NASCO Makes Efforts to Improve Access To FBI Records

Nov 6, 2007 4:07 PM

           

The National Association of Security Companies (NASCO), a contract security trade association representing private security companies employing nearly 450,000 security officers, is working to improve private security's access to FBI criminal history record information (CHRI) for screening security officers as authorized under the Private Security Officers Employment Authorization Act (PSOEAA).

These efforts include meetings and discussions with:
* U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee staff
* FBI Criminal Justice Information Service (CJIS)
* Frank Campbell, senior counsel, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
* Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Insider Threat Study Group

"The private security industry is continuing to work together to provide more secure environments by improving screening process for security officers including access to FBI criminal records," says NASCO Executive Director Joseph Ricci. "NASCO is leading efforts to address issues impeding access to these criminal records checks that we fought long and hard to obtain."

In 2004, NASCO and its members worked with Congress to enact the PSOEAA which granted employers of private security officers federal authority to request that states screen their security officers against FBI CHRI. The majority of states have not implemented processes to access FBI CHRI.

As a result, private security officer employers cannot regularly screen prospective and current employees against the national database, increasing the likelihood that a convicted felon could slip through the security officer screening process.

During its October meeting, NASCO members, including representatives from AlliedBarton, American Security Programs, DSI Security Services, Guardsmark, SecurAmerica, Security Engineers, Special Response Corp. and U.S. Security Associates met with DOJ officials to discuss PSOEAA implementation problems and state participation.

The discussion focused on "The Attorney General's Report on Criminal History Background Checks" which provided observations and recommendations to improve access and screening, including DOJ's observation of state reluctance to obtain FBI CHRI and conduct suitability screening similar to DOJ experience with state participation under the National Child Protection Act.

DOJ pledged to provide additional information and guidance to the states about the PSOEAA and to support state implementation and offered to raise the issues and problems with the PSOEAA before the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council.

DOJ also suggested the possibility for states unwilling or unable to undertake PSOEAA checking and screening to "outsource" their PSOEAA responsibilities to a third-party, non-state agency "channeler" pursuant to federal regulations issued by the Compact Council "Outsourcing of Noncriminal Justice Administrative Functions.'

NASCO pledged to continue to work with DOJ to promote awareness of the PSOEAA with state agencies and private security companies, to explore channeler options and pursue a federal legislative fix.

NASCO adopted a resolution in support of amending the PSOEAA to allow private security officer employers a non-state avenue ("using a third party intermediary") to obtain PSOEAA checks.

The resolution reads in part: "NASCO supports legislative amendments to the Private Security Officers Employment Authorization Act that are intended to permit private employers of security officers to obtain criminal history information regarding employment applicants from the FBI's national criminal databases, where individual states have not undertaken to establish a process for conducting searches of the FBI databases pursuant to the PSOEAA as currently enacted. NASCO and its members are looking forward to working with Representative Andrews, and other concerned legislators, on passing amendments to the PSOEAA to achieve the foregoing goal."

Subsequently, NASCO formed a committee to draft legislation that would likely amend the PSOEAA to allow DOJ to designate an entity (such as the aforementioned channelers) to conduct PSOEAA check and screening when a state will not or cannot facilitate the proper checks.

The legislation may also address issues such as the timing of the checks (state and federal done simultaneously) and setting deadlines for the checks to be completed.

In related activities, NASCO Chair Martin Herman and Ricci were invited to address the DHS Insider Threat Study Group regarding private security screening practices and problems related to improving access to FBI CHRI. The study group is comprised of senior security directors from critical infrastructure areas and is tasked with researching and identifying methods to reduce insider threat to the nation's critical infrastructure.

NASCO highlighted concerns with access to FBI CHRI and potential impacts and expects the group to recommend options to facilitate these checks. NASCO also highlighted concerns regarding the lack of regulation of proprietary or in-house security officers and the counter-productive impacts of recent state taxes on private security services.

NASCO and its members are committed to work with Congress, DOJ, the FBI, the Compact Council, individual states and other relevant parties to facilitate timely, accurate FBI CHRI checks. The PSOEAA states that, "private security officers and applicants for private security officer positions should be thoroughly screened" and the legislation granted the authority to do so, now the efficient means to do so must be developed.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2008 Penton Media Inc.

SUBSCRIBE

Select an Issue April 1, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 December 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 October 1, 2007 September 1, 2007 August 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 June 1, 2007 IP Security Supplement May 1, 2007 April 1, 2007 March 1, 2007 February 1, 2007 January 1, 2007 School Security December 1, 2006 November 1, 2006 October 1, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 1, 2006 July 1, 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 1, 2006 March 1, 2006 February 1, 2006 January 1, 2006 December 1, 2005 November 1, 2005 October 1, 2005 September 1, 2005 August 1, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 1, 2005 May 1, 2005 April 1, 2005 March 1, 2005 February 1, 2005 January 1, 2005 December 1, 2004 November 1, 2004 October 1, 2004 September 1, 2004 August 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 June 1, 2004 May 1, 2004 April 1, 2004 March 1, 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 October 1, 1997 September 1, 1997 August 1, 1997 July 1, 1997 June 1, 1997 May 1, 1997 April 1, 1997 March 1, 1997 February 1, 1997 January 1, 1997

This month in Access Control

• Opening Up About Door Closers
• An Enterprise Approach
• The Framework For Open Systems
• On A Higher Plane
• More from April's issue