Committee on Children
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6417
AN ACT REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
Title: OF YOUTH CAMPS.
Vote Date: 3/11/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 2/18/2021
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Committee on Children
Rep. Patrick S. Boyd, 50th Dist.
Rep. Brian Lanoue, 45th Dist.
Rep. Lucy Dathan, 142nd Dist.
Rep. Mary Welander, 114th Dist.
Rep. Edwin Vargas, 6th Dist.
Rep. Robin E. Comey, 102nd Dist.
Rep. Gary A. Turco, 27th Dist.
Rep. Josh Elliott, 88th Dist.
Rep. Robert Sanchez, 25th Dist.
Rep. Jaime S. Foster, 57th Dist.
Rep. Bill Buckbee, 67th Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill would require youth camp employees who are eighteen years old, or older, to submit
a background check to the State of Connecticut including state and national criminal history
records checks. This bill would be effective as of October 1st, 2022.
On line 21 language is added in order to state that after October 1st, 2022 a licensee will
require any person who is eighteen years old or older and will work directly with children to
submit a comprehensive background check. The provisions of this subsection will not apply
to any youth camp operated by a state agency.
On line 66 language is added in order to determine what Youth Camp means.
On lines 70, 74, 75, 77, and 79 language is added in order to appropriately describe the
terms used on this bill.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Beth Bye, Commissioner, Office of Early Childhood: The commissioner states that:
The bill does have a good goal but the OEC recognizes that there is a need to proceed
cautiously to avoid implementing a background check requirement [...] that the current
system in Connecticut is unable to support in a timely manner. She also points out
that sometimes the time that it takes to process the fingerprint background checks is
longer than the time of operation of the camp.
The OEC has submitted language for consideration to the Education Committee
establishing what the background check should consist of.
The DESPP is in the process of modernizing its fingerprint system that will vastly
decrease the time for processing. Once the new fingerprint system is in place,
reducing the turnaround time for processing to 24-48 hours, the OEC believes that a
requirement for fingerprint-based background checks for youth camps should be
revisited.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Denise Learned, CEO of Camp Hazen YMCA: Denise Learned testified in favor of this bill.
She agrees with the overall goal of this bill but has some concerns with the logistics and
methods of it. She states that:
For the past 20+ years background checks have been in place and as time goes by its
definition evolve, naturally, and the measures currently in place are serving their
purpose just fine. The YMCA has approximately 35% of their staff from around the
globe, meaning that a Criminal Background Check Certificate from their home country
must be presented to obtain their Certificate of Eligibility (DS-2019) for their visa,
issued by a US Department of State- designated sponsor organization. However, as
many of these employers only arrive in the country until their employment begins, this
fingerprinting system would not work.
The current fee for the background check through the OEC is over $88/person, and
the YMCA has been paying $25-35/person, therefore their expenses would more than
double, meaning that dollars that could be given to families for financial assistance
might need to be reduced.
Camp Hazen YMCA knows that their top priority is the safety of their children and that
they believe their practices are both responsible and effective, they also believe that all
camps in the state should be screening staff through CBCs and that a statutory
requirement at this time is necessary.
Page 2 of 5 HB-6417
Olivia DeFilippo, Administrative Assistant of Connecticut Alliance to end Sexual
Violence: The Alliance testified in support of this bill. She said that she supports the benefits
of this bill as well as how it interferes with the perpetuation of the rape culture. Further she
also states that requiring background checks is a simple and effective strategy to identify
people who should not be working with children in this capacity.
John Cattelan, Executive Director of the Connecticut Alliance of YMCAs: The Alliance
testified in support of this bill but has some comments to it. He stated that:
Since summer camps usually take up to 8 weeks, a background check that takes this
much time is not helpful. And in addition, the Ycamps already do everything required
for a background check with exception to fingerprinting.
The overall financial burden on the Ys would increase to over $250,000 meaning that
fewer people would be able to receive financial aid to attend the camp.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Wayne B. Moss Executive Director, National Council of Youth Sports: Wayne Moss
testified against this bill.
He states the history of how background checks began with hopes that the policies
developed along time are compelling enough to allow for the organizations who are in
alignment with the most recent iterations, which is the USOPC Background Screening
Policy, to be deemed in compliance with your proposed requirements..
He brings the section of the policy that addresses the requirements regarding search
components:
Social Security Number validation;
Name and address history records;
Two independent Multi-Jurisdictional Criminal Database searches covering 50
states
plus DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico;
County Criminal Records for each name used and county where the individual
currently lives or has lived during the past five years, going back the length of
time
records are available and reportable for each county searched;
National Sex Offender Registry database search of all available states, plus
DC,
Guam, and Puerto Rico;
Multiple National Watch Lists
Keith Garbart, Connecticut Camping Association: Keith Garbart testified against this bill.
He stated that:
Page 3 of 5 HB-6417
 The safety and wellbeing of the campers is the associations number one priority but
he does not believe an FBI fingerprinting background check is necessary and
unrealistic with the current reality of camps.
Most camps hire up until the first day of staff training and with this new bill, training
would only start after the check is 100% complete.
Many [fingerprinting background checks] are being returned with smudging or other
problems experienced during the fingerprint process that were submitted way back in
November in some cases.
Another issue is having international staff since they are not even in the country until a
week or two before camp begins, consequently many applications going in at once.
And this group also has a rigorous application to obtain a J-1 visa prior to even
entering the country.
The CT Camping Association does feel that the third-party companies that are
currently conducting background checks for camps throughout the country are
accurate, dependable, and achieve the same result in a timely manner. Keith
proceeds then to explain how in depth these third-party companies go when doing a
background check.
Keith brought the standards set by the American Camp Association Accredited in regard to
background checks (as of October 2019):
AD.25 New Staff Screening (Year-Round and Seasonal) Does the camp require
screening for all new camp staff based on camp property (directors, counselors,
administrative, and support staff; seasonal and year-round staff members; and paid,
volunteer, and contracted personnel) that includes:
AD.25.1 A criminal background check for staff eighteen years of age and older?
AD.26 Subsequent Criminal Background Checks Does the camp require a criminal
background check for returning and year-round camp staff based on camp property
(directors, counselors, administrative and support staff; seasonal and year-round staff
members; and paid, volunteer, and contracted personnel) in the following time frames:
AD.26.1 For returning seasonal staff, an annual criminal background check for staff
eighteen (18) years of age and older to be initiated prior to the arrival of campers or
prior to the start of employment for any late hires?
AD.26.2 For year-round staff: A criminal background check for staff eighteen (18)
years of age and older at least every five years?
AD.27 Annual Staff Screening Does the camp require annual screening for all camp
staff (18 and older) based on camp property (directors, counselors, administrative, and
support staff; seasonal and year-round staff members; and paid, volunteer, and
contracted personnel) that includes:
AD.27.1 A disclosure statement?
AD.27.2 A check of the National Sex Offender Public website or verification that
a check of the sex offender registry of all fifty (50) states has been completed?
Page 4 of 5 HB-6417
Keith states that the ACA gives guidelines for acceptable background checks but does not
require anything specific and it accepts third-party background checks as well. Further, ACA
also states that any camp must follow any state laws that are required. He hopes that ACA
standards can be looked at and accepted as guidelines for comprehensive background
checks.
He states that youth camps feel they are continually being shoehorned into the same
licensing as childcare centers and there are many distinct differences
Kelly McConney Moore, Interim Senior Policy Counsel for the American Civil Liberties
Union of Connecticut (ACLU-CT): The Union testified in opposition to this bill. It states that:
The effect of this bill, that requires needless background checks is the erection of
unnecessary barriers to entry for people living with criminal records, creating then, a
collateral consequence.
To balance the need for employees while avoiding unnecessarily excluding people with a
criminal record from suitable job, the Union proposes that:
[I]nstead of a blanket ban, operators of youth camps utilize a balancing test like the
one in Section 46a-80 of the general statutes
Reported by: Gabriela Dos Santos Date: March 24th 2021
Page 5 of 5 HB-6417


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 10-530
KID Joint Favorable Substitute:
File No. 157:
APP Joint Favorable:
File No. 701:
Public Act No. 21-82: