New Pennsylvania Background Check Rules Create System Backlog

By Michael Klazema on 3/22/2015

Ever since the Penn State/Jerry Sandusky sexual abuse scandal from a few years ago, officials in Pennsylvania had been working toward passing laws that would help to prevent anything similar from occurring in the future. Among other things, the laws were supposed to increase background check regulations for volunteers working closely with children. Now that those laws are actually in effect, Pennsylvanian volunteers are complaining that it's taking longer than ever to get their background checks done through the state.

The checks in question are being run by Pennsylvania's Department of Human Services. Sure, the department has always been responsible for running these types of state background checks. However, the new state laws meant to protect children have had a few unintended consequences, including a massive increase in workload for the Department of Human Services. A year ago, a volunteer coach with a little league association might have waited 14 days for their background check to be processed, completed, and returned. Now, the same little league coach has to wait an extra week, at least. Indeed, the average wait time for Department of Human Services background checks right now is 22 days.

There's an upside and downside to this news. The upside is that the increase in workload shows that the new laws are working. By implementing new legislation, the state of Pennsylvania has obliged many volunteers who would have otherwise flown under the radar to submit for background checks. And if more volunteers are going through the proper checks, that means fewer sex offenders or child abusers helping out in the classroom or on the baseball field. The downside, of course, is that prospective volunteers have to wait a very long time before they are cleared to work with kids. When it comes to time-sensitive situations, like youth sports seasons, for instance, some volunteers may just find themselves out of luck.

Obviously, a three or four-week turnaround time for background checks is simply not fair to Pennsylvania volunteers. The Department of Human Services knows this, and is working hard to speed things up. Already, the department has hired a number of new staff members and reduced the wait time for background check processing. Earlier this year, it was taking 26 days to process background checks, rather than the current 22. That's still a long way off the old 14-day wait time, which is also what is required by law. In pursuit of that number, the Department of Human Services will be upgrading their computer systems in order to process checks more quickly. Things should also speed up as the new hires become more accustomed to their work. In the meantime, how many volunteers will be left unable to work with kids, simply because their state background checks won't process fast enough? And why didn't the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services consider that there would be a massive influx of new background check requests when the state was passing these new laws?


Industry News

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 20 Employers who use E-Verify must follow the proper steps and procedures when they receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” from either the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security. Failure to follow the proper procedures can cost employers both time and money. 
  • March 20

    Four Department of Commerce employees are out after their background checks resulted in security clearance denials. All four had worked high-ranking positions for months despite incomplete background checks.

  • March 15 As more states legalize the recreational use of cannabis, they contend with the emergence of new industries surrounding marijuana cultivation and production. 
  • March 14 In most cases, it is easy to determine where an issue might show up on a pre-employment background check. Citations for traffic violations or reckless driving charges will appear on a motor vehicle record check. Verdicts in a civil court case will show on a civil court background check. And criminal convictions—from petty theft to violent felonies—show up on criminal background checks.
  • March 13 How many years back do employment background checks go? This question can have multiple different answers depending on the situation.
  • March 13 A new bill in Florida would require landlords of apartment complexes to present tenants with verifications of employee background checks to give them peace of mind the people working in and around their homes are trustworthy.
  • March 08 Police officers working with the University of Texas at Arlington recently arrested a man who had avoided police capture on a warrant out of Oregon for nearly two decades. The man, whose real name is Daniel Charles Ray Hanson, spent those 17 years using a variety of fake names and identification documents to move around the country, often engaging with educational institutions under false pretenses. Police say Hanson regularly went by at least three different aliases. He sports a rap sheet that stretches back to an arson conviction in 1995. 
  • March 07

    The Future of EEOC Guidance in Texas Is Up in the Air

    The EEOC issued guidance in 2012 warning employers about the dangers of enforcing categorical policies to bar candidates with criminal histories. That guidance is not enforceable in Texas thanks to a recent court ruling.

  • March 05 Vermont is the latest state to restrict employers’ access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. 
  • March 01 In an age of "industry disruptors" turning established business models on their heads, companies such as Uber and Lyft rely on a unique workforce of individuals outside the traditional employer-employee context. Uber calls them "partners" while other businesses refer to them as "independent contractors," the official classification these individuals use for tax purposes. Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) revealed they had warned a business, Postmates, for misclassifying their staff as independent contractors. In the NLRB's determination, these individuals were employees.