ESHB 1385
SignedHouse
Background checks
Concerning fingerprint background check on applicants.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill expands and standardizes fingerprint-based background checks for people working or volunteering with vulnerable populations—including children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities—by requiring Washington to join a national compact for interstate criminal history data sharing. It also clarifies who must be checked, how checks must be conducted, and what protections and responsibilities apply to applicants and employers.
- Amends existing background check laws to clarify definitions (e.g., 'covered individual', 'qualified entity', 'unsupervised access') and expand the scope of who must be checked.
- Requires Washington State Patrol to join the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, allowing secure sharing of criminal history data across states for noncriminal justice purposes like hiring and volunteering.
- Mandates that fingerprint-based background checks be run first through Washington State Patrol, then forwarded to the FBI for a national search.
- Requires qualified entities and tribes to get approval from the Washington State Patrol before submitting fingerprint requests, and to obtain signed consent from applicants.
- Sets new rules for how background check results can be used—including requiring entities to let applicants review and challenge results before making adverse employment or volunteer decisions.
- Allows the Washington State Patrol to charge fees to cover processing and dissemination costs, including the FBI’s fee for national checks.
Who is affected
- Prospective employees, volunteers, and contractors — Must submit fingerprints and undergo state and federal background checks before working or volunteering in roles involving children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities.
- Qualified entities (e.g., schools, daycares, nursing homes, foster agencies) — Must follow new procedures for requesting, using, and sharing fingerprint-based background checks, including obtaining consent and providing applicants the chance to dispute results.
- Federally recognized tribes — Can request and receive fingerprint-based background checks for applicants in caregiving roles, but must comply with new legal requirements for consent, privacy, and fair use.
- Applicants (individuals seeking employment or volunteer roles) — May be required to pay fees for fingerprint processing and background checks, though the bill says fees should cover only the actual cost of processing.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Joining the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact enables nationwide criminal history data sharing, improving accuracy of background checks by including out-of-state convictions—reducing the risk that individuals with criminal histories in other states gain unsupervised access to vulnerable populations in Washington.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (5), (7)Mandating that applicants be given the opportunity to review and challenge background check results before adverse decisions are made strengthens due process protections and reduces the risk of erroneous exclusions based on inaccurate or incomplete records.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(b)(v), (8)(a)(ii)Standardizing the fingerprint submission process (state first, then FBI) and requiring signed consent enhances data integrity and consent transparency—reducing unauthorized or duplicate checks and increasing accountability in how sensitive biometric data is handled.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(b)(ii), (8)(b)(iii)New requirements for qualified entities to protect applicant privacy and notify them of federal correction procedures promote transparency and informed consent—though implementation may vary by entity capacity.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(b)(iv), (8)(b)(vi)The right to obtain a copy of one’s own criminal history record within a specified time improves applicant awareness and agency—though access depends on entity compliance and resource availability.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(a)(i)
Potential Concerns (5)
Fingerprint-based background checks will require applicants to pay nonrefundable fees to cover processing and dissemination costs—including FBI fees—potentially imposing out-of-pocket expenses on low-wage job seekers and volunteers, especially those seeking multiple positions across sectors.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(6), (7), (8)(a)(ii), (8)(b)(i), (8)(b)(iii), (8)(c)While the bill provides applicants the right to challenge background check results, the procedural burden (e.g., navigating federal correction processes under 28 C.F.R. § 16.34, waiting periods before adverse action) may disproportionately delay employment for applicants lacking legal literacy, time, or resources to dispute errors—potentially reinforcing wrongful exclusion from work opportunities.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(b)(v), (8)(b)(vi)Qualified entities (e.g., schools, daycares, nursing homes) must obtain prior approval from Washington State Patrol before submitting fingerprint requests and maintain signed waivers—adding administrative overhead and compliance burden, especially for small or under-resourced organizations with limited HR capacity.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(b)(i)Mandating that adverse decisions be delayed until applicants have had a reasonable opportunity to correct records may increase risk if false positives (e.g., identity errors, outdated records) are not resolved quickly—potentially allowing individuals with unresolved mismatches to access vulnerable populations before resolution.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(b)(v)The requirement to advise applicants of federal correction procedures (28 C.F.R. § 16.34) without providing state-facilitated support may create informational asymmetry—particularly for non-English speakers, low-literacy applicants, or those with disabilities—undermining meaningful access to due process.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(b)(vi)
Who Is Most Affected
Prospective employees, volunteers, and contractors—especially low-wage workers, gig workers, and those reentering the workforce—may face new out-of-pocket fees and delays in employment due to mandatory fingerprinting and dispute processes. While background check accuracy improves, procedural barriers may disproportionately affect marginalized groups.
Qualified entities (e.g., schools, daycares, nursing homes) gain clearer legal standards and interstate data access, improving safety compliance—but face new administrative burdens (e.g., WSP approval, consent tracking, dispute handling), which may strain small or under-resourced organizations.
Federally recognized tribes gain authority to conduct background checks for caregiving roles but must comply with new state procedures, consent protocols, and fee structures—potentially straining tribal HR resources while enhancing child and elder protection across tribal programs.
Applicants may benefit from stronger due process rights and access to their own records—but may also pay fees and face delays if errors occur. Low-income applicants are most vulnerable to financial and temporal costs, while those with clean records benefit from faster, standardized processing.
Vulnerable populations (children, elderly, individuals with disabilities) benefit significantly from more accurate and comprehensive background checks—including out-of-state data—reducing the risk of harm from individuals with concealed criminal histories.