119-S-1528 Data-Driven Journalist Impact Analysis

Summary (Document 119-S-1528)

What changes: S.1528, the “CHILD Act of 2025,” amends 34 U.S.C. §40104(9)(B) to let qualified entities request national background checks not only for employees and volunteers, but also for contractors, individuals at entities under contract with qualified entities, and individuals the entities license or certify. On April 21, 2026, the Senate passed S.1528 by unanimous consent; the House has not acted as of April 24, 2026. (congress.gov)

• Policy lever: expand the statutory definition of “covered individual” to reach contractors and licensees/certified individuals engaged by youth‑, elder‑, or disability‑serving organizations (“qualified entities”). (law.cornell.edu)
• Operational channel: authorizes fingerprint‑based FBI criminal‑history checks via the National Child Protection Act/Volunteers for Children Act framework (NCPA/VCA) that many states already implement through state identification bureaus. (dps.mn.gov)

Key metrics and baselines

Quantities below frame likely magnitude, costs, and implementation context.

• FBI user fee effective date and amount per civil submission from Federal Register/FBI; many requesters also incur state processing and vendor rolling fees. (public-inspection.federalregister.gov)
• Employment scale/growth shown to indicate size of care‑economy roles interacting with vulnerable populations. (bls.gov)
• Prevalence of records contextualizes potential equity impacts of expanded checks. (ncsl.org)
• Illustrative state program fees demonstrate additional, non‑federal cost layers. (watch.wsp.wa.gov)
• National occupational employment/wage baselines referenced to OEWS May 2024 release. (bls.gov)

Economic Effects

Net effects combine small per‑check costs and new compliance steps with potential risk‑reduction benefits from closing contractor/licensing screening gaps.

• Direct screening costs: Each FBI civil fingerprint check carries a $10 user fee (since Jan 1, 2025). Requesters typically also pay state processing and vendor “rolling” fees (e.g., Washington’s state fingerprint‑card fee is $58; Florida’s optional retention-and-notification program is $6 per record/year). (public-inspection.federalregister.gov)
• Administrative/compliance costs: Qualified entities using NCPA/VCA pathways must satisfy FBI CJIS Security Policy controls (access, encryption, vendor management) and provide applicants with required privacy notices and challenge rights under 28 CFR 50.12. (le.fbi.gov)
• Coverage gap closure: Extending eligibility to contractors and licensees/certified individuals aligns statutory scope with current operational realities (outsourced coaches, contracted aides, platform‑based caregivers), potentially reducing liability and loss events associated with known disqualifying convictions. (law.cornell.edu)
• Labor‑supply screening effects: Expanded checks may narrow candidate pools in sectors already facing high demand (e.g., home health/personal care aides), raising short‑term hiring friction and onboarding time. (bls.gov)
• State program harmonization: Many states already run NCPA/VCA checks via their state identification bureaus (SIBs); federal expansion could streamline multistate contracting but requires MOUs/ORIs and process integration. (dps.mn.gov)

Social Effects

Primary intent is safety for vulnerable populations; impacts depend on implementation quality, data quality, and nondiscrimination practices.

• Safety signal: Background screening is a recommended layer in comprehensive youth‑serving organization safety frameworks (alongside policies, training, supervision, and monitoring). The bill strengthens the legal ability to apply that layer to contractors and licensees. (cdc.gov)
• Limits of screening: Many incidents have no prior conviction record; screening should not be treated as a stand‑alone safeguard. (cdc.gov)
• Equity risks: Roughly 77 million U.S. adults have some form of criminal record; indiscriminate exclusions risk disparate impact. EEOC guidance calls for individualized assessments considering offense nature, time elapsed, and job relevance. (ncsl.org)
• Record quality/accuracy: GAO finds incomplete dispositions can delay or misinform employment checks; recent research documents both false‑positive and false‑negative errors in private background reports, underscoring the need to allow challenges/corrections. (gao.gov)
• Applicant rights: Noncriminal‑justice checks must include privacy notices and a reasonable opportunity to challenge and correct FBI records under 28 CFR 50.12. (law.cornell.edu)

Environmental Effects

The proposal changes who may be screened; it does not authorize construction or on‑the‑ground activities.

• Minimal direct environmental impact: Actions of this type are administrative/processing in nature and generally fall within agency categorical exclusions when they have no significant effect on the human environment. (epa.gov)

Temporal Analysis

Expected timing and durability of effects if enacted.

• Immediate (0–12 months): Qualified entities expand screening to contractors and licensees/certified individuals; per‑check costs accrue; entities update consent forms, privacy notices, and CJIS controls; some onboarding delays may occur where state SIB capacity is tight. (le.fbi.gov)
• Medium term (1–3 years): Greater normalization of contractor screening in youth/elder/disability services; selective adoption of record‑retention/notification (“rap‑back”) where available; incremental reduction in coverage gaps but benefits bounded by record completeness. (fdle.state.fl.us)
• Long term (3+ years): As large care‑economy occupations continue to grow, routine contractor screening could become a sector norm; organizations that document individualized assessment practices reduce legal risk while maintaining workforce access. (bls.gov)

Unintended Consequences and Risks

Evidence‑backed risks to monitor and mitigate.

• Disparate impact risks on protected groups if blanket bans are used instead of job‑related, time‑bounded criteria; EEOC guidance mitigations include individualized review. (eeoc.gov)
• Process frictions for small nonprofits and local providers (learning CJIS requirements; obtaining ORIs; covering up‑front fees). State NCPA/VCA programs and SIB agreements can reduce setup burden. (dps.mn.gov)
• Overreliance on screening: Without parallel measures (training, supervision, safe‑environment design), risk reduction may be overstated. (cdc.gov)
• Privacy/retention concerns where continuous‑vetting services are enabled (additional annual fees and data stewardship obligations). (fdle.state.fl.us)

Assessment (Analytical Stance)

Overall, the expected impact is neutral: modest safety gains from closing contractor/licensing gaps, offset by manageable costs and salient equity/privacy risks that are well‑characterized in existing guidance and can be mitigated with compliant implementation (CJIS controls, applicant rights, individualized assessments). (le.fbi.gov)

Sourcing and Methods Notes

Primary sources and data/method references used in this analysis.

• Text, status, and scope: Congress.gov bill page; Senate floor wrap‑up of April 21, 2026; statutory definitions at 34 U.S.C. §40104. (congress.gov)
• NCPA/VCA program operations: state SIB/NCPA pages (examples: MN BCA; FL FDLE). (dps.mn.gov)
• Fees/methods: FBI civil user‑fee schedule effective 2025; FINRA industry notice reflecting FBI fee; BLS OEWS May 2024 release and OOH projections for sector scale. (public-inspection.federalregister.gov)
• Data quality and rights: GAO report on record completeness; EEOC enforcement guidance; FBI noncriminal‑justice applicant privacy rights and 28 CFR 50.12. (gao.gov)
• Evidence on screening as part of layered safeguarding: CDC guidance for youth‑serving organizations; OJP background‑screening guide. (cdc.gov)
• Environmental baseline: CEQ/EPA explanations of categorical exclusions under NEPA. (law.cornell.edu)
• Recent research on background‑check accuracy and error types (false positives/negatives). (sciencedaily.com)