping up with the hearing caseload. The Board established a new position for a full- time
hearing officer to cope with the increase in caseload.
A final obstacle to success is the difficulty of accommodating certain additions of programs to
the fingerprint- clearance- card system. As a recent example, the Legislature, through an
amendment introduced by Chuck Gray to this year's education omnibus reconciliation blll
(" ORB"), may have added non- certified school- district personnel ( sometimes called " classified
personnel"), including janitors or administrative assistants, to the fingerprint- clearance- card
system. Previously, classified personnel underwent fingerprinting, but this fingerprint- based
background check was different from the fingerprint- clearance- card system. Under a newly
added statute that will require DPS to create an identity- verified fingerprint clearance card, the
ORB listed classified personnel among those who must receive a fingerprint clearance card.
However, the ORB did not amend the statute that regulated classified personnel. This latter
statute continues to require classified personnel to be fingerprinted under the previous system,
which is not a part of the fingerprint- clearance- card system. The Department of Education
currently is consulting with the Attorney General's Office to determine how to resolve these
conflicting statutes. However, if the Department of Education concludes that classified
personnel are required to have a fingerprint clearance card, there would be about 75,000 new
applicants for a fingerprint clearance card. The Board would expect to see about 3,000 new
applications, which is an over 100% increase in its current caseload. The increase would be
especially problematic because Senator Chuck has suggested that the requirement for a
fingerprint clearance card was unintended, so the Board would need to expand to accommodate a
one- year doubling of its caseload.
Agency reponse to statutory factors
3
2. Provide financial data, such as the number of full- time employees, expenditures and
revenues, and fee structure, if applicable.
Full- time equivalencies
The Board staff includes seven full- time equivalencies (" FTEs), as described below.
1. Executive director ( one FTE);
2. Hearing officer ( two FTEs, including one recently established FTE);
3. Investigator ( two FTEs, including one recently established FTE);
4. Administrative Assistant ( two FTEs).
Expenditures and revenues
A summary of the Board's expenditures and revenues appears in the table below. Detailed
information appears in Appendix 2 to this response.
FY 2007 Actual FY 2008 Estimate
Beginning balance $ 561,646.52 $ 470,231.64
Revenues $ 242,449.00 $ 302,589.00
Expenditures $ 333,863.88 $ 566,741.13
Ending balance $ 470,231.64 $ 206,079.51
Fee structure
The Board's funding comes solely from fee- based revenues. The Board receives $ 3.00 from
each application for a fingerprint clearance card. The $ 3.00 fee is a portion of the total fee
( currently $ 52.00) for a fingerprint clearance card. Funding for the Board is not legislatively
appropriated and is non- lapsing.
3. Identify the problem or needs that the agency is intended to address.
The Board determines whether applicants who have certain criminal profiles are rehabilitated
and are not recidivists and thus are eligible to be granted fingerprint clearance. The Board
ensures that individuals with criminal histories are not likely to pose threats to vulnerable
citizens.
4. State, to the extent practicable, in quantitative and qualitative terms, the objectives
of the agency and its anticipated accomplishments.
The Board's mission is to fairly, expeditiously, and responsibly determine good cause exceptions
for applicants who have been denied a fingerprint clearance card. The Board has adopted three
goals to help fulfill its mission.
Agency reponse to statutory factors
4
Goal 1. To make fair and consistent determinations on good- cause- exception
applications.
Goal 2. To provide applicants with timely decisions on their good- cause- exception
applications.
Goal 3. To develop fair and comprehensible rules, policies, and procedures for
determining good cause exceptions.
The Board measures its progress toward these goals with a series of performance measures.
Detailed information about the Board's performance measures, including statistical information,
appears in Appendix 3 to this response.
5. Identify any other agencies having similar, conflicting, or duplicative objectives, and
explain the manner in which the agency avoids duplication or conflict with other
such agencies.
Several state agencies have a process for determining whether applicants should be granted
licenses or certificates even though the applicants have a criminal history. For example, the
Arizona Board of Nursing conducts fingerprint- based criminal checks as part of its application
process, and the Board of Nursing assesses whether the criminal history warrants adverse action
on the application for a license or certificate.
The Board provides a unique service that is not duplicated with other agencies. No other
agencies determine whether applicants have established good cause to be given a fingerprint
clearance card. However, there is some overlap in fingerprinting requirements between agencies
inside and outside of the fingerprint- clearance- card process. These fingerprinting requirements
are not established by the Board's statutes and are not required by the Board itself, but this
overlap is described below for informational purposes.
The Board of Behavioral Health Examiners (" BBHE) requires its applicants to submit to
the BBHE fingerprint- clearance check, which is separate fkom the fingerprinting-clearance-
card check. But BBHE applicants can submit proof that they hold a valid
fingerprint clearance card in lieu of submitting to the BBHE fingerprint- clearance check.
Individuals who provide direct care in residential- or nursing- care institutions or home-health
agencies must have a fingerprint clearance card. Some of these individuals may be
certified nursing assistants or other nursing professionals whose professional certificates
or licenses are regulated by the Board of Nursing, which has its own requirements for
fingerprint- based criminal clearance. In addition, nursing schools generally require their
students to have a fingerprint clearance card as a condition for being accepted into the
nursing program or continuing in the program. Nursing schools developed this
requirement because students must complete clinical work in settings that require
fingerprint clearance cards. However, this requirement does not stem from a policy of
the Board of Nursing.
Agency reponse to statutory factors
5
6. Assess the consequences of eliminating the agency or of consolidating it with another
agency.
There would be a significant endangerment to public safety if the process of conducting
fingerprint- based background checks were eliminated. The fingerprint- clearance- card process
exists to protect citizens from individuals with lengthy and serious criminal backgrounds.
Significantly, the citizens the process protects are among society's most vulnerable: children, the
elderly, individuals with developmental disabilities, and juveniles with behavioral problems.
These citizens are especially susceptible to becoming victims of criminal offenses. Some kind of
fingerprint- based clearance process is vital to public safety. Without a criminal- history clearance
process, murderers, rapists, perpetrators of fraud and theft, child abusers, sex offenders,
arsonists, drug abusers and dealers, and other criminals might be able to be teachers, foster
parents, Child Protective Services employees, day- care providers, therapists for at- risk youth,
providers for individuals with developmental disabilities, and child- care- home providers, among
other professions.
To assess the impact the Board's elimination would have on public safety, it is helpful to
consider two alternatives to the Board's existence. One option would be to return the process of
making good- cause- exception determinations to the various state agencies involved in the
fingerprint clearance card process. However, doing so would create duplicative functions among
state agencies. Certain private agencies that provide human services receive fbnding from
multiple state agencies. In order for an individual with a criminal background to work at that
private agency, the individual would need to receive clearance from all of the state agencies that
provide funding. For instance, to provide behavioral health services to at- risk youths, an
individual may have to receive clearance from all of the following agencies: the Administrative
Office of the Courts and the Departments of Economic Security, Health Services, and Juvenile
Corrections.
Another option would be to eliminate the Board's good cause exception process but not the
fingerprint- based clearance process. Under this option, individuals who are denied a fingerprint
clearance card ( or who have the card suspended) would be precluded absolutely from providing
direct care to vulnerable citizens. However, there is a high rate of turnover among human-service
providers, and there are shortages in the industries that fall under the fingerprint-clearance-
card system. Even now, care providers have difficulty recruiting and retaining
employees. This option would substantially diminish the providers' ability to maintain adequate
staffs, and in some cases, particularly in rural areas, may prevent the providers from being to
deliver services. This diminishment would affect public health, particularly in the cases of
human service and health care providers, even if the absolute preclusion of individuals with
relevant criminal histories increased public safety on a short- tern basis.
Agency reponse to statutory factors
6
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Budget v. Actual
Fiscal Year 2007 TOTAL
Ju1' 06 - Jun 07 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget - Income
4900 - Transfers In
4901 - Operating Transfers In 242,449.00 360,000.00 - 1 17,551 . OO 67.35%
Total 4900 - Transfers In 242,449.00 360,000.00 - 1 17,551 . OO 67.35%
FY06 Carryover
Total Income
Expense
6000 - Personal Services
601 0 - Basic Compensation
601 I - Regular Base Salary 154,420.98 179,321.77 - 24,900.79 86.1 1%
Total 6010 - Basic Compensation 154,420.98 179,321.77 - 24,900.79 86.1 1%
6030 - Exception Compensation
6028 - 2.5% Performance Pay
6031 - Overtime
- -
Total 6030 - Except~ onC ompensat~ on 4,193.42 4,483.04 - 289.62 93 54%
6040 - Leave Compensation
6041 - Annual Leave
6042 - Sick Leave
6047 - Annual Leave Payout
6048 - Holiday Leave Taken
6049 - Other Compensated Leave 1 3 1'. 40
Total 6040 - Leave Compensation 19,321.37
Total 6000 - Personal Services 177,935.77 183,804.81 - 5,869.04 96.81%
6100 - ERE
61 10 - lnsurance
6111 - FICA
61 13 - Medical lnsurance
61 14 - Basic Life
61 16 - Long- term Disability
61 17 - Unemployment lnsurance
61 18 - Dental lnsurance
61 19 - Worker's Compensation
Total 61 10 - lnsurance
6150 - Retirement Plan Payments
61 55 - ASRS 15,130.65 15,421.67 - 291.02 98.1 1%
Total 6150 - Retirement Plan Payments 15,130.65 15,421.67 - 291.02 98.11%
Agency response to statutory factors
Appendix 1
7
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Budget v. Actual
6180 - Other ERE
61 83 - Personal Services
6185 - GlTA Charge
Fiscal Year 2007 TOTAL
Ju1' 06 - Jun 07 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget -
6186 - Atty. Gen. Pro Rate Chg. 1,129.86 1 , I 38.69 - 8.83 99.23%
6189 - Sick Leave Accumulation 71 1.68 717.29 - 5.61 99.22%
Total 6180 - Other ERE 3,958.80 3,918.18 40.62 101.04%
Total 61 00 - ERE 48,894.87 74,160.98 - 25,266.1 1 65.93%
6200 - Prof. & Outside Services
621 0 - Financial Services
621 1 - Bond Issuance Cost 1,375.00 1,375.00 0.00 100.0%
Total 621 0 - Financial Services 1,375.00 1,375.00 0.00 100.0%
6270 - Education & Training
6271 - Education & Training 32.00 32.00 0.00 100.0%
Total 6270 - Education & Training 32.00 32.00 0.00 100.0%
6290 - Other Prof. & Out. Svcs.
6299 - Other Prof. & Out. Svcs. 3,182.50 15,000.00 - 1 1.817.50 21.22%
Total 6290 - Other Prof. & Out. Svcs. 3,182.50 15,000.00 - 1 1,817.50 21.22%
Total 6200 - Prof. & Outside Sewices 4,589.50 16,407.00 - 1 1,817.50 27.97%
7000 - Other Operating
71 50 - IT Services
7153 - Internal Svc. Data Proc. 5,991.03 6,400.00 - 408.97 93.61 %
7172 - External Comm. Long Dist 9,145.95 5,000.00 4,145.95 182.92%
7179 - Other External Comm. 2,605.81 4,000.00 - 1,394.19 65.15%
Total 71 50 - IT Services 17,742.79 15,400.00 2,342.79 1 15.21 %
7200 - Rental Expenditures
7221 - Rental of Land & Bldgs. 16,548.02 39,030.04 - 22,482.02 42.4%
7229 - Miscellaneous Rent 1,030.1 1 200.00 830.1 1 51 5.06%
Total 7200 - Rental Expenditures 17,578.13 39,230.04 - 21,651.91 44.81%
7250 - Repair & Maintenance
7266 - RepairIMaint- Other Equip 263.59 360.00 - 96.41 73.22%
7269 - Repair & Maint ( Other) 5,452.71
Total 7250 - Repair & Maintenance 5,716.30 360.00 5,356.30 1,587.86%
7300 - Operating Supplies
7321 - Office Supplies 11,832.50 6,000.00 5,832.50 197.21%
Agency response to statutory factors
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Budget v. Actual
Fiscal Year 2007 TOTAL
Total 7300 - Operating Supplies
7450 - Conf, Edu, & Traning
7455 - Conf, Edu, & Train Regis
Total 7450 - Conf, Edu, & Traning
7470 - Printing & Photography
7471 - Internal Printing
Total 7470 - Printing & Photography
7480 - Postage & Delivery
7481 - Postage & Delivery
Total 7480 - Postage & Delivery
7500 - Miscellaneous Operating
751 1 - Awards
7541 - Books, Subscr., & Pubs.
Total 7500 - Miscellaneous Operating
Total 7000 - Other Operating
8500 - Nontapital Equipment
8520 - Furniture Non- cap
8521 - Furniture Non- capital
Total 8520 - Furniture Non- cap
8550 - EDP Equip PCILAN Non- cap
8551 - EDP Equip. Non- cap Purch
Total 8550 - EDP Equip PCILAN Non- cap
8570 - Other Equip. - Non- cap.
8571 - Other Equip. - Non- cap.
Total 8570 - Other Equip. - Non- cap.
8580 - Non- capitalized Software
8583 - PClLAN Software Non- cap.
Total 8580 - Non- capitalized Software
Total 8500 - Nontapital Equipment
9100 - Transfers out
9101 - Operating Transfers Out
Total 9100 - Transfers out
Ju1' 06 - Jun 07 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget - 11,832.50 6,000.00 5,832.50 197.21%
Agency response to statutory factors
Appendix 1
9
Total Expense
Net Income
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Budget v. Actual
Fiscal Year 2007 TOTAL
Ju1' 06 - Jun 07 Budget $ Over Budget % of Budget - -
Agency response to statutory factors
Appendix 1
10
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
Ju1' 08 - Jun 09
lncome
4900 - Transfers In
4901 - Operating Transfers In 302,589.00
Total 4900 - Transfers In 302,589.00
FY07 Carryover
Total lncome
Expense
6000 - Personal Services 279,611.58
6100 - ERE 106,505.89
6200 - Prof. & Outside Services
6210 - Financial Services
621 1 - Bond Issuance Cost 1,653.00
Total 621 0 - Financial Services 1,653.00
6270 - Education & Training
6271 - Education & Training 32.00
Total 6270 - Education & Training 32.00
6290 - Other Prof. & Out. Svcs.
6299 - Other Prof. & Out. Svcs.
Total 6290 - Other Prof. & Out. Svcs.
Total 6200 - Prof. & Outside Services
7000 - Other Operating
71 50 - IT Services
7153 - Internal Svc. Data Proc.
7172 - External Comm. Long Dist
71 79 - Other External Comrn.
Total 71 50 - IT Services
7200 - Rental Expenditures
7221 - Rental of Land & Bldgs.
7229 - Miscellaneous Rent
Total 7200 - Rental Expenditures 60,348.66
7250 - Repair & Maintenance
7266 - RepairIMaint- Other Equip 1,240.00
7269 - Repair & Maint ( Other) 6,000.00
Total 7250 - Repair & Maintenance 7,240.00
7300 - Operating Supplies
Agency response to statutory factors
Appendix 2
I I
7321 - Office Supplies
Total 7300 - Operating Supplies
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget
7450 - Conf, Edu, & Training
7455 - Conf, Edu, & Train Regis
Total 7450 - Conf, Edu, & Training
7470 - Printing & Photography
7471- Internal Printing
Total 7470 - Printing & Photography
7480 - Postage & Delivery
7481 - Postage & Delivery
Total 7480 - Postage & Delivery
7500 - Miscellaneous Operating
751 1 - Awards
7541 - Books, Subscr., & Pubs.
Total 7500 - Miscellaneous Operating
Total 7000 - Other Operating
8500 - Non- capital Equipment
8520 - Furniture Non- cap
8521 - Furniture Non- capital
Total 8520 - Furniture Non- cap
8550 - EDP Equip PCILAN Non- cap
8551 - EDP Equip. Non- cap Purch
Total 8550 - EDP Equip PCILAN Non- cap
8580 - Non- capitalized Software
8583 - PCILAN Software Non- cap.
Total 8580 - Non- capitalized Software
Total 8500 - Non- capital Equipment
9100 - Transfers Out
9101 - Operating Transfers Out
Total 9100 - Transfers Out
Ju1' 08 - Jun 09
15,000.00
Total Expense
Net Income
Agency response to statutory factors
Appendix 2
12
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
Strategic Plan
q& l1. To make fair'a nd c* aI'Y t * kU&* ftent d~ ter& i$% tions. on go'$@$@& e- e~ c;?~ tiona pplica@ ns. ;" C ",
, *, ' * Oh" > , *+ 0, :
FY 2007 Estimate FY 2007 Actual FY 2008 Estimate FY 2009 Estimate FY 2010 Estimate
Percent of investigator recommendations for
98.00% 93.81% 93.00% 93.00% 93.00%
expedited reviews accepted
Percent of applications approved 65.29% 92.73% 80.00% 80.00% 80.00%
Percent of approvals by expedited review 70.00% 81.65% 75.00% 75.00% 75.00%
Percent of approvals by administrative hearing 30.00% 18.35% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00%
Goal 2. To provide applicants with timely deci!
Number of applications received
l ~ v e r a ~ nuem ber of days spent processing application I 2 c
FY 2007 Estimate
2,046
Number of applications disposed
Ratio of cases opened to cases closed
Average number of days to dispose
Average number of days spent processing application
I J J from receipt to expedited review
2,046
1: l
70
47
l ~ v e r a ~ daeys from expedited review to hearing I 5 5
Percent of applications that undergo an expedited
review within 20 days ( processing time)
80.00%
lexpedited review I
Agency response to statutory tactors
Appendix 3
13
I
Ins on their good- cause- exception applications.
Percent of applications heard within 60 days of
FY 2007 Actual I FY 2008 Estimate I FY 2009 Estimate I FY 2010 Estimate 1
60.00%
Agency response to statutory factors
Appendix 3
14
90.00%
Y* v? >", , , , , -"- %\ h -<* >,
? * - soAh GpJ 3r~$ evelop fair and com~ tely& T@ ibl< t$ lesp, qljbe?; and procedures, fo, r,~ efer~~ n~ nggood~~~ us, g~~ xceptions., , , , . : -*
90.00%
Percent of applications decided within 60 days of
hearing
FY 2010 Estimate
3,840
1:. 70
55.00%
Number of requests received
Ratio of requests for good cause exceptions to
applications submitted
Percent of applications complete on initial submission
75.00% 90.00%
FY ZOO8 Estimate
3,405
1:. 70
45.00%
17.33%
FY ZOO9 Estimate
3,616
1:. 70
50.00%
FY 2007 Estimate
3,207
1:. 65
45.00%
FY 2007 Actual
3,236
1:. 61
37.30%
Arizona Board of Fingerprinting
2006 Report on Good Cause Exception Application Caseload
and Approvals
SECTION ONE - INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Arizona Session Laws 2005 ( First Regular Session), Chapter 246, Section 5, established a
reporting requirement for the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting (" Board"). Each year, on
or before December 1, the Board is required to report the number of good cause
exception applications received and granted between October 1 and September 30. The
report must break these data down according to the programs listed in A. R. S. 5 41-
619.51( 6). Each program listing must also include a list of the offenses in A. R. S. 5 41-
1758.03( B) and ( C) for which an applicant submitted a good cause exception application
and the Board granted a good cause exception.
The report that follows complies with the legislative requirements. However, the reader
is strongly encouraged to read the methodology section below. Without reading this
section, the reader might draw conclusions that are not warranted by the data.
Methodology
This report draws on two data sets: ( 1) good cause exception applications received
between October 1,2005, and September 30,2006; and ( 2) good cause exceptions
resolved between October 1,2005, and September 30,2006. These two sets of data are
not coextensive, although there may be some overlap among the cases. Some of the
applications received in the relevant time period may not have been concluded by
September 30,2006, and some of the applications concluded in the time period may have
been received prior to October 1,2005.
There are 22 statutory programs for which individuals need fingerprint clearance cards,
as described in Table 1 on the next page.
2006 annual report
1
Table 1
Statutory Programs Grouped by Types of Work
The state agency listed is the agency that provides funding or regulates the program. The Department of
Education, as referred to here, includes the State Board of Education and the Board of Charter Schools.
Program Group
Child day care or child nutrition
Child care home provider
Child welfare and adolescent behavior health treatment
Child Protective Services employment
Individuals with developmental disabilities
Domestic violence and homeless shelters
Residential or nursing care institutions and home health agencies
Teacher certification
Charter school employment
JOBSIJTPA
Exceptional Student Services
When a person applies for a fingerprint clearance card, he or she normally applies under
one or more of the programs listed in A. R. S. § 41- 1758( 5).' Since the person can apply
for a fingerprint clearance card ( and later, a good cause exception) under more than one
program, separate listings under two programs may actually pertain to the same
application. For example, John Smith might apply for a fingerprint clearance card under
the programs for teacher certification and charter school employment. A. R. S. § 41-
619.54( D) (" the reporting statute") requires the Board to list applications received and
granted, broken down by the programs under which individuals applied for a good cause
exception. In the case of John Smith's fingerprint clearance card application, this report
would list him once under the program for teacher certification and once under the
program for charter school employment. Readers should be aware that aggregating the
totals under each program will not yield the total number of applications received. In the
example of John Smith, aggregating the totals under each program would make it appear
as though John Smith had two applications- one for teacher certification and one for
charter school employment.
1 This list of programs is identical to the list in A. R. S. 5 41- 619.51( 6) and is represented in Table 1.
Statutory Program
41- 1964.46- 141
46- 321
36- 897.01, - 897.03
36- 882, - 883.02
41- 1967.01
8- 322
46- 141
36- 425.03
41- 2814
8- 802
36- 594.01
36- 3008,46- 141
36- 41 1
15- 534
15- 1 83
46- 141
15- 763.01
2006 annual report
2
Agency *
Econ. Sec.
Education
Health Svcs.
Health Svcs.
Econ. Sec.
Supr. Crt.
Econ. Sec.
Health Svcs.
Juv. Corr.
Econ Sec.
Econ. Sec
Econ. Sec.
Health Svcs.
Education
Education
Econ. Sec.
Econ. Sec.
Table 2
Illustration of Applicants Selecting Multiple Programs for One Application
Table 2 above illustrates how a single application may appear under multiple programs.
If the reader were to add up the total number of applications under each program, he or
she would get a sum that is higher than the actual number of applications. In Table 2,
adding up the total number of applications under each program would give a sum of six
applications, when in fact there are only three applications. Readers should be cautious
not to treat the totals under each program as totals of discrete applications.
The reporting statute requires the Board to provide data on the offenses for which there
were good cause exception applications submitted and received. The term " offense," in
the context of criminal law, entails a conviction. However, the denial or suspension of a
fingerprint clearance card may be based on an arrest, which ultimately may not yield a
con~ iction. W~ h en the denial or suspension of a fingerprint clearance card is based on an
arrest, the final disposition of the arrest may not be known. In many cases, documentary
evidence is not available because of the length of time that has elapsed since the arrest
took place, coupled with courts' limited schedule for retaining records. Law enforcement
agencies and courts do not always report data to the Department of Public Safety as
required, so disposition information may not be available. Also, applicants themselves
may not remember the disposition of the arrest, particularly when they have extensive
criminal records, arrests that took place many years ago, or backgrounds of substance
abuse. For the purpose of this report, when the disposition of an arrest is not known, the
arrest is excluded from the data because it is not clear whether an offense occurred. The
alternative would have been to include charges where an offense did not occur.
Applicant
John Smith
Jane Roberts
Jack Walters
Total
The reporting statute requires the Board to report on the offenses listed in A. R. S. 5 41-
1758.03( B) and ( C). However, individuals who commit offenses listed in subsection B
are necessarily prevented from receiving a good cause exception. Therefore, there are no
data to report on offenses listed in subsection B.
Charter School Employment
X
1
See A. R. S. 8 41- 1758.03( L) (" The division [ i. e., the fingerprinting division of the Department of Public
Safety] shall not issue a fingerprint clearance card to a person if the division cannot determine, within thirty
business days after receipt of the person's state and federal criminal history record information, whether the
person is awaiting trial on or has been convicted of committing any of the offenses listed in subsection B or
C of this section. If the division is unable to make the determination required by this section and does not
issue a fingerprint clearance card to a person, the person may request a good cause exception pursuant to
section 41- 619.55") and A. R. S. 8 41- 1758.04( C) (" The division shall suspend the fingerprint clearance
card of a person who is arrested for an offense listed in section 41- 1758.03, subsection B or C").
Total
2
2
2
6
Day Care
X
X
2
2006 annual report
3
Teacher Certification
X
X
X
3
SECTION TWO - DATA
1. The reporting statute requires the Board to indicate the number of good cause
exception applications it received. The Board received 1,967 applications.
2. The reporting statute requires the Board to indicate that number of good cause
exceptions granted. Table 3 below shows the disposition of applications closed.
Table 3
Disposition of Applications Closed
* In some cases, based on information it received subsequent to the denial or
suspension of a fingerprint clearance card, DPS is able to issue the card without the
applicant having to receive a good cause exception.
Disposition
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance *
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
Total
3. The reporting statute requires the Board to provide the number of applications
received, broken down by the programs listed in A. R. S. 5 41- 619.5 l( 6). Table 4 on the
next page shows the number of applications, broken down by groups of programs.
Number of Applications
127
1,091
70
1
148
1,437
2006 annual report
4
* The state agency listed is the agency that provides funding or regulates the program. The Department of
Education, as referred to here, includes the State Board of Education and the Board of Charter Schools.
4. The reporting statute requires the Board to provide the number of applications
granted, broken down by the programs listed in A. R. S. 5 41- 6 19.5 l( 6). Table 5 on the
next two pages indicates the disposition of applications closed.
2006 annual report
5
Table 5
Number of Applications Received by Program Group
h~ ldda y care or child nutrition
2006 annual report
6
Table 5 ( continued)
Number of Applications Received by Program Group
* The state agency listed is the agency that provides funding or regulates the program. The Department of
Education, as referred to here, includes the State Board of Education and the Board of Charter Schools.
5. The reporting statute requires the Board to indicate the offenses where an
individual applied for and, additionally, received a good cause exception. Table 6 below
lists the offenses, with an indication of whether or not the Board granted someone who
committed that offense a good cause exception.
r ~ h i lPdr otective Services employment
Individuals with developmental
disabilities
Domestic violence and homeless shelters
Residential or nursing care institutions
and home health agencies
Teacher certification
Charter school employment
JOBSIJTPA
Exceptional Student Services
2006 annual report
7
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
Denial
Approval
DPS issuance
Ineligible
Applicant withdrew
8- 802
36- 594.01
36- 3008,46- 141
36- 41 1
15- 534
15- 1 83
46- 1 41
15- 763.01
1
27
2
0
2
27
122
7
0
32
4
4 1
1
0
10
42
257
11
0
40
12
242
22
0
16
4
8 1
6
0
7
0
8
0
0
3
0
32
2
1
3
Table 6
Offenses from Good Cause Exception Applications
2006 annual report
8
Offense
Manslaughter
Endangerment
Threatening or intimidating
Assault
Assaults on officers or firefighters
Indecent exposure
Public sexual indecency
Theft
Shopliftrng
Forgery
Criminal possession of a forgery device
Criminal impersonation
Fraudulent use of a credit card
Misconduct involving weapons
Concealed weapon violation
Pandering
Possession, use, or sale of marijuana, dangerous drugs,
or narcotic drugs
A criminal offense involving criminal trespass and
burglary under title 13, chapter 15
A criminal offense involving organized crime and fraud
under title 13, chapter 23
Child neglect
Misdemeanor offenses involving contributing to the
delinquency of a minor
Offenses involving domestic violence
Kidnapping
Robbery
Aggravated assault
Page 8 of 8
Clearance Card Statute
41- 1 753.03( C)( I )
41- 1 753.03( C)( 2)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 3)
41- 1753.03( C)( 4)
41- 1753.03( C)( 8)
41- 1 753.03( C)( I 0)
41- 1753.03( C)( I 1)
41- 1 753.03( C)( I 3)
41- 1753.03( C)( I 5)
41- 1 753.03( C)( I 6)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 17)
41- 1 753.03( C)( I 9)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 23)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 28)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 32)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 40)
41- 1753.03( C)( 45)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 54)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 55)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 56)
41- 1753.03( C)( 57)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 58)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 60)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 62)
41- 1 753.03( C)( 63)
Good Cause Exception
Granted
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
