Proven Once: the film, and the source for every claim in it
Every fact in this ten-minute film, the law or report it comes from, and the words that support it.
Sources last checked September 27, 2026151 claims455 documents
The presenter and the narrator’s voice are generated with AI. Some scenes are generated or stock footage; app screens show sample data. FComply is not affiliated with, and this film is not endorsed by, the White House or any government agency.
Read the transcriptDownload the claims: spreadsheet (CSV), data (JSON)The source library
Each claim below links to the document behind it. Where the film goes further than the record, we say so.
151 claims in film order, each with the document behind it and a button that plays the film from that moment.
- Confirmed the source says what the film says
- Confirmed, with context supported, and the note on the card matters
- FComply’s statement the claim is about FComply, and only FComply can support it
- One person’s account an anonymous account that cannot be checked
- Correction the film goes further than, or against, the record
1. The order and the 28 lawsFrom 0:00 · 37 claims
“Last November, President Trump signed an order”ConfirmedC001
“Last November, President Trump signed an order” spoken
“NOVEMBER 13, 2025 Executive Order 14359 Fostering the Future for American Children and Families Federal Register, 90 FR 52227” on screen
President Trump signed Executive Order 14359, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families, on November 13, 2025. It was published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2025, at 90 FR 52227 to 52229.
Executive Order 14359 of November 13, 2025, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families, 90 FR 52227 to 52229 (FR Doc. 2025-20406) Office of the Federal Register / GPO (govinfo), November 13, 2025Heading, 90 FR 52227 (Federal Register Vol. 90, No. 221, Wednesday, November 19, 2025)
“Executive Order 14359 of November 13, 2025 / Fostering the Future for American Children and Families”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 249 KB) SHA-256 be31ac1c
More on this claim (2 more sources)
First Lady Melania Trump Announces Executive Order on Fostering the Future, Opens New Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships The White House, Office of the First Lady, November 13, 2025Second sentence of the release dated November 13, 2025
“The First Lady joined President Donald J. Trump at today's historic signing ceremony at the White House.”
Same documentSignature block, 90 FR 52229
“THE WHITE HOUSE, November 13, 2025.”
Claim C001 · 0:00.07Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“to fix how this country looks after the children in its care.”ConfirmedC002
“to fix how this country looks after the children in its care.” spoken
The order's purpose section says the nation's foster care system 'must be improved in a number of important ways' and that 'Information systems are often outdated' (Executive Order 14359, section 1). The order is about foster care and child welfare.
Executive Order 14359 of November 13, 2025, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families, 90 FR 52227 to 52229 (FR Doc. 2025-20406) Office of the Federal Register / GPO (govinfo), November 13, 2025Section 1 (Purpose and Policy), 90 FR 52227
“When crises prevent such an arrangement, our Nation's foster care system must be ready to serve children in need. Today's foster care system must be improved in a number of important ways.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 249 KB) SHA-256 be31ac1c
More on this claim (1 more source)
It does not mention background checks, fingerprints, criminal records, identity verification or missing children.
Same documentSection 1, second paragraph, 90 FR 52227
“Many caseworkers are overburdened. Information systems are often outdated.”
Claim C002 · 0:02.22Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Most of what it takes to protect them and the elderly and disabled Americans who also depend on strangers was written into law long ago.”Confirmed, with contextC003
“Most of what it takes to protect them and the elderly and disabled Americans who also depend on strangers was written into law long ago.” spoken
This is FComply's reading of its own catalog, not an official finding. Of the 28 federal laws in the catalog, 20 were enacted between 1965 and 2008 and 8 since 2010; the newest is from March 23, 2018.
Public Law 89-73, Older Americans Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 218 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, July 14, 196579 Stat. 218, sec. 1; approved July 14, 1965
“That this Act may be cited as the "Older Americans Act of 1965".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 d48cab5f
More on this claim (1 more source)
The main federal check rules for child care staff date from 2014.
Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (division S, title I: Child Protection Improvements Act), 132 Stat. 348 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, March 23, 2018132 Stat. 348 (approved March 23, 2018); div. S, title I, 132 Stat. 1123
“TITLE I--CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT”
Claim C003 · 0:06.17Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Twenty-eight federal laws since 1965.”Confirmed, with contextC004
“Twenty-eight federal laws since 1965.” spoken
“SINCE 1965 28 federal laws · 28 federal laws since 1965 · 1965” on screen
The 28 are FComply's catalog of federal laws since 1965 on the care and protection of children, older adults and people with disabilities, and on background checks. It is a selection, not an official count.
Public Law 89-73, Older Americans Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 218 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, July 14, 196579 Stat. 218; approved July 14, 1965
“That this Act may be cited as the "Older Americans Act of 1965".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 d48cab5f
More on this claim (5 more sources)
Several federal laws that do require checks are not in it, among them the Crime Control Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20351), the Head Start staff check (42 U.S.C. 9843a(g)) and the national service check (42 U.S.C. 12645g).
42 U.S.C. 12645g, Criminal history checks (national service laws; added by Pub. L. 111-13, sections 1612 and 1614(a)) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 12645g(a); source credit: Pub. L. 111-13, secs. 1612 and 1614(a)
“Each entity selecting individuals to serve in a position in which the individuals receive a living allowance, stipend, national service educational award, or salary through a program receiving assistance under the national service laws, shall”
34 U.S.C. 20351, Requirement for background checks (Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-647, title II, section 231) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 20351(a)(1); source credit Pub. L. 101-647, title II, sec. 231, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4808
“shall assure that all existing and newly-hired employees undergo a criminal history background check.”
42 U.S.C. 9843a, Staff qualifications and development (Head Start Act section 648A; subsection (g) added by Pub. L. 110-134, section 19, 2007) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9843a(g)(3)(A); source credit includes Pub. L. 110-134, sec. 19, Dec. 12, 2007, 121 Stat. 1430
“Before a Head Start agency employs an individual, such agency shall”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C004 · 0:18.01Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
The 28 laws in FComply’s catalog
The 28 are FComply's catalog of federal laws since 1965 on the care and protection of children, older adults and people with disabilities, and on background checks. It is a selection, not an official count. Claim C004 says how the catalog was built.
“1960s · 1 law · 1 of 28 laws · 1965 Older Americans Act • Elder protection P.L. 89-73” on screenConfirmed, with contextC005
“1960s · 1 law · 1 of 28 laws · 1965 Older Americans Act • Elder protection P.L. 89-73” on screen
1965. Older Americans Act of 1965, P.L. 89-73, 79 Stat. 218 (July 14, 1965).
A services and grants law for older Americans; the film files it under elder protection. It required no background check, and we found no check language in the Act as amended today (42 U.S.C. chapter 35).
Public Law 89-73, Older Americans Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 79 (scanned PDF), July 14, 196579 Stat. 218, opening block (margin: 'July 14, 1965 [H. R. 3708]')
“That this Act may be cited as the "Older Americans Act of 1965".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 d48cab5f
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Same document79 Stat. 218, long title
“To provide assistance in the development of new or improved programs to help older persons through grants to the States for community planning and services and for training”
Same document79 Stat. 219, sec. 101 (declaration of objectives, first of ten)
“(1) An adequate income in retirement in accordance with the American standard of living.”
Same document79 Stat. 226, end of the Act
“Approved July 14, 1965.”
Claim C005 · 0:18.08Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“One in the '60s, five in the '70s, three in the '80s, six in the '90s, five in the 2000s, eight since 2010. Every decade added its own.”ConfirmedC006
“One in the '60s, five in the '70s, three in the '80s, six in the '90s, five in the 2000s, eight since 2010. Every decade added its own.” spoken
“1960s · 1 law · 1970s · 5 laws · 1980s · 3 laws · 1990s · 6 laws · 2000s · 5 laws · since 2010 · 8 laws · 1960s · 1 law · 1970s · 5 laws · 1980s · 3 laws · 1990s · 6 laws · 2000s · 5 laws · since 2010 · 8 laws” on screen
By decade of enactment, the 28 laws in FComply's catalog: 1960s, 1; 1970s, 5; 1980s, 3; 1990s, 6; 2000s, 5; since 2010, 8.
Public Law 89-73, Older Americans Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 218 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, July 14, 1965first page, 79 Stat. 218
“PUBLIC LAW 89-73-JULY 14, 1965”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 d48cab5f
More on this claim (1 more source)
Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (division S, title I: Child Protection Improvements Act), 132 Stat. 348 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, March 23, 2018Public Law 115-141, end of text
“Approved March 23, 2018.”
Claim C006 · 0:18.08Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1970s · 5 laws · 2 of 28 laws · 1973 Rehabilitation Act • Disability rights P.L. 93-112” on screenConfirmedC007
“1970s · 5 laws · 2 of 28 laws · 1973 Rehabilitation Act • Disability rights P.L. 93-112” on screen
1973. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (September 26, 1973).
Section 504 bars disability discrimination in federally funded programs. A civil rights and rehabilitation law, not a screening law; it required no background check, and we found none in the Act as amended (29 U.S.C. chapter 16).
Public Law 93-112, Rehabilitation Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 87 (scanned PDF), September 26, 197387 Stat. 355, opening block (margin: 'September 26, 1973 [H. R. 8070]')
“That this Act, with the following table of contents, may be cited as the "Rehabilitation Act of 1973"”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 7.7 MB) SHA-256 07315d53
More on this claim (2 more sources)
Same document87 Stat. 394, sec. 504
“solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Same document87 Stat. 394, end of the Act
“Approved September 26, 1973.”
Claim C007 · 0:19.12Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1970s · 5 laws · 3 of 28 laws · 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 93-247” on screenConfirmedC008
“1970s · 5 laws · 3 of 28 laws · 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 93-247” on screen
1974. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, P.L. 93-247, 88 Stat. 4 (January 31, 1974).
As enacted, it funded programs to prevent and treat child abuse and required states receiving its grants to investigate abuse reports promptly; it required no background check. CAPTA's check requirement was added in 2003 and strengthened in 2010 (both on this list) and is now 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xxii).
Public Law 93-247, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 88 (scanned PDF), January 31, 197488 Stat. 4, opening block (margin: 'January 31, 1974 [S. 1191]')
“That this Act may be cited as the "Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.0 MB) SHA-256 06595d46
More on this claim (2 more sources)
Same document88 Stat. 4, long title
“To provide financial assistance for a demonstration program for the prevention, identification, and treatment of child abuse and neglect, to establish a National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, and for other purposes.”
Same document88 Stat. 8, end of the Act
“Approved January 31, 1974.”
Claim C008 · 0:19.17Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1970s · 5 laws · 4 of 28 laws · 1975 Developmental Disabilities Act Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act • Disability rights P.L. 94-103” on screenConfirmedC009
“1970s · 5 laws · 4 of 28 laws · 1975 Developmental Disabilities Act Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act • Disability rights P.L. 94-103” on screen
1975. Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, P.L. 94-103, 89 Stat. 486 (October 4, 1975).
A disability rights and services law; it required no background check. Its successor law of 2000 (42 U.S.C. chapter 144) contains no check language either.
Public Law 94-103, Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 89 (scanned PDF), October 4, 197589 Stat. 486, opening block (margin: 'Oct. 4, 1975 [H.R. 4005]')
“SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 3.7 MB) SHA-256 cfcab707
More on this claim (1 more source)
Same document89 Stat. 507, end of the Act
“Approved October 4, 1975.”
Claim C009 · 0:19.22Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1970s · 5 laws · 5 of 28 laws · 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act • Disability rights P.L. 94-142” on screenConfirmedC010
“1970s · 5 laws · 5 of 28 laws · 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act • Disability rights P.L. 94-142” on screen
1975. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, P.L. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (November 29, 1975).
The special education law, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. chapter 33). It required no background check, and we found none in the law as amended.
Public Law 94-142, Education for All Handicapped Children Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 89 (scanned PDF), November 29, 197589 Stat. 773, opening block (margin: 'Nov. 29, 1975 [S. 6]')
“That this Act may be cited as the "Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 4.2 MB) SHA-256 65f4e082
More on this claim (2 more sources)
Same document89 Stat. 773, long title
“To amend the Education of the Handicapped Act to provide educational assistance to all handicapped children, and for other purposes.”
Same document89 Stat. 796, end of the Act
“Approved November 29, 1975.”
Claim C010 · 0:20.02Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1970s · 5 laws · 6 of 28 laws · 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 95-608” on screenConfirmedC011
“1970s · 5 laws · 6 of 28 laws · 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 95-608” on screen
1978. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, P.L. 95-608, 92 Stat. 3069 (November 8, 1978).
Sets federal standards for placing Indian children in foster and adoptive homes; it requires no background check (the homes are licensed or approved by tribes or states under their own rules).
Public Law 95-608, Indian Child Welfare Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 92 (scanned PDF), November 8, 197892 Stat. 3069, opening block (margin: 'Nov. 8, 1978 [S. 1214]')
“That this Act may be cited as the "Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.7 MB) SHA-256 0a6685ae
More on this claim (2 more sources)
Same document92 Stat. 3069, long title
“To establish standards for the placement of Indian children in foster or adoptive homes, to prevent the breakup of Indian families, and for other purposes.”
Same document92 Stat. 3078, end of the Act
“Approved November 8, 1978.”
Claim C011 · 0:20.08Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1980s · 3 laws · 7 of 28 laws · 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 96-272” on screenConfirmedC012
“1980s · 3 laws · 7 of 28 laws · 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 96-272” on screen
1980. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, P.L. 96-272, 94 Stat. 500 (June 17, 1980).
Built the federal foster care and adoption assistance program (Title IV-E). As enacted it required no background check; paid foster homes had to be licensed or approved by the state.
Public Law 96-272, Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 94 (scanned PDF), June 17, 198094 Stat. 500, opening block (margin: 'June 17, 1980 [H.R. 3434]')
“SECTION 1. This Act, with the following table of contents, may be cited as the "Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 6.4 MB) SHA-256 b6e3ef30
More on this claim (2 more sources)
The checks now in the Title IV-E state plan, 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20), were added by the 1997, 2006, 2008 and 2018 laws on this list.
Same document94 Stat. 500, long title
“To establish a program of adoption assistance, to strengthen the program of foster care assistance for needy and dependent children”
Same document94 Stat. 535, end of the Act
“Approved June 17, 1980.”
Claim C012 · 0:20.18Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1980s · 3 laws · 8 of 28 laws · 1986 Protection and Advocacy Act Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act • Disability rights P.L. 99-319” on screenConfirmedC013
“1980s · 3 laws · 8 of 28 laws · 1986 Protection and Advocacy Act Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act • Disability rights P.L. 99-319” on screen
1986. Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986, P.L. 99-319, 100 Stat. 478 (May 23, 1986).
Funds state advocacy systems that investigate abuse of people with mental illness; it requires no background check.
Public Law 99-319, Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 100 (scanned PDF), May 23, 1986100 Stat. 478, opening block (margin: 'May 23, 1986 [S. 974]')
“That this Act may be cited as the "Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 2.1 MB) SHA-256 ccb6ea42
More on this claim (2 more sources)
Same document100 Stat. 478, sec. 101(a)(1)
“mentally ill individuals are vulnerable to abuse and serious injury;”
Same document100 Stat. 490, end of the Act
“Approved May 23, 1986.”
Claim C013 · 0:21.01Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1980s · 3 laws · 9 of 28 laws · 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act • Elder protection P.L. 100-203, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act” on screenCorrectionC014
“1980s · 3 laws · 9 of 28 laws · 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act • Elder protection P.L. 100-203, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act” on screen
1987. Nursing Home Reform (title IV, subtitle C of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987), P.L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330 (December 22, 1987).
Correction: the wall in the film groups this law with those that require no check. It requires one: a Medicare or Medicaid nursing home may not use anyone as a nurse aide until it has checked the state nurse aide registry, which records state findings of resident abuse, neglect and misappropriation of residents' property.
Public Law 100-203, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (title IV, subtitle C, Nursing Home Reform) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 101 (scanned PDF), December 22, 1987101 Stat. 1330, opening block (margin: 'Dec. 22, 1987 [H.R. 3545]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 3.0 MB) SHA-256 af9547e3
Page-image excerpt of the law; the full volume is at the original link.
More on this claim (6 more sources)
Current law extends the inquiry to every state registry the home believes has information on the person. This enactment did not impose a general criminal records or fingerprint check. Current law: 42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(b)(5)(C) and (e)(2); 42 U.S.C. 1396r(b)(5)(C) and (e)(2); 42 CFR 483.35(d)(4) and (5) (eCFR, September 24, 2026). Federal rules also bar nursing homes from employing or otherwise engaging anyone found guilty by a court of law of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property or mistreatment (42 CFR 483.12(a)(3)).
Same document101 Stat. 1330-160, heading of title IV, subtitle C
“Nursing Home Reform”
Same document101 Stat. 1330-164, sec. 4201(a)(3), new Social Security Act sec. 1819(b)(5)(C)
“must not use such an individual as a nurse aide unless the facility has inquired of the State registry established under subsection (e)(2)(A) as to information in the registry concerning the individual.”
Same document101 Stat. 1330-171, new sec. 1819(e)(2)(B)
“shall provide (in accordance with regulations of the Secretary) for the inclusion of specific documented findings by a State under subsection (g)(1)(C) of resident neglect or abuse or misappropriation of resident property”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C014 · 0:21.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1990s · 6 laws · 10 of 28 laws · 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act • Disability rights P.L. 101-336” on screenConfirmedC015
“1990s · 6 laws · 10 of 28 laws · 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act • Disability rights P.L. 101-336” on screen
1990. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, P.L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (July 26, 1990).
The disability civil rights law; it requires no background check.
Public Law 101-336, Americans with Disabilities Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 104 (scanned PDF), July 26, 1990104 Stat. 327, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'July 26, 1990 [S. 933]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 8.4 MB) SHA-256 a61699c6
More on this claim (2 more sources)
Same document104 Stat. 327, long title
“To establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability.”
Same document104 Stat. 378, end of the Act
“Approved July 26, 1990.”
Claim C015 · 0:22.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1990s · 6 laws · 11 of 28 laws · 1993 National Child Protection Act • Background-check authority P.L. 103-209” on screenConfirmedC016
“1990s · 6 laws · 11 of 28 laws · 1993 National Child Protection Act • Background-check authority P.L. 103-209” on screen
1993. National Child Protection Act of 1993, P.L. 103-209, 107 Stat. 2490 (December 20, 1993).
Lets states set up procedures for national fingerprint-based checks of child care providers, and requires each state's criminal justice agency to report child abuse crime records to the national system. It permits checks; it does not require anyone to be checked.
Public Law 103-209, National Child Protection Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 107 (scanned PDF), December 20, 1993107 Stat. 2490, sec. 1 (margin: 'Dec. 20, 1993 [H.R. 1237]')
“This Act may be cited as the "National Child Protection Act of 1993".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 900 KB) SHA-256 fbefc570
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Now codified at 34 U.S.C. 40101 and following, where the check provision (34 U.S.C. 40102) also covers care of the elderly and people with disabilities.
Same document107 Stat. 2491, sec. 3(a)(1)
“A State may have in effect procedures (established by State statute or regulation) that require qualified entities designated by the State to contact an authorized agency of the State to request a nationwide background check”
Same document107 Stat. 2490, sec. 2(a)
“In each State, an authorized criminal justice agency of the State shall report child abuse crime information to, or index child abuse crime information in, the national criminal history background check system.”
Same document107 Stat. 2495, end of the Act
“Approved December 20, 1993.”
Claim C016 · 0:22.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1990s · 6 laws · 12 of 28 laws · 1994 Multiethnic Placement Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 103-382, in the Improving America's Schools Act” on screenConfirmedC017
“1990s · 6 laws · 12 of 28 laws · 1994 Multiethnic Placement Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 103-382, in the Improving America's Schools Act” on screen
1994. Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (title V, part E of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994), P.L. 103-382, 108 Stat. 4056 (October 20, 1994).
Bars delaying or denying foster and adoptive placements on the basis of race, color or national origin; it requires no background check.
Public Law 103-382, Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (title V, part E, Multiethnic Placement) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: United States Statutes at Large, volume 108 (scanned PDF), October 20, 1994108 Stat. 3518, sec. 1 (margin: 'Oct. 20, 1994 [H.R. 6]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Improving America's Schools Act of 1994".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 824 KB) SHA-256 3da36077
Page-image excerpt of the law; the full volume is at the original link.
More on this claim (4 more sources)
Same document108 Stat. 4056, title V, part E, sec. 551
“This subpart may be cited as the "Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994".”
Same document108 Stat. 4056, sec. 553(a)(1)(A)
“categorically deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent, solely on the basis of the race, color, or national origin”
Same document108 Stat. 4062, end of the Act
“Approved October 20, 1994.”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C017 · 0:22.09Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1990s · 6 laws · 13 of 28 laws · 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 105-89” on screenConfirmed, with contextC018
“1990s · 6 laws · 13 of 28 laws · 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 105-89” on screen
1997. Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, P.L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (November 19, 1997).
Sec. 106 made criminal records checks of prospective foster and adoptive parents part of the Title IV-E state plan, a condition of federal foster care funds, for placements of children whose care is paid under Title IV-E; a governor or legislature could opt the state out. The 2006 Adam Walsh Act extended the check to every placement and ended the opt-out on October 1, 2008.
Public Law 105-89, Adoption and Safe Families Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), November 19, 1997111 Stat. 2115, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'Nov. 19, 1997 [H.R. 867]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 268 KB) SHA-256 aa046ce2
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Current law: 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(A).
Same document111 Stat. 2120 to 2121, sec. 106, new Social Security Act sec. 471(a)(20)(A)
“provides procedures for criminal records checks for any prospective foster or adoptive parent before the foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child”
Same document111 Stat. 2121, new sec. 471(a)(20)(B)
“subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a State plan if the Governor of the State has notified the Secretary in writing that the State has elected to make subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State”
Same document111 Stat. 2136, end of the Act
“Approved November 19, 1997.”
Claim C018 · 0:22.14Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1990s · 6 laws · 14 of 28 laws · 1998 Volunteers for Children Act • Background-check authority P.L. 105-251, title II, subtitle B” on screenConfirmedC019
“1990s · 6 laws · 14 of 28 laws · 1998 Volunteers for Children Act • Background-check authority P.L. 105-251, title II, subtitle B” on screen
1998. Volunteers for Children Act (title II, subtitle B of P.L. 105-251), 112 Stat. 1885 (October 9, 1998).
Let qualified care organizations, including volunteer groups, ask a state agency for national fingerprint checks where the state had no procedures of its own. It permits checks; it does not require them.
Public Law 105-251, untitled act whose title II, subtitle B is the Volunteers for Children Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), October 9, 1998112 Stat. 1885, title II, subtitle B, sec. 221
“This subtitle may be cited as the "Volunteers for Children Act".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 250 KB) SHA-256 d86eae26
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Rewritten in 2018; now 34 U.S.C. 40102(a)(3).
Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (division S, title I, Child Protection Improvements Act) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), March 23, 2018P.L. 115-141, division S, sec. 101(a)(1)(C), 132 Stat. 1124 (later history)
“by amending subsection (a)(3) to read as follows:”
Same document112 Stat. 1885, sec. 222(a), new National Child Protection Act sec. 3(a)(3)
“In the absence of State procedures referred to in paragraph (1), a qualified entity designated under paragraph (1) may contact an authorized agency of the State to request national criminal fingerprint background checks.”
Same document112 Stat. 1885, end of the Act (margin of 112 Stat. 1870: 'Oct. 9, 1998 [S. 2022]')
“Approved October 9, 1998.”
Claim C019 · 0:22.19Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1990s · 6 laws · 15 of 28 laws · 1999 Foster Care Independence Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 106-169” on screenConfirmed, with contextC020
“1990s · 6 laws · 15 of 28 laws · 1999 Foster Care Independence Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 106-169” on screen
1999. Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, P.L. 106-169, 113 Stat. 1822 (December 14, 1999).
It does not require a background check to become a foster parent or to provide personal care. Separately, its title II requires Social Security, before naming someone to manage a World War II veteran's special benefit as representative payee, to investigate the person, verify identity and determine whether the person has been convicted under the Social Security Act's criminal penalty sections 208, 811 and 1632 (113 Stat. 1846 to 1847; now 42 U.S.C. 1007(b)(2), since broadened).
Public Law 106-169, Foster Care Independence Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), December 14, 1999113 Stat. 1822, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'Dec. 14, 1999 [H.R. 3443]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Foster Care Independence Act of 1999".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 281 KB) SHA-256 8e97f097
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Funds services for young people leaving foster care. The film counts the Act as requiring no check because that provision is outside its caregiver-access category.
Same document113 Stat. 1822, long title
“To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide States with more funding and greater flexibility in carrying out programs designed to help children make the transition from foster care to self-sufficiency”
Same document113 Stat. 1847, sec. 251(a), new Social Security Act sec. 807(b)(2)(C) (representative payees for special veterans benefits)
“determine whether the person has been convicted of a violation of section 208, 811, or 1632; and”
Same document113 Stat. 1859, end of the Act
“Approved December 14, 1999.”
Claim C020 · 0:22.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“2000s · 5 laws · 16 of 28 laws · 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act • Human trafficking P.L. 106-386, division A” on screenConfirmedC021
“2000s · 5 laws · 16 of 28 laws · 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act • Human trafficking P.L. 106-386, division A” on screen
2000. Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (division A of P.L. 106-386), 114 Stat. 1464 (October 28, 2000).
The federal anti-trafficking and victim protection law; it requires no background check.
Public Law 106-386, Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (division A, Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), October 28, 2000114 Stat. 1464, sec. 1 (margin: 'Oct. 28, 2000 [H.R. 3244]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 403 KB) SHA-256 e4e096b5
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Same document114 Stat. 1466, division A, sec. 101
“This division may be cited as the "Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000".”
Same document114 Stat. 1466, sec. 102(a)
“The purposes of this division are to combat trafficking in persons, a contemporary manifestation of slavery whose victims are predominantly women and children, to ensure just and effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.”
Same document114 Stat. 1548, end of the Act
“Approved October 28, 2000.”
Claim C021 · 0:23.09Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“2000s · 5 laws · 17 of 28 laws · 2003 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 108-36” on screenConfirmedC022
“2000s · 5 laws · 17 of 28 laws · 2003 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 108-36” on screen
2003. Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, P.L. 108-36, 117 Stat. 800 (June 25, 2003).
Sec. 114 made procedures for criminal background record checks of prospective foster and adoptive parents and other adults in the household a condition of CAPTA state grants, due by June 25, 2005. Current law (as amended in 2010): 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xxii).
Public Law 108-36, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), June 25, 2003117 Stat. 800, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'June 25, 2003 [S. 342]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 194 KB) SHA-256 377ded82
More on this claim (4 more sources)
Public Law 104-235, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 (context: the CAPTA grant eligibility framework that sec. 114 of P.L. 108-36 amends) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: slip law PDF, October 3, 1996110 Stat. 3072, new CAPTA sec. 106(b)(1)(A)
“To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a State shall, at the time of the initial grant application and every 5 years thereafter, prepare and submit to the Secretary a State plan”
Same document117 Stat. 809, sec. 114(b), heading
“ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS”
Same document117 Stat. 811, sec. 114(b)(1), new CAPTA sec. 106(b)(2)(A)(xxii)
“provisions and procedures for requiring criminal background record checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents and other adult relatives and non-relatives residing in the household”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 2 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C022 · 0:23.16Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“2000s · 5 laws · 18 of 28 laws · 2003 Long-Term Care Screening Pilot Long-Term Care Screening Pilot, section 307 • Elder protection P.L. 108-173, in the Medicare Modernization Act” on screenConfirmedC023
“2000s · 5 laws · 18 of 28 laws · 2003 Long-Term Care Screening Pilot Long-Term Care Screening Pilot, section 307 • Elder protection P.L. 108-173, in the Medicare Modernization Act” on screen
2003. Pilot program for background checks on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities (sec. 307 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003), P.L. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2257 (December 8, 2003).
Checks were required only in the states that joined the pilot (no more than 10).
Public Law 108-173, Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (sec. 307) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), December 8, 2003117 Stat. 2066, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'Dec. 8, 2003 [H.R. 1]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.2 MB) SHA-256 8ea47428
More on this claim (4 more sources)
Same document117 Stat. 2257, sec. 307(a)
“The Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall establish a pilot program to identify efficient, effective, and economical procedures for long term care facilities or providers to conduct background checks on prospective direct patient access employees.”
Same document117 Stat. 2257, sec. 307(b)(1)
“a long-term care facility or provider in a participating State, prior to employing a direct patient access employee”
Same document117 Stat. 2259, sec. 307(c)(1)
“The Secretary shall enter into agreements with not more than 10 States to conduct the pilot program under this section in such States.”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C023 · 0:23.24Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“2000s · 5 laws · 19 of 28 laws · 2006 Adam Walsh Act Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 109-248” on screenConfirmedC024
“2000s · 5 laws · 19 of 28 laws · 2006 Adam Walsh Act Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 109-248” on screen
2006. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, P.L. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587 (July 27, 2006).
Sec. 152 added to the Title IV-E state plan fingerprint-based national checks of prospective foster and adoptive parents and child abuse registry checks of them and other adults in the home (with requests to states they lived in during the past 5 years), and extended the check to every placement whether or not federally funded, from October 1, 2006.
Public Law 109-248, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), July 27, 2006120 Stat. 587, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'July 27, 2006 [H.R. 4472]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 283 KB) SHA-256 0598bc65
More on this claim (4 more sources)
It ended the state opt-out as of October 1, 2008, with a delay allowed where state legislation was needed (120 Stat. 608 to 610). Current law: 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(A) and (B).
Same document120 Stat. 608, sec. 152(a)(1), amending sec. 471(a)(20)(A)
“including fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases”
Same document120 Stat. 609, new sec. 471(a)(20)(C)(i)
“check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State for information on any prospective foster or adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home of such a prospective parent”
Same document120 Stat. 609, sec. 152(c)(2)
“The amendments made by subsection (b) shall take effect on October 1, 2008”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C024 · 0:24.06Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“2000s · 5 laws · 20 of 28 laws · 2008 Fostering Connections Act Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 110-351” on screenConfirmed, with contextC025
“2000s · 5 laws · 20 of 28 laws · 2008 Fostering Connections Act Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 110-351” on screen
2008. Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, P.L. 110-351, 122 Stat. 3949 (October 7, 2008).
Requires fingerprint-based criminal records checks of relative guardians, and child abuse registry checks of relative guardians and other adults in their homes, before kinship guardianship assistance is paid, but only in states that choose to offer that assistance. The film shows it with the laws that require a check; on the film's own legend it belongs with the checks required only inside a voluntary program.
Public Law 110-351, Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), October 7, 2008122 Stat. 3949, sec. 1 (margin: 'Oct. 7, 2008 [H.R. 6893]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 203 KB) SHA-256 e64b9ed2
More on this claim (4 more sources)
Current law: 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(C) and 671(a)(28).
Same document122 Stat. 3950, sec. 101(a), new sec. 471(a)(28)
“at the option of the State, provides for the State to enter into kinship guardianship assistance agreements”
Same document122 Stat. 3952, sec. 101(c)(2)
“provides procedures for criminal records checks, including fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases”
Same document122 Stat. 3952, same provision
“before the relative guardian may receive kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of the child”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C025 · 0:24.14Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 21 of 28 laws · 2010 Elder Justice Act and section 6201 • Elder protection P.L. 111-148, in the Affordable Care Act” on screenConfirmedC026
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 21 of 28 laws · 2010 Elder Justice Act and section 6201 • Elder protection P.L. 111-148, in the Affordable Care Act” on screen
2010. National background check program (sec. 6201) and the Elder Justice Act of 2009 (title VI, subtitle H), both in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, P.L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (March 23, 2010).
Sec. 6201 requires checks of long-term care workers only in states that choose to join the program; the Elder Justice Act itself requires no check. Current law: 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l.
Public Law 111-148, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (sec. 6201; title VI, subtitle H, Elder Justice Act of 2009) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), March 23, 2010124 Stat. 119, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'Mar. 23, 2010 [H.R. 3590]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 2.5 MB) SHA-256 f5112f58
More on this claim (4 more sources)
Same document124 Stat. 721, sec. 6201(a)
“shall establish a program to identify efficient, effective, and economical procedures for long term care facilities or providers to conduct background checks on prospective direct patient access employees on a nationwide basis”
Same document124 Stat. 722, sec. 6201(a)(1)(A)
“that agrees to conduct background checks under the nationwide program on a Statewide basis; and”
Same document124 Stat. 782, sec. 6701
“This subtitle may be cited as the "Elder Justice Act of 2009".”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C026 · 0:25.02Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 22 of 28 laws · 2010 CAPTA Reauthorization Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 111-320” on screenCorrectionC027
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 22 of 28 laws · 2010 CAPTA Reauthorization Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 111-320” on screen
2010. CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, P.L. 111-320, 124 Stat. 3459 (December 20, 2010).
Correction: the wall in the film groups this law with those that require no check. It kept CAPTA's requirement, a condition of CAPTA state grants, that states have procedures for criminal background record checks of prospective foster and adoptive parents and other adults in the household, and required those checks to meet the Title IV-E standard in 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20), which calls for fingerprint-based national checks and child abuse registry checks.
Public Law 111-320, CAPTA Reauthorization Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), December 20, 2010124 Stat. 3459, sec. 1 (margin: 'Dec. 20, 2010 [S. 3817]')
“This Act may be cited as the "CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 251 KB) SHA-256 9eb425a9
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Current law: 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xxii).
42 U.S.C. 5106a, Grants to States for child abuse or neglect prevention and treatment programs (current text and amendment notes) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), September 26, 2026sec. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xxii) and the amendment notes
“provisions and procedures for requiring criminal background record checks that meet the requirements of section 471(a)(20) of the Social Security Act”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 244 KB)
Same document124 Stat. 3471, sec. 115(c)(2)(C)(xiv), amending CAPTA sec. 106(b)(2)(B)(xxii)
“by inserting "that meet the requirements of section 471(a)(20) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20))" after "checks"”
Same document124 Stat. 3514, end of the Act
“Approved December 20, 2010.”
Claim C027 · 0:25.06Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 23 of 28 laws · 2014 Preventing Sex Trafficking Act Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 113-183” on screenConfirmedC028
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 23 of 28 laws · 2014 Preventing Sex Trafficking Act Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 113-183” on screen
2014. Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, P.L. 113-183, 128 Stat. 1919 (September 29, 2014).
Anti-trafficking and missing-child duties for foster care agencies; it requires no background check.
Public Law 113-183, Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), September 29, 2014128 Stat. 1919, sec. 1 (margin: 'Sept. 29, 2014 [H.R. 4980]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 276 KB) SHA-256 5401b4bb
More on this claim (2 more sources)
Same document128 Stat. 1919, long title
“To prevent and address sex trafficking of children in foster care, to extend and improve adoption incentives, and to improve international child support recovery.”
Same document128 Stat. 1950, end of the Act
“Approved September 29, 2014.”
Claim C028 · 0:25.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 24 of 28 laws · 2014 Child Care Block Grant Act of 2014 Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 113-186” on screenConfirmed, with contextC029
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 24 of 28 laws · 2014 Child Care Block Grant Act of 2014 Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 113-186” on screen
2014. Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, P.L. 113-186, 128 Stat. 1971 (November 19, 2014).
Category: child care (the film files it under child welfare and foster care). Sec. 7 requires states that take child care block grant funds to require and conduct background checks, including an FBI fingerprint check, of covered child care staff: staff of licensed, regulated or registered providers and of providers eligible for block grant assistance, excluding relatives who care only for related children.
Public Law 113-186, Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), November 19, 2014128 Stat. 1971, sec. 1 (margin: 'Nov. 19, 2014 [S. 1086]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 274 KB) SHA-256 56eb83b8
More on this claim (4 more sources)
Current law: 42 U.S.C. 9858f; 45 CFR 98.43.
Same document128 Stat. 1990, sec. 7, new CCDBG Act sec. 658H(a)
“A State that receives funds to carry out this subchapter shall have in effect”
Same document128 Stat. 1990, sec. 658H(a)(1)
“requirements, policies, and procedures to require and conduct criminal background checks for child care staff members”
Same document128 Stat. 1991, sec. 658H(b)(4)
“a Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C029 · 0:25.13Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 25 of 28 laws · 2015 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act • Human trafficking P.L. 114-22” on screenConfirmedC030
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 25 of 28 laws · 2015 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act • Human trafficking P.L. 114-22” on screen
2015. Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, P.L. 114-22, 129 Stat. 227 (May 29, 2015).
Victim services, enforcement and child welfare trafficking duties; it requires no background check.
Public Law 114-22, Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), May 29, 2015129 Stat. 227, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'May 29, 2015 [S. 178]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 297 KB) SHA-256 3d534d97
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Same document129 Stat. 227, long title
“To provide justice for the victims of trafficking.”
Same document129 Stat. 263 to 264, sec. 802(b), new CAPTA clause (xxiv)
“provisions and procedures requiring identification and assessment of all reports involving children known or suspected to be victims of sex trafficking”
Same document129 Stat. 267, end of the Act
“Approved May 29, 2015.”
Claim C030 · 0:25.18Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 26 of 28 laws · 2017 Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act • Elder protection P.L. 115-70” on screenConfirmedC031
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 26 of 28 laws · 2017 Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act • Elder protection P.L. 115-70” on screen
2017. Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, P.L. 115-70, 131 Stat. 1208 (October 18, 2017).
Elder abuse enforcement and training; it requires no background check. It lets federal grants fund state court programs that may choose to require checks of guardians and conservators.
Public Law 115-70, Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), October 18, 2017131 Stat. 1208, sec. 1(a) (margin: 'Oct. 18, 2017 [S. 178]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 223 KB) SHA-256 d87d3b98
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Same document131 Stat. 1208, long title
“To prevent elder abuse and exploitation and improve the justice system’s response to victims in elder abuse and exploitation cases.”
Same document131 Stat. 1215, sec. 501 (grant-funded court demonstration programs)
“to implement changes deemed necessary as a result of the assessments such as mandating background checks for all potential guardians and conservators”
Same document131 Stat. 1217, end of the Act
“Approved October 18, 2017.”
Claim C031 · 0:25.21Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 27 of 28 laws · 2018 Family First Prevention Services Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 115-123, in the Bipartisan Budget Act” on screenConfirmed, with contextC032
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 27 of 28 laws · 2018 Family First Prevention Services Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 115-123, in the Bipartisan Budget Act” on screen
2018. Family First Prevention Services Act (division E, title VII of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018), P.L. 115-123, 132 Stat. 232 (February 9, 2018).
Sec. 50745 added a Title IV-E state plan requirement: procedures for group homes and other child-care institutions to run fingerprint-based national criminal records checks and child abuse registry checks on every adult working there, unless the state reports the alternative checks it runs and why the listed checks are not appropriate for it. Generally effective October 1, 2018, with a delay allowed where state legislation was needed.
Public Law 115-123, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (division E, title VII, Family First Prevention Services Act) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), February 9, 2018132 Stat. 64, sec. 1 (margin: 'Feb. 9, 2018 [H.R. 1892]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 813 KB) SHA-256 dfc475d0
More on this claim (6 more sources)
Current law: 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(D).
Same document132 Stat. 232, division E, title VII heading
“FAMILY FIRST PREVENTION SERVICES ACT”
Same document132 Stat. 232, sec. 50701 (short title section under that heading)
“This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018’’.”
Same document132 Stat. 261, sec. 50745(a), new sec. 471(a)(20)(D)
“to conduct criminal records checks, including fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C032 · 0:26.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 28 of 28 laws · 2018 Child Protection Improvements Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 115-141, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act” on screenConfirmed, with contextC033
“since 2010 · 8 laws · 28 of 28 laws · 2018 Child Protection Improvements Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 115-141, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act” on screen
2018. Child Protection Improvements Act (division S, title I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018), P.L. 115-141, 132 Stat. 1123 (March 23, 2018).
Category: background-check authority (the film files it under child welfare and foster care). Told the Attorney General to build a national fingerprint check program that organizations serving children, older adults and people with disabilities may use.
Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (division S, title I, Child Protection Improvements Act) U.S. Government Publishing Office, govinfo.gov: Public and Private Laws (slip law PDF), March 23, 2018132 Stat. 348, sec. 1 (margin: 'Mar. 23, 2018 [H.R. 1625]')
“This Act may be cited as the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018".”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 2.5 MB) SHA-256 5be3db32
More on this claim (4 more sources)
It permits checks; it does not require them. Current law: 34 U.S.C. 40102(a)(3).
Same document132 Stat. 1123, division S, title I heading
“CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT”
Same document132 Stat. 1124, sec. 101(a)(1)(C), new NCPA sec. 3(a)(3)(A)
“The Attorney General shall establish a program, in accordance with this section, to provide qualified entities located in States that do not have in effect procedures described in paragraph (1)”
Same document132 Stat. 1125, new NCPA sec. 3(e)(3)
“do not discourage volunteers from participating in programs to care for children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C033 · 0:26.03Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Laws for older Americans, for people with disabilities, for children in foster care, for the victims of trafficking, and for the background check itself, each one a new promise stacked on the last.”Confirmed, with contextC034
“Laws for older Americans, for people with disabilities, for children in foster care, for the victims of trafficking, and for the background check itself, each one a new promise stacked on the last.” spoken
“older Americans people with disabilities children in foster care victims of trafficking the background check itself · each one a new promise, stacked on the last” on screen
The catalog sorts the 28 laws into five groups: child welfare and foster care, including child abuse prevention and child care (14); older Americans (5); people with disabilities (5); victims of trafficking (2); and the authority to run background checks (2). Many of these laws protect people through rights, services or funding and do not address background checks at all.
Public Law 113-186, Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, 128 Stat. 1971 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, November 19, 2014128 Stat. 1971, long title
“An Act To reauthorize and improve the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, and for other purposes.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 274 KB) SHA-256 56eb83b8
More on this claim (1 more source)
The film places the 2018 Child Protection Improvements Act with child welfare; by its content it is a background check authority law.
Public Law 103-209, National Child Protection Act of 1993, 107 Stat. 2490 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, December 20, 1993107 Stat. 2490, long title
“To establish procedures for national criminal background checks for child care providers.”
Claim C034 · 0:30.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Most of them require no check at all.”Confirmed, with contextC035
“Most of them require no check at all.” spoken
“Requires a check · 6 require a check 2 only inside a voluntary program 20 require none · 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act 2003 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act 2003 Long-Term Care Screening Pilot 2006 Adam Walsh Act 2008 Fostering Connections Act 2010 Elder Justice Act and section 6201 2014 Child Care Block Grant Act of 2014 2018 Family First Prevention Services Act” on screen
Most of the 28 laws in FComply's catalog require no background check. The film's legend (6, 2 and 20) left out the 2010 CAPTA amendment.
Public Law 105-89, Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 111 Stat. 2115 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, November 19, 1997sec. 106, new SSA 471(a)(20)(A) and (B), 111 Stat. 2120 to 2121
“subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a State plan if the Governor of the State has notified the Secretary in writing that the State has elected to make subparagraph (A) inapplicable to the State”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 268 KB) SHA-256 aa046ce2
More on this claim (13 more sources)
Many of them are civil rights, education, services and trafficking laws that do not address screening at all. Where a law in the catalog does require checks, it does so as a condition States must meet to receive federal funds. Read law by law, seven set such conditions: 1997 (a State could opt out until 2008), 2003, 2006, 2008 (only where a State offers kinship guardianship payments), the 2010 CAPTA law, 2014, and 2018 (a State may report alternative checks). Two require checks only inside voluntary long-term care programs (2003 and 2010), and the 1987 nursing home law requires a nurse aide registry inquiry before an aide starts work.
Public Law 108-36, Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, 117 Stat. 800 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, June 25, 2003sec. 114(b)(1)(B)(xi), new CAPTA 106(b)(2)(A)(xxii), 117 Stat. 811
“provisions and procedures for requiring criminal background record checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents and other adult relatives and non-relatives residing in the household”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 194 KB)
Public Law 109-248, Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 120 Stat. 587 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, July 27, 2006sec. 152(c)(2), 120 Stat. 609
“The amendments made by subsection (b) shall take effect on October 1, 2008”
Public Law 110-351, Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, 122 Stat. 3949 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, October 7, 2008sec. 101(a), new SSA 471(a)(28), 122 Stat. 3950
“at the option of the State, provides for the State to enter into kinship guardianship assistance agreements”
10 more passages behind this claim: all 12 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C035 · 0:48.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Not one makes continuous monitoring the rule.”Confirmed, with contextC036
“Not one makes continuous monitoring the rule.” spoken
“Continuous monitoring · not one of the twenty-eight makes continuous monitoring the rule” on screen
No law in FComply's catalog makes continuous monitoring the rule. The closest is section 6201 of the 2010 Affordable Care Act: States that joined its voluntary long-term care program had to develop and test Rap Back, so that the State and then the employer learn when a checked employee is later convicted.
Public Law 111-148, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (section 6201; Elder Justice Act, title VI, subtitle H), 124 Stat. 119 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, March 23, 2010sec. 6201(a)(3)(B), 124 Stat. 722 (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l(a)(3)(B))
“require States to describe and test methods that reduce duplicative fingerprinting, including providing for the development of "rap back" capability by the State”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 2.5 MB) SHA-256 f5112f58
More on this claim (7 more sources)
Federal grant participation ended on May 31, 2024. Federal child care rules require a new check at least once every five years, and HHS encourages, but does not require, Rap Back.
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 2024Background, printed page 3 (PDF page 6)
“The last two States finished participation on May 31, 2024.”
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, section 658H, as added by Pub. L. 113-186, section 7) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(3)(B)
“not less than once during each 5-year period following the first submission date under this paragraph for that staff member”
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program, final rule, 81 FR 67438 (September 30, 2016) Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Federal Register), September 30, 201681 FR 67500, preamble on section 98.43(d), 'Frequency of Background Checks'
“Although not a requirement, we encourage Lead Agencies to enroll child care staff members in rap back programs.”
4 more passages behind this claim: all 7 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C036 · 0:50.08Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“And none of them requires anyone to publish whether the checks worked.”CorrectionC037
“And none of them requires anyone to publish whether the checks worked.” spoken
“Screening results published none of the twenty-eight requires anyone to publish whether the checks worked” on screen
No law in FComply's catalog requires States or employers to publish their screening results. One cataloged law did ask whether checks worked: section 6201 of the 2010 Affordable Care Act required the HHS Inspector General to evaluate its voluntary long-term care check program, including, to the extent practicable, its effect on abuse, neglect and theft, and to report to Congress.
Public Law 111-148, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (section 6201; Elder Justice Act, title VI, subtitle H), 124 Stat. 119 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, March 23, 2010sec. 6201(a)(7)(A)(ii)(IV), 124 Stat. 726
“An assessment of the impact of the nationwide program on reducing the number of incidents of neglect, abuse, and misappropriation of resident property to the extent practicable.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 2.5 MB) SHA-256 f5112f58
More on this claim (10 more sources)
Federal child care law forbids releasing individual results and allows, but does not require, aggregate data by crime (42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(2)(C)). The Inspector General wrote in 2019 that 'the data available do not permit this analysis' and in 2024 pointed to 'several indicators' of success, chiefly that States disqualified at least 106,000 prospective employees with criminal convictions. The film returns to this at 4:36.
National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Providers: Assessment of State Programs Concluded in 2017 and 2018 (OEI-07-18-00290) Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, August 2019Methodology, 'Data Limitations', printed page 6 (PDF page 9); footnote numbers 35 and 36 omitted
“Congress required an evaluation of the Program's impact on reducing the number of incidents of abuse, neglect, and theft. However, the data available do not permit this analysis.”
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 2024Background, printed page 3 (PDF page 6)
“the Act mandated OIG to produce an evaluation of the National Background Check Program within 180 days of its completion”
Public Law 108-173, Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (section 307, long-term care background check pilot), 117 Stat. 2066 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, December 8, 2003sec. 307(e) and (e)(7), 117 Stat. 2260
“determine the effectiveness of background checks conducted by employment agencies”
7 more passages behind this claim: all 8 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C037 · 0:53.15Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
2. Who the laws reachFrom 0:58 · 30 claims
“Start with the people the law already says must be checked before they are alone with a child, an elderly adult, or a disabled adult.”CorrectionC038
“Start with the people the law already says must be checked before they are alone with a child, an elderly adult, or a disabled adult.” spoken
“Who do all those laws reach? · start with the people the law already says must be checked before they are alone with a child, an elderly adult or a disabled adult” on screen
Federal law requires checks before unsupervised work for some of these jobs: child care staff in licensed or federally funded care and Head Start staff, who may not be left alone with children until every check is back, and foster and adoptive parents, who are checked before approval. Nursing homes must search the nurse aide registry before an aide starts.
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (eCFR, up to date as of September 24, 2026) Office of the Federal Register and Government Publishing Office (eCFR), Current as of September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(d)(4) (govinfo annual edition p. 559)
“Pending completion of all background check components in paragraph (b) of this section, the staff member must be supervised at all times”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (XML, 12 KB) SHA-256 0ceb261d
More on this claim (11 more sources)
For most school, nursing home and home health jobs, criminal checks come from state law, and the rules differ, including whether a new worker can start before the results arrive. In the most recent federal surveys, 46 states required checks for public school applicants (GAO, 2014), 43 for nursing facility staff (HHS OIG, 2011) and 41 for home health staff, 26 of which let new workers start while results were pending (HHS OIG, 2014).
42 U.S.C. 671, State plan for foster care and adoption assistance (Social Security Act section 471) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(A)
“before the foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child”
42 U.S.C. 1396r, Requirements for nursing facilities (Social Security Act section 1919) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 1396r(b)(5)(C)
“must not use such an individual as a nurse aide unless the facility has inquired of any State registry established under subsection (e)(2)(A)”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 404 KB)
K-12 Education: Selected Cases of Public and Private Schools That Hired or Retained Individuals with Histories of Sexual Misconduct (GAO-11-200) U.S. Government Accountability Office, December 2010printed page 23
“we found no federal laws that restrict the employment of sex offenders in public or private schools or that mandate criminal history checks for employees at these schools.”
8 more passages behind this claim: all 10 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C038 · 0:58.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A million and a half work in child care.”Confirmed, with contextC039
“A million and a half work in child care.” spoken
“WHERE THE LAW EXPECTS A CHECK · = one million jobs · 1.58M · child care” on screen
“Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 · BLS OEWS, 2025 · NCES · child care includes home-based providers” source line on screen
About 1.5 million jobs in child care, by our estimate: 1,088,200 in child care centers (BLS, August 2026, preliminary) plus an estimated 414,000 to 491,000 childcare worker jobs that the BLS wage survey does not count, most of them self-employed providers or workers in private homes (our arithmetic from two BLS sources; the film's 1.58 million uses the upper figure). These are jobs, not people.
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Table B-1, row 'Child care services', column 'Seasonally adjusted, Aug. 2026 (p)', in thousands
Table cell: row "Child care services", column Aug. 2026 (p), seasonally adjusted: 1,088.2 [thousands]. Footnote: "(p) Preliminary"
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
More on this claim (7 more sources)
Federal law requires every state that takes federal child care funds to check the staff of each licensed, regulated or registered provider and of each provider eligible to be paid with those funds, except relatives caring only for related children (42 U.S.C. 9858f; 45 CFR 98.43). Outside those groups, federal law sets no general background check requirement for privately hired nannies or informal sitters; whether a check is required depends on the program, the state and the position.
BLS Public Data API response for the CES and CPS series used (2026 monthly values) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 27, 2026series CES6562440001, 2026 M08 (GET: https://api.bls.gov/publicAPI/v1/timeseries/data/CES6562440001; readable table: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES6562440001)
Occupational Outlook Handbook: Childcare Workers U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 14, 2026Quick Facts, 'Number of Jobs, 2025'; Work Environment tab, employer table; Pay tab note
“Number of Jobs, 2025 1,010,300 ... Self-employed workers 24 ... Private households 17 [percent of childcare worker jobs]”
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2025: Table 1. National employment and wage data by occupation U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 15, 2026Table 1, row 'Childcare workers', employment column
“Childcare workers ... 518,910”
4 more passages behind this claim: all 7 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C039 · 1:09.15Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“More than eight and a half million work in the schools.”Confirmed, with contextC040
“More than eight and a half million work in the schools.” spoken
“8.71M · the schools” on screen
“Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 · BLS OEWS, 2025 · NCES · child care includes home-based providers” source line on screen
More than 8.5 million jobs in elementary and secondary schools: 8,919,090 in May 2025 (BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, public and private schools, all occupations) and 8,516,843 in 2025 (BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages). The film's card, 8.71 million, is our sum of local government education jobs (BLS, August 2026, preliminary, a count that also includes community colleges) and private school teachers (NCES, 2023 to 2024, full-time equivalents).
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Table B-1, row 'Local government education', column 'Seasonally adjusted, Aug. 2026 (p)', in thousands
Table cell: row "Local government education", column Aug. 2026 (p), seasonally adjusted: 8,193.8 [thousands]
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
More on this claim (7 more sources)
These are jobs, not people.
BLS Public Data API response for the CES and CPS series used (2026 monthly values) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 27, 2026series CES9093161101, 2026 M08 (GET: https://api.bls.gov/publicAPI/v1/timeseries/data/CES9093161101; readable table: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9093161101)
Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results From the 2023-24 Private School Universe Survey, First Look (NCES 2026-015) National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, May 2026Selected Findings, printed p. 2 (PDF p. 10), citing table C-1
“In 2023-24, there were 30,553 private elementary and secondary schools with 5,096,365 students and 517,780 private school full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers in the United States (table C-1).”
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2025 annual averages, NAICS 6111, all areas and ownerships (open data CSV) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026row area_fips US000, industry 6111, annual_avg_emplvl by own_code (1 federal, 2 state, 3 local, 5 private)
“5614 ... 64918 ... 7462037 ... 984274 [sum 8,516,843 jobs in elementary and secondary schools, 2025]”
4 more passages behind this claim: all 7 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C040 · 1:13.02Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Three and a half million in nursing and residential care.”ConfirmedC041
“Three and a half million in nursing and residential care.” spoken
“3.50M · nursing and · residential care” on screen
“Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 · BLS OEWS, 2025 · NCES · child care includes home-based providers” source line on screen
About 3.5 million jobs in nursing and residential care facilities (BLS, August 2026, preliminary), counting every job in these facilities, including assisted living and residential care for people with disabilities, mental illness or addiction. A federal rule bars Medicare and Medicaid nursing homes from employing people with a court finding of guilt, a nurse aide registry finding or a license disciplinary action for abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment or misappropriation of resident property (42 CFR 483.12(a)(3)).
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Table B-1, row 'Nursing and residential care facilities', column 'Seasonally adjusted, Aug. 2026 (p)', in thousands; sub-rows beneath it
Table cells, column Aug. 2026 (p), seasonally adjusted [thousands]: "Nursing and residential care facilities" 3,495.7; "Skilled nursing care facilities" 1,590.2; "Continuing care retirement communities and assisted living facilities for the elderly" 1,026.9; "Other residential care facilities" 173.0
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
More on this claim (1 more source)
Most criminal background check requirements in this group of jobs come from state law.
BLS Public Data API response for the CES and CPS series used (2026 monthly values) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 27, 2026series CES6562300001, 2026 M08 (GET: https://api.bls.gov/publicAPI/v1/timeseries/data/CES6562300001; readable table: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES6562300001)
Claim C041 · 1:16.08Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Nearly two million in home health.”ConfirmedC042
“Nearly two million in home health.” spoken
“1.90M · home health” on screen
“Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 · BLS OEWS, 2025 · NCES · child care includes home-based providers” source line on screen
Nearly 1.9 million jobs in home health care services (BLS, August 2026, preliminary). No federal law requires home health agencies to check their workers.
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Table B-1, row 'Home health care services', column 'Seasonally adjusted, Aug. 2026 (p)', in thousands
Table cell: row "Home health care services", column Aug. 2026 (p), seasonally adjusted: 1,896.4 [thousands]
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
More on this claim (1 more source)
In 2014, officials in 41 states, counting the District of Columbia, told HHS's Inspector General that their state required it (HHS OIG, OEI-07-14-00131).
BLS Public Data API response for the CES and CPS series used (2026 monthly values) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 27, 2026series CES6562160001, 2026 M08 (GET: https://api.bls.gov/publicAPI/v1/timeseries/data/CES6562160001; readable table: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES6562160001)
Claim C042 · 1:20.11Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Nearly four million in family services.”Confirmed, with contextC043
“Nearly four million in family services.” spoken
“3.80M · individual and · family services” on screen
“Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 · BLS OEWS, 2025 · NCES · child care includes home-based providers” source line on screen
Nearly 3.8 million jobs in individual and family services (BLS, August 2026, preliminary). About four in five of them serve older Americans and people with disabilities, much of it non-medical care at home; about one in fifteen serve children and youth.
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Table B-1, row 'Individual and family services', column 'Seasonally adjusted, Aug. 2026 (p)', in thousands
Table cell: row "Individual and family services", column Aug. 2026 (p), seasonally adjusted: 3,798.1 [thousands]
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
More on this claim (5 more sources)
No federal rule requires checks across this whole industry; for Medicaid personal care attendants, HHS's Inspector General found no federal requirement and left the rules to the states (OIG-12-12-01, 2012).
BLS Public Data API response for the CES and CPS series used (2026 monthly values) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 27, 2026series CES6562410001, 2026 M08 (GET: https://api.bls.gov/publicAPI/v1/timeseries/data/CES6562410001; readable table: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES6562410001)
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2025 annual averages, NAICS 624120, all areas and ownerships (open data CSV) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026row US000, own_code 5 (private), annual_avg_emplvl
“2715774 [services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, private, 2025]”
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, 2025 annual averages, NAICS 6241, all areas and ownerships (open data CSV) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026row US000, own_code 5 (private), annual_avg_emplvl
“3477681 [individual and family services, private, 2025]”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C043 · 1:23.01Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Roughly twenty million jobs,”Confirmed, with contextC044
“Roughly twenty million jobs,” spoken
“roughly twenty million jobs” on screen
“Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 · BLS OEWS, 2025 · NCES · child care includes home-based providers” source line on screen
Together these rows add to 19,481,370 jobs, roughly 20 million. This is our own composite estimate, the sum of BLS and NCES figures from different surveys and dates (industry payroll jobs, an estimate of home-based child care jobs, and a count of private school teachers in full-time equivalents); no agency publishes this total.
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Table B-1 rows used in C039 to C043 (Aug. 2026, seasonally adjusted, preliminary)
Table cells, column Aug. 2026 (p), seasonally adjusted [thousands]: "Child care services" 1,088.2; "Local government education" 8,193.8; "Nursing and residential care facilities" 3,495.7; "Home health care services" 1,896.4; "Individual and family services" 3,798.1
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
More on this claim (4 more sources)
These are jobs, not people: 5.4 percent of employed Americans held more than one job in August 2026 (BLS, The Employment Situation, Table A-9, seasonally adjusted), and no source measures how many of these jobs are second jobs, so the number of people is somewhat lower by an amount we cannot state.
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table A-16. People not in the labor force and multiple jobholders by sex, not seasonally adjusted U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Table A-16, rows 'Total multiple jobholders' and 'Percent of total employed', column Total, Aug. 2026 (not seasonally adjusted)
“Total multiple jobholders ( 4 ) 8,479 8,505 ... Percent of total employed 5.2 5.2”
The Employment Situation: Technical Note U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Technical Note, differences between the household and establishment surveys
“In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one job and thus appearing on more than one payroll are counted separately for each appearance.”
Comparing employment from the BLS household and payroll surveys U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 11, 2026comparison table, payroll survey row
“Estimate of jobs (multiple jobholders are counted for each nonfarm payroll job).”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C044 · 1:26.04Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“most of them required by law to be checked.”Confirmed, with contextC045
“most of them required by law to be checked.” spoken
By our estimate, federal or state law requires a background check for most of these jobs: about six in ten (about 12.1 million of 19.5 million). No government body has measured this share, and the estimate is ours.
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act; added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(a)(1) and (i)(1)
“A State that receives funds to carry out this subchapter shall have in effect- (1) requirements, policies, and procedures to require and conduct criminal background checks for child care staff members”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 165 KB) SHA-256 79666d1d
More on this claim (16 more sources)
The requirement comes from different places: federal law for child care staff in licensed or federally funded care (42 U.S.C. 9858f; 45 CFR 98.43), state laws for public school, nursing home and home health workers, and a federal nursing home rule that bars hiring people with certain abuse findings (42 CFR 483.12(a)(3)). On the strictest reading, counting only child care centers and public schools, it is about 45 percent. The state counts come from federal surveys of 2009 to 2014, the newest fifty-state counts; when we re-weight using a 2025 peer-reviewed study's coding of state long-term care laws in force through 2024, our result is nearly the same. The table below shows each group of jobs, the law we relied on for it, and the jobs we counted as not covered.
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Fund) (eCFR, as of 2026-09-24) Office of the Federal Register / Government Publishing Office (eCFR), eCFR point in time September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(a)(1)(i)
“Requirements, policies, and procedures to require and conduct background checks ... for child care staff members ... of all licensed, regulated, or registered child care providers and all child care providers eligible to deliver services”
Child Welfare: Federal Agencies Can Better Support State Efforts to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Abuse by School Personnel (GAO-14-42) U.S. Government Accountability Office, January 2014p. 16 (PDF p. 21)
“Forty-six states reported in our survey that they required background checks for applicants seeking employment in a public K-12 school, regardless of whether the position was as a school principal, teacher, or secretary”
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2020 (NCJ 305602), prepared by SEARCH for BJS SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics (funded by the Bureau of Justice Statistics), December 2022Introduction, p. 13 (PDF p. 27), summary of table 15
“Thirty-eight states conduct national checks for schoolteachers, while 12 states and the District of Columbia conduct both national and state checks for teachers.”
13 more passages behind this claim: all 15 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C045 · 1:27.24Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Then the people a check may not reach:”Confirmed, with contextC046
“Then the people a check may not reach:” spoken
“AND THE ONES THE CHECK MAY NOT REACH” on screen
“Census Bureau, 2020 Census, American Indian and Alaska Native alone · Department of Defense, 2024 Demographics Profile, 1,495,107 active-duty family members” source line on screen
Some records are harder for a background check to find. Records from tribal justice systems and from military justice do not always reach the national databases a check searches: federal law lets tribal law enforcement use those databases (28 U.S.C. 534(d)), each tribe decides what it enters, and in 2015 and 2016 the military had not sent the FBI 31 percent of the conviction reports it was required to send when its Inspector General checked.
Justice Department Expands Tribal Access Program to Improve the Exchange of Critical Data with Federally Recognized Tribes (press release) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, September 18, 2026paragraph 5
“The Justice Department began TAP in 2015 in response to concerns raised by Tribal leaders about the need to have direct access to federal systems.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 93 KB) SHA-256 170adb00
More on this claim (10 more sources)
The figures that follow are populations: every person who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native alone in the 2020 Census, and every active-duty family member, most of them children. They are not counts of people with records or of people a check misses, and they are not part of the 20 million jobs. Most American Indian and Alaska Native people live outside tribal areas (67 percent of the alone population in 2010, Census Bureau), and federal law requires checks for people who work with children in federal and federally funded tribal programs (25 U.S.C. 3207) and in military child care (34 U.S.C. 20351; 32 CFR part 86).
TAP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Tribal Justice, Undated; read September 27, 2026Q. 'What is some of the history regarding DOJ efforts...'
“In 2010, DOJ recognized some Tribes lacked access via their state law enforcement network to the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and began a pilot project to improve connectivity.”
TAP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Tribal Justice, Undated; read September 27, 2026Q. 'What types of criminal offenses can be entered into NCIC?'
“Reporting arrests and final dispositions into FBI CJIS systems is voluntary.”
28 U.S.C. 534, Acquisition, preservation, and exchange of identification records and information (subsection (d), Indian law enforcement agencies and the Tribal Access Program) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202628 U.S.C. 534(d)(2)(A) (added by Pub. L. 117-103, div. W, sec. 802(b), Mar. 15, 2022)
“The Attorney General shall establish a program, to be known as the "Tribal Access Program", to enhance the ability of tribal governments and their authorized agencies to access, enter information into, and obtain information from national criminal information databases”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 191 KB)
7 more passages behind this claim: all 9 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C046 · 1:31.13Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“three point seven million American Indians and Alaska Natives,”ConfirmedC047
“three point seven million American Indians and Alaska Natives,” spoken
“3.7M · American Indians and · Alaska Natives, 2020 · Census Bureau, · 2020 Census, alone” on screen
“Census Bureau, 2020 Census, American Indian and Alaska Native alone · Department of Defense, 2024 Demographics Profile, 1,495,107 active-duty family members” source line on screen
3.7 million people identified as American Indian or Alaska Native alone in the 2020 Census (9.7 million alone or in combination with another race; Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data, Table 1). This counts people by the race they reported, of every age.
2020 Census Redistricting Supplementary Table 1. Population by Race: 2010 and 2020 U.S. Census Bureau, August 2021Table 1, row 'American Indian and Alaska Native', 2020 'Alone' and 'Alone or in combination' columns
“American Indian and Alaska Native ... 3,727,135 ... 9,666,058 [2020: alone; alone or in combination]”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 31 KB) SHA-256 142670eb
More on this claim (2 more sources)
It is not a count of tribal citizens, of people with records, or of people a background check misses.
2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, National (United States) file U.S. Census Bureau, August 12, 2021file us000012020.npl, record LOGRECNO 0000001 (United States), field P0010005 (P1 'American Indian and Alaska Native alone')
“PLUS|US|000|01|0000001|331449281|297600338|204277273|41104200|3727135”
Facts for Features: American Indian and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2022 (CB22-FF.10) U.S. Census Bureau, October 11, 2022'Did You Know?' first item
“3.7 million The nation's American Indian and Alaska Native population alone in 2020. This population group identifies as AIAN only and did not identify with any other race.”
Claim C047 · 1:34.02Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“and a million and a half military family members.”ConfirmedC048
“and a million and a half military family members.” spoken
“1.5M · active-duty military · family members · Department of Defense, · 2024 Demographics Profile” on screen
“Census Bureau, 2020 Census, American Indian and Alaska Native alone · Department of Defense, 2024 Demographics Profile, 1,495,107 active-duty family members” source line on screen
About 1.5 million active-duty military family members (1,495,107; Department of Defense, 2024 Demographics Profile), 58 percent of them children. This is a population count.
2024 Demographics Profile: Active-Duty Families (infographic) U.S. Department of Defense (Military OneSource), 2024 profileinfographic, p. 1, headline
“There are 1,495,107 active-duty family members. 41.6% of active-duty family members are spouses, 58.1% are children, and 0.3% are adult dependents.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 113 KB) SHA-256 5e5ee067
More on this claim (5 more sources)
It is not a count of people with records or of people a background check misses; the Inspector General finding below concerns service members' conviction records, not family members.
2024 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community (report) U.S. Department of Defense, ODASD (Military Community and Family Policy), under contract with ICF, 2024 profileExecutive Summary, Overview of Military Families, p. v (PDF p. 24)
“Across the active-duty and selected reserve family member population, there are 2,372,286 family members”
2024 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community (report) U.S. Department of Defense, ODASD (Military Community and Family Policy), under contract with ICF, 2024 profileGuidelines for Interpreting Data, p. vii (PDF p. 26)
“Currently, dependent data is extracted from DEERS based on the dependent's Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Status. Only those dependents in receipt of this benefit were reported.”
2025 Demographics Profile: Active-Duty Families (placeholder page reading COMING SOON) U.S. Department of Defense (Military OneSource), Read September 27, 2026p. 1
“2025 Demographics Profile Active-Duty Families (COMING SOON)”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C048 · 1:34.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Only one hundred and fifty-nine of five hundred and seventy-five tribes are on the national crime systems.”Confirmed, with contextC049
“Only one hundred and fifty-nine of five hundred and seventy-five tribes are on the national crime systems.” spoken
“WHERE THE RECORDS DO NOT REACH · 159 · national crime systems · Tribal Access Program · Department of Justice, 2026” on screen
“DOJ, Tribal Access Program, September 18, 2026 · BIA, 575 federally recognized tribes · DoD OIG, DODIG-2018-035, 2017” source line on screen
159 of the 575 federally recognized tribes take part in, or have been selected for, the Justice Department's Tribal Access Program, which connects tribal governments directly to the national crime information systems (DOJ, September 18, 2026). The film's line goes further than this figure.
Justice Department Expands Tribal Access Program to Improve the Exchange of Critical Data with Federally Recognized Tribes (press release) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, September 18, 2026subtitle line under the headline
“With this expansion, TAP now supports 159 Tribes and more than 500 Tribal government agencies.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 93 KB) SHA-256 170adb00
More on this claim (4 more sources)
The program is one of two routes: many tribal agencies reach the FBI's systems through their state instead (DOJ Office of Tribal Justice), and federal law directs the Attorney General to let tribal law enforcement agencies use federal criminal databases (28 U.S.C. 534(d)). We found no count of tribes with no access at all, and each tribe decides what information it enters.
Tribal Access Program for National Crime Information (TAP) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Tribal Justice, Undated; read September 27, 2026program description
“There are currently 159 Tribes with over 500 tribal government agencies participating in TAP.”
TAP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Tribal Justice, Undated; read September 27, 2026Q. 'Will our access to state data continue?'
“Yes, your access to state data will continue as it currently exists. DOJ does not discourage a Tribe from using the state system for access.”
28 U.S.C. 534, Acquisition, preservation, and exchange of identification records and information (subsection (d), Indian law enforcement agencies and the Tribal Access Program) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202628 U.S.C. 534(d)(1)
“The Attorney General shall permit tribal and Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement agencies- (A) to access and enter information into Federal criminal information databases; and (B) to obtain information from the databases.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 191 KB)
1 more passage behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C049 · 1:42.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“five hundred and seventy-five tribes”ConfirmedC050
“five hundred and seventy-five tribes” spoken
“of 575 tribes on the” on screen
“DOJ, Tribal Access Program, September 18, 2026 · BIA, 575 federally recognized tribes · DoD OIG, DODIG-2018-035, 2017” source line on screen
There are 575 federally recognized tribes (Bureau of Indian Affairs list, 91 FR 4102, January 30, 2026).
Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 91 FR 4102 (FR Doc. 2026-01899) Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior (Federal Register), January 30, 202691 FR 4102, Summary (PDF p. 1)
“This notice publishes the current list of 575 Tribal entities recognized by and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by virtue of their status as Indian Tribes.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 220 KB) SHA-256 088059e4
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Frequently Asked Questions Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Undated; read September 27, 2026first answer ('What is a federally recognized tribe?')
“At present, there are 575 federally recognized tribes, American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages.”
Tribal Leaders Directory Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Undatedcount heading
“There are 575 Federally Recognized Tribes as of 1/30/2026.”
Same document91 FR 4102, Supplementary Information (the paragraph continues on 4103)
“This list includes the addition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina following the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 on December 18, 2025.”
Claim C050 · 1:42.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“And in 2015 and 2016, nearly a third of military convictions never reached the FBI.”Confirmed, with contextC051
“And in 2015 and 2016, nearly a third of military convictions never reached the FBI.” spoken
“31% · military conviction reports · never reached the FBI · 2015 and 2016 · DoD Inspector General” on screen
“DOJ, Tribal Access Program, September 18, 2026 · BIA, 575 federally recognized tribes · DoD OIG, DODIG-2018-035, 2017” source line on screen
In 2015 and 2016, the military had not sent the FBI 31 percent of the court-martial conviction reports it was required to send, as of the Defense Department Inspector General's 2017 review (780 of 2,502; DODIG-2018-035, December 4, 2017). The Inspector General told the Services to send the missing reports promptly, and they agreed.
Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submissions by Military Service Law Enforcement Organizations (DODIG-2018-035) Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense, December 4, 2017Results in Brief, p. i (PDF p. 3)
“Of the 2,502 final disposition reports required to be submitted, 780 (31 percent) were not submitted.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 5.5 MB) SHA-256 5fdf3d44
More on this claim (3 more sources)
In March 2020 the Inspector General reported that some reports from that review still had not been sent (Compendium of Open Recommendations, 2020, p. 29); its public list of open recommendations no longer includes the ones directing those reports to be sent. A separate 2020 review found every required report sent for convictions from January 2015 through February 2018 that ended in a dishonorable discharge or dismissal (912 of 912; DODIG-2020-064). The gap was in the military's submissions, not at the FBI, and the finding concerns service members' convictions, not family members.
Evaluation of DoD Law Enforcement Organization Submissions of Criminal History Information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (DODIG-2020-064, redacted) Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense, February 21, 2020Results in Brief, p. ii (PDF p. 4)
“We determined that the LEOs submitted all 912 (100 percent) fingerprint and final disposition reports that were required to be submitted to the applicable FBI CJIS Division databases.”
Evaluation of DoD Law Enforcement Organization Submissions of Criminal History Information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (DODIG-2020-064, redacted) Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense, February 21, 2020Results in Brief, Table 1, printed p. iii (PDF p. 5), Final Disposition Reports, Total row, 2019 columns
Table cells: Req "912", Sub "912", Sub % "100%"
Same documentOverall Conclusions, printed p. 40 (PDF p. 50)
“Of 2,502 required final disposition reports required to be submitted, 780 (31 percent) were missing.”
Claim C051 · 1:47.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Then the ones federal law covers only narrowly.”Confirmed, with contextC052
“Then the ones federal law covers only narrowly.” spoken
“THE ONES FEDERAL LAW COVERS ONLY NARROWLY” on screen
“Census Bureau, November 19, 2024 · SFIA, September 24, 2026 · AYSO (California Live Scan) · Pacific Northwest Swimming” source line on screen
No federal law requires every volunteer, or every youth sports coach, to be background checked. Federal law does mention volunteers.
Changed October 2, 2026: now a correction. Federal rules require checks of volunteers in specific programs, so the film’s line goes further than the record.
34 U.S.C. 40102, Background checks (National Child Protection Act of 1993, as amended) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 40102(a)(1)
“A State may have in effect procedures (established by State statute or regulation) that require qualified entities designated by the State to contact an authorized agency of the State to request a nationwide background check...”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 190 KB) SHA-256 06c0eb26
More on this claim (20 more sources)
It lets states and qualified organizations request national checks on volunteers (34 U.S.C. 40102 and 40104) and lets CASA programs request FBI checks of prospective volunteers, whom federal CASA grants require programs to screen (34 U.S.C. 20323). It encourages federal child care facilities to check volunteers (34 U.S.C. 20351(e)). It requires amateur sports organizations in interstate competition to report abuse, limit one-on-one contact with minors, train adults and bar retaliation, but not to check them (36 U.S.C. 220530). Federal rules do require checks of volunteers in specific programs: child care covered by the Child Care and Development Block Grant, for volunteers with unsupervised access to children (42 U.S.C. 9858f; 45 CFR 98.43); Defense Department child and youth programs, where coaches are 'specified volunteers' (32 CFR 86.3 and 86.6); Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs and the tribal programs they fund, for positions with regular contact with Indian children (25 CFR 63.14; 42 CFR 136.403 and 136.406); Medicare hospices, for volunteers with direct patient contact or access to patient records (42 CFR 418.3 and 418.114(d)); federally funded runaway and homeless youth programs, for volunteers with regular and unsupervised private contact with youth (45 CFR 1351.23(j)); care providers for unaccompanied children in federal custody (45 CFR 411.16); and State Department high school exchange sponsors and host families (22 CFR 62.25). AmeriCorps members and stipended senior volunteers are checked under the national service law (42 U.S.C. 12645g; 45 CFR 2540.201). This is the list we found and read, not a certified complete search. As of December 19, 2025, Little League counted 13 states with background check laws for volunteers in youth sports and other non-school activities; the laws differ in whom they cover.
36 U.S.C. chapter 2205 (United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee; includes 220530 and the Center for SafeSport) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Current prelim text, read September 27, 202636 U.S.C. 220530(a) (the Safe Sport law's duties for youth sports organizations); whole chapter 2205 searched
“An applicable amateur sports organization shall ... (1) comply with the reporting requirements of section 226 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 ... (2) establish reasonable procedures to limit one-on-one interactions”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 494 KB)
34 U.S.C. 20351, Requirement for background checks (federal agencies and facilities providing child care services) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 20351(a)(1) and (e)
“Federal agencies and facilities are encouraged to submit identifying information for criminal history checks on volunteers working in any of the positions listed in subsection (a)”
42 U.S.C. 12645g, Criminal history checks (national service) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 12645g(a); (d)(2)(A)
“Each entity selecting individuals to serve in a position in which the individuals receive a living allowance, stipend, national service educational award, or salary ... shall ... conduct criminal history checks for such individuals.”
17 more passages behind this claim: all 21 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C052 · 1:55.14Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Seventy-five million Americans volunteered in 2023,”Confirmed, with contextC053
“Seventy-five million Americans volunteered in 2023,” spoken
“75.7M · Americans volunteered in 2023 · Census Bureau, 2023” on screen
“Census Bureau, November 19, 2024 · SFIA, September 24, 2026 · AYSO (California Live Scan) · Pacific Northwest Swimming” source line on screen
An estimated 75.7 million people age 16 and older volunteered through an organization between September 2022 and September 2023, according to the Census Bureau and AmeriCorps survey that the agencies report as 2023. A newer survey is scheduled for release on October 8, 2026.
U.S. Volunteerism Rebounding After COVID-19 Pandemic (America Counts) U.S. Census Bureau (with AmeriCorps), November 19, 2024Lead paragraph, under the byline (Laura Hanson Schlachter and Tim Marshall)
“Over 75.7 million or 28.3% of the U.S. population age 16 and up formally volunteered through an organization between September 2022 and September 2023”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 369 KB) SHA-256 1a99992e
More on this claim (5 more sources)
Press release CB24-TPS.112, Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement U.S. Census Bureau, November 19, 2024Press release CB24-TPS.112, paragraph beginning 'The Census Bureau conducts this AmeriCorps-sponsored survey'
“Data were collected from Sept. 17-26, 2023.”
Upcoming Releases (data.census.gov, API, Microdata Access) U.S. Census Bureau, September 24, 2026October 2026 section, row dated 10/8/2026 (page last revised September 24, 2026)
Table cells (release date | platform | dataset): 10/8/2026 | Microdata Access & API | September 2025 Current Population Survey Volunteering and Civic Life Supplement
Current Population Survey, September 2023 Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement, Technical Documentation U.S. Census Bureau, 2024Printed p. 1-1 (Abstract) and p. 3-1; record layout items PES16, PES16A, PES16D, PTS16E, PES16F (PDF pp. 120 to 122)
“The Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement questions were asked for randomly selected household members age 16 years old or older.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C053 · 1:58.19Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“many of them with children and through nonprofits,”Confirmed, with contextC054
“many of them with children and through nonprofits,” spoken
Many volunteers serve schools and youth groups. In the last federal count of this kind (2015), one volunteer in four served mainly an educational or youth service organization (Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Volunteering in the United States, 2015 (USDL-16-0363) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 25, 2016Page 2, 'Number and Type of Organizations'
In 2015, the main organization ... was most frequently religious (33.1 percent of all volunteers), followed by educational or youth service related (25.2 percent).
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 120 KB) SHA-256 0e3de4b7
More on this claim (7 more sources)
AmeriCorps says volunteers support schools, shelters, food banks, and civic, nonprofit, tribal and faith-based organizations. The federal volunteering survey behind the 75.7 million no longer asks what kind of organization people volunteer for, so it gives no current count of volunteers who work with children.
2023 CEV Data: Current Population Survey Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement (dataset be5g-4c5r), analytic codebook rows AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation (data collected by the Census Bureau), November 15, 2024Codebook rows 'coached' (pes16c1), 'mentored' (pes16c3) and 'voledu' (pes16b2)
“Data record 'mentored': question "In the past 12 months, did [you/he/she] mentor youth [for an organization]?"; in_2017_dataset true; in_2019_dataset false; in_2021_dataset false; in_2023_dataset false”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (JSON, 37 KB)
U.S. Volunteerism Rebounding After COVID-19 Pandemic (America Counts) U.S. Census Bureau (with AmeriCorps), November 19, 2024Lead paragraph
“formally volunteered through an organization”
More than 75.7 Million People Volunteered in America, AmeriCorps Reports (press release) AmeriCorps (federal agency), November 19, 2024Paragraphs after the CEO quote
“Volunteers support American schools and shelters, hospitals and hotlines, food banks, and civic, nonprofit, tribal and faith-based organizations across the country.”
4 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C054 · 2:02.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“and nearly seven million people coach youth team sports.”Confirmed, with contextC055
“and nearly seven million people coach youth team sports.” spoken
“6.9M · coach youth team sports · SFIA, 2026” on screen
“Census Bureau, November 19, 2024 · SFIA, September 24, 2026 · AYSO (California Live Scan) · Pacific Northwest Swimming” source line on screen
An estimated 6.9 million people coached youth team sports in 2025, down from 8.4 million in 2022, according to a survey by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, an industry trade group (released September 24, 2026). SFIA does not report how many of these coaches are adults or volunteers.
Team Sports Participation Reaches Record High as Youth Coaching Base Declines (press release) Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), a trade association, September 24, 2026Release dated September 24, 2026, fourth paragraph
“The number of current youth team sport coaches declined for the third consecutive year, falling from 8.4 million in 2022 to 6.9 million in 2025.”
More on this claim (3 more sources)
2026 U.S. Trends in Team Sports Report, Participation Foundational Data: one-page overview Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), September 2026One-page overview, chart 'Current youth coaches' and text block
“Meanwhile, the number of current youth coaches declined for a third consecutive year.”
SFIA, How Many Youth Sports Coaches Are There in the U.S.? (April 10, 2026; modified June 30, 2026)
Same document'About the Research' paragraph
“The participation data is based on 18,000 online interviews conducted during the 2025 calendar year with a nationwide sample representative of the U.S. population ages ...” …
Claim C055 · 2:05.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Some leagues will not accept the check another league already ran,”ConfirmedC056
“Some leagues will not accept the check another league already ran,” spoken
“some leagues will not accept the check another league already ran” on screen
“Census Bureau, November 19, 2024 · SFIA, September 24, 2026 · AYSO (California Live Scan) · Pacific Northwest Swimming” source line on screen
Some youth sports organizations will not accept a background check that another organization already ran. Little League's rules say each league must run its own check every year, through its designated provider, JDP.
Frequently Asked Background Check Questions Little League International, UndatedFAQ, question 'What if an individual has previously had a background check?'
“What if an individual has previously had a background check? Each league must conduct its own background check on the appropriate individuals annually.”
More on this claim (9 more sources)
USSSA says it 'cannot accept background check results from another organization,' and explains that different organizations use different criteria. AYSO says California Live Scan fingerprints done for other organizations cannot be used, and Pacific Northwest Swimming, a USA Swimming local committee, tells officials that checks for another job or volunteer organization do not transfer. Other organizations accept some outside checks, and Pennsylvania law lets current state clearances be used for volunteer roles when the person signs a written affirmation (23 Pa.C.S. 6344.3(f)). These are the organizations' published policies as of September 27, 2026, some shaped by state law.
USA Swimming Registration (officials resources) Pacific Northwest Swimming (USA Swimming local swimming committee), UndatedSection '2. USA Swimming Background Check (BGC)'
“USA Swimming requires that you pass their screening process. Background checks for another job or another volunteer organization are not transferrable.”
Volunteer Dashboard (AYSO wiki) American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), UndatedParagraph on 'The third requirement is only applicable in California'
“Live Scan only needs to be completed once per volunteer. Live Scan completed for other organizations cannot be used by AYSO for your privacy.”
Athlete Safety (background check FAQ) United States Specialty Sports Association (USSSA), Undated; read September 27, 2026FAQ, question 'If I already have been background checked by another organization for employment or other volunteer purposes, can USSSA accept the results of that background check?'
“Unfortunately, USSSA cannot accept background check results from another organization.”
6 more passages behind this claim: all 9 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C056 · 2:09.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“so a coach who takes on a second sport starts over.”Confirmed, with contextC057
“so a coach who takes on a second sport starts over.” spoken
A coach who joins another organization, for example to coach a second sport, may have to be checked again, depending on that organization's rules and the state's law. Little League accepts only its own provider's check, USSSA does not accept results from other organizations, and AYSO does not accept California fingerprints taken for other organizations.
Frequently Asked Background Check Questions Little League International, UndatedFAQ answers quoted under C056
“A local Little League must conduct a nationwide background check through JDP, as other providers will not be accepted.”
More on this claim (5 more sources)
It is not a national rule: Pennsylvania's current state clearances can be used for other volunteer roles, and some organizations accept a recent check from a named provider. 'Starts over' refers to the background check.
USA Swimming Registration (officials resources) Pacific Northwest Swimming (USA Swimming local swimming committee), UndatedSection '2. USA Swimming Background Check (BGC)'
“Background checks for another job or another volunteer organization are not transferrable.”
Volunteer Dashboard (AYSO wiki) American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), UndatedCalifornia Live Scan paragraph
“Live Scan completed for other organizations cannot be used by AYSO for your privacy.”
Athlete Safety (background check FAQ) United States Specialty Sports Association (USSSA), Undated; read September 27, 2026FAQ, question 'If I already have been background checked by another organization for employment or other volunteer purposes, can USSSA accept the results of that background check?'
“Unfortunately, USSSA cannot accept background check results from another organization.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C057 · 2:13.06Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Nearly nine in ten youth sports parents say a coach should pass a check.”ConfirmedC058
“Nearly nine in ten youth sports parents say a coach should pass a check.” spoken
“NEARLY NINE IN TEN PARENTS · 88% say a coach should pass a background check” on screen
“Aspen Institute, State of Play 2025” source line on screen
Nearly nine in ten youth sports parents (87.9 percent of 1,848 surveyed online from November 5 to December 19, 2024) said it should be necessary for their child's coach to pass a mandatory criminal background check before serving as coach. Source: the Aspen Institute's National Youth Sports Parent Survey, with Utah State University and Louisiana Tech University, a nongovernment survey.
State of Play 2025: Coaching Trends Aspen Institute Project Play, 2025Finding 4, 'Parents expect coaches to pass background checks'
“Nearly 9 in 10 youth sports parents (88%) say their child’s coach should pass a criminal background check, according to an Aspen Institute survey with ...” …
More on this claim (2 more sources)
In the same survey, 66.0 percent said their child's coach had passed a check.
2024 Parenting Survey: Final Report (National Youth Sports Parent Survey) Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program, with Utah State University and Louisiana Tech University, June 2025PDF page 27, survey item and table
“Should it be necessary for your child's coach to pass a mandatory CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK as a precondition to serving as their coach? ... Yes ...” …
2024 Parenting Survey: Final Report (National Youth Sports Parent Survey) Aspen Institute Sports & Society Program, with Utah State University and Louisiana Tech University, June 2025PDF page 4, Background
“The study described in this report utilized a nationally representative sample of 1848 youth sports parents whose children were participating regularly in one or more ...” …
Claim C058 · 2:17.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Twenty million jobs where the law expects a check.”Confirmed, with contextC059
“Twenty million jobs where the law expects a check.” spoken
“WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON · 20M · jobs where the law expects a check” on screen
“BLS CES and OEWS, 2025 and 2026 · Census 2020 and 2023 · DoD, 2024 · DOJ Tribal Access Program, 2026 · DoD OIG, 2017 · SFIA, 2026 · the offer: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
About 20 million jobs in five settings where the law expects at least some workers to be checked. By our estimate, federal or state law requires a check for about six in ten of these jobs (about 45 percent on the strictest reading); no government body has measured this share.
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 4, 2026Table B-1 rows used in C039 to C043
Table cells, column Aug. 2026 (p), seasonally adjusted [thousands]: "Child care services" 1,088.2; "Local government education" 8,193.8; "Nursing and residential care facilities" 3,495.7; "Home health care services" 1,896.4; "Individual and family services" 3,798.1
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Child Welfare: Federal Agencies Can Better Support State Efforts to Prevent and Respond to Sexual Abuse by School Personnel (GAO-14-42) U.S. Government Accountability Office, January 2014p. 16 (PDF p. 21)
“Forty-six states reported in our survey that they required background checks for applicants seeking employment in a public K-12 school”
State Requirements for Conducting Background Checks on Home Health Agency Employees (OEI-07-14-00131), govinfo copy Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 29, 2014Results, p. 3
“In the Absence of Federal Laws, 41 States Require HHAs To Conduct Background Checks on Prospective Employees”
Personal Care Services: Trends, Vulnerabilities, and Recommendations for Improvement (OIG-12-12-01) Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, November 2012Background, p. 1 (PDF p. 8)
“Although there are no Federal requirements for PCS attendants, States are required to develop qualifications or requirements for attendants to ensure quality of care.”
Claim C059 · 2:22.03Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Communities the records don't reach.”Confirmed, with contextC060
“Communities the records don't reach.” spoken
“3.7M · American Indians and Alaska Natives · 1.5M · active-duty military family members · 159 · of 575 tribes on the national crime systems · 31% · military conviction reports never reached the FBI” on screen
“BLS CES and OEWS, 2025 and 2026 · Census 2020 and 2023 · DoD, 2024 · DOJ Tribal Access Program, 2026 · DoD OIG, 2017 · SFIA, 2026 · the offer: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
Communities where records do not always reach the national systems a check searches. Tribal justice systems: 159 of 575 tribes use or have been selected for the Justice Department's direct connection, many others connect through their state, and reporting arrests and final court outcomes to the FBI's criminal history systems is voluntary, as it is for state and local agencies.
Justice Department Expands Tribal Access Program to Improve the Exchange of Critical Data with Federally Recognized Tribes (press release) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, September 18, 2026subtitle line
“With this expansion, TAP now supports 159 Tribes and more than 500 Tribal government agencies.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 93 KB) SHA-256 170adb00
More on this claim (6 more sources)
Military justice: 31 percent of the court-martial conviction reports required for 2015 and 2016 had not reached the FBI when the Inspector General checked in 2017, and some were still missing in 2020; a separate 2020 review found every required report sent for convictions that ended in a dishonorable discharge or dismissal. That finding concerns service members' records, not family members. The population figures count people, not people with records or people missed by checks.
TAP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Tribal Justice, Undated; read September 27, 2026Q. 'What types of criminal offenses can be entered into NCIC?'
“Reporting arrests and final dispositions into FBI CJIS systems is voluntary.”
TAP Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Tribal Justice, Undated; read September 27, 2026Q. 'Will our access to state data continue?'
“Yes, your access to state data will continue as it currently exists.”
Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submissions by Military Service Law Enforcement Organizations (DODIG-2018-035) Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense, December 4, 2017Results in Brief, p. i
“Of the 2,502 final disposition reports required to be submitted, 780 (31 percent) were not submitted.”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C060 · 2:27.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Tens of millions volunteer. Some roles require checks.”Confirmed, with contextC061
“Tens of millions volunteer. Some roles require checks.” spoken
“75.7M · volunteers · some roles require checks · 6.9M · coach youth team sports” on screen
“BLS CES and OEWS, 2025 and 2026 · Census 2020 and 2023 · DoD, 2024 · DOJ Tribal Access Program, 2026 · DoD OIG, 2017 · SFIA, 2026 · the offer: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
Tens of millions of people volunteer. The 2023 survey estimated that 75.7 million people volunteered through organizations. No federal law requires every volunteer to be background checked; federal rules reach volunteers in specific programs, listed above, and some states cover youth sports volunteers.
Changed October 2, 2026: now a correction. Federal rules require checks of volunteers in specific programs, so the film’s line goes further than the record.
U.S. Volunteerism Rebounding After COVID-19 Pandemic (America Counts) U.S. Census Bureau (with AmeriCorps), November 19, 2024Lead paragraph
“Over 75.7 million or 28.3% of the U.S. population age 16 and up formally volunteered through an organization between September 2022 and September 2023”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 369 KB) SHA-256 1a99992e
More on this claim (4 more sources)
Organizations also require checks under their own policies, including the youth sports groups cited here. We have not identified a reliable national estimate of how many volunteers fall under a legal check requirement, so this record does not state a national share. The volunteer count also does not show how many volunteers work with children or how many have been checked.
34 U.S.C. 40102, Background checks (National Child Protection Act of 1993, as amended) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 40102(a)(1)
“A State may have in effect procedures (established by State statute or regulation) that require qualified entities designated by the State to contact an authorized agency of the State to request a nationwide background check...”
34 U.S.C. 20351, Requirement for background checks (federal agencies and facilities providing child care services) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 20351(e)
“Federal agencies and facilities are encouraged to submit identifying information for criminal history checks on volunteers working in any of the positions listed in subsection (a)”
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program, final rule, 81 FR 67438 (FR Doc. 2016-22986) HHS Administration for Children and Families, Federal Register, September 30, 201681 FR 67495
“Volunteers are not specifically included in the Act, nor have we specifically included them in the regulation.”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C061 · 2:30.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Count the people who work in our schools and in child, elder, and disability care. Add the adults who mentor young people and take out the overlap. By our estimate, that's about thirty million Americans.”Confirmed, with contextC151
“Count the people who work in our schools and in child, elder, and disability care. Add the adults who mentor young people and take out the overlap. By our estimate, that's about thirty million Americans.” spoken
“THE FINAL TALLY · people who work in schools and care · adults who mentor young people · people, not jobs · overlap removed · OUR ESTIMATE · about 30M · work in schools and care, or mentor young people · not a count of people with records” on screen
“FComply estimate · BLS CPS 2025: 16.9M people, main job in schools and care · AmeriCorps and Census CEV: 18.3M adults who mentored youth (2017 shares, 2023 volunteers) · 2.9M in both removed” source line on screen
About 30 million is FComply’s own estimate, not a government figure. It counts people, not jobs, with the overlap removed: about 16.9 million people whose main job is in schools, child care, home health care, nursing care, residential care or individual and family services (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, 2025 annual averages), plus about 18.3 million adults who volunteered in 2023 and mentored young people (AmeriCorps and Census Bureau Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement, tabulated by FComply with 2017 shares), less about 2.9 million who are in both groups.
Current Population Survey, Table 18: Employed persons by detailed industry, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (2025 annual averages) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025 annual averages (page modified February 20, 2026)Table 18, the six industry rows added in C151
Table 18 cells, 2025 annual averages, thousands: "Elementary and secondary schools" 9,433; "Child care services" 1,503; "Home health care services" 1,517; "Nursing care facilities" 1,456; "Residential care facilities, except skilled nursing" 988; "Individual and family services" 2,050
More on this claim (1 more source)
The three numbers come to about 32 million; the film says about 30 million because the estimate holds between about 29.6 and 32.4 million under the tests we ran, and "about 30 million" is the figure that holds across that range. It leaves out youth coaches who do not mentor, tutors and volunteers who serve older Americans. It is not a count of people with records, and it is not added to the 20 million jobs. The mentoring and overlap figures are our tabulation of the survey records; the worksheet and code are not yet published on this page.
AmeriCorps, 2023 CEV Data (dataset be5g-4c5r) AmeriCorps and U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 supplement (September 2023)microdata tabulated by FComply: volunteers who mentored youth, 2023 volunteers with 2017 shares
Claim C151 · 2:34.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“What too many of them share is a check done once, if at all, that stays behind when the person moves on.”Confirmed, with contextC062
“What too many of them share is a check done once, if at all, that stays behind when the person moves on.” spoken
“a check done once, if at all, that stays behind” on screen
“BLS CES and OEWS, 2025 and 2026 · Census 2020 and 2023 · DoD, 2024 · DOJ Tribal Access Program, 2026 · DoD OIG, 2017 · SFIA, 2026 · the offer: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
What the film means: a check is usually tied to one job and one purpose, and it does not travel with the person. Federal rules say criminal history records received from the FBI's national system "shall be used only for the purpose requested" and that a current record should be requested for a later use (28 CFR 20.33(d)).
Changed October 2, 2026: the note now says that no federal law requires every volunteer to be checked.
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Fund) eCFR, Office of the Federal Register and GPO, eCFR current to September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(d)(2)(ii)
“Not less than once during each 5-year period for any existing staff member.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (XML, 12 KB) SHA-256 0ceb261d
More on this claim (9 more sources)
There are exceptions. Some federal programs require rechecks: child care and Head Start staff at least once every five years (45 CFR 98.43(d)(2)(ii); 45 CFR 1302.90(b)(5)), and Defense Department child and youth programs every five years (32 CFR 86.6(e)(1)). A recent child care result can carry over to another child care provider in the same state (45 CFR 98.43(d)(3)). Some states and employers recheck or monitor on their own: by November 2023 Texas had enrolled more than 5 million FBI Rap Back subscriptions, covering teachers, nurses and other workers, and in a 2015 federal review 58 percent of the sampled home health agencies ran periodic checks after hiring. A Rap Back watch belongs to the employer or agency that set it up and lasts only while that relationship does; it must be removed when, for example, the person changes occupations or retires. No federal law requires every volunteer to be checked. Under 34 U.S.C. 40102(a)(1), states may establish procedures requiring designated qualified organizations to request nationwide checks. The federal rules that do reach volunteers cover specific programs, such as regulated child care, Defense Department youth programs, programs serving Indian children and Medicare hospices; the volunteers section of this page lists them with their citations. People in paid or stipended national service positions must also be checked (42 U.S.C. 12645g(a)).
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (CCDBG Act section 658H, added by Pub. L. 113-186, section 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(3)(B) and (d)(4)(A)(ii)
“not less than once during each 5-year period following the first submission date under this paragraph for that staff member.”
Privacy Impact Assessment, Next Generation Identification (NGI) Rap Back Service FBI (U.S. Department of Justice), Approved June 13, 2025Section 2.1, printed page 4 (PDF page 5)
“if a person has changed occupations or retired, the subscriber must notify the submitter to remove the subscription from the Rap Back Service within five business days”
Privacy Impact Assessment, Next Generation Identification (NGI) Rap Back Service FBI (U.S. Department of Justice), Approved June 13, 2025Section 2.1, printed page 2 (PDF page 3)
“Currently there are eleven state agencies, eleven federal agencies, and ten other authorized entities approved to participate in the NGI Noncriminal Justice Rap Back Service.”
6 more passages behind this claim: all 8 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C062 · 2:33.17Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“And records keep coming after the check. When Florida kept checking people it had already cleared for care work, more than thirteen hundred lost that clearance after new arrests in seventeen months.”Confirmed, with contextC152
“And records keep coming after the check. When Florida kept checking people it had already cleared for care work, more than thirteen hundred lost that clearance after new arrests in seventeen months.” spoken
“AFTER THE CHECK · records keep coming · FLORIDA KEPT CHECKING · 17 months, 2013 to 2014 · 1,337 · cleared for care work, then found ineligible after new arrests” on screen
“HHS OIG, OEI-07-10-00420, Jan 2016, p. 9 · CMS National Background Check Program, Sep 3, 2015, slide 36 · Florida state records; Florida’s rules count pending arrests” source line on screen
From January 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014 (17 months), about 4,300 care workers in Florida who had already been cleared were flagged for new arrests through the state’s continuous monitoring, and about 30 percent of them became ineligible to work, according to the HHS Inspector General. A Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services slide gives the exact counts: 4,353 flags, and 1,337 people (30 percent) who went from eligible to not eligible.
HHS Office of Inspector General, National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Employees: Interim Report, OEI-07-10-00420 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Evaluation and Inspections, January 2016printed p. 9
“Florida began continuously monitoring criminal history information on January 1, 2013. Florida reported that from that date to May 31, 2014, approximately 4,300 individuals were flagged through the continuous monitoring system. Approximately 30 percent of the flagged individuals became ineligible for employment as a result of offenses that occurred after their initial background checks.”
OriginalOur copy (PDF, 338 KB) SHA-256 67006299
More on this claim (1 more source)
These are Florida state records for long-term-care and similar care workers, from before the FBI’s Rap Back service ran for this purpose, and they are one state over 17 months, not a national rate. A flag is an arrest or court event, not a conviction: the slide lists the offenses behind the ineligible group as including grand theft, battery and assault, sex offenses and exploitation of the elderly, and Florida’s rules can count pending arrests. The film says "lost that clearance after new arrests"; the source says "ineligible for employment as a result of offenses that occurred after their initial background checks." The film’s "more than thirteen hundred" is the slide’s 1,337.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, National Background Check Program, National HCBS Conference presentation Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, September 3, 2015slide 36
“FL state rap back, January 2013 - May 2014: Processed 259,321 applications / 4,353 rap back hits / 1,337 individuals (30%) went from Eligible to Not Eligible for offenses including: Grand Theft, Battery and Assault, Sex Offenses, Exploitation of the Elderly”
Claim C152 · 2:53.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“That is the opportunity: one proven identity, rescreened every year, wherever the person goes.”FComply’s statementC063
“That is the opportunity: one proven identity, rescreened every year, wherever the person goes.” spoken
“THE OPPORTUNITY · FComply · one proven identity rescreened every year wherever the person goes” on screen
“BLS CES and OEWS, 2025 and 2026 · Census 2020 and 2023 · DoD, 2024 · DOJ Tribal Access Program, 2026 · DoD OIG, 2017 · SFIA, 2026 · the offer: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
This is FComply's offer, not a service running today. The idea: a person proves who they are once, and FComply rescreens them every year.
FComply home page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026Home page, 'Our Solution' paragraph
“"FComply ensures proven identity verification and annual compliance checks with multi-factor AI and biometric screening" (sentence continues past a dash, not quoted)”
More on this claim (4 more sources)
The identity credential goes with the person. A background check result does not automatically travel: each state and organization decides which checks it accepts, and federal child care law carries a prior check over only within the same state (42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(4)). The government sources listed on this card support the population figures shown just before it, not the offer.
FComply, About page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026About page, mission paragraph (first section)
“"ensuring that anyone working with vulnerable populations is truly who they say they are and has been vetted for safety, every year."”
FComply, Complied ID product page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Page last modified May 20, 2026Complied ID page, 'The FComply Solution' steps and 'Key Benefits'
"Step 2: Comprehensive Screening (Coming Soon)" followed by "Federal & state background checks" and "Law enforcement integrations"; Key Benefits: "Universal identity across organizations"
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (section 658H of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(4)(A)(ii) (a prior check carries over only within the same state)
“"(ii) while employed by or seeking employment by another child care provider within the State;"”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C063 · 2:39.14Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Nobody keeps a national list.”Confirmed, with contextC064
“Nobody keeps a national list.” spoken
“Nobody keeps a national list.” on screen
We found no national list of the people who work or volunteer in these roles, and no agency publishes a single count of them; the government counts jobs by industry and occupation, and we added those counts up ourselves. We looked at federal law and at the national systems that exist.
About NSOPW (Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website) U.S. Department of Justice, UndatedAbout NSOPW, first paragraph
“NSOPW is the only U.S. government website that links public state, territorial and tribal sex offender registries in one national search site.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 36 KB) SHA-256 05a4aacf
More on this claim (8 more sources)
They cover parts of the picture. Some list people with records or sanctions: the Justice Department's national sex offender public website, which links state, territorial and tribal registries; FBI criminal history records, released only for purposes federal law authorizes; the HHS Inspector General's list of people and entities excluded from federal health care programs; and the National Practitioner Data Bank, whose reports are confidential. The FBI's Rap Back service keeps the fingerprints of people enrolled by participating agencies and searches them continuously. National directories cover health care providers with an NPI number (CMS) and licensed nurses in participating states (Nursys). None is a roster of caregivers, teachers, coaches and volunteers. In 2006 Congress ordered a national registry of substantiated child abuse cases (34 U.S.C. 20990). HHS told Congress in 2009 that the registry was not feasible under the law's limits, and in 2012 that those limits on identifying information would prevent it from accurately identifying perpetrators; the 2012 report said no funds had been appropriated to build it.
42 U.S.C. 1396r, Requirements for nursing facilities (nurse aide registry, (e)(2)) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Current prelim text, read September 27, 202642 U.S.C. 1396r(e)(2)(A), (B)
“the State shall establish and maintain a registry of all individuals who have satisfactorily completed a nurse aide training and competency evaluation program”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 404 KB)
34 U.S.C. 20990, National registry of substantiated cases of child abuse Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 20990(a)
“The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall create a national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect.”
Report to the Congress on the Feasibility of Creating and Maintaining a National Registry of Child Maltreatment Perpetrators HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), August 31, 2012Introduction, printed page 1 (PDF page 11)
“While no funds have been appropriated for the development of a national registry, the Congress did designate that a portion of FY 2009 funds ... be used for the feasibility study.”
5 more passages behind this claim: all 9 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C064 · 2:47.18Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“We built these numbers ourselves from the government's own statistics.”Confirmed, with contextC065
“We built these numbers ourselves from the government's own statistics.” spoken
“built from the government’s own statistics” on screen
We built these totals ourselves, mostly from the government's own statistics. Six of the seven figures on the summary screen come from federal agencies (the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau with AmeriCorps, the Defense Department, the Justice Department's Tribal Access Program with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Defense Department Inspector General).
U.S. Volunteerism Rebounding After COVID-19 Pandemic (America Counts) U.S. Census Bureau (with AmeriCorps), November 19, 2024Lead paragraph (75.7M on the summary slide: a government statistic)
“Over 75.7 million or 28.3% of the U.S. population age 16 and up formally volunteered through an organization between September 2022 and September 2023”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 369 KB) SHA-256 1a99992e
More on this claim (2 more sources)
The 20 million jobs figure is our own sum of Bureau of Labor Statistics counts, an estimate; the worksheet is linked here. The 6.9 million youth coaches comes from an industry survey by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, and the parents' view of coach checks comes from an Aspen Institute survey. FComply is a private company. The agencies whose statistics we use did not review or endorse this film.
Team Sports Participation Reaches Record High as Youth Coaching Base Declines (press release) Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA), a trade association, September 24, 2026Fourth paragraph and 'About the Research' (6.9M on the summary slide: not a government statistic)
“The number of current youth team sport coaches declined for the third consecutive year, falling from 8.4 million in 2022 to 6.9 million in 2025.”
State of Play 2025: Coaching Trends Aspen Institute Project Play, 2025Finding 4 (the 88 percent earlier in the same section: not a government statistic)
“Nearly 9 in 10 youth sports parents (88%) say their child’s coach should pass a criminal background check, according to an Aspen Institute survey with ...” …
Claim C065 · 2:47.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
3. How the check works todayFrom 3:21 · 7 claims
“Fifteen and a half million times a year, someone is fingerprinted for a job or a license.”Confirmed, with contextC066
“Fifteen and a half million times a year, someone is fingerprinted for a job or a license.” spoken
“FINGERPRINTED FOR A JOB OR A LICENSE, IN ONE YEAR · 15,543,500 noncriminal fingerprint records processed by state repositories, 2022 · records, not people” on screen
“BJS and SEARCH, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022, table 1a” source line on screen
In 2022, state criminal record offices in all 50 states, D.C. and Guam processed 15,543,500 fingerprint records for noncriminal purposes: licensing, employment and regulatory checks. That counts fingerprint records, not people: one person can be printed more than once.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022 (NCJ 309360), a BJS-funded report prepared by SEARCH SEARCH Group, Inc., for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice); published by OJP, September 2024Table 1a, Total row, column "Total noncriminal justice purposes" (PDF page 27)
“Total ... 15,543,500”
More on this claim (1 more source)
The number changes from year to year. The 2020 survey reported 12,783,300 (from 49 states, D.C. and Guam), and the 2022 report links some of the difference to fingerprinting suspended during the pandemic. Source: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022 (published September 2024), Table 1a and page 3, prepared by SEARCH with funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The report says it is not a BJS report and its figures are not official BJS statistics. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 100.
Same documentIntroduction, "Overview of state criminal history record system functions, 2022 (table 1a)", printed page 3 (PDF page 17)
“15,543,500 were used and submitted for noncriminal justice licensing, employment, and regulatory purposes (numbers do not sum to total due to rounding).”
Claim C066 · 2:56.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Hiring one child care worker takes at least five separate checks, more if they have moved,”Confirmed, with contextC067
“Hiring one child care worker takes at least five separate checks, more if they have moved,” spoken
“HIRING ONE CHILD CARE WORKER · at least · 8 · checks · +3 · FBI fingerprints · national sex offender registry · state criminal record · state sex offender registry · state child abuse registry · prior state criminal record · prior state sex offender registry · prior state child abuse registry” on screen
“5 checks for a worker who never moved, 3 more for each other state lived in, past five years · 42 U.S.C. 9858f(b) · 45 CFR 98.43(b)” source line on screen
Federal child care rules require five checks for a new worker who has lived in one state for the past five years: an FBI fingerprint check, the national sex offender registry, and the state criminal record, sex offender and child abuse registries. Each other state lived in during those five years adds three more searches, so one move makes eight; the film's counter shows that one-move case.
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (eCFR, up to date as of September 24, 2026) Office of the Federal Register and Government Publishing Office (eCFR), Current as of September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(b)(1) and (2) (govinfo annual edition p. 558)
“A Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check using Next Generation Identification; (2) A search of the National Crime Information Center's National Sex Offender Registry”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (XML, 12 KB) SHA-256 0ceb261d
More on this claim (7 more sources)
A worker already cleared by another provider in the same state within five years may not need new checks (45 CFR 98.43(d)(3)).
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Volume 1, revised as of October 1, 2025) Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), October 1, 2025 annual edition45 CFR 98.43(b)(3)(i), p. 558
“State criminal registry or repository, with the use of fingerprints being”
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, section 658H, as added by Pub. L. 113-186, section 7) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(b)(3) to (5)
“a search of the National Crime Information Center; (4) a Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System; and (5) a search of the National Sex Offender Registry”
Interagency Task Force on Child Safety, Report to Congress (41 pages) Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Undatedpage 7, 'Background Checks: Current Processes, Challenges, and Best Practices'
“CCDBG background check processes vary by state and by type of check.”
4 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C067 · 3:03.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“and every state runs them differently.”Confirmed, with contextC068
“and every state runs them differently.” spoken
“every state runs them differently” on screen
“5 checks for a worker who never moved, 3 more for each other state lived in, past five years · 42 U.S.C. 9858f(b) · 45 CFR 98.43(b)” source line on screen
Federal law sets the checks every child care worker needs, but each state writes, runs and publishes its own process (45 CFR 98.43(a)(1) and (g)). A 2022 federal task force found that "CCDBG background check processes vary by state and by type of check," and a 2021 federal study found that the processes for checking other states "not only vary by state, but may also vary by registry check within a state."
Interagency Task Force on Child Safety, Report to Congress (41 pages) Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Undatedpage 7, first paragraph of "Background Checks: Current Processes, Challenges, and Best Practices"
“CCDBG background check processes vary by state and by type of check.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 497 KB) SHA-256 9f125214
More on this claim (6 more sources)
The sources show that processes differ from state to state; they do not show that no two states are alike. The count on screen follows the federal rule (45 CFR 98.43(b)): five searches for a worker who never moved, and three more for each other state lived in during the past five years. Under federal child care guidance, when a prior state takes part in the FBI's National Fingerprint File program, the FBI fingerprint check counts as the search of that state's criminal records, so only its sex offender and child abuse registries need separate searches.
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Fund) eCFR, Office of the Federal Register and GPO, eCFR current to September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(g)
“The State or Territory must ensure that its policies and procedures under this section, including the process by which a child care provider or other State or Territory may submit a background check request, are published”
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (CCDBG Act section 658H, added by Pub. L. 113-186, section 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(b) (source line check)
“A criminal background check for a child care staff member under subsection (a) shall include”
States' Status of and Identified Barriers to Implementation of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 Out-of-State Background Check Requirements (OPRE Report 2021-15) Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, HHS Administration for Children and Families (prepared by CNA under contract), January 2021printed page 19 (PDF page 20), "Lack of Transparent Processes"
“Complicating matters more, these processes not only vary by state, but may also vary by registry check within a state.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 696 KB)
3 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C068 · 3:08.22Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A federal review in 2022 found nineteen states let child care staff start work before either background check came back.”ConfirmedC069
“A federal review in 2022 found nineteen states let child care staff start work before either background check came back.” spoken
“HHS ACF INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON CHILD SAFETY, 2022 · nineteen states · 19 states, including the District of Columbia, as of January 2022 · 18 states and D.C. · staff may start before either check comes back all other states · D.C.” on screen
“HHS ACF, Interagency Task Force on Child Safety, Report to Congress, 2022, Appendix B, Table 3” source line on screen
A federal task force convened by HHS reported to Congress in 2022 (the Congressional Research Service dates the report October 2022) that, according to state child care plans as of January 2022, 19 states (the report counts D.C. as a state, so 18 states and D.C.) let child care staff start work before either the FBI or the state fingerprint check was complete. In 14 of them the new worker had to be supervised.
Interagency Task Force on Child Safety, Report to Congress (41 pages) Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Undatedpage 8, "Criminal History Background Checks"
“However, 19 states allow employment to begin before either check is completed, which is prohibited by CCDBG rules.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 497 KB) SHA-256 9f125214
More on this claim (5 more sources)
The report listed Vermont as allowing unsupervised work, could not tell for three states whether work was supervised, and counted Idaho because some localities did not follow the state's policy. The report called these policies out of compliance with the federal child care rules. In 2024 HHS reworded the rule to say plainly that a new worker may start, under supervision, only after a qualifying result on one of the two fingerprint checks; it said the earlier wording had caused some confusion but that the requirement itself did not change (45 CFR 98.43(d)(4); 89 FR 15386). These plans were written during the pandemic, and the states' policies may have changed since. In Washington, one of the listed states, a pandemic proclamation had waived the fingerprint requirement, and new workers could work under supervision after submitting their background application; the state ended that on July 1, 2022. The report does not say whether other listed states were under emergency orders.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant: In Brief (R47312) Congressional Research Service, Updated December 3, 2024printed page 10 (PDF page 13), paragraph before "Consumer Education", and footnote 67
“A report containing the task force’s conclusions was issued in October 2022.”
Improving Child Care Access, Affordability, and Stability in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), final rule, 89 FR 15366 HHS Administration for Children and Families, Federal Register (govinfo), March 1, 202489 FR 15386 (PDF page 21), discussion of 45 CFR 98.43(d)(4)
“In both these instances, submitting background checks is insufficient for working with children because it is necessary to first receive qualifying results.”
Same documentpage 9, first bullet ("Hiring before criminal check results")
“It is extremely concerning that CCDF Plan data indicates that at least 19 states allow child care staff to be hired prior to completion of either the FBI or the in-state criminal history check.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 3 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C069 · 3:12.15Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Getting printed is its own errand. One man we know sent for a fingerprint check, went to a shipping store, then another, then the sheriff's office, and none of them took fingerprints anymore. He asked the police whether the only way was to be arrested.”One person’s accountC070
“Getting printed is its own errand. One man we know sent for a fingerprint check, went to a shipping store, then another, then the sheriff's office, and none of them took fingerprints anymore. He asked the police whether the only way was to be arrested.” spoken
“ONE APPLICANT’S ACCOUNT, 2026. NAME WITHHELD. · 1st stop · a shipping store · 2nd stop · another store · 3rd stop · the sheriff’s office · no fingerprints · taken anymore · he asked the police whether the only · way was to be arrested” on screen
“Washington DSHS, resubmitted prints: up to two weeks · Ohio Attorney General, complicated cases: up to 30 days · Illinois State Police, held inquiries: 30 to 45 days” source line on screen
This is one applicant's account, shared with the film's producers in September 2026 and shown with his name withheld. When his errand took place is not recorded, and his account cannot be checked from public records.
Emergency Recommendation: Background Checks Fair Start for Kids Act Temporary Licensing Subcommittee of the Early Learning Advisory Council (Washington); hosted by DCYF, May 27, 2022page 2 (related evidence, not corroboration)
“DCYF indicated that they have committed to providing fingerprints within a thirty-mile radius and have contracted with IdentoGo to serve within a fifty-mile radius. However, IdentoGo has been eliminating sites in many communities.”
More on this claim (4 more sources)
Public records show that finding a fingerprint site can be hard in some places, though they do not confirm his experience. In 2022 Washington child care providers reported that a fingerprint vendor had "been eliminating sites in many communities." The Fitchburg, Wisconsin police department stopped fingerprinting on March 1, 2025 and pointed residents to other providers, including shipping stores. In Aspen, Colorado, the vendor ended electronic fingerprinting at the police department on July 1, 2026 while it looked for another location. The source line shown under this scene refers to the next sentence, on how long results take.
Interagency Task Force on Child Safety, Report to Congress (41 pages) Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Undatedpage 9, second bullet (related evidence, not corroboration)
“For many counties, the only fingerprinting option is hard copy fingerprint cards.”
General FBI Criminal History Background Check (Fingerprinting FAQs, COVID-19) Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, 2020PDF page 1, question 2 (related evidence, pandemic period only)
“However, as of April 29, 2020 more than half of the locations across the state are closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Fingerprinting City of Aspen, Colorado (aspen.gov), Undated; read September 27, 2026opening notice (related evidence, not corroboration)
“Effective July 1, 2026, Identogo is no longer providing electronic fingerprinting services at the Aspen Police Department.”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C070 · 3:21.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“And once the prints are taken, a result can take two weeks or more.”Confirmed, with contextC071
“And once the prints are taken, a result can take two weeks or more.” spoken
“the result · two weeks or more” on screen
“Washington DSHS, resubmitted prints: up to two weeks · Ohio Attorney General, complicated cases: up to 30 days · Illinois State Police, held inquiries: 30 to 45 days” source line on screen
In some cases a result takes two weeks or more: when prints are rejected and must be retaken, when a record needs review, or when a case is complicated. Washington's DSHS background check unit says the State Patrol takes up to two weeks to process resubmitted prints; Ohio's Attorney General says complicated cases can take up to 30 days; an Illinois State Police guide from 2011 says inquiries that first come back "held" can take 30 to 45 days.
Turnaround Times (Background Check Central Unit) Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, September 25, 2026"General Information", fourth bullet
“WSP takes up to two weeks to process resubmitted fingerprints due to poor print quality.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)
More on this claim (6 more sources)
Many results come back within hours or days: Washington's child care unit averaged 6 calendar days in January 2024 and 12 in 2023. For child care, federal law requires states to finish a check as quickly as possible and no later than 45 days after the provider's request (42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(1); 45 CFR 98.43(e)(1)).
Background Checks Webinar Q&A Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, January 25, 2024PDF page 2, answer to "How long are background checks currently taking on average?"
“3% (637 out of 18,771) of the background checks required a suitability assessment, which took an average of 15 days.”
Civilian Services (WebCheck Background Checks) Ohio Attorney General, Bureau of Criminal Investigation, Undated; read September 27, 2026opening paragraph under "Civilian Services" (WebCheck)
“providing results usually within a matter of days. (Complicated cases can take up to 30 days.)”
Guide to Understanding Criminal History Record Check Information Illinois State Police, Bureau of Identification, August 2011responses chapter, printed page 68 (PDF page 73)
“Inquiries that receive a “held” response initially can take between 30 to 45 days to complete.”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 7 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C071 · 3:29.15Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“In Washington State, child care providers reported three-hour round trips just to get fingerprinted.”ConfirmedC072
“In Washington State, child care providers reported three-hour round trips just to get fingerprinted.” spoken
“WASHINGTON CHILD-CARE PROVIDERS, MAY 27, 2022 · 3 hours round trip to be fingerprinted · providers’ first-hand reports” on screen
“Fair Start for Kids Act Temporary Licensing Subcommittee, Emergency Recommendation: Background Checks, May 27, 2022” source line on screen
In a May 27, 2022 recommendation to Washington's child care agency (DCYF), a subcommittee of the state's Early Learning Advisory Council printed providers' own accounts. Two providers wrote that from Yakima the nearest fingerprint site was a three-hour round trip, and one in Kittitas County described three hours of travel.
Emergency Recommendation: Background Checks Fair Start for Kids Act Temporary Licensing Subcommittee of the Early Learning Advisory Council (Washington); hosted by DCYF, May 27, 2022Appendix, "Provider’s shared their first-hand experiences", page 4
“How can Yakima comply with no fingerprint locations available? The closest location to get fingerprinted is a three-hour round-trip drive.”
More on this claim (1 more source)
These are providers' first-hand reports, not a measured statewide travel time. They were written as Washington prepared to end, on July 1, 2022, a pandemic order that had waived the fingerprint requirement and let new staff work under supervision after submitting their background application.
Same documentAppendix, page 4 (second provider)
“DCYF does not have a finger print site in Yakima, WA. The nearest location is a three-hour round trip.”
Claim C072 · 3:41.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
4. Identity and fingerprintsFrom 4:16 · 13 claims
“Every check starts with an ID.”Confirmed, with contextC073
“Every check starts with an ID.” spoken
“Every check starts with an ID · ID” on screen
“GAO-09-447 (2009) · GAO-10-922T (2010) · GAO-12-893 (2012) · / federal undercover tests with false identities” source line on screen
A background check begins with the identity the applicant presents. No single federal rule requires an ID document to be checked for every employment or licensing check; in 2006 the Attorney General recommended national standards for verifying the identity of people being checked.
Compact Council, Identity Verification Program Guide (booklet, 'Revised 2014 by the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council') Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, 2014printed page 3, 'Create an Identification Validation Guide', Primary and Secondary Identification
“Currently most agencies request some type of photo identification card as one method for verifying an individual’s identity. The Compact Council suggests agencies accept only current, valid, and unexpired photo identification documents.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 2.3 MB) SHA-256 4cf39119
More on this claim (10 more sources)
For fingerprint checks, the ID step is what ties the prints to the named applicant: the FBI Compact Council wrote its voluntary identity verification guide after fingerprinting agencies raised concern that someone could pose as the applicant at the appointment, and the guide suggests accepting only current, valid photo ID. Some rules and agency instructions require an ID at that step (TSA's rule for airport workers, 49 CFR 1542.209(e)(3); California's and Texas's instructions for the fingerprint appointment), and the federal child care and volunteer check law requires the applicant's signed statement to carry the name, address and date of birth on a valid ID document (34 U.S.C. 40102(b)(1)(A)).
California Department of Justice, Fingerprint Background Checks State of California, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Page modified November 5, 2021'The Background Check Process', first paragraph
“The applicant completes the form with his/her personal information and takes the form to a live scan operator where the applicant must provide the appropriate identification.”
California Department of Justice, Fingerprints: Applicant Agencies State of California, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Page modified July 21, 2026applicant fingerprint submission instructions, NOTE
“NOTE: The applicant must present valid photo identification to the Live Scan provider. Expired identification will not be accepted.”
34 U.S.C. 40316, National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (Pub. L. 105-251, title II, sec. 217, Oct. 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 1876), Article V U.S. Code, 2024 edition (govinfo.gov, Government Publishing Office); same text in the Office of the Law Revision Counsel's current edition, 2024 edition of the U.S. CodeArticle V(a), 'Positive identification'
“Subject fingerprints or other approved forms of positive identification shall be submitted with all requests for criminal history record checks for noncriminal justice purposes.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 36 KB)
7 more passages behind this claim: all 10 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C073 · 3:49.03Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“So federal investigators put it to the test. Using false identities and counterfeit papers, they applied for real U.S. passports.”ConfirmedC074
“So federal investigators put it to the test. Using false identities and counterfeit papers, they applied for real U.S. passports.” spoken
“Federal investigators put it to the test · Using false identities and counterfeit papers · FALSE IDENTITY · COUNTERFEIT · They applied for real U.S. passports” on screen
“GAO-09-447 (2009) · GAO-10-922T (2010) · GAO-12-893 (2012) · / federal undercover tests with false identities” source line on screen
In undercover tests, investigators from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the audit and investigative agency of Congress, applied for U.S. passports using counterfeit documents in the identities of fictitious or deceased people: four applications in 2008 (reported in GAO-09-447, March 2009) and seven in 2010 (GAO-10-922T, July 2010). GAO was testing how passports are issued, not how background checks are run.
GAO-09-447, Department of State: Undercover Tests Reveal Significant Vulnerabilities in State's Passport Issuance Process U.S. Government Accountability Office, March 13, 2009Highlights page (What GAO Did / Why GAO Did This Study)
“GAO created counterfeit documents for four fictitious or deceased individuals using off-the-shelf, commercially available hardware, software, and materials.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 816 KB) SHA-256 040c1f3c
More on this claim (3 more sources)
GAO-10-922T, State Department: Undercover Tests Show Passport Issuance Process Remains Vulnerable to Fraud (testimony) U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 29, 2010Highlights page
“GAO created documents for seven fictitious or deceased individuals using off-the-shelf, commercially available hardware, software, and materials.”
GAO-10-922T, State Department: Undercover Tests Show Passport Issuance Process Remains Vulnerable to Fraud (testimony) U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 29, 2010printed pages 6 and 7, Table 1, 'Date of Application' column
“3/10/10 ... 5/26/10”
Same documentprinted page 5, Table 1, 'Month of application' column
“July 2008 / August 2008 / October 2008 / December 2008”
Claim C074 · 3:51.11Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“The government issued one nine times out of eleven.”ConfirmedC075
“The government issued one nine times out of eleven.” spoken
“9 of 11 · real U.S. passports · issued · ISSUED · DENIED” on screen
“GAO-09-447 (2009) · GAO-10-922T (2010) · GAO-12-893 (2012) · / federal undercover tests with false identities” source line on screen
The State Department issued passports on 9 of GAO's 11 test applications: all 4 in 2008 and 5 of 7 in 2010. This is our sum of two separate GAO test series; GAO does not print the combined figure.
GAO-09-447, Department of State: Undercover Tests Reveal Significant Vulnerabilities in State's Passport Issuance Process U.S. Government Accountability Office, March 13, 2009printed page 4, first paragraph of findings
“Although we do not know what checks, if any, State performed when approving our fraudulent applications, it issued a genuine U.S. passport in each case.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 816 KB) SHA-256 040c1f3c
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Of the 5 issued in 2010, GAO received 3 and State recovered 2 from the mail before delivery; State denied the other 2. After GAO's 2008 briefing, State told GAO it had identified and revoked the four passports from that test. These were small undercover tests, not a fraud rate. In 2014, GAO matched about 28 million passports issued in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 against death, prison, warrant and Social Security records, did not identify pervasive fraud in those groups, and reported that State had taken steps to improve its detection. Our searches through September 2026 found no later public undercover test of passport issuance.
GAO-10-922T, State Department: Undercover Tests Show Passport Issuance Process Remains Vulnerable to Fraud (testimony) U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 29, 2010printed page 5, first paragraph under 'Covert Testing of State's Passport Issuance Process Shows That Vulnerabilities Remain'
“State’s passport issuance process continues to be vulnerable to fraud, as the agency issued five of the seven passports GAO attempted to fraudulently obtain.”
GAO-10-922T, State Department: Undercover Tests Show Passport Issuance Process Remains Vulnerable to Fraud (testimony) U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 29, 2010printed page 5, same paragraph
“GAO successfully obtained three of these passports, but State had two others recovered from the mail before they were delivered.”
Same documentHighlights page
“All four passports were issued to the same GAO investigator, under four different names.”
Claim C075 · 3:56.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“They tried for driver's licenses five times, in three states.”ConfirmedC076
“They tried for driver's licenses five times, in three states.” spoken
“They tried for driver’s licenses · 5 of 5 · driver’s licenses issued · 3 states” on screen
“GAO-09-447 (2009) · GAO-10-922T (2010) · GAO-12-893 (2012) · / federal undercover tests with false identities” source line on screen
In a separate review (GAO-12-893, September 2012), GAO investigators made five attempts in three states to get driver's licenses, each time using a counterfeit out-of-state driver's license and a counterfeit birth certificate. GAO chose the three states because they had known weaknesses, did not name them, and says the results cannot be generalized to other states.
GAO-12-893, Driver's License Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Address Remaining Vulnerabilities U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 21, 2012printed page 22, first paragraph under 'GAO Investigative Work Highlights Vulnerabilities'
“Our investigative staff exploited the vulnerabilities discussed above to fraudulently obtain drivers’ licenses in the three states where we made such attempts.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.9 MB) SHA-256 c8bc4921
More on this claim (2 more sources)
The work ran from September 2011 to September 2012, before the January 2013 date then scheduled for the REAL ID Act's minimum identity verification standards. Under the current federal rule, agencies may not accept a license that is not REAL ID compliant for official purposes such as boarding a plane from May 7, 2025, with phased enforcement allowed until May 5, 2027 (6 CFR 37.5).
Same documentprinted page 22, same paragraph
“In most of these five attempts across the three states, we were issued permanent or temporary licenses in about 1 hour or less.”
Same documentprinted page 2 (objectives, scope and methodology)
“We chose states with certain identified vulnerabilities in their procedures. The results from these three states cannot be generalized to others.”
Claim C076 · 4:01.19Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“They were issued a license every time.”Confirmed, with contextC077
“They were issued a license every time.” spoken
“5 of 5” on screen
“GAO-09-447 (2009) · GAO-10-922T (2010) · GAO-12-893 (2012) · / federal undercover tests with false identities” source line on screen
GAO's investigators were issued a license on all five attempts. GAO does not print '5 of 5'; the count follows from its page 22, which describes licenses obtained in each of the three states and two licenses in each of two of them.
GAO-12-893, Driver's License Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Address Remaining Vulnerabilities U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 21, 2012printed page 22
“In each state, investigative staff obtained genuine licenses under fictitious identities”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.9 MB) SHA-256 c8bc4921
More on this claim (1 more source)
Some were temporary licenses. The three states were chosen for known weaknesses, and GAO says the results cannot be generalized.
Same documentprinted page 24
“None of the front-line clerks in the offices where we applied for licenses questioned the validity of the counterfeit birth certificates presented.”
Claim C077 · 4:05.18Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Nineteen companies are approved to send fingerprints to the FBI,”ConfirmedC078
“Nineteen companies are approved to send fingerprints to the FBI,” spoken
“GETTING FINGERPRINTED · APPROVED TO SEND PRINTS TO THE FBI · 19 companies” on screen
“FBI Compact Council, approved channelers, February 2, 2026 · coverage: company / websites, September 2026 · fieldprint.com · Minnesota health licensing boards” source line on screen
The FBI Compact Council lists 19 approved channelers (list last updated February 2, 2026): companies the FBI has selected to send fingerprints to it directly, and receive the results, on behalf of employers, licensing agencies and other organizations the law allows to request an FBI check, for those authorized purposes only. The 19 entries include two First Advantage companies and two IDEMIA companies.
FBI, Compact Council: List of Approved Channelers ('Last Updated: 2/2/2026') Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, February 2, 2026page heading and date line; the list itself (19 entries, counted)
“Last Updated: 2/2/2026”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 90 KB) SHA-256 061a77f5
More on this claim (3 more sources)
FComply is not on the list, and the FBI does not endorse this film or any company named in it.
Compact Council, Security and Management Control Outsourcing Standard for Channeling (approved by the Council November 29, 2023) Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, November 29, 2023introduction (page 1, before section 1.0)
“A Channeler is an entity selected by the FBI to obtain a direct connection to the FBI Next Generation Identification (NGI) System, for the purpose of submitting fingerprints and receiving CHRI on behalf of an Authorized Recipient.”
28 CFR part 906, Outsourcing of Noncriminal Justice Administrative Functions (Compact Council rule; 69 FR 75245, Dec. 16, 2004) Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR), point-in-time 2026-09-01, September 1, 202628 CFR 906.1 (purpose and authority)
“The purpose of this part 906 is to establish rules and procedures for third parties to perform noncriminal justice administrative functions involving access to Interstate Identification Index (III) information.”
First Advantage Biometric Information Privacy and Record Retention Policy First Advantage, Undated; read September 27, 2026Biometric Information Privacy Notice, opening paragraph
“This notice describes the biometric data handling practices of First Advantage and its subsidiaries, including STS SID LLC dba First Advantage Biometrics”
Claim C078 · 4:08.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting · American BioIdentity · Colorado · AD&S · Mississippi · Biometric Impressions · 3 states · DTIS · Florida · Telos · 3 states · VetConnex · 18 states” on screenConfirmed, with contextC079
“1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting · American BioIdentity · Colorado · AD&S · Mississippi · Biometric Impressions · 3 states · DTIS · Florida · Telos · 3 states · VetConnex · 18 states” on screen
“FBI Compact Council, approved channelers, February 2, 2026 · coverage: company / websites, September 2026 · fieldprint.com · Minnesota health licensing boards” source line on screen
The labels on screen show where each regional company's own website lists fixed fingerprinting locations for its FBI fingerprint service, read September 2026: 1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting (Florida); American BioIdentity (Colorado); Biometric Impressions (Illinois, Iowa and Florida); DTIS (Florida, through 50 UPS Store locations); Telos, through its IDVetting service (Florida, Virginia and New York); and VetConnex (partner locations under 18 state headings).
1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting, home page 1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting LLC, Undated; read September 27, 2026home page, about paragraph
“We are an approved Live Scan Vendor by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to submit Electronic fingerprints.”
More on this claim (13 more sources)
AD&S mainly supplies fingerprinting systems: its label is its home state, Mississippi, where it says more than 400 of its livescans are installed; it says its systems are used in over 30 states and that it offers Florida fingerprinting without travel to Florida. The labels do not measure everything these companies offer: Biometric Impressions also offers mobile fingerprinting and cites experience throughout the United States, Telos also offers TSA PreCheck enrollment, and several of the companies accept mailed fingerprint cards from people in other states for some kinds of checks. These are the companies' own descriptions, linked below with archive copies; they are not an independent count.
1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting, Contact Us 1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting LLC, Undated; read September 27, 2026Contact Us, address
“1211 N West Shore Boulevard, Suite 103. Tampa, Florida 33607”
Colorado Fingerprinting (powered by American BioIdentity), home page American BioIdentity Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026home page, service text
“Schedule an appointment at any of our Colorado locations today.”
American BioIdentity, CABS billing agreement (PDF) American BioIdentity Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026page 1
“ABI will provide fingerprint capture services at ABI’s fingerprinting locations or through a mobile collector at applicant’s location throughout Colorado.”
10 more passages behind this claim: all 13 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C079 · 4:09.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“alongside the states' own programs.”ConfirmedC080
“alongside the states' own programs.” spoken
States run their own fingerprint programs. In states that have ratified the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact, a check made under a state law goes through that state's criminal history repository on its way to the FBI (34 U.S.C. 40316, Article V(b)); more broadly, the FBI exchanges records with state and local officials for employment and licensing when a state statute approved by the FBI authorizes it (28 CFR 50.12(a), under Public Law 92-544).
34 U.S.C. 40316, National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (Pub. L. 105-251, title II, sec. 217, Oct. 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 1876), Article V U.S. Code, 2024 edition (govinfo.gov, Government Publishing Office); same text in the Office of the Law Revision Counsel's current edition, 2024 edition of the U.S. CodeArticle V(b), 'Submission of State requests'
“Each request for a criminal history record check utilizing the national indices made under any approved State statute shall be submitted through that State's criminal history record repository.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 36 KB) SHA-256 7918fca4
More on this claim (4 more sources)
California's Live Scan program and Minnesota's health licensing boards' program are two examples; Minnesota's law sends the prints to the state's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which forward them to the FBI (Minnesota Statutes, section 214.075, subdivision 5). Private companies can take part in the same check, for example by taking the prints.
The Attorney General's Report on Criminal History Background Checks U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (hosted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics), June 2006printed page 26, Section III.E.3, 'The Compact's Requirement for State Background Checks'
“The role of the states in civil background checks was also strengthened with the passage of the Compact.”
California Department of Justice, Fingerprint Background Checks State of California, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Page modified November 5, 2021'The Background Check Process', paragraph beginning 'If an FBI criminal background check is requested'
“If an FBI criminal background check is requested, the fingerprint images are forwarded to the FBI to perform a fingerprint-based search of records in the national criminal history database.”
Minnesota Criminal Background Check Program, How Long Does It Take? State of Minnesota, Criminal Background Check Program (Health Licensing Boards), UndatedStandard Process, step 2, 'Transmit Fingerprints'
“The CBCP transmits the prints to the BCA, who in turn transmit them to the FBI.”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C080 · 4:12.02Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“11 serve every state” on screenConfirmed, with contextC081
“11 serve every state” on screen
“FBI Compact Council, approved channelers, February 2, 2026 · coverage: company / websites, September 2026 · fieldprint.com · Minnesota health licensing boards” source line on screen
Eleven of the nineteen say on their own websites that they serve people nationwide. Six of them say in so many words that they reach all 50 states; the other five describe nationwide partner networks, affiliate sites or mail-in service.
Fieldprint, Livescan Fingerprinting Network Fieldprint Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026opening paragraph
“We are the only firm that offers Livescan sites in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands”
More on this claim (14 more sources)
What 'serve' means also differs by company: National Credit Reporting, for example, lists fingerprinting locations in every state for people requesting their own FBI record, says that process cannot be used for employment or licensing, and offers separate accounts to employers with legal authority to receive FBI records. First Advantage and First Advantage Biometrics share one network. Of the other eight channelers, seven are the regional companies named on screen and one, IDEMIA National Security Solutions, describes federal work only. These are the companies' own descriptions, read September 2026 and quoted in the table below; they are not an independent count.
First Advantage, Fingerprint Background Checks First Advantage, Undated; read September 27, 2026statistics panel
“700+ / Live scan collection locations across 50 states and Washington D.C.”
First Advantage Biometrics, Fingerprinting Hub STS SID LLC (dba First Advantage Biometrics), Undated; read September 27, 2026Resource Center
“First Advantage Biometrics provides a nationwide live-scan fingerprinting collection network with locations in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.”
IdentoGO by IDEMIA, About IDEMIA Identity & Security USA LLC, Undated; read September 27, 2026About
“our company serves over 5 million individuals annually with our network of offices throughout each state.”
11 more passages behind this claim: all 14 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C081 · 4:12.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“One says it has more than nineteen hundred sites.”ConfirmedC082
“One says it has more than nineteen hundred sites.” spoken
“1,900+ · collection sites · Fieldprint’s own count” on screen
“FBI Compact Council, approved channelers, February 2, 2026 · coverage: company / websites, September 2026 · fieldprint.com · Minnesota health licensing boards” source line on screen
Fieldprint says on its home page that it has 'more than 1,900+ collection site locations' and on its network page 'more than 2,200' Livescan sites (read September 2026). These are the company's own undated figures, not an independent or national count.
Fieldprint, home page Fieldprint Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026home page, FBI background check paragraph
“Simply schedule an appointment online at fieldprintfbi.com, pay the designated fee and have your fingerprints collected at one of our more than 1,900+ collection site ...” …
More on this claim (1 more source)
Fieldprint, Livescan Fingerprinting Network Fieldprint Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026opening paragraph
“Fieldprint has the largest nationwide electronic fingerprinting network with more than 2,200 stationary Livescan collection sites.”
Claim C082 · 4:14.17Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“And when a set of prints is rejected, as about three in a hundred are for Minnesota's health licensing boards,”Confirmed, with contextC083
“And when a set of prints is rejected, as about three in a hundred are for Minnesota's health licensing boards,” spoken
“GETTING FINGERPRINTED · APPROVED TO SEND PRINTS TO THE FBI · 3 in 100 rejected · Minnesota health licensing boards” on screen
“FBI Compact Council, approved channelers, February 2, 2026 · coverage: company / websites, September 2026 · fieldprint.com · Minnesota health licensing boards” source line on screen
Minnesota's criminal background check program for its health licensing boards says fingerprint rejections occur in about 3 percent of board applicants; its 2023 tip sheet puts rejected fingerprints at about 2 percent of those received. A rejection means the prints could not be read, not that anything was found in a record.
Minnesota Criminal Background Check Program, How Long Does It Take? State of Minnesota, Criminal Background Check Program (Health Licensing Boards), Undated'NOTE: Additional time required for prints found to be unclassifiable by the FBI', last sentence
“Rejections occur in about 3% of all board applicants.”
More on this claim (2 more sources)
The program sends prints through Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to the FBI; it is not one of the nineteen channelers. This is one state program's figure, not a national rate.
Minnesota Criminal Background Check Program, home page State of Minnesota, Criminal Background Check Program, Undatedopening paragraph
“The Criminal Background Check Program (CBCP) provides criminal background check (CBC) services to sixteen of the Minnesota Health Related Licensing Boards (HLBs).”
Minnesota Criminal Background Check Program, Tips for Improving Fingerprint Quality ('updated 2023') State of Minnesota, Criminal Background Check Program, 2023page 1, 'Why Does Fingerprint Quality Matter'
“Approximately 2 percent (about 400 per year) of all fingerprints received in the Criminal Background Check Program (CBCP) for the Health Professionals Regulatory Boards are rejected.”
Claim C083 · 4:17.21Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“the applicant goes back and does it again.”ConfirmedC084
“the applicant goes back and does it again.” spoken
In Minnesota's program, prints the FBI rejects mean being fingerprinted again, which can add up to one or two months. Applicants may send two sets at the start to avoid the delay, and after two unreadable sets a board may use another kind of check (Minnesota Statutes, section 214.075, subdivision 6).
Minnesota Criminal Background Check Program, Process Overview ("CBC Process / CBC Refresh") State of Minnesota, Criminal Background Check Program (Health Related Licensing Boards), Undated; read September 27, 2026'High Quality Fingerprints are Required'
“Poor-quality fingerprints will be rejected by the FBI, which requires you to be fingerprinted again.”
More on this claim (6 more sources)
A rejection is about print quality, not about the person's record.
Minnesota Criminal Background Check Program, How Long Does It Take? State of Minnesota, Criminal Background Check Program (Health Licensing Boards), Undated'NOTE: Additional time required for prints found to be unclassifiable by the FBI', first sentence
“If the report is returned to the CBCP with notification that your prints were not classifiable, you will be required to submit a second set of fingerprints.”
Minnesota Criminal Background Check Program, Tips for Improving Fingerprint Quality ('updated 2023') State of Minnesota, Criminal Background Check Program, 2023page 1, 'Why Does Fingerprint Quality Matter'
“If the FBI rejects your fingerprints, you will have to resubmit new fingerprints, which will delay your background check.”
Minnesota Criminal Background Check Program, How Long Does It Take? State of Minnesota, Criminal Background Check Program (Health Licensing Boards), Undatedsame note
“It is a requirement under current Minnesota law that two sets of fingerprints be rejected before an alternative method is allowed.”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C084 · 4:23.13Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“None of it is connected, and none of it follows a person to the next job or the next state.”CorrectionC085
“None of it is connected, and none of it follows a person to the next job or the next state.” spoken
“none of it is connected · and none of it follows a person to the next job or the next state” on screen
Clarification. Criminal records are connected: the FBI's Interstate Identification Index links the criminal history files of the FBI, all 50 states and D.C. into one national system (34 U.S.C. 40316; 28 CFR 20.3(p)). What does not connect is the check itself.
Interstate Identification Index (III) / National Fingerprint File (NFF), as of July 15, 2025 FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division, As of July 15, 2025page 2, first paragraph
“The Interstate Identification Index (III) is an index pointer system that ties computerized criminal history record files of the FBI and the centralized files maintained by each III participating state into a national system.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 166 KB) SHA-256 6f1c8c22
More on this claim (8 more sources)
Federal rules say records received through that system "shall be used only for the purpose requested" and that a current record should be requested for a later use (28 CFR 20.33(d)). Each employer, agency and state usually runs its own check, and a result usually does not carry over to the next job. Where the FBI's Rap Back service keeps watching, the watch belongs to the agency that set it up and must be removed when that relationship ends. A child care check does not carry into another state: the provider in the new state must request new searches, including of every state the worker lived in during the past five years. Child care is a partial exception within a state, where a recent result can move with the worker to a new provider, and Texas child care reuses an active Rap Back subscription instead of taking new fingerprints.
34 U.S.C. 40316, National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (Pub. L. 105-251, title II, section 217, Oct. 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 1876) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 40316, Article I(13)
“means the cooperative Federal-State system for the exchange of criminal history records”
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Fund) eCFR, Office of the Federal Register and GPO, eCFR current to September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(d)(3)(i)(B)
“While employed by or seeking employment by another child care provider within the State;”
Fingerprinting FAQ (Child Care Regulation background checks) Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Undatedanswer to "How often do I have to complete fingerprinting?" (live page, 2026-09-27)
“New fingerprints are not required as long as CCR has an active subscription or can reactivate a subscription to the FBI's national rap back service for the person.”
5 more passages behind this claim: all 9 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C085 · 4:26.22Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
5. Does any of it work?From 5:00 · 11 claims
“When Congress did pay to find out, more than a hundred million dollars across twenty-nine states,”Confirmed, with contextC086
“When Congress did pay to find out, more than a hundred million dollars across twenty-nine states,” spoken
“HHS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, 2019 AND 2024 · $111 million across 29 states” on screen
“HHS OIG OEI-07-24-00100, November 2024 · OEI-07-18-00290, August 2019” source line on screen
In 2010 Congress created the National Background Check Program for long-term care workers (Affordable Care Act, section 6201; 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l), capped its federal funding at $160 million, and required the HHS Inspector General to evaluate it, including its impact on abuse, neglect and theft of residents' property 'to the extent practicable.'
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Findings, printed page 10 (PDF page 13), section heading and first paragraph
“States collectively spent at least $111 million in combined Federal and State funds to develop or enhance systems to conduct background checks of long-term care providers”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.5 MB) SHA-256 e56a4447
More on this claim (6 more sources)
The Inspector General reports that participating states spent at least $111 million in combined federal and state funds to build or improve their check systems: about $55 million in federal grants and about $56 million in required state matching funds. Twenty-nine jurisdictions took part; Wisconsin withdrew and spent no program funds. (HHS OIG, OEI-07-24-00100, November 2024, page 10 and Appendix E.)
42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l, Nationwide program for national and State background checks on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and providers (enacted by Pub. L. 111-148, title VI, sec. 6201, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 721) Office of the Law Revision Counsel / U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2024 edition), United States Code 2024 edition42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l(a), 2024 ed. page 2654 (purpose of the program)
“shall establish a program to identify efficient, effective, and economical procedures for long term care facilities or providers to conduct background checks on prospective direct patient access employees on a nationwide basis”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 157 KB)
42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l, Nationwide program for national and State background checks on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and providers (enacted by Pub. L. 111-148, title VI, sec. 6201, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 721) Office of the Law Revision Counsel / U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2024 edition), United States Code 2024 edition42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l(b)(1), 2024 ed. page 2657 (funding cap)
“except that in no case shall such amount exceed $160,000,000.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 157 KB)
42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l, Nationwide program for national and State background checks on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and providers (enacted by Pub. L. 111-148, title VI, sec. 6201, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 721) Office of the Law Revision Counsel / U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2024 edition), United States Code 2024 edition42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l(a)(5)(A)(ii), 2024 ed. page 2656 (federal match)
“shall be 3 times the amount that the State guarantees to make available under clause (i), except that in no case may the payment amount exceed $3,000,000.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 157 KB)
3 more passages behind this claim: all 2 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C086 · 4:36.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“the inspector general looked at eleven of them in 2019”Confirmed, with contextC087
“the inspector general looked at eleven of them in 2019” spoken
“11 assessed by the · Inspector General, · 2019 · “the data” on screen
“HHS OIG OEI-07-24-00100, November 2024 · OEI-07-18-00290, August 2019” source line on screen
The HHS Inspector General published two assessments in 2019. The August 2019 report (OEI-07-18-00290), the one quoted in the film, covered 11 of the 12 states that ended participation in 2017 and 2018: California, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia.
National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Providers: Assessment of State Programs Concluded in 2017 and 2018 (OEI-07-18-00290) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, August 21, 2019Methodology, Scope, printed page 5 (PDF page 8)
“We evaluated each of the programs for 11 of the 12 States that concluded Program participation between 2017 and 2018: California, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 4.2 MB) SHA-256 3962f150
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Hawaii, the twelfth, had not yet filed its closeout documents. The April 2019 report (OEI-07-16-00160) covered the 10 jurisdictions that ended participation between 2013 and 2016. Both contain the sentence quoted in the film.
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Appendix C, printed page 15 (PDF page 18)
“In August 2019, OIG published an evaluation of 11 States that concluded program participation in 2017 and 2018.”
National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Providers: Assessment of State Programs Concluded Between 2013 and 2016 (OEI-07-16-00160) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, April 22, 2019Methodology, Scope, printed page 4 (PDF page 7)
“We evaluated each of the Programs for the 10 States that concluded participation between 2013 and 2016: Alaska, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Mexico, and Rhode Island.”
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Appendix C, printed page 16 (PDF page 19)
“In April 2019, OIG published an evaluation of the National Background Check program for Long-Term-Care Providers for the 10 States that concluded their participation by 2016.”
Claim C087 · 4:36.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“29 took federal · money, 2010 to 2024 · · 27 states, · DC and Puerto Rico” on screenConfirmed, with contextC088
“29 took federal · money, 2010 to 2024 · · 27 states, · DC and Puerto Rico” on screen
“HHS OIG OEI-07-24-00100, November 2024 · OEI-07-18-00290, August 2019” source line on screen
Twenty-nine jurisdictions were awarded grants and took part between September 2010 and May 2024: 27 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Maryland and Wisconsin withdrew early, and Wisconsin received no federal funds, so 28 of the 29 reported spending program money.
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Report in Brief (PDF page 2), Why OIG Did This Review
“Twenty-nine States participated in the program at various times from 2010 to 2024. The last two States ended participation on May 31, 2024.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.5 MB) SHA-256 e56a4447
More on this claim (4 more sources)
(HHS OIG, OEI-07-24-00100, Appendix A and Appendix E.)
National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Providers: Assessment of State Programs Concluded in 2017 and 2018 (OEI-07-18-00290) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, August 21, 2019Background, printed page 2 (PDF page 5)
“The Program awarded grants of up to $3 million to each of 29 States that applied for Program participation in fiscal years (FYs) 2010 through 2018.”
Same documentReport in Brief (PDF page 2)
“provided Federal financial assistance for States (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) to develop or enhance systems for long-term care settings to conduct background checks on prospective employees.”
Same documentAppendix A, printed page 13 (PDF page 16): 29 rows, first award 9/30/2010 (Delaware, Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, Rhode Island), last end 5/31/2024 (Idaho, Mississippi)
“Maryland and Wisconsin withdrew from the program early.”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 2 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C088 · 4:41.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“and wrote that the data available do not permit this analysis.”Confirmed, with contextC089
“and wrote that the data available do not permit this analysis.” spoken
“2019 · “the data · available do not · permit this analysis” · “the data available do · not permit this analysis”” on screen
“HHS OIG OEI-07-24-00100, November 2024 · OEI-07-18-00290, August 2019” source line on screen
In August 2019 the Inspector General wrote: 'Congress required an evaluation of the Program's impact on reducing the number of incidents of abuse, neglect, and theft. However, the data available do not permit this analysis.'
National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Providers: Assessment of State Programs Concluded in 2017 and 2018 (OEI-07-18-00290) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, August 21, 2019Methodology, Data Limitations, printed page 6 (PDF page 9)
“Congress required an evaluation of the Program's impact on reducing the number of incidents of abuse, neglect, and theft. However, the data available do not permit this analysis.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 4.2 MB) SHA-256 3962f150
More on this claim (5 more sources)
The April 2019 report says the same, and states were not required to collect that data. The program covered workers at long-term care facilities and providers, not child care. In its final assessment (November 2024) the Inspector General still reported no incident counts, but concluded that the states' experiences and the continued disqualification of applicants 'suggest that the program was successful in preventing residents from experiencing abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of their property.'
42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l, Nationwide program for national and State background checks on direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and providers (enacted by Pub. L. 111-148, title VI, sec. 6201, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 721) Office of the Law Revision Counsel / U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2024 edition), United States Code 2024 edition42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l(a)(7)(A)(ii)(IV), 2024 ed. page 2657 (the evaluation topic the sentence refers to)
“An assessment of the impact of the nationwide program on reducing the number of incidents of neglect, abuse, and misappropriation of resident property to the extent practicable.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 157 KB)
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Findings, printed page 6 (PDF page 9) (the later, indicator-based conclusion)
“The States' experiences and the continued disqualification of potential employees from employment suggest that the program was successful in preventing residents from experiencing abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of their property.”
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Findings, printed page 5 (PDF page 8)
“There are several indicators that the National Background Check Program was successful in preventing residents from experiencing abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of their property.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 4 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C089 · 4:43.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A check can only find what a record shows, and about one arrest in four in the state databases has no final outcome recorded.”Confirmed, with contextC090
“A check can only find what a record shows, and about one arrest in four in the state databases has no final outcome recorded.” spoken
“A check can only find what a record shows · for every 100 arrests in the state databases, 2022 · 27% of arrests in the state databases have no final outcome recorded · about one in four, 2022” on screen
“BJS and SEARCH, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022, table 1a: 73% carry a final disposition” source line on screen
Correction to the on-screen source line: the figure is in Table 1 of the survey, not Table 1a. Forty-eight states and D.C. reported that, on average, 73% of arrests in their criminal history databases had a final disposition (how the case ended) recorded as of December 31, 2022, so about 27% did not.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022 (NCJ 309360), a BJS-funded report prepared by SEARCH SEARCH Group, Inc., for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice); published by OJP, September 2024Introduction, "Level of disposition reporting", printed page 3 (PDF page 17), first bullet
“Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia report an average of 73% of all arrests in state databases have final case dispositions recorded.”
More on this claim (2 more sources)
That is an average of the states' own percentages, not a national count; the graphic's "for every 100 arrests" shows the average state. A missing outcome means the record does not say how the case ended. It does not mean the person was convicted, and it does not mean the charge was dropped. Source: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022 (published September 2024), page 3 and Table 1, prepared by SEARCH with funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the report says its figures are not official BJS statistics.
Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022 (NCJ 309360), BJS publication page Bureau of Justice Statistics, September 19, 2024publication summary
“This report presents a snapshot as of December 31, 2022.”
Same documentTable 1, "Overview of state criminal history record systems, December 31, 2022", Total row, column "Arrests in the entire database with final dispositions" (PDF page 25)
“Total ... 73%”
Claim C090 · 4:52.03Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Ninety-four percent of child molestation arrests in a twenty-year New York study were of people with no prior sex offense conviction.”Confirmed, with contextC091
“Ninety-four percent of child molestation arrests in a twenty-year New York study were of people with no prior sex offense conviction.” spoken
“94% · no prior sex offense · conviction · of child molestation · arrests · New York State, · 1986 to 2006 · Sandler, Freeman and · Socia, 2008” on screen
Researchers at the University at Albany studied arrests for registerable sex offenses in New York State over 21 years, from January 1986 through December 2006, using the state's criminal history files. Of child molestation arrests, 94.1 percent were of people with no earlier conviction for a registerable sex offense, so none of them would have been on a sex offender registry at the time.
Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., and Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284 to 302. DOI 10.1037/a0013881 American Psychological Association (journal article; authors at the University at Albany), 2008Discussion, page 297
“The current study also found that 95.9% of all arrests for any RSO, 95.9% of all arrests for rape, and 94.1% of all arrests for ...” …
More on this claim (6 more sources)
The figure counts arrests, not people, and an arrest is not a conviction. (Sandler, Freeman and Socia, 'Does a Watched Pot Boil?', Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 14(4), 2008, page 297 and Table 1; doi:10.1037/a0013881.)
Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative (SOMAPI), Chapter 8: Sex Offender Management Strategies, by Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, SMART Office (page marked 'Archived'), SOMAPI full report updated March 2017Chapter 8, registration and notification studies paragraph (HTML page; no page numbers)
“It was also noted that 94.1 percent of child molestation arrests were for first-time sex offenders (Sandler, Freeman & Socia, 2008).”
Declaration of Kelly M. Socia, Ph.D., Sex Crime Arrest Data and the Recidivism of Individuals with Sex Crime Convictions (dated 2021-11-09, amended 2023-02-20), Exhibit 9A, ECF No. 123-11, Case 2:22-cv-10209-MAG-CI, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, filed 2023-10-02 Court filing, hosted by the ACLU of Michigan, October 2, 2023ECF page 8 of 55, PageID.4331 (printed page 5), paragraph 3
“In New York, 95% of the individuals arrested for sex crimes between 1986 and 2006 did not have a prior registrable sex crime conviction on the record at the time of the offense.”
Same documentDiscussion, page 297 (what 'first-time' means)
“as none of these offenders had any prior convictions for sexual offenses, none of them were on the sex offender registry”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 3 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C091 · 5:01.12Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Checks still stop some: one federal program for care workers disqualified more than a hundred thousand people with criminal records.”Confirmed, with contextC092
“Checks still stop some: one federal program for care workers disqualified more than a hundred thousand people with criminal records.” spoken
“106,000+ · disqualified for · criminal convictions · federal long-term care · background check · program, 2010 to 2024 · HHS OIG” on screen
The HHS Inspector General reported that states in the National Background Check Program disqualified at least 106,000 prospective long-term care employees with criminal convictions from employment between 2010 and 2024, applying each state's own list of disqualifying offenses. The count comes from the 21 jurisdictions with usable data and counts checks, so one person checked twice could appear twice.
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Findings, printed page 5 (PDF page 8), subheading
“During the National Background Check Program, States disqualified at least 106,000 individuals with criminal convictions from employment”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.5 MB) SHA-256 e56a4447
More on this claim (5 more sources)
After their grants ended, 17 states reported another 254,000 disqualifications. (HHS OIG, OEI-07-24-00100, pages 5 and 11 and Appendix D.)
Same documentPrinted page 5 (PDF page 8)
“During participation, 25 of the 29 States collected data and reported on the number of prospective employees who received background checks and were disqualified from employment.”
Same documentEndnote 17, printed page 22 (PDF page 25)
“Twenty-five States reported data to the Contractor; however, four States did not include the variable needed to conduct this analysis, so any disqualifications these States made are not included in the total.”
Same documentAppendix D, printed page 17 (PDF page 20), column heading and note
“Checks with Determinations of Ineligibility ... Kansas, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and Wisconsin did not report data during the program.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C092 · 5:10.08Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Nine in ten children who are harmed are harmed by a parent.”Confirmed, with contextC093
“Nine in ten children who are harmed are harmed by a parent.” spoken
“9 in 10 · harmed by a parent · of substantiated child · victims · 47 states, · FFY2024 · HHS Children’s Bureau, · Child Maltreatment” on screen
In federal fiscal year 2024, 89.1 percent of child abuse and neglect victims confirmed by state child protective services (substantiated or indicated) were maltreated by one or both parents, sometimes acting with another person. The figure covers all types of maltreatment, most of it neglect (79.3 percent of victims), and comes from the 47 states that met the data rules for that table.
Child Maltreatment 2024 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau, January 16, 2026Chapter 3, Perpetrator Relationship, printed page 28 (PDF page 43)
“The FFY 2024 data shows 89.1 percent of victims are maltreated by one or both parents.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 6.8 MB) SHA-256 a43e2325
More on this claim (5 more sources)
These are cases known to child protective services, under a federal definition centered on parents and caretakers, so the figure does not describe all harm to children. (HHS Children's Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2024, page 28 and Table 3-9.)
Same documentPrinted page 28 (PDF page 43)
“The parent(s) could have acted together, acted alone, or acted with up to two other people to maltreat the child.”
Same documentTable 3-9, Victims by Relationship to Their Perpetrators, 2024, printed page 52 (PDF page 67)
“Total Parents 435,390 89.1 ... National 488,705 528,145 108.1 ... Based on data from 47 states.”
Same documentChapter 3, Number of Child Victims, printed page 25 (PDF page 40)
“Victim: A child for whom the state determined at least one maltreatment was substantiated or indicated.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C093 · 5:18.19Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A background check was never going to be safety.”Confirmed, with contextC094
“A background check was never going to be safety.” spoken
“A background check was never going to be safety.” on screen
This is FComply's conclusion, not an agency finding. A record check can only find a record.
Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., and Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State's sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284 to 302. DOI 10.1037/a0013881 American Psychological Association (journal article; authors at the University at Albany), 2008Discussion, page 297
“This finding casts doubts on the ability of sex offender registration and notification laws, as well as residency and occupational restriction laws, to actually reduce ...” …
More on this claim (6 more sources)
In the New York study, 94 percent of child molestation arrests were of people with no earlier conviction for a registerable sex offense, so there was no sex offense conviction for a check to find. Most children confirmed as maltreated were maltreated by a parent, and no job check reaches a parent at home. Checks still keep some people with disqualifying convictions out of care jobs, as the Inspector General's counts show. The CDC's 2007 guide for youth-serving organizations makes the same point: 'Use background checks as one part of child sexual abuse prevention efforts. Using background checks alone may give your organization a false sense of security.'
Child Maltreatment 2024 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau, January 16, 2026Printed page 28 (PDF page 43)
“The FFY 2024 data shows 89.1 percent of victims are maltreated by one or both parents.”
National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Providers: Assessment of State Programs Concluded in 2017 and 2018 (OEI-07-18-00290) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, August 21, 2019Printed page 6 (PDF page 9)
“However, the data available do not permit this analysis.”
National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Providers: Assessment of State Programs Concluded in 2017 and 2018 (OEI-07-18-00290) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, August 21, 2019Report in Brief (PDF page 2), Why OIG Did This Review (counterweight)
“Background checks are an important safety measure that can help protect the 9 million beneficiaries who rely on long-term-care services each year for safe, dependable care.”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C094 · 5:22.06Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“What it can be is a duty the government can prove it met.”Confirmed, with contextC095
“What it can be is a duty the government can prove it met.” spoken
“WHAT IT CAN BE a duty the government can prove it met” on screen
This is FComply's proposal. The duty to check is already law, mostly as a condition of federal funding for state programs.
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act; section as amended generally by Pub. L. 113-186, Nov. 19, 2014) Office of the Law Revision Counsel / U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2024 edition), United States Code 2024 edition42 U.S.C. 9858f(a)(1), 2024 ed. page 7925
“requirements, policies, and procedures to require and conduct criminal background checks for child care staff members (including prospective child care staff members) of child care providers”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 143 KB) SHA-256 2a63872a
More on this claim (3 more sources)
A state that receives federal child care funds must have 'requirements, policies, and procedures to require and conduct criminal background checks' for child care staff (42 U.S.C. 9858f(a)(1); 45 CFR 98.43(a)(1)(i)). A state foster care plan must provide for criminal records checks, including fingerprint-based national checks, of prospective foster and adoptive parents before final approval (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(A)), and the agency 'must provide documentation that criminal records checks have been conducted' (45 CFR 1356.30(a)). What we propose is a record that shows each required check was done.
45 CFR 1356.30, Safety requirements for foster care and adoptive home providers (title IV-E) Office of the Federal Register / U.S. Government Publishing Office (Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR Ch. XIII, 10-1-25 edition), Revised as of October 1, 202545 CFR 1356.30(a), 10-1-25 edition page 378
“The title IV-E agency must provide documentation that criminal records checks have been conducted with respect to prospective foster and adoptive parents.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 175 KB)
42 U.S.C. 671 (State plan for foster care and adoption assistance), 2024 edition U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), United States Code 2024 edition, Read September 27, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(A), 2024 ed. page 2361
“provides procedures for criminal records checks, including fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases ... for any prospective foster or adoptive parent before the foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 218 KB)
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Fund) Office of the Federal Register / U.S. Government Publishing Office (Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR Subtitle A, 10-1-25 edition), Revised as of October 1, 202545 CFR 98.43(a)(1)(i), 10-1-25 edition page 557
“Requirements, policies, and procedures to require and conduct background checks, and make a determination of eligibility for child care staff members (including prospective child care staff members)”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 205 KB)
Claim C095 · 5:25.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Today, it cannot.”Confirmed, with contextC096
“Today, it cannot.” spoken
“TODAY it cannot” on screen
By 'prove' we mean a record anyone can check: who was checked, when, and against which sources. No federal law we reviewed requires that, and no national dataset reports it.
National Background Check Program for Long-Term-Care Providers: Assessment of State Programs Concluded in 2017 and 2018 (OEI-07-18-00290) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, August 21, 2019Printed page 6 (PDF page 9), Data Limitations
“Congress required an evaluation of the Program's impact on reducing the number of incidents of abuse, neglect, and theft. However, the data available do not permit this analysis.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 4.2 MB) SHA-256 3962f150
More on this claim (17 more sources)
This describes a gap in current law, not a finding about any administration or agency. Agencies do keep files: foster care agencies must document criminal records checks, and federal eligibility reviews check licensing files for that documentation (45 CFR 1356.30(a) and 1356.71(g)). Federal child care law keeps individual results private and lets states publish only aggregated data by crime (42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(2)(C)), so a public record would show that checks were done, not what they found. Some states publish totals; New York's Justice Center, for example, publishes monthly counts of its checks by outcome. Audits show why a checkable record matters. In 2020 the HHS Inspector General found that 29 of 31 Kansas foster care group homes 'did not comply or could not provide documentation' of required employee background checks; Kansas did not concur with that finding, the Inspector General said it did not conclude the checks were never done, and its recommendations were closed as implemented in 2022. The same year it found that Rhode Island child care providers had not obtained or renewed required checks for 108 of 589 people reviewed; Rhode Island partially agreed, and the recommendations were closed as implemented in 2021.
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Endnote 17, printed page 22 (PDF page 25), with Appendix D note, printed page 17
“four States did not include the variable needed to conduct this analysis, so any disqualifications these States made are not included in the total.”
National Background Check Program for Long-Term Care Providers: A Final Assessment (OEI-07-24-00100) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, November 4, 2024Appendix C, printed page 15 (PDF page 18), on OEI-07-20-00180 (September 2020)
“require participating States to consistently submit data that allow CMS and each State to calculate determinations of ineligibility.”
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act; section as amended generally by Pub. L. 113-186, Nov. 19, 2014) Office of the Law Revision Counsel / U.S. Government Publishing Office (United States Code, 2024 edition), United States Code 2024 edition42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(2)(C), 2024 ed. page 7926
“No State shall publicly release or share the results of individual background checks, except States may release aggregated data by crime”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 143 KB)
14 more passages behind this claim: all 12 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C096 · 5:29.14Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
6. The missing child clockFrom 5:58 · 7 claims
“There is one place where the duty has a clock.”Confirmed, with contextC097
“There is one place where the duty has a clock.” spoken
“WHEN A CHILD GOES MISSING FROM FOSTER CARE · one place where the duty has a clock” on screen
“42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B) · the reporting duty in force since September 29, 2016” source line on screen
One of these duties runs on a clock measured in hours. When a child goes missing from foster care, federal law requires the state child welfare agency to report it immediately, and in no case later than 24 hours after it receives the information (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B)).
42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B) (Social Security Act 471(a)(35)(B)), text in effect September 26, 2026 Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B)
“the State agency shall report immediately, and in no case later than 24 hours after receiving, information on missing or abducted children or youth”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 330 KB) SHA-256 91f1daf6
More on this claim (6 more sources)
It is not the only federal deadline in this area. For example, under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act a state must complete a child care provider's request for a criminal background check within 45 days (42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(1)), and each state must ensure that a missing child report received by law enforcement is entered into the FBI's NCIC database within 2 hours of receipt (34 U.S.C. 41308(3)).
42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(1) (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, background check results) U.S. Government Publishing Office, United States Code, 2024 edition (govinfo), 2024 main edition42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(1); 2024 ed., title 42, p. 7926
“The State shall carry out the request of a child care provider for a criminal background check as expeditiously as possible, but not to exceed 45 days after the date on which such request was submitted”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 143 KB)
34 U.S.C. 41308 (State requirements for reporting missing children) U.S. Government Publishing Office, United States Code, 2024 edition (govinfo), 2024 main edition34 U.S.C. 41308(3) (closing words); 2024 ed., title 34, pp. 643 to 644
“is entered within 2 hours of receipt into the State law enforcement system, the National Crime Information Center computer networks, and the NamUs databases”
25 U.S.C. 3203(c)(1) (Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, written report of child abuse) U.S. Government Publishing Office, United States Code, 2024 edition (govinfo), 2024 main edition25 U.S.C. 3203(c)(1)
“Within 36 hours after receiving an initial report described in subsection (b), the receiving agency shall prepare a written report”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C097 · 5:31.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B) · the reporting duty in force since September 29, 2016” source line on screenConfirmedC098
“42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B) · the reporting duty in force since September 29, 2016” source line on screen
42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B) (Social Security Act section 471(a)(35)(B)). Enacted September 29, 2014 by Public Law 113-183, section 104 (128 Stat. 1922).
Public Law 113-183, Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act, section 104 (Locating and responding to children who run away from foster care) U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), September 29, 2014Sec. 104(2), adding Social Security Act 471(a)(35)(B); 128 Stat. 1922 (PDF page 4)
“not later than 2 years after such date of enactment, for each child and youth described in paragraph (9)(C)(i)(I) of this subsection, the State agency shall report immediately”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 276 KB) SHA-256 5401b4bb
More on this claim (5 more sources)
The 24-hour reporting requirement took effect for states no later than September 29, 2016 (HHS Administration for Children and Families, Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-15-07, June 26, 2015). Amended January 5, 2023 by Public Law 117-348, section 137, which added a duty to keep in regular contact with law enforcement and NCMEC and to include, where reasonably possible, a photo, a physical description and endangerment information in the reports. Those 2023 additions came after the period HHS OIG audited.
ACYF-CB-PI-15-07, New Legislation: Public Law 113-183, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (Program Instruction) HHS Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, June 26, 2015page 2 (printed), second list
“become effective no later than September 29, 2016: ... A new requirement that the title IV-E agency report information on missing or abducted children ... There is no delayed effective date permitted for these provisions.”
HHS Office of Inspector General, State Agencies Did Not Always Ensure That Children Missing From Foster Care Were Reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Accordance With Federal Requirements, A-07-21-06102 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services, March 2, 2023printed p. 6, 'ACF Guidance' (restated in Appendix B, p. 14)
“within 2 years of enactment of the Strengthening Families Act (i.e., by September 29, 2016), Title IV-E agencies ... will develop and implement protocols to report missing or abducted children immediately (no later than 24 hours after receiving information)”
Public Law 117-348, Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022, section 137 (amending 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B)) U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), January 5, 2023Sec. 137(a) and (b); 136 Stat. 6223 (PDF page 13)
“the State agency shall maintain regular communication with law enforcement agencies and NCMEC in efforts to provide a safe recovery of a missing or abducted child or youth”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C098 · 5:31.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“When a child goes missing from foster care, the state has twenty-four hours to tell the police and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.”Confirmed, with contextC099
“When a child goes missing from foster care, the state has twenty-four hours to tell the police and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.” spoken
“the National Center · for Missing and · Exploited Children · NCMEC · the police · 24 hours · the state has 24 hours to tell both” on screen
“42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B) · the reporting duty in force since September 29, 2016” source line on screen
When a state child welfare agency receives information that a child or youth in foster care is missing or abducted, federal law requires it to report immediately, and in no case later than 24 hours after receiving the information, to law enforcement for entry into the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database and to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Twenty-four hours is the outer limit, not a waiting period.
42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B), text in effect September 26, 2026 Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B), opening clause
“the State agency shall report immediately, and in no case later than 24 hours after receiving, information on missing or abducted children or youth to the law enforcement authorities ... and to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 330 KB) SHA-256 91f1daf6
More on this claim (6 more sources)
The requirement is part of the Title IV-E state plan a state must have approved to receive federal foster care funding (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B)).
42 U.S.C. 671, United States Code 2024 edition (official print, hostable PDF) U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), 2024 main edition671(a)(35)(B) at p. 2364; scope cross-reference 671(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) at p. 2360
“any child or youth over whom the State agency has responsibility for placement, care, or supervision and who the State has reasonable cause to believe is, or is at risk of being, a sex trafficking victim”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 218 KB)
Public Law 113-183, section 104 (enacting text of 671(a)(35)(B)) U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo), September 29, 2014Sec. 104(2); 128 Stat. 1922
“to the law enforcement authorities for entry into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ... and to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children”
HHS Office of Inspector General, State Agencies Did Not Always Ensure That Children Missing From Foster Care Were Reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Accordance With Federal Requirements, A-07-21-06102 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services, March 2, 2023printed p. 3, footnote 8 (scope)
“the requirements of the Act §§ 471, 475, and 477 apply to all children in the care, placement, or supervision of a State agency.”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 7 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C099 · 5:34.14Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Federal inspectors pulled one hundred of those files.”ConfirmedC100
“Federal inspectors pulled one hundred of those files.” spoken
“100 SAMPLED FILES, ONE SQUARE EACH · JULY 2018 TO DECEMBER 2020” on screen
“HHS OIG A-07-21-06102, March 2023” source line on screen
HHS Office of Inspector General auditors examined a stratified random sample of 100 episodes in which a child was missing from foster care for 2 calendar days or longer between July 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020 (38 states in the sample), and checked each against state records and NCMEC's database (HHS OIG, A-07-21-06102, March 2023, pp. 1 and 4). That audit covered reports to NCMEC only.
HHS Office of Inspector General, State Agencies Did Not Always Ensure That Children Missing From Foster Care Were Reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Accordance With Federal Requirements, A-07-21-06102 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services, March 2, 2023printed p. 4, 'How We Conducted This Audit' (same text in Appendix A, p. 12; Report in Brief)
“missing children episodes) at any time during the period July 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020 (audit period) ... We selected a stratified random sample of 100 missing children episodes (associated with a total of 38 State agencies).”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 f9124da8
More on this claim (1 more source)
In a separate audit of reports to law enforcement for entry into NCIC, with a sample of 100 episodes drawn from the same 74,353, OIG found 86 reported on time, 8 reported late and 6 never reported (HHS OIG, A-07-21-06104, May 2023, pp. 4 to 5).
Same documentprinted p. 16, Appendix D, Table 1: Sample Strata (Total row: 74,353 episodes; 46 states; sample size 100)
“The sample unit was one missing child episode in which the child was missing for 2 days or longer.”
Claim C100 · 5:44.07Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“In forty-five, no one ever told the center.”Confirmed, with contextC101
“In forty-five, no one ever told the center.” spoken
“45 · never reported to the Center · 22 · reported late · 33 · reported on time” on screen
“HHS OIG A-07-21-06102, March 2023” source line on screen
Of the 100 sampled episodes, OIG classified 33 as reported to NCMEC on time and 22 as reported late (2 calendar days or more after the agency learned the child was missing), and found 45 never reported. For the 45, the states had no record of a report and NCMEC could not find one, so OIG concluded the required reporting did not occur.
HHS Office of Inspector General, State Agencies Did Not Always Ensure That Children Missing From Foster Care Were Reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Accordance With Federal Requirements, A-07-21-06102 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services, March 2, 2023printed p. 5, Findings (same figures in Report in Brief, p. 6 and the figure on p. 7)
“the State agencies reported 33 episodes to NCMEC in a timely manner ... However, 45 missing children episodes were never reported to NCMEC, and 22 missing children episodes were not reported in a timely manner”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 f9124da8
More on this claim (4 more sources)
For 6 of the 45, the state said it had reported but could not show it, and OIG could not rule out a problem in NCMEC's database (HHS OIG, A-07-21-06102, pp. 4 to 5 and 7 to 8).
Same documentprinted p. 5, footnote 12
“the State agencies had no supporting documentation that showed that they had submitted reports for these episodes, and NCMEC staff could not locate the missing children episodes in the NCMEC database.”
Same documentprinted p. 15, Appendix C, Grand Total row (table is an image in the PDF; read from the rendered page)
“Grand Total: Never Reported to NCMEC 45; Not Reported Timely to NCMEC 22; Properly Reported to NCMEC 33; Total 100”
Same documentprinted p. 4, 'How We Conducted This Audit' (definition of late)
“we designated a reporting delay of 2 calendar days or longer to constitute a missing child episode that had not been reported in a timely manner.”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 1 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C101 · 5:48.01Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Nationally, that is an estimated thirty-five thousand times in two and a half years.”Confirmed, with contextC102
“Nationally, that is an estimated thirty-five thousand times in two and a half years.” spoken
“ESTIMATED TIMES A CHILD WENT MISSING FROM CARE AND THE CENTER WAS NEVER TOLD · 34,869 estimated episodes, not children · of 74,353 episodes, children missing from care two days or longer, July 2018 to December 2020, 46 states · projected from the 100 sampled files” on screen
“HHS OIG A-07-21-06102, March 2023” source line on screen
Projecting from its sample, OIG estimated that 34,869 episodes (47 percent) were never reported to NCMEC, out of 74,353 episodes lasting 2 calendar days or longer in the 46 states that supplied data, July 2018 to December 2020. This is a statistical estimate: OIG's 90 percent confidence interval runs from 26,802 to 42,936.
HHS Office of Inspector General, State Agencies Did Not Always Ensure That Children Missing From Foster Care Were Reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Accordance With Federal Requirements, A-07-21-06102 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services, March 2, 2023printed p. 5, Findings (also p. 7 and Report in Brief)
“Specifically, an estimated 34,869 (47 percent) missing children episodes during our audit period were never reported to NCMEC”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 f9124da8
More on this claim (2 more sources)
It counts episodes, not children, and one child can go missing more than once (HHS OIG, A-07-21-06102, pp. 4 to 5 and 16 to 18).
Same documentprinted p. 4, 'How We Conducted This Audit'; footnote 11 (four states excluded)
“We identified, from data provided by 46 State agencies, 74,353 missing children episodes in which the child was missing 2 calendar days or longer during our audit period.”
Same documentprinted p. 18, Appendix E, Table 3 (limits at the 90-percent confidence level); method, printed p. 17
“Never Reported: Point Estimate 34,869; Lower Limit 26,802; Upper Limit 42,936”
Claim C102 · 5:52.13Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Of the children reported missing from care last year, seventeen percent were likely being trafficked.”Confirmed, with contextC103
“Of the children reported missing from care last year, seventeen percent were likely being trafficked.” spoken
“OF THE CHILDREN REPORTED MISSING FROM CARE IN 2025 · ONE SQUARE IS 1 PERCENT · 17% identified as likely victims of child sex trafficking of 23,348 reports to NCMEC in 2025” on screen
“National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2025 Impact Report” source line on screen
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a private nonprofit, reports that, of the children missing from foster care who were reported to it in 2025, 17 percent 'were identified as likely victims of child sex trafficking.' This is NCMEC's own classification, not a government finding.
NCMEC, 2025 Impact Report (web edition), section 'Children Missing from Foster Care' National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (private nonprofit), 2025 reportsection 'Children Missing from Foster Care' (counter data-number="23348")
“Of the children missing from care who were reported to NCMEC in 2025, 17% were identified as likely victims of child sex trafficking.”
More on this claim (4 more sources)
NCMEC's 2025 Impact Report web page counts 23,348 reports of children missing from foster care in 2025; the PDF edition of the same report gives 23,384. These are reports NCMEC received, not a count of every child missing from care in the country.
NCMEC 2025 Impact Report (PDF) National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (private nonprofit), PDF created September 23, 2026printed p. 12, 'Children Missing from Foster Care'
“Of the children missing from care who were reported to NCMEC in 2025, 17% were identified as likely victims of child sex trafficking.”
NCMEC, Child Sex Trafficking (By the Numbers) National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Undated; read September 27, 2026"By the Numbers"
“17% of the reports of children missing from child welfare to NCMEC in 2025 were likely victims of child sex trafficking.”
NCMEC blog, "Every Missing Child Has a Story: New 2025 Statistics Highlight Hope, Recovery and Protection" National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, May 21, 2026byline and first paragraphs
“Our newly released 2025 statistics reflect the full scope of that work”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 4 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C103 · 5:58.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
7. Complied ID and the priceFrom 6:33 · 24 claims
“FComply's Complied ID has the first part built and the rest designed.”FComply’s statementC104
“FComply's Complied ID has the first part built and the rest designed.” spoken
“Complied ID FComply · Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. · built as designed” on screen
FComply now describes all of Complied ID as being built, and it will work at launch. Step 1 will prove who a person is (an ID document check, a live face match with a liveness check, and device and account checks); Step 2 will run the background checks, followed by a rescreen every year.
FComply, Complied ID product page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Page last modified May 20, 2026Complied ID page, 'The FComply Solution', steps 1 and 2
“Step 1: Proven Identity / ... / Step 2: Comprehensive Screening (Coming Soon) / Federal & state background checks / Law enforcement integrations”
More on this claim (3 more sources)
FComply's product page lists Step 2 as 'Coming Soon'.
FComply, Complied ID product page (staging site, not yet launched) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (www.fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026Staging Complied ID page, line under the four steps
“"Step 1, proven identity, is available today. Step 2, comprehensive screening, is not live yet."”
FComply, 'How it works' film on fcomply.com (file Introducing-Fcomply-1.mp4, 3:45, 640x360) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), File last modified March 24, 2026About 2:26 to 3:01: the enrollment screens of Step 1 (create account, license photo, liveness selfie, credential)
“On-screen app screens: "Create a new account and set-up multifactor authentication", "VERIFY YOUR IDENTITY", "LIVENESS", "CERTIFIED"”
FComply staging site, How a National Compliance System Would Roll Out Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (www.fcomply.com), UndatedSources note under the comparison timeline
“"The FComply phases are planning assumptions, not commitments."”
Claim C104 · 6:09.11Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A person proves who they are once, from their own phone, in about ten minutes,”FComply’s statementC105
“A person proves who they are once, from their own phone, in about ten minutes,” spoken
About ten minutes on the person's own phone to prove who they are. This is FComply's estimate for the identity step, not an independent measurement, and it does not include fingerprints or any background check.
FComply, 'How it works' film on fcomply.com (file Introducing-Fcomply-1.mp4, 3:45, 640x360) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), File last modified March 24, 20262:25.5 to 2:28.5, on-screen title beside the man holding his phone, just before the enrollment screens; narration at about 2:25 (machine transcription of the film's own audio, whisper-1, September 27, 2026)
“"5 MINUTES" (on-screen title); narration: "In just five minutes, you can take a powerful step towards securing your information and building trust."”
More on this claim (2 more sources)
FComply, Complied ID product page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Page last modified May 20, 2026Complied ID page, Step 1 list
“"AI-based mobile ID verification"”
FComply, Complied ID product page (staging site, not yet launched) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (www.fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026Staging Complied ID page, heading of the four steps
“"How it works, on the person’s own phone"”
Claim C105 · 6:14.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Create a new account · multifactor authentication · VERIFY YOUR IDENTITY · LIVENESS · CERTIFIED · DONE” on screenFComply’s statementC106
“Create a new account · multifactor authentication · VERIFY YOUR IDENTITY · LIVENESS · CERTIFIED · DONE” on screen
The enrollment screens in the film are a demonstration (an animation from FComply’s earlier film), not a recording of the live app. The word CERTIFIED on those screens is not a label the app will use on its own: at launch, the person’s phone will show ENROLLED at sign-up, SCREENING COMPLETED when the checks come back, and CERTIFIED COMPLIANT, issued by FComply, a private company, only when the whole process is finished.
FComply, 'How it works' film on fcomply.com (file Introducing-Fcomply-1.mp4, 3:45, 640x360) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), File last modified March 24, 2026About 2:28 to 3:01 (the same app mockup appears in FComply's public film)
“Same screens: "Create a new account", "VERIFY YOUR IDENTITY", "LIVENESS", and the credential with "CERTIFIED" and a QR code”
More on this claim (1 more source)
CERTIFIED COMPLIANT is FComply’s own status label, not a certification by NIST, ISO, a government agency or any other outside body.
NIST SP 800-63A-4, Digital Identity Guidelines: Identity Proofing and Enrollment National Institute of Standards and Technology, July 2025Sec. 3.11 (Requirements for the Use of Biometrics), item 2, PDF p. 42 (printed page 30; the document's own cross-references call this section Sec. 3.1.11)
“"When collecting and comparing biometric characteristics remotely, the CSP SHALL implement presentation attack detection (PAD) capabilities" ... "All biometric presentation attack detection tests SHALL be conformant to ISO/IEC 30107-3:2023."”
Claim C106 · 6:18.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“instead of a day spent hunting for a fingerprint counter.”FComply’s statementC107
“instead of a day spent hunting for a fingerprint counter.” spoken
Federal agencies' own estimates of the time it takes to get fingerprinted, made for other programs, run from about one hour to almost four hours, depending on the program and the travel. It can take longer: Washington child care providers reported three-hour round trips and repeat visits after poorly taken prints.
CMS final rule, Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Additional Screening Requirements, Application Fees, Temporary Enrollment Moratoria, Payment Suspensions and Compliance Plans for Providers and Suppliers, 76 FR 5862 (FR Doc. 2011-1686) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Federal Register (govinfo.gov), February 2, 201176 FR 5949 (Collection of information requirements, fingerprinting of provider owners)
“"we estimate that it will take each of the 35,000 respondents (7,000 provider requests × 5 respondents per provider request) an average of 2 hours to obtain and submit fingerprints."”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 616 KB) SHA-256 9c976dd4
More on this claim (9 more sources)
Proving identity by phone does not replace fingerprints where the law requires them, for example for child care staff (42 U.S.C. 9858f(b)(4)) and foster and adoptive parents (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(A)). Where fingerprints are required, they are still taken.
DHS/USCIS final rule with request for comments, Alien Registration Form and Evidence of Registration, 91 FR 39248 (FR Doc. 2026-13057), regulatory impact analysis U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Federal Register (govinfo.gov), June 29, 202691 FR 39329 (regulatory impact analysis, costs to submit biometrics; Table 4)
“"The estimated time burden to submit biometrics is 1.17 hours." ... "The estimated average travel distance to and from an ASC is 50 miles; the expected total travel time is 2.5 hours."”
Fair Start for Kids Act Temporary Licensing Subcommittee of the Early Learning Advisory Council, Emergency Recommendation: Background Checks Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families (hosting), May 27, 2022Page 4, Appendix, provider reports
"The closest location to get fingerprinted is a three-hour round-trip drive." Also: "we had to make three separate trips because the person did not take the fingerprints correctly." and "Those appointments are only scheduled one to two weeks out."
Next Generation Identification (NGI) System Fact Sheet, August 2026 FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Biometric Services Section, August 2026 editionPage 3, 'NGI System Reject Rates (Tenprint Submissions)'
“Civil Percentage: "1.57" (August 2026), "1.93" (FY2026)”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 521 KB)
6 more passages behind this claim: all 10 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C107 · 6:19.04Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A real license, matched to the live face in front of the camera, tied to their phone.”FComply’s statementC108
“A real license, matched to the live face in front of the camera, tied to their phone.” spoken
“VERIFY YOUR IDENTITY · Upload a photo of your driver’s · LIVENESS · CONFIRMED · TAKE SELFIE WITH LIVENESS” on screen
Complied ID will check the license for signs of forgery or editing, match it to a live face with a liveness check, and check the phone and Social Security number against the person just matched. This is FComply’s description of the identity step it is building; it has not yet been independently tested or certified.
FComply, Complied ID product page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Page last modified May 20, 2026Complied ID page, Step 1 list
“"Fake ID detection & liveness check"; "Facial recognition and anti-spoofing"; "Device/location and SSN/ITIN verification"; "Multi-Factor Authentication"”
More on this claim (3 more sources)
A face match is only as strong as the license behind it: a genuine license obtained with false papers can still carry a false identity.
FComply home page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026Home page, 'Our Product', Document tile
“"We verifiy [sic] IDs by checking for authenticity and matching them to the user’s face, ensuring documents aren’t fake or altered."”
NIST SP 800-63A-4, Digital Identity Guidelines: Identity Proofing and Enrollment National Institute of Standards and Technology, July 2025Sec. 2.4.2.3 (Attribute Validation), PDF p. 25; Sec. 3.11 item 2, PDF p. 42 (Sec. 3.11 item 2 is on printed page 30)
“"The CSP SHALL validate all core attributes (Sec. 2.2), whether obtained from identity evidence or self-asserted by the applicant, with an authoritative or credible source (Sec. 2.4.2.4)."”
GAO-12-893, Driver's License Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Address Remaining Vulnerabilities U.S. Government Accountability Office, September 2012Highlights page ('What GAO Found'), PDF p. 2; printed page 22 (PDF p. 26), 'GAO Investigative Work Highlights Vulnerabilities'
“"GAO investigators were able to use counterfeit out-of-state drivers’ licenses and birth certificates to fraudulently obtain licenses in three states."; p. 22: "In each state, investigative staff obtained genuine licenses under fictitious identities"”
Claim C108 · 6:23.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“One proven person,”FComply’s statementC109
“One proven person,” spoken
“ONE PROVEN PERSON · FIVE KINDS OF CHECK · FBI criminal history, · through an authorized · agency · proven person” on screen
“the checks: FComply, as offered · they depend on the job and the state / 42 U.S.C. 9858f(b) · 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)” source line on screen
FComply's screening step is designed, not yet live. An FBI check needs fingerprints and runs only through an authorized government agency, where a law authorizes it for that job; FComply does not search FBI records on its own.
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (section 658H of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(b)(1) to (5) (child care staff)
“(3) a search of the National Crime Information Center; (4) a Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check using the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System; and (5) a search of the National Sex Offender Registry”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 143 KB) SHA-256 2a63872a
More on this claim (6 more sources)
What the law requires depends on the job and the state. For child care staff, federal law requires five searches (42 U.S.C. 9858f(b)): state criminal and sex offender records and state child abuse and neglect registries in every state lived in over the past five years, the National Crime Information Center, an FBI fingerprint check, and the National Sex Offender Registry. For foster and adoptive parents, it requires an FBI fingerprint check, and child abuse and neglect registry checks on them and on other adults in the home in every state lived in over the past five years (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)). Adult protective registries come from state law, where a state keeps one; neither federal law cited here requires them.
42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20), State plan for foster care and adoption assistance (criminal records and registry checks; amended by the Adam Walsh Act, Pub. L. 109-248, title I, sec. 152, 120 Stat. 608) Office of the Law Revision Counsel (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(A) and (B)(i) (foster and adoptive parents); also (a)(20)(C) (relative guardians) and (a)(20)(D) (adults working in child-care institutions, with a state-report exception)
“provides procedures for criminal records checks, including fingerprint-based checks of national crime information databases (as defined in section 534(f)(3)(A) of title 28), for any prospective foster or adoptive parent”
34 U.S.C. 40316, National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (Pub. L. 105-251, title II, sec. 217, Oct. 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 1876), Art. I(20) and Art. V(a) Office of the Law Revision Counsel (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 40316, Art. V(a) and Art. I(20)
“"Subject fingerprints or other approved forms of positive identification shall be submitted with all requests for criminal history record checks for noncriminal justice purposes."”
28 CFR 20.33, Dissemination of criminal history record information Office of the Federal Register, eCFR (versioner API, issue of September 21, 2026), Current as of September 24, 202628 CFR 20.33(a)(3)
“"For use in connection with licensing or employment, pursuant to Public Law 92-544, 86 Stat. 1115, or other federal legislation, and for other uses for which dissemination is authorized by federal law."”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (XML, 4 KB)
3 more passages behind this claim: all 7 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C109 · 6:29.02Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“checked against the records the law calls for: federal criminal history, sex offender registries, state criminal records, and abuse registries, as each state requires.”Confirmed, with contextC110
“checked against the records the law calls for: federal criminal history, sex offender registries, state criminal records, and abuse registries, as each state requires.” spoken
“sex offender · registries · state criminal · records · child abuse and · neglect registries · adult protective · registries, where the · state keeps one” on screen
“the checks: FComply, as offered · they depend on the job and the state / 42 U.S.C. 9858f(b) · 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)” source line on screen
The records federal law names depend on the job. For child care staff: an FBI fingerprint check, the national and state sex offender registries, state criminal records, and child abuse and neglect registries in every state lived in during the past five years (42 U.S.C. 9858f(b)).
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, section 658H, as added by Pub. L. 113-186, section 7) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(b)(1)
“a search of the State criminal and sex offender registry or repository in the State where the child care staff member resides, and each State where such staff member resided during the preceding 5 years”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 164 KB) SHA-256 3ffb2888
More on this claim (6 more sources)
For foster and adoptive parents: fingerprint-based checks of national crime databases and child abuse and neglect registries (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)). For nursing home aides: the state nurse aide registry. About half the states keep an adult protective services registry under their own laws (NAPSA, 2018). These checks run through the state agency or other entity the law authorizes to receive the results.
42 U.S.C. 671, State plan for foster care and adoption assistance (Social Security Act section 471) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(B)(i)
“check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained by the State for information on any prospective foster or adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home”
42 U.S.C. 1396r, Requirements for nursing facilities (Social Security Act section 1919) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 1396r(e)(2)(B)
“The State shall make available to the public information in the registry.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 404 KB)
Public Law 111-148, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (section 6201; Elder Justice Act, title VI, subtitle H), 124 Stat. 119 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, March 23, 2010sec. 6201(a)(3)(A), 124 Stat. 722
“utilize a search of State-based abuse and neglect registries and databases, including the abuse and neglect registries of another State in the case where a prospective employee previously resided in that State”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 2.5 MB)
3 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C110 · 6:30.03Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A clean record comes back in about ten to fifteen minutes.”FComply’s statementC111
“A clean record comes back in about ten to fifteen minutes.” spoken
“A CLEAN RECORD COMES BACK · a clean record the checks run at once · as fast as 10 minutes a clean record comes back about 10 to 15” on screen
“the 10 to 15 minutes and adjudication: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
At launch, FComply expects the screening process to take about 10 to 15 minutes on average, and longer if a record needs adjudication. Complied ID is in development, so this is FComply’s expectation, not a measured result, and it can apply only to checks that answer electronically.
Statement by Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (FComply), September 28, 2026: “about 10 to 15 minutes on average, and longer if a record needs adjudication”.
Before this page goes live, FComply will publish this statement, dated, on a public page, and this card will link to it.
Next Generation Identification (NGI) System Fact Sheet, August 2026 FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Biometric Services Section, August 2026 editionPage 4, 'Civil Electronic (All Civil Submissions)' and 'Civil Electronic Non Federal User Fee Expedite (NFUE)', August 2026 column
“All civil: "Percentage Completed within 2 Hours 98.50"; "Current Month Average Response Time 20 Minutes 19 Seconds". NFUE: "Percentage Completed within 15 Minutes 99.94"; "Current Month Average Response Time 43 Seconds"”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 521 KB) SHA-256 9abba8ce
More on this claim (4 more sources)
For comparison, the FBI’s electronic civil fingerprint check averaged about 20 minutes in August 2026, and under a minute on its expedited track (FBI, NGI fact sheet). State child abuse registries often take days: Iowa reports 5 to 10 business days on average and Wyoming 6 to 7. Federal child care law gives states up to 45 days to complete a full check (42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(1)).
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (section 658H of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(1)
“"The State shall carry out the request of a child care provider for a criminal background check as expeditiously as possible, but not to exceed 45 days after the date on which such request was submitted"”
FComply, Complied ID product page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Page last modified May 20, 2026Complied ID page, step 2
"Step 2: Comprehensive Screening (Coming Soon)" followed by "Federal & state background checks" and "Law enforcement integrations"
Iowa HHS, Abuse Registry (Requests for Child & Dependent Adult Abuse Information in Iowa) Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (hhs.iowa.gov), UndatedSection 'Requests for Child & Dependent Adult Abuse Information in Iowa'
"Processing time is between 5-10 business days, on average." (the page adds: "The Abuse Registry is currently processing forms received on September 24, 2026.")
1 more passage behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C111 · 6:41.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A record that needs a closer look goes through adjudication, to make sure it is the right person.”FComply’s statementC112
“A record that needs a closer look goes through adjudication, to make sure it is the right person.” spoken
“A CLEAN RECORD COMES BACK · a closer look a second path · adjudication a person checks it is the right person · the right person” on screen
“the 10 to 15 minutes and adjudication: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
Complied ID is in development. As FComply is building it, when a record may belong to someone else, a trained person will review it to confirm whether it belongs to this person before anything is reported. Deciding whether someone may work with children stays with whoever the law or the organization names; in federally funded child care and in foster care, that is the state.
Before this page goes live, FComply will publish this statement, dated, on a public page, and this card will link to it.
28 CFR 50.12, Exchange of FBI identification records Office of the Federal Register, eCFR (versioner API, issue of September 21, 2026), Current as of September 24, 202628 CFR 50.12(b)
“"The officials making the determination of suitability for licensing or employment shall provide the applicants the opportunity to complete, or challenge the accuracy of, the information contained in the FBI identification record."”
OriginalOur copy (XML, 3 KB) SHA-256 79454c99
More on this claim (3 more sources)
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (section 658H of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(3)(A)
“"may appeal the results of a criminal background check conducted under this section to challenge the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in such member's criminal background report."”
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Fund) Office of the Federal Register, eCFR, Point-in-time text of September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(a)(1)(i) (the state determines eligibility) and (e)(3)(iii); (c)(1)
“the State, Territory, or Tribe will attempt to verify the accuracy of the information challenged by the child care staff member, including making an effort to locate any missing disposition information related to the disqualifying crime”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 205 KB)
15 U.S.C. 1681e(b), Fair Credit Reporting Act, accuracy of report Office of the Law Revision Counsel (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202615 U.S.C. 1681e(b)
“"Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates."”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 155 KB)
Claim C112 · 6:46.07Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“That is how the right person is cleared and the wrong label never sticks to the wrong person.”FComply’s statementC113
“That is how the right person is cleared and the wrong label never sticks to the wrong person.” spoken
“A CLEAN RECORD COMES BACK · cleared the right person · the wrong label never sticks to the wrong person” on screen
“the 10 to 15 minutes and adjudication: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
Complied ID is in development. As designed, it aims to catch a record that belongs to someone else before it is reported, and the person can see and dispute any record before a decision is made. No screening process can promise zero errors.
Before this page goes live, FComply will publish this statement, dated, on a public page, and this card will link to it.
The Attorney General's Report on Criminal History Background Checks U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (hosted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics), June 2006Printed page 25 (PDF p. 29)
“Name-based searches of the III present the risk of false positives (incorrectly associating a record with a person with a common name) and false negatives ...”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.3 MB) SHA-256 dec683b1
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Federal law gives applicants the right to correct or challenge an FBI record before a decision (28 CFR 50.12(b)) and to have disputed information in a background report reinvestigated (15 U.S.C. 1681i). Where the law names an agency to decide eligibility, that agency decides. An arrest is not a conviction.
15 U.S.C. 1681i(a), Fair Credit Reporting Act, reinvestigation of disputed information Office of the Law Revision Counsel (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202615 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(1)(A)
“"the agency shall, free of charge, conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file"”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 183 KB)
28 CFR 50.12, Exchange of FBI identification records Office of the Federal Register, eCFR (versioner API, issue of September 21, 2026), Current as of September 24, 202628 CFR 50.12(b)
“"Officials making such determinations should not deny the license or employment based on information in the record until the applicant has been afforded a reasonable time to correct or complete the record, or has declined to do so."”
Interstate Identification Index Name Check Efficacy: Report of the National Task Force to the U.S. Attorney General SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (bjs.ojp.gov), July 1999Printed page 7 (PDF p. 13), findings 2(a) and 2(b) (Florida employment and licensing study)
“false negatives: "11.7% of those applicants with criminal history records"; false positives: "5.5% of persons who did not have criminal history records and 4.9% of all applicants."”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)
Claim C113 · 6:52.04Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“One Complied ID that can be verified, from the Little League field to the classroom to the nursing home, and across a state line without starting over.”FComply’s statementC114
“One Complied ID that can be verified, from the Little League field to the classroom to the nursing home, and across a state line without starting over.” spoken
“Complied ID · CERTIFIED · Scan to verify · Scanning · Verified · California Texas · Same Complied ID” on screen
One Complied ID that another organization can verify with a scan, in any state, without the person proving who they are again. 'Verified' means the identity is confirmed; it does not mean the person is cleared to work.
FComply, Complied ID product page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Page last modified May 20, 2026Complied ID page, 'Key Benefits'
“"Universal identity across organizations"; "One-click reauthentication for fast onboarding"”
More on this claim (10 more sources)
A background check result is different: each state and organization decides which checks it accepts. Federal child care law carries a prior check over only within the same state (42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(4)), so a move from California to Texas means a new Texas check. Little League, for example, requires each league to run its own check every year and names JDP as its provider. The film mentions Little League to describe a place; it does not suggest that Little League uses or accepts Complied ID. The scan scenes are illustrations made for the film, not recordings of the live app.
FComply, Complied ID product page (staging site, not yet launched) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (www.fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026Staging Complied ID page, step 4 'Carry the credential'
“"The next organization re-authenticates with one scan instead of starting over."”
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (section 658H of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(4)(A)(ii) and (C)
“(ii) while employed by or seeking employment by another child care provider within the State;”
42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20), State plan for foster care and adoption assistance (criminal records and registry checks; amended by the Adam Walsh Act, Pub. L. 109-248, title I, sec. 152, 120 Stat. 608) Office of the Law Revision Counsel (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(B)(iii)
“"to prevent any such information obtained pursuant to this subparagraph from being used for a purpose other than the conducting of background checks in foster or adoptive placement cases"”
7 more passages behind this claim: all 11 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C114 · 6:59.03Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“The check runs on a proven person, not on a name that may not be theirs.”FComply’s statementC115
“The check runs on a proven person, not on a name that may not be theirs.” spoken
“THE CHECK RUNS ON A PROVEN PERSON · a proven person · not a name that may not be theirs” on screen
“Complied ID: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
The person is proven before any check runs, so the check starts from the right person, not from a name someone typed. Fingerprint-based checks then tie any record to that person.
The Attorney General's Report on Criminal History Background Checks U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (hosted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics), June 2006Printed page 25 (PDF p. 29); also printed page 3 (PDF p. 7)
“Name-based searches of the III present the risk of ... false negatives (missing a record associated with a person because he or she provided false identifying information).”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.3 MB) SHA-256 dec683b1
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Registry searches that still run on names depend on the name; proving identity first means the search uses the person's real name.
34 U.S.C. 40316, National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact (Pub. L. 105-251, title II, sec. 217, Oct. 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 1876), Art. I(20) and Art. V(a) Office of the Law Revision Counsel (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202634 U.S.C. 40316, Art. I(20)
“"Identifications based solely upon a comparison of subjects' names or other nonunique identification characteristics or numbers, or combinations thereof, shall not constitute positive identification."; Art. I(20) also: "a comparison of fingerprints or other equally reliable biometric identification techniques"”
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council, Identity Verification Program Guide (single-page edition) FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Compact Council, UndatedPrinted page 1 (PDF p. 2), introduction
“"Fingerprinting agencies and contractors alike have expressed concern that applicants with a criminal history record may have someone pose as the applicant for fingerprinting purposes."”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 2.8 MB)
FComply home page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026Home page, 'Our Product', Proven Identity tile
“"Proven Identity verification begins using facial match, ID checks, and multi-factor authentication to confirm the person is who they claim to be."”
Claim C115 · 7:15.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“And it stays current. FComply rescreens every person every year, so a new record reaches the people who need to know,”FComply’s statementC116
“And it stays current. FComply rescreens every person every year, so a new record reaches the people who need to know,” spoken
“AND IT STAYS CURRENT · FComply · 01 · rescreened · every year · 02 · a new record · reaches the people · who need to know” on screen
“yearly rescreen: FComply, as offered · today: / rechecked once in five years, 42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)” source line on screen
FComply's design, not yet live: every enrolled person is rescreened every year, through authorized agencies and with the person's written consent, so a new result reaches the organizations entitled to it. In federally funded child care, the employer learns only whether the person is still eligible, not the record itself (42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(2)).
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (section 658H of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(3)(B) (source line: 9858f(d))
“"(B) not less than once during each 5-year period following the first submission date under this paragraph for that staff member."”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 143 KB) SHA-256 2a63872a
More on this claim (5 more sources)
Today, federal child care law requires a new check at least once every five years (42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(3)(B)); states may check more often, and the FBI's Rap Back service can alert authorized agencies to new records as they arrive. The federal foster care statute requires checks before approval and sets no periodic recheck (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)). A new arrest is not a conviction.
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Fund) Office of the Federal Register, eCFR, Point-in-time text of September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(d)(2)(ii); (e)(2)(i) (the provider receives an eligibility statement only)
“"(ii) Not less than once during each 5-year period for any existing staff member."; (e)(2)(i): "without revealing any disqualifying crime or other related information regarding the individual."”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 205 KB)
42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20), State plan for foster care and adoption assistance (criminal records and registry checks; amended by the Adam Walsh Act, Pub. L. 109-248, title I, sec. 152, 120 Stat. 608) Office of the Law Revision Counsel (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(A) (checks before approval; no periodic recheck in the statute)
“"before the foster or adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a child"”
FComply home page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026Home page, 'Our Solution'
“"FComply ensures proven identity verification and annual compliance checks with multi-factor AI and biometric screening" (sentence continues past a dash, not quoted)”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C116 · 7:20.09Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“not five years later.”Confirmed, with contextC117
“not five years later.” spoken
“TODAY · 03 · the next check, · five years later” on screen
“yearly rescreen: FComply, as offered · today: / rechecked once in five years, 42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)” source line on screen
The five years is the federal rule for child care staff: a new check at least once every five years (42 U.S.C. 9858f(d); 45 CFR 98.43(d)(2)). States may check more often, and some use Rap Back, which notifies the State when an enrolled worker is arrested or convicted.
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, section 658H, as added by Pub. L. 113-186, section 7) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(3)(B) (prospective staff; (d)(2)(B) is the same rule for staff hired before November 19, 2014)
“not less than once during each 5-year period following the first submission date under this paragraph for that staff member”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 164 KB) SHA-256 3ffb2888
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Head Start staff are also rechecked at least every five years. Federal law sets no periodic recheck for foster and adoptive parents under Title IV-E, for nursing home aides or for school staff; any recheck there comes from state law.
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (eCFR, up to date as of September 24, 2026) Office of the Federal Register and Government Publishing Office (eCFR), Current as of September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43(d)(2)(ii) (p. 558)
“Not less than once during each 5-year period for any existing staff member.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (XML, 12 KB)
Interagency Task Force on Child Safety, Report to Congress (41 pages) Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Undatedpage 11 (rap back)
“The state would not need to repeat checks for components that are covered by an FBI Rap Back Service or a state rap back program.”
Texas HHSC, Child Care Regulation Fingerprinting FAQ (state practice, context only)
“New fingerprints are not required as long as CCL has an active subscription or can reactivate a subscription to the FBI's national rap back service for the person.”
Claim C117 · 7:27.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Today, one fingerprint check costs about forty dollars in Texas”Confirmed, with contextC118
“Today, one fingerprint check costs about forty dollars in Texas” spoken
“ONE FINGERPRINT CHECK TODAY · $39.75 · Texas, a paid employee” on screen
“Texas DFPS, September 19, 2026 · NYSED, February 2, 2026 · state fee pages, September 25, 2026 · 91 FR 34655 (FBI fee $15 from October 1, 2026)” source line on screen
Texas: $39.75 is the price the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services publishes for a fingerprint check for a paid employee (read September 19 and September 27, 2026). Its breakdown still lists an FBI fee of $13.25; the FBI fee has been $12.00 since January 1, 2025, so the same parts add up to $38.50.
Background Check Fees Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), Undated; read September 27, 2026Fingerprint-based National Criminal History checks, first and third paragraphs
“The cost for a fingerprint-based check for a paid employee of an organization is $ 39.75. ... The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) charges $ 13.25 to conduct a fingerprint-based check”
More on this claim (9 more sources)
Texas Health and Human Services, which licenses child care, lists $37.00 for a paid child care employee, paid by the person at the fingerprinting appointment. From October 1, 2026, when the FBI fee rises to $15.00, these become about $40 to $42. Our 46-state average uses the $38.50 figure for Texas.
FBI CJIS Division; User Fee Schedule (Notice), FR Doc. 2024-19086 Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, August 29, 202489 FR 70206 (DATES) and 70207 (table)
“This revised fee schedule takes effect January 1, 2025. [table] Fingerprint-based Submission: $13.25, change ($1.25), revised fee $12.00.”
Background Check Fees (Child Care Regulation) Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), Undated; read September 27, 2026second bullet, first sub-bullet
“The cost for a Fingerprint-Based check for a paid employee of an organization is $37.00.”
Background Check Fees (Child Care Regulation) Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), Undated; read September 27, 2026second bullet, components
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) charges $12.00 to conduct a Fingerprint-Based Criminal History check ... The fingerprint vendor charges a processing fee of $10.00.”
6 more passages behind this claim: all 7 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C118 · 7:31.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Texas DFPS, September 19, 2026 · NYSED, February 2, 2026 · state fee pages, September 25, 2026 · 91 FR 34655 (FBI fee $15 from October 1, 2026)” source line on screenConfirmedC119
“Texas DFPS, September 19, 2026 · NYSED, February 2, 2026 · state fee pages, September 25, 2026 · 91 FR 34655 (FBI fee $15 from October 1, 2026)” source line on screen
The FBI's standard fee for a fingerprint check for employment or licensing rises from $12.00 to $15.00 on October 1, 2026 (FBI notice, 91 FR 34655, June 8, 2026; footnotes added at 91 FR 42560, July 9, 2026). The FBI's rate for volunteers who care for children, the elderly or people with disabilities rises from $10.00 to $13.00.
FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division; User Fee Schedule (Notice), FR Doc. 2026-11435 Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 8, 202691 FR 34655, DATES and the Fingerprint-Based CHRI Checks table
“This revised fee schedule takes effect October 1, 2026. [table] Fingerprint-based Submission: fee currently in effect $12.00; change $3.00; revised fee $15.00. Volunteer submission: 10.00 to 13.00.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 190 KB) SHA-256 d83b0791
More on this claim (5 more sources)
The FBI bills the agency that submits the fingerprints, and each state decides whether the person pays it.
Same notice, govinfo HTML text Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 8, 202691 FR 34655, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
“current user fees published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2024 (89 FR 70206), which have been in effect since January 1, 2025.”
FBI CJIS Division; User Fee Schedule; Correction, FR Doc. 2026-13886 Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, July 9, 202691 FR 42560, Correction (footnotes to the 91 FR 34655 table)
“The document was published without including the footnotes for the new fee amounts table. ... Volunteers providing care for children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities. [footnote 3]”
FBI CJIS Division; User Fee Schedule (Notice), FR Doc. 2024-19086 Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, August 29, 202489 FR 70206 (DATES) and 70207 (table)
“This revised fee schedule takes effect January 1, 2025. [table] Fingerprint-based Submission: $13.25, change ($1.25), revised fee $12.00.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C119 · 7:31.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“In the states that publish a price, the average is about sixty dollars,”Confirmed, with contextC120
“In the states that publish a price, the average is about sixty dollars,” spoken
“about $60 · average of the 46 states · that publish a price, from · October 1, 2026” on screen
“Texas DFPS, September 19, 2026 · NYSED, February 2, 2026 · state fee pages, September 25, 2026 · 91 FR 34655 (FBI fee $15 from October 1, 2026)” source line on screen
About $60 is FComply's estimate, not a government figure. It is the simple (unweighted) average price of one state and FBI fingerprint check across the 46 states where we could build a complete price from the state's published fees, from October 1, 2026: $60.10 (median $56.88).
FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division; User Fee Schedule (Notice), FR Doc. 2026-11435 Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, June 8, 202691 FR 34655, DATES and the Fingerprint-Based CHRI Checks table
“This revised fee schedule takes effect October 1, 2026. [table] Fingerprint-based Submission: fee currently in effect $12.00; change $3.00; revised fee $15.00. Volunteer submission: 10.00 to 13.00.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 190 KB) SHA-256 d83b0791
More on this claim (85 more sources)
Before October 1 it is $57.16. We used the child care price where a state publishes one, and otherwise the state's school, health care or general employment price. For 33 states we assumed the FBI's $3 increase is passed on. The price is counted whoever pays it; in at least 17 states the state, not the worker, pays for child care checks. Every state's price, source, saved copy and date read is in the table below.
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program, final rule, FR Doc. 2016-22986 HHS, Administration for Children and Families, September 30, 201681 FR 67546 (Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion)
“The estimated cost of a comprehensive criminal background check is $55 per check.”
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program, final rule, FR Doc. 2016-22986 HHS, Administration for Children and Families, September 30, 201681 FR 67554 (regulatory impact analysis, background checks)
“was used to derive an estimated average cost of each background check component for a total of $55 for each set of four background checks.”
Background studies, Announcements list (archive copy of September 16, 2026) Minnesota Department of Human Services, Archive September 16, 2026Minnesota price components (the live mn.gov page is behind bot protection and was not bypassed)
“Beginning March 30, 2026, IDEMIA's fingerprint and photo service fee will increase from $10.50 to $13.50.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)
82 more passages behind this claim: all 82 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C120 · 7:32.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“and a hundred and four dollars and fifty cents in New York.”ConfirmedC121
“and a hundred and four dollars and fifty cents in New York.” spoken
“$104.50 · New York, one teacher” on screen
“Texas DFPS, September 19, 2026 · NYSED, February 2, 2026 · state fee pages, September 25, 2026 · 91 FR 34655 (FBI fee $15 from October 1, 2026)” source line on screen
New York: $104.50 is the fee the New York State Education Department lists, as of February 2, 2026, for fingerprinting teachers seeking certification and school employees (state $75.00, FBI $12.00, vendor $17.50). New York City Department of Education hires use a separate process, and child care workers are fingerprinted through the Office of Children and Family Services.
Fingerprinting New York State Education Department, Office of School Personnel Review and Accountability, Read September 27, 2026fee paragraph and the fee breakdown table (applicant types: Certification, Employee)
“The fingerprint application fee as of February 2, 2026 is: Total Fee $104.50. ... ENTITY FEE DCJS $75.00 FBI $12.00 MorphoTrust/IDEMIA $17.50 Total $104.50”
More on this claim (3 more sources)
When the FBI fee rises on October 1, 2026, the total may rise to $107.50; this line shows the fee NYSED listed on September 27, 2026.
Fingerprint Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) New York State Education Department, Undated; read September 27, 2026Q: What is the total fee for fingerprinting?
“The total fingerprinting fee, subject to change, is $104.50.”
Fingerprint Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) New York State Education Department, Undated; read September 27, 2026Q: What if I have previously been fingerprinted by NYSED for employment in a school district, charter school or BOCES?
“If you were fingerprinted after July 1, 2001 and you submitted your fingerprints to NYSED pursuant to the SAVE Legislation, then you do not need to be fingerprinted again for subsequent employment in a covered school”
OSPRA 100, Fingerprinting instructions and fee New York State Education Department (NYSED), Office of School Personnel Review and Accountability, Updated July 15, 2026page 1, fee paragraph
“The fingerprint application fee as of February 2, 2026 is: Total Fee $104.50”
Claim C121 · 7:35.19Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“In the states that publish a price,”Confirmed, with contextC122
“In the states that publish a price,” spoken
“average of the 46 states” on screen
“Texas DFPS, September 19, 2026 · NYSED, February 2, 2026 · state fee pages, September 25, 2026 · 91 FR 34655 (FBI fee $15 from October 1, 2026)” source line on screen
46 is our count, not an official one. We counted a state when we could build a complete price for one state and FBI fingerprint check from fees the state publishes.
District of Columbia: published fees, child care (OSSE) State agency (osse.dc.gov), Undated; read September 27, 2026District of Columbia: what the state publishes (excluded from the average: no fee published; excluded)
“Child care staff must complete criminal background checks using the ApplicationStation and Fieldprint systems.”
More on this claim (12 more sources)
For Arkansas, Nevada and New Hampshire the fingerprinting (capture) fee is not published, so their prices leave it out. We left out five: Florida and Washington publish parts of the price but not all of it; the District of Columbia publishes no fee; and in Iowa and Kentucky the state's child care agency pays or charges no fee and no full price is published. Counting Florida the same way as Arkansas, Nevada and New Hampshire would leave the average at about $60.
District of Columbia: published fees, child care (OSSE) State agency (osse.dc.gov), Undated; read September 27, 2026District of Columbia: what the state publishes (excluded from the average: no fee published; excluded)
“Use the your personal Fieldprint code to schedule your fingerprint appointment immediately.”
Florida: published fees, child care (DCF via AHCA Clearinghouse) State agency (fdle.state.fl.us), Undated; read September 27, 2026Florida: what the state publishes (excluded from the average: $8 state + $12 FBI + $24 retention = $44, or Clearinghouse $60, plus a Livescan fee no state page publishes; excluded)
“Department of Children & Families ... (examples include - day care center employees, juvenile treatment centers) $8.00 $12.00 $20.00”
Iowa: published fees, child care (HHS pays) State agency (hhs.iowa.gov), Undated; read September 27, 2026Iowa: what the state publishes (excluded from the average: state fingerprint fee not published; excluded)
“HHS covers record check fees for all Child Development Homes and child care homes with a Child Care Assistance Provider Agreement.”
9 more passages behind this claim: all 13 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C122 · 7:39.06Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“and a new job or a new state can mean paying again.”Confirmed, with contextC123
“and a new job or a new state can mean paying again.” spoken
A new job or a new state can mean a new check. Federal rules say FBI records may be used only for the purpose they were requested for, and that 'a current record should be requested when needed for a subsequent authorized use' (28 CFR 50.12(b); 28 CFR 20.33(d)); the national Compact tells states to 'require that subsequent record checks are requested to obtain current information whenever a new need arises' (34 U.S.C. 40316, Article IV(c)(2)).
28 CFR 50.12, Exchange of FBI identification records (Order No. 2258-99, 64 FR 52229, Sept. 28, 1999) Office of the Federal Register and GPO (eCFR), eCFR up to date as of September 24, 202628 CFR 50.12(b)
“Records obtained under this authority may be used solely for the purpose requested and cannot be disseminated outside the receiving departments, related agencies, or other authorized entities.”
OriginalOur copy (XML, 3 KB) SHA-256 79454c99
More on this claim (19 more sources)
The child care law lets a worker change jobs without a new check only inside the same state, only if the last check is under five years old, and only after a gap of 180 days or less (42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(4); 45 CFR 98.43(d)(3)). Maine, Michigan and California tell applicants that fingerprints taken for another job or state cannot be reused. Who pays differs: sometimes the worker, sometimes the employer or the state. Some systems do carry a check over, for example New York for school employees fingerprinted by the State Education Department since 2001.
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (CCDBG Act sec. 658H, as added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Prelim edition read September 27, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(3)(B)
“not less than once during each 5-year period following the first submission date under this paragraph for that staff member.”
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (CCDBG Act sec. 658H, as added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Prelim edition read September 27, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(4)(A)(i) to (ii) and (C)
“within 5 years before the latest date on which such a submission may be made; and (ii) while employed by or seeking employment by another child care provider within the State”
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (CCDBG Act sec. 658H, as added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7, Nov. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 1990) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, Prelim edition read September 27, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(b)(1)
“a search of the State criminal and sex offender registry or repository in the State where the child care staff member resides, and each State where such staff member resided during the preceding 5 years;”
16 more passages behind this claim: all 14 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C123 · 7:43.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“FComply is not asking for a grant.”FComply’s statementC124
“FComply is not asking for a grant.” spoken
FComply no longer uses this line. What FComply asks for is that the President direct the Attorney General to finish the national background check program Congress ordered in 2018, under the Child Protection Improvements Act, and FComply intends to compete to be one of the designated entities that run its checks.
Statement by Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (FComply), September 28, 2026: “FComply asks the President to direct the Attorney General to finish the 2018 program, and FComply intends to compete to provide the checks”.
Before this page goes live, FComply will publish this statement, dated, on a public page, and this card will link to it.
FComply home page FComply, Undated; read September 27, 2026Meet FComply section
“Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (FComply) is a next-generation compliance technology company”
More on this claim (1 more source)
If Congress or an agency ever funds a public route, federal law decides whether that payment is a contract, a grant or a cooperative agreement (31 U.S.C. 6303 to 6305).
Terms of Use Agreement FComply, Inc., Last updated May 20, 2026heading and section 1
“TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT • FComply, Inc. LAST UPDATED: May 20, 2026”
Claim C124 · 7:48.08Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“It is offering a price, in two parts. For a coach, a teacher, or a company that pays its own way, forty-nine dollars to enroll, then ten dollars a year as offered.”FComply’s statementC125
“It is offering a price, in two parts. For a coach, a teacher, or a company that pays its own way, forty-nine dollars to enroll, then ten dollars a year as offered.” spoken
“PEOPLE WHO PAY THEIR OWN WAY · a price, in two parts coaches, teachers, companies, volunteers · $49 to enroll · $10 a year after that” on screen
“the price: FComply, as offered” source line on screen
Complied ID price, as offered by FComply on October 2, 2026: $49 to enroll, government fees included, then $10 a year to renew. Complied ID is being built and will work at launch, so this is the price FComply states for when it launches. This is FComply’s offer, not an independent finding.
Statement by Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (FComply), October 2, 2026: “$49 to enroll, government fees included, then $10 a year to renew.”
Before this page goes live, FComply will publish this statement, dated, on a public page, and this card will link to it.
Complied ID product page FComply, Undated; read September 27, 2026The FComply Solution, Step 2
“Step 2: Comprehensive Screening (Coming Soon) Federal & state background checks Law enforcement integrations”
More on this claim (1 more source)
Same document
Claim C125 · 7:48.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“For the people whose checks public money already helps pay for, foster parents, child care staff, publicly funded caregivers, a federal program that pays FComply for each proven person directly, instead of another grant to the states to build another system.”FComply’s statementC126
“For the people whose checks public money already helps pay for, foster parents, child care staff, publicly funded caregivers, a federal program that pays FComply for each proven person directly, instead of another grant to the states to build another system.” spoken
“PROPOSED PUBLIC PAYMENT ROUTE · THE PEOPLE foster parents, child-care staff, publicly funded caregivers · WHO PAYS WHOM a federal program paying FComply per proven person · THE ROUTE directly, not through the states · instead of another grant to the states to build another system” on screen
“the route: FComply, as proposed” source line on screen
This is FComply's proposal, not an existing program.
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program, final rule, FR Doc. 2016-22986 HHS, Administration for Children and Families, September 30, 201681 FR 67504 (comment and response on paying for background checks)
“At Lead Agency discretion, CCDF funds may be used to pay the costs of background checks, including legally exempt and family child care providers, and their household members.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.3 MB) SHA-256 0614727d
More on this claim (19 more sources)
Public money already helps pay for many of these checks: child care funds may cover them (81 FR 67504), the federal foster care program pays half of states' allowable administrative costs, including foster parent record checks (45 CFR 1356.60(c); Child Welfare Policy Manual 8.1, Question 1), and from 2010 to 2024 a federal program gave states up to $3 million each to build background check systems for long-term care workers (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l), which the HHS Inspector General found helped 27 states. Under current law the states run these checks and decide who is eligible (42 U.S.C. 9858f; 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)), and a private company can handle FBI records only under contract to an authorized agency (28 CFR 906.2). For a federal program to pay FComply directly, Congress would have to authorize and fund it, the award would have to follow federal contracting or grant law (41 U.S.C. 3301; 31 U.S.C. 6303 to 6305), and the states' role would have to be provided for, either by a change in law or by agreements with the states. No such program exists today.
45 CFR 1356.60, Fiscal requirements (title IV-E) Office of the Federal Register and GPO (eCFR), eCFR up to date as of September 24, 202645 CFR 1356.60(c) and (c)(2)(vii)
“Federal financial participation is available at the rate of fifty percent (50%) for administrative expenditures ... (vii) Recruitment and licensing of foster homes and institutions;”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (XML, 7 KB)
Child Welfare Policy Manual, 8.1 Title IV-E, Administrative Functions/Costs HHS, ACF, Children's Bureau, Read September 27, 2026Section 8.1, Question 1
“costs associated with criminal records checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents are allowable under title IV-E when claimed pursuant to an approved cost allocation plan or methodology.”
Child Welfare Policy Manual, 8.1B Title IV-E, Administrative Functions/Costs, Allowable Costs HHS, ACF, Children's Bureau, Read September 27, 2026Section 8.1B, Question 33 (pages 15 to 16 of 19)
“In that instance the allowable costs paid by the title IV-E agency, with appropriate cost allocation, may be claimed as title IV-E administration at the 50% federal financial participation (FFP) rate.”
16 more passages behind this claim: all 16 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C126 · 8:03.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“And because a person proves who they are once, a parent who coaches three sports enrolls once renews for ten dollars a year instead of paying for three separate checks.”Confirmed, with contextC127
“And because a person proves who they are once, a parent who coaches three sports enrolls once renews for ten dollars a year instead of paying for three separate checks.” spoken
“ARITHMETIC ON PUBLISHED FEES, NOT A VERIFIED SAVING · a person proves who they are once · today: one parent, three sports three checks at about $60 each = about $180 average of the 46 states that publish a price · with Complied ID $49 to enroll, then $10 a year every sport, every state as offered · $49 $10” on screen
“arithmetic on published fees: average of 46 states, about $60 from October 1, 2026 · FComply $49 and $10 a year, as offered · not a verified saving” source line on screen
This is arithmetic on published fees, not a measured saving, and the example is hypothetical. Three fingerprint checks at our 46-state average (mostly prices for paid child care and school workers) would cost about $180 from October 1, 2026.
J.D. Palatine (JDP) and Sports Connect Integration FAQs Little League International, Undated; read September 27, 2026Q: Am I able to use the 125 free background checks that my league receives through JDP?
“After 125 checks, the league is fiscally responsible for the cost of each background check ($1.50 per check).”
More on this claim (12 more sources)
Volunteer coaches in the national youth sport programs we checked pay far less, or nothing, and those programs' pages do not mention fingerprints: Little League gives each league 125 free checks, then $1.50 each, paid by the league; U.S. Soccer charges $24 for two years; USA Swimming charges $30 every other year. Where a coach must be fingerprinted (for example school coaches in Maine), state prices apply, and the FBI's volunteer rate is $13.00 from October 1, 2026. Complied ID, as offered, is $49 to enroll, government fees included, then $10 a year to renew. 'Every sport, every state' is FComply's goal: today each league and state sets its own rules, some accept only their own screening provider, and federal rules limit reusing FBI results for a different purpose.
Safe Soccer Clearance Program U.S. Soccer Federation, Undated; read September 27, 2026program description
“The background check element of the program casts $24 and lasts for two years. [sic]”
Background Check Program FAQ (NCSI) USA Swimming, UndatedQ: What fee is associated with completing the required USA Swimming background screening through NCSI?
“The background check costs $30. The fee to renew the background check (every other year) is also $30.”
Same FAQ USA Swimming, UndatedQ: What information is needed to process my background screen?
“Full Legal Name • Address • Date of Birth • Social Security Number • Government Issued ID”
9 more passages behind this claim: all 12 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C127 · 8:19.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
8. What the President can do, and the closeFrom 8:59 · 22 claims
“His order tells Health and Human Services to modernize the states' child welfare information systems,”Confirmed, with contextC128
“His order tells Health and Human Services to modernize the states' child welfare information systems,” spoken
“EXECUTIVE ORDER 14359, SECTION 2(A)(II), (III) AND (IV) · promote modernization · of State child-welfare · information systems · signed November 13, 2025” on screen
The order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take appropriate action, within 180 days, to 'promote modernization of State child-welfare information systems and use of the most effective foster care management and outcome-tracking platforms' (Executive Order 14359, section 2(a)(ii)). The systems are the states'.
Executive Order 14359 of November 13, 2025, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families, 90 FR 52227 to 52229 (FR Doc. 2025-20406) Office of the Federal Register / GPO (govinfo), November 13, 2025Section 2(a), opening words, 90 FR 52227
“The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, within 180 days of the date of this order, take appropriate action to:”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 249 KB) SHA-256 be31ac1c
More on this claim (2 more sources)
The order asks HHS to promote their modernization, including through the information and technical assistance it gives the states.
First Lady Melania Trump's 10 Achievements Transforming Outcomes for Foster Youth Since the Signing the Fostering the Future Executive Order 180 Days Ago The White House, Office of the First Lady, May 12, 2026Opening sentence (date line May 12, 2026)
“First Lady Melania Trump marked the 180-day milestone”
Same documentSection 2(a)(ii), 90 FR 52227
“promote modernization of State child-welfare information systems and use of the most effective foster care management and outcome-tracking platforms”
Claim C128 · 8:32.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“President Trump has already started this.”Confirmed, with contextC129
“President Trump has already started this.” spoken
What 'this' means in the film: modernizing state child welfare systems. The per-person payment described just before this line is FComply's proposal; no federal program pays FComply today, and FComply has not been endorsed by the President or HHS.
Executive Order 14359 of November 13, 2025, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families, 90 FR 52227 to 52229 (FR Doc. 2025-20406) Office of the Federal Register / GPO (govinfo), November 13, 2025Section 2(a)(ii) and (iii), 90 FR 52227 (the directive that starts the work)
“promote modernization of State child-welfare information systems / expand States' use of technological solutions, including predictive analytics and tools powered by artificial intelligence”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 249 KB) SHA-256 be31ac1c
More on this claim (9 more sources)
Executive Order 14359 directs HHS to promote modernization of state child welfare information systems, expand states' use of technology and publish an annual state scorecard (section 2(a)). ACF has begun that work: a public state dashboard (January 26, 2026), a Child Welfare Technology Incubator for state systems (February 23, 2026) and predictive risk modeling grants that ACF says support the order (August 13, 2026). The order does not mention background checks, fingerprints, identity verification or missing children, and it does not set up or fund any program that pays FComply. ACF also runs A Home for Every Child, an initiative it says put parts of the order into operation through a new option for state improvement plans. Under that initiative, on September 17, 2026, ACF awarded grants, under section 426 of the Social Security Act, to modernize fingerprinting and background check systems for foster family licensing. The funding notice and the award announcement do not cite the order.
ACF Marks 180 Days of Action on First Lady Melania Trump's Executive Order on Fostering the Future for American Children and Families (press release) HHS, ACF, May 12, 2026Section 'Advancing Technology and Innovation through ACF's Child Welfare Technology Incubator'
“On Feb. 23, 2026, ACF, announced the Child Welfare Technology Incubator to help states' overcome persistent challenges in the development and implementation of Comprehensive Child Welfare Information Systems (CCWIS).”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 67 KB)
ACF Awards $6 Million to 10 Jurisdictions to Advance Use of Predictive Risk Modeling in Child Welfare (press release) HHS, ACF, August 13, 2026Third paragraph
“which specifically directs ACF to expand states' use of technology solutions, including predictive analytics, to improve outcomes for children and families.”
A Home for Every Child (ACF initiative page) HHS, ACF, Read September 27, 2026Data and Technology section, 'Child Welfare Technology Incubator'
“ACF is strengthening support for states as they modernize Child Welfare Technology and Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS)”
6 more passages behind this claim: all 8 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C129 · 8:32.11Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“to put new technology to work,”Confirmed, with contextC130
“to put new technology to work,” spoken
“expand States’ use of technological · solutions, including predictive · analytics and tools powered by · artificial intelligence ·” on screen
Section 2(a)(iii) directs HHS to 'expand States' use of technological solutions, including predictive analytics and tools powered by artificial intelligence, to increase caregiver recruitment and retention rates, improve caregiver and child matching, and deploy Federal child-welfare funding to maximally effective purposes and recipients.' The clause does not mention screening, background checks or identity.
Executive Order 14359 of November 13, 2025, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families, 90 FR 52227 to 52229 (FR Doc. 2025-20406) Office of the Federal Register / GPO (govinfo), November 13, 2025Section 2(a)(iii), 90 FR 52227
“expand States' use of technological solutions, including predictive analytics and tools powered by artificial intelligence, to increase caregiver recruitment and retention rates, improve caregiver and child matching, and deploy Federal child-welfare funding to maximally effective purposes and recipients”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 249 KB) SHA-256 be31ac1c
Claim C130 · 8:41.24Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“and to publish a scorecard on every state every year.”ConfirmedC131
“and to publish a scorecard on every state every year.” spoken
“publish annually a scorecard” on screen
Section 2(a)(iv) directs HHS to 'publish annually a scorecard that measures and is used to evaluate State-level achievement of key outcomes and metrics.' The outcomes it lists are unnecessary entries into foster care, time from maltreatment reports to investigations, child injuries and deaths from caregiver neglect and abuse, caregiver recruitment and retention, caregiver and child matching, placement disruptions, time in foster care, speed of permanent placement, and partnerships with non-governmental groups, including faith-based organizations.
Executive Order 14359 of November 13, 2025, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families, 90 FR 52227 to 52229 (FR Doc. 2025-20406) Office of the Federal Register / GPO (govinfo), November 13, 2025Section 2(a)(iv), 90 FR 52227
“publish annually a scorecard that measures and is used to evaluate State-level achievement of key outcomes and metrics”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 249 KB) SHA-256 be31ac1c
More on this claim (1 more source)
Same documentSection 2(a)(iv), the listed outcomes, 90 FR 52227
“reduce unnecessary entries into foster care, decrease the time between reports of child maltreatment and investigations, reduce child injuries and fatalities caused by caregiver neglect and abuse”
Claim C131 · 8:44.08Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Its first dashboard came out in January with seven measures.”ConfirmedC132
“Its first dashboard came out in January with seven measures.” spoken
“THE FIRST DASHBOARD, JANUARY 26, 2026 · 01 maltreatment in foster care · 02 recurrence of maltreatment · 03 permanency in 12 months, entering care · 04 permanency in 12 months, in care 12 to 23 months · 05 permanency in 12 months, in care 24 months or more · 06 re-entry to foster care · 07 placement stability · seven measures · not one asks whether a missing child was reported · add the eighth · PROPOSED missing child reported within 24 hours” on screen
ACF, part of HHS, launched its first public state dashboard, the CFSR Data Profile Dashboard, on January 26, 2026, and calls it progress toward the order's annual scorecard.
ACF Launches New Public Dashboard on State Child Welfare Performance (press release) HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), January 26, 2026Second paragraph
“Publishing the first-ever Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) Data Profile Dashboard demonstrates ACF's progress toward delivering on ... Executive Order on Fostering the Future for American Children and Families”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 60 KB) SHA-256 6b8293dc
More on this claim (8 more sources)
It shows the seven statewide data indicators the Children's Bureau uses in its fourth round of Child and Family Services Reviews: maltreatment in foster care; recurrence of maltreatment; permanency in 12 months for children entering care; permanency in 12 months for children in care 12 to 23 months; permanency in 12 months for children in care 24 months or more; reentry to foster care in 12 months; and placement stability. ACF says these indicators 'were only shared internally within the Children's Bureau and state systems' before the dashboard.
ACF Marks 180 Days of Action on First Lady Melania Trump's Executive Order on Fostering the Future for American Children and Families (press release) HHS, ACF, May 12, 2026Section 'Increasing Transparency Through Data with New Dashboard'
“On Jan. 26, 2026, ACF unveiled a first-of-its kind public dashboard to show state-by-state performance data on critical child safety and permanency outcomes”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 67 KB)
Child and Family Services Review Technical Bulletin #13A (Amended), re-issued June 8, 2022 HHS, ACF, Children's Bureau, June 8, 2022Page 3, Tables 1A and 1B (indicator names)
“Maltreatment in foster care / Recurrence of maltreatment / Permanency in 12 months for children entering foster care / Permanency in 12 months for children in care 24 months or more / Reentry to foster care in 12 months / ...” …
CFSR Round 4 Statewide Data Indicators Data Dictionary (August 2022) HHS, ACF, Children's Bureau, August 2022Pages 4 to 7 (permanency indicator titles)
“Permanency in 12 months for children entering care / Permanency in 12 months for children in care 12-23 months / Permanency in 12 months for children in care 24 months or more / Reentry to foster care in 12 months ...” …
5 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C132 · 8:48.17Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Not one asks whether a missing child was reported.”ConfirmedC133
“Not one asks whether a missing child was reported.” spoken
“seven measures · not one asks whether a · missing child was reported · add the eighth” on screen
None of the seven indicators, as the Children's Bureau defines them, measures whether a missing child was reported. This covers the dashboard's seven indicators only; federal law separately requires states to report missing children in their care (see the next item).
CFSR Round 4 Statewide Data Indicators Data Dictionary (August 2022) HHS, ACF, Children's Bureau, August 2022Pages 1 and 3 (safety indicator titles and definitions)
“Maltreatment in foster care / Of all children in foster care during a 12-month period, what was the rate of victimization, per 100,000 days of care? / Recurrence of maltreatment”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 221 KB) SHA-256 ed349b68
More on this claim (3 more sources)
Child and Family Services Review Technical Bulletin #13A (Amended), re-issued June 8, 2022 HHS, ACF, Children's Bureau, June 8, 2022Page 1 (where the definitions are)
“Attachment A is the Round 4 data dictionary for the SWDIs and corresponding data quality checks.”
Same documentPages 4 to 7 (permanency indicator titles)
“Permanency in 12 months for children entering care / Permanency in 12 months for children in care 12-23 months / Permanency in 12 months for children in care 24 months or more / Reentry to foster care in 12 months ...” …
Same documentPage 10 (the word 'missing' in the dictionary refers to missing data fields)
“Missing date of birth Percent of records with a missing date of birth”
Claim C133 · 8:52.07Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Add the eighth.”Confirmed, with contextC134
“Add the eighth.” spoken
“PROPOSED · missing child · reported · within 24 hours” on screen
Proposed by FComply, not an adopted federal measure: an eighth indicator showing whether each missing child was reported on time. It would measure a duty that already exists in federal law; it would not create a new one.
42 U.S.C. 671 (State plan for foster care and adoption assistance), text of laws in effect on September 26, 2026 Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House (uscode.house.gov); GPO 2024 edition copy, Read September 27, 202642 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B)
“the State agency shall report immediately, and in no case later than 24 hours after receiving, information on missing or abducted children or youth to the law enforcement authorities for entry into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 218 KB) SHA-256 2b0d34a8
More on this claim (4 more sources)
For the children the statute covers, a group that includes children who have run away from foster care, a state child welfare agency must report missing or abducted children or youth to law enforcement for entry into the FBI's National Crime Information Center and to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 'immediately, and in no case later than 24 hours after receiving' the information (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B), which applies to the children described in 671(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)). The same provision also requires the agency to keep in regular contact with law enforcement and the Center while the child is missing, which an on-time measure would not capture. The order itself asks HHS to improve the 'collection of data and information indicative of child well-being and safety' (section 2(a)(i)); FComply's view is that this measure fits that aim.
Public Law 113-183, Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (September 29, 2014), 128 Stat. 1919 GPO (govinfo), September 29, 2014Sec. 104, 128 Stat. 1922 (the provision's origin)
“SEC. 104. LOCATING AND RESPONDING TO CHILDREN WHO RUN AWAY FROM FOSTER CARE.”
NCMEC, Children Missing from Care (issue page) National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
Same document42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B), continued
“and to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (referred to in this subparagraph as "NCMEC")”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 3 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C134 · 8:54.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“In 2018, Congress told the attorney general to build a national background check program within a year.”ConfirmedC135
“In 2018, Congress told the attorney general to build a national background check program within a year.” spoken
“THE 2018 NATIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK PROGRAM · Congress · gives it a year · the deadline, · March 23” on screen
“seven years past the deadline · sequence not to scale” source line on screen
In 2018 Congress passed the Child Protection Improvements Act (Pub. L. 115-141, division S, title I, enacted March 23, 2018). It requires the attorney general to 'establish a program' giving organizations that provide care to children, the elderly or people with disabilities access to national criminal history background checks (34 U.S.C. 40102(a)(3)(A)), and to have it 'fully implemented not later than 1 year after the date of enactment' (section 101(b), 132 Stat. 1126).
Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (March 23, 2018), division S, title I, Child Protection Improvements Act, 132 Stat. 1123 to 1126 GPO (govinfo), March 23, 2018Div. S, title I, sec. 101(a)(1)(C), 132 Stat. 1124 (new 34 U.S.C. 40102(a)(3)(A))
“The Attorney General shall establish a program, in accordance with this section, to provide qualified entities”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 2.4 MB) SHA-256 f79094e0
More on this claim (6 more sources)
The deadline was March 23, 2019. Using the program is voluntary. It serves organizations in states that do not have their own procedures or do not prohibit it, and it cannot be used where federal law already required a federal check when the 2018 law took effect. It is separate from the National Background Check Program for long-term care workers (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l).
34 U.S.C. 40102 (Background checks), text of laws in effect on September 26, 2026, with the GPO 2024 edition (notes) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House; GPO, Read September 27, 202634 U.S.C. 40102(a)(3)(A) (codified text)
“with access to national criminal history background checks on, and criminal history reviews of, covered individuals”
Unified Agenda entry, RIN 1110-AA33, Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations (Publication ID: 2026), with the current-agenda landing page OMB OIRA and GSA Regulatory Information Service Center (reginfo.gov), 2026 editionLegal Deadline table
“Final / Statutory / 03/23/2019”
FBI CJIS Division, Request for Information, "Child Protection Improvements Act", solicitation CPIA11072018 (SAM.gov notice, type Sources Sought), posted November 7, 2018, amended November 16, 2018 with questions and answers; with SAM.gov search results for "Child Protection Improvements" (active and archived notices, 27 Sep 2026) U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (SAM.gov contract opportunities record), November 7, 2018RFI description, Summary, last sentence
“The Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for establishing this national program to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division.”
3 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C135 · 8:57.19Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“Seven years past that deadline, the rule to run it is still not final.”ConfirmedC136
“Seven years past that deadline, the rule to run it is still not final.” spoken
“a proposed · August 25 · final rule · date: to be · determined · · regulatory” on screen
“seven years past the deadline · sequence not to scale” source line on screen
More than seven years past the deadline, the rule the program needs is still not final. DOJ proposed the fitness-criteria rule on August 25, 2023 (88 FR 58167, RIN 1110-AA33).
Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations, notice of proposed rulemaking, 88 FR 58167 to 58173 (FR Doc. 2023-18194; RIN 1110-AA33) DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Federal Register), August 25, 202388 FR 58167, heading (docket FBI-154; RIN 1110-AA33)
“Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations / Notice of proposed rulemaking.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 248 KB) SHA-256 d49778fe
More on this claim (8 more sources)
DOJ's 2026 regulatory agenda lists the final action as 'To Be Determined' and records the statutory deadline as March 23, 2019. Checked September 27, 2026.
Federal Register API searches: RIN 1110-AA33; the phrase "Child Protection Improvements Act"; documents affecting 28 CFR part 105 Office of the Federal Register (federalregister.gov API), September 27, 2026RIN search result (the only document)
“"count": 1 / "type": "Proposed Rule"”
Unified Agenda entry, RIN 1110-AA33, Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations (Publication ID: 2026), with the current-agenda landing page OMB OIRA and GSA Regulatory Information Service Center (reginfo.gov), 2026 editionAgenda Stage and Timetable
“Publication ID: 2026 / Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Long-Term Actions / Final Action To Be Determined”
Unified Agenda entry, RIN 1110-AA33, Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations (Publication ID: 2026), with the current-agenda landing page OMB OIRA and GSA Regulatory Information Service Center (reginfo.gov), 2026 editionTimetable (the agenda's citation for the proposal)
“NPRM 08/25/2023 88 FR 51867”
5 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C136 · 9:03.22Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“The president can direct him to finish it,”Confirmed, with contextC137
“The president can direct him to finish it,” spoken
“the President · can finish it · · the ask” on screen
“seven years past the deadline · sequence not to scale” source line on screen
This is the film's ask. The law gives this rule to the attorney general and makes it mandatory: 'The Attorney General shall, by rule, establish the criteria' (34 U.S.C. 40102(f)(2)(C)).
Constitution of the United States, transcription (Article II, sections 1 and 3) National Archives, September 17, 1787Article II, section 1, clause 1
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 71 KB) SHA-256 c228e6c8
More on this claim (12 more sources)
The attorney general heads the Justice Department (28 U.S.C. 503) and answers to the President, in whom the Constitution vests 'the executive Power' and who must 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed' (Article II). The Supreme Court has said the President's power to remove, and so supervise, executive officers 'follows from the text of Article II' (Trump v. United States, 2024, slip opinion at 8, quoting Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197, 204 (2020)). That is why the film says the President can direct the attorney general to finish it. The President cannot issue the rule himself or set aside what the statute requires. The attorney general would issue the final rule through the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), after considering the public comments, with review by the Office of Management and Budget if the rule is significant under Executive Order 12866, as amended.
28 U.S.C. 503 (Attorney General), GPO 2024 edition GPO (govinfo), 2024 edition28 U.S.C. 503
“The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice.”
28 U.S.C. 509 (Functions of the Attorney General), GPO 2024 edition GPO (govinfo), 2024 edition28 U.S.C. 509
“All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General”
Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (National Archives reprint of the Federal Register text) National Archives, Office of the Federal Register, September 30, 1993Executive Order 12866, sec. 2(a)
“they are responsible for developing regulations and assuring that the regulations are consistent with applicable law, the President's priorities, and the principles set forth in this Executive order.”
9 more passages behind this claim: all 11 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C137 · 9:09.20Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“and the same law requires him to choose organizations outside the federal government to review the results.”Confirmed, with contextC138
“and the same law requires him to choose organizations outside the federal government to review the results.” spoken
“THE STATUTE · designate organizations · outside the federal government · to review the results · 34 U.S.C. 40102(f)(2)(A)” on screen
The same law requires the attorney general to 'designate, and enter into an agreement with, one or more entities' to review the results of the FBI's fingerprint check, and bars designating 'a Federal agency' (34 U.S.C. 40102(f)(1) and (f)(2)(A)).
34 U.S.C. 40102 (Background checks), text of laws in effect on September 26, 2026, with the GPO 2024 edition (notes) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House; GPO, Read September 27, 202634 U.S.C. 40102(f)(2)(A), first sentence
“The Attorney General shall designate, and enter into an agreement with, one or more entities to make determinations described in subparagraph (B).”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 153 KB) SHA-256 9a5b3a74
More on this claim (11 more sources)
A designated entity decides whether the person 'has been convicted of, or is under pending indictment for, a crime that bears upon' their fitness to care for children, the elderly or people with disabilities (40102(b)(4)), using criteria the attorney general must set by rule (40102(f)(2)(B) and (C)). The organization that asked for the check still makes its own decision about the person. Only a federal agency is excluded; the FBI's 2018 request for information asked whether any 'State Central Record Repository, non-profit or private business' was interested.
Public Law 115-141, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (March 23, 2018), division S, title I, Child Protection Improvements Act, 132 Stat. 1123 to 1126 GPO (govinfo), March 23, 2018Div. S, title I, sec. 101(a)(1)(G), 132 Stat. 1125 to 1126 (enacted text of (f)(2)(A) and (B))
“shall designate, and enter into an agreement with, one / A designated entity shall, upon the receipt of the information described in paragraph (1), make a determination of fitness”
34 U.S.C. 40104 (Definitions), text of laws in effect on September 26, 2026 Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House, Read September 27, 202634 U.S.C. 40104(12)
“the term "designated entity" means an entity designated by the Attorney General under”
Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations, notice of proposed rulemaking, 88 FR 58167 to 58173 (FR Doc. 2023-18194; RIN 1110-AA33) DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Federal Register), August 25, 202388 FR 58169, 'Designated Entities'
“Pursuant to the CPIA, the Attorney General is required to designate one or more non-federal entities to make the determinations bearing on fitness.”
8 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C138 · 9:12.03Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“That is the work FComply exists to do, and it intends to earn that designation.”FComply’s statementC139
“That is the work FComply exists to do, and it intends to earn that designation.” spoken
“FComply intends to earn that designation ·” on screen
FComply's stated purpose is this work, and it intends to compete for designation when the FBI opens the selection DOJ has announced; it would be designated only if selected. FComply has not been designated and does not perform this role today.
34 U.S.C. 40102 (Background checks), text of laws in effect on September 26, 2026, with the GPO 2024 edition (notes) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House; GPO, Read September 27, 202634 U.S.C. 40102(f)(2)(A) (the designation FComply says it intends to earn)
“The Attorney General shall designate, and enter into an agreement with, one or more entities to make determinations described in subparagraph (B).”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 153 KB) SHA-256 9a5b3a74
More on this claim (8 more sources)
The rule that sets the criteria is not final. DOJ's 2023 proposal says the FBI will choose designated entities through a request for proposals. The only public step found is the FBI's request for information of November 7, 2018 (SAM.gov CPIA11072018), which states that it was not a request for proposals. No request for proposals, agreement or designation had been found as of September 27, 2026. A designation would not cover checks that federal law already required when the 2018 law took effect, such as those for prospective foster parents (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)) and for child care staff under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858f).
Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations, notice of proposed rulemaking, 88 FR 58167 to 58173 (FR Doc. 2023-18194; RIN 1110-AA33) DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Federal Register), August 25, 202388 FR 58169, 'Designated Entities' (how designees are to be chosen)
“The FBI will issue a Request for Proposal ("RFP") to select those to serve as designated entities under the CPIA Program.”
Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations, notice of proposed rulemaking, 88 FR 58167 to 58173 (FR Doc. 2023-18194; RIN 1110-AA33) DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation (Federal Register), August 25, 202388 FR 58169 (what bidders must show)
“how their fee structure will not discourage volunteers, and the profit margin, if any, to be collected for providing these services”
Unified Agenda entry, RIN 1110-AA33, Child Protection Improvements Act Criteria for Designated Entity Determinations (Publication ID: 2026), with the current-agenda landing page OMB OIRA and GSA Regulatory Information Service Center (reginfo.gov), 2026 editionTimetable
“Final Action To Be Determined”
5 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C139 · 9:19.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“First Lady Melania Trump's Fostering the Future initiative is for young people leaving foster care.”Confirmed, with contextC140
“First Lady Melania Trump's Fostering the Future initiative is for young people leaving foster care.” spoken
“FIRST LADY MELANIA TRUMP’S INITIATIVE · Fostering the Future for young people leaving foster care” on screen
“Executive Order 14359, section 3, signed November 13, 2025” source line on screen
First Lady Melania Trump founded Fostering the Future in 2021 as a Be Best initiative offering college and university scholarships to people in the foster care community. Executive Order 14359, section 3, directs HHS, in coordination with the Office of the First Lady, to establish a federal Fostering the Future initiative that creates education and job opportunities for people who are in or leaving foster care.
Executive Order 14359 of November 13, 2025, Fostering the Future for American Children and Families, 90 FR 52227 to 52229 (FR Doc. 2025-20406) Office of the Federal Register / GPO (govinfo), November 13, 2025Section 3, opening words, 90 FR 52228
“The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Office of the First Lady”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 249 KB) SHA-256 be31ac1c
More on this claim (7 more sources)
Section 3 covers partnerships, an online resource platform, scholarships and training vouchers. It does not mention background checks, identity verification or tracking children in care. FComply is not part of the initiative.
First Lady Melania Trump Announces Executive Order on Fostering the Future, Opens New Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships The White House, Office of the First Lady, November 13, 2025Paragraph beginning 'First Lady Melania Trump established'
“First Lady Melania Trump established Fostering the Future in 2021. Fostering the Future, a Be Best initiative, offers scholarships at the university and college levels to individuals within the foster care community.”
First Lady Melania Trump Announces Executive Order on Fostering the Future, Opens New Opportunities for Public-Private Partnerships The White House, Office of the First Lady, November 13, 2025Paragraph beginning 'As a result of this new executive order'
“as part of First Lady Melania Trump's Fostering the Future initiative, public and private-sector partners can make commitments to expand access to mentorships, scholarships, technology, and workforce training for youth who have experienced foster care.”
ACF Marks 180 Days of Action on First Lady Melania Trump's Executive Order on Fostering the Future for American Children and Families (press release) HHS, ACF, May 12, 2026Section 'Creating a New Fostering the Future Digital Platform'
“It is expected to fully launch in fall 2026.”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (HTML, 67 KB)
4 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C140 · 9:26.10Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A child cannot leave a system that has lost track of them.”Confirmed, with contextC141
“A child cannot leave a system that has lost track of them.” spoken
This line is the film's argument, not a finding of any report: an agency needs to know where the children in its care are, including children who go missing, if it is to help them leave care well.
HHS Office of Inspector General, State Agencies Did Not Always Ensure That Children Missing From Foster Care Were Reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Accordance With Federal Requirements, A-07-21-06102 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services, March 2, 2023printed p. 5, Findings (and p. 9)
“State agencies generally lacked adequate systems to readily identify whether or not they had reported missing children episodes to NCMEC accurately and in a timely manner.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 f9124da8
More on this claim (4 more sources)
The evidence behind the concern: HHS OIG found that 36 of the 38 state agencies in its sample lacked a way to track their reports of missing children to NCMEC (A-07-21-06102, p. 9), and that 6,619 children who went missing from care between July 2018 and December 2020 were still missing on December 31, 2020, in the 46 states that provided data (A-07-20-06095). Executive Order 14359 (November 13, 2025) directed HHS, in coordination with the Office of the First Lady, to establish the Fostering the Future initiative.
HHS OIG, National Snapshot of State Agency Approaches To Reporting and Locating Children Missing From Foster Care, A-07-20-06095 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Audit Services, May 2022printed p. 10 (and Appendix C total, p. 33); printed p. 19, "Incomplete Data"
“the number of children who went missing from foster care during our audit period and remained missing as of December 31, 2020, which was the last day of our audit period, was 6,619”
HHS OIG, Case Study: Missouri's Efforts To Protect Children Missing From Foster Care, OEI-07-19-00372 HHS Office of Inspector General, Office of Evaluation and Inspections, September 2021Findings, printed p. 13
“For the cases we reviewed, the case managers knew the true status of the children in their caseloads”
45 CFR 1355.44(g)(3) (AFCARS out-of-home care data: exit reason) Office of the Federal Register, eCFR, Current as of September 24, 20261355.44(g)(3)
“Indicate "runaway or whereabouts unknown" if the child ran away or the child's whereabouts were unknown at the time that the title IV-E agency's placement and care responsibility ends.”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 4 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C141 · 9:32.01Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“The same proven identity, the same record on a foster parent's phone.”FComply’s statementC142
“The same proven identity, the same record on a foster parent's phone.” spoken
The Foster Care Compliance System is FComply's product, and this description is FComply's own. FComply says that, as designed, foster parents and other adults in the home prove their identity once through Complied ID, and the same verified identity and record are used for check-ins on the foster parent's phone.
FComply home page (fcomply.com) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026opening company description ('Meet FComply')
“delivers the first platform to unify proven identity verification, federal background checks, and the nation’s first foster-care compliance system.”
More on this claim (5 more sources)
FComply, Foster Care Compliance System product page (fcomply.com) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026Key Capabilities: 'Unique in the Market'
“No other technology in the United States verifies both identity and location while maintaining a longitudinal record of each child’s safety, presence, and movement.”
FComply staging site, Products Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (www.fcomply.com), Undated; read September 27, 2026page heading
“Two products. One record.”
FComply staging site, The adequate system Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (www.fcomply.com), Undated; read September 27, 2026requirements table, Foster Care Compliance System column
“Identity verified once, with a portable, reusable verification record across placements and agencies.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 6 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C142 · 9:36.13Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“A photo, a time, a place, and a caseworker who sees a missed check-in the same day.”FComply’s statementC143
“A photo, a time, a place, and a caseworker who sees a missed check-in the same day.” spoken
“FComply WHEREABOUT + CHECK-IN · PHOTO ACCEPTED Date: 9/10/25 Time: 5:59pm · LOCATION VERIFIED · SUBMIT · 5:12 · Check-in missed · FComply · Check-in missed · Scheduled 5:00 pm Foster parent did not confirm she is with the child Caseworker notified 5:12 pm” on screen
The check-in and alert screens in this scene demonstrate the Foster Care Compliance System as FComply designed it; the date and times shown are illustrative. As FComply describes the design, a check-in records a photo, the time and the place, and a missed or failed check-in is flagged to the agency the same day so that staff can follow up; a missed check-in is not by itself a finding that a child is missing.
FComply, Foster Care Compliance System product page (fcomply.com) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026Key Capabilities: 'Proof of Physical Presence'
“Biometric-enabled photo capture and precise GPS verification confirm that the child is physically present inside the caregiver’s home.”
More on this claim (5 more sources)
The state agency remains responsible for the reports federal law requires.
FComply staging site, Foster Care Compliance System page (www.fcomply.com, draft of the new site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc., Read September 27, 2026hero captions
“The exception reaches the supervisor the same minute”
FComply staging site, For foster care agencies (FAQ) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (www.fcomply.com), Undated; read September 27, 2026FAQ "What happens to a placement if a check-in is missed?"
“A missed or failed check-in is an exception, not a silent gap. Supervisors see it the same day and decide what to do”
FComply staging site, For state agencies ("The desk it lands on") Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (www.fcomply.com), Undated; read September 27, 2026"The desk it lands on", item 1
“A real-time alert, on the caseworker's own screen ... Raised by the caregiver's failed check-in, not by the next scheduled contact.”
2 more passages behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C143 · 9:38.00Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“It runs on the same technology.”FComply’s statementC144
“It runs on the same technology.” spoken
FComply says the Foster Care Compliance System is built on the same platform as Complied ID. This is the company's description; no independent technical assessment was supplied for this page.
FComply home page (fcomply.com) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026opening company description ('Meet FComply')
“delivers the first platform to unify proven identity verification, federal background checks, and the nation’s first foster-care compliance system.”
Claim C144 · 9:51.09Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“It is the Foster Care Compliance System.”FComply’s statementC145
“It is the Foster Care Compliance System.” spoken
“FComply · FOSTER CARE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM · START” on screen
The Foster Care Compliance System is a product of FComply (Federal Compliance Systems, Inc.). It is a private product, not a government program.
FComply, Foster Care Compliance System product page (fcomply.com) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc., Undated; read September 27, 2026page title and Products menu
“FComply Foster Care Compliance System prevents failure after placement by ensuring continuous, verifiable oversight.”
Claim C145 · 9:52.05Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“This country already runs continuous checks on millions of people for other jobs.”ConfirmedC147
“This country already runs continuous checks on millions of people for other jobs.” spoken
The federal government already checks millions of workers continuously. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency provided continuous vetting, meaning automated checks of criminal, terrorism and financial records and public records at any time during a person's eligibility, for more than 3.7 million federal, military and contractor workers in fiscal year 2024 (an undated page on its website now says about 4 million are enrolled).
Transportation Worker Identification Credential: Actions Needed to Address Maritime Security Risks (GAO-26-107521) U.S. Government Accountability Office, Published and publicly released July 28, 2026Background, TSA's role, printed page 8 (PDF page 13)
“According to TSA, as of December 2025, about 2.3 million individuals have a TWIC®, 1.2 million individuals have an HME, and 21 million individuals are active TSA PreCheck® members.”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 3.8 MB) SHA-256 2d980375
More on this claim (8 more sources)
About 2.3 million port and transportation workers held a TWIC card as of December 2025, and GAO describes TWIC recurrent vetting as "near real-time continuous monitoring" of their eligibility (GAO-26-107521, July 2026). These programs may overlap, so their numbers are not added together.
Personnel Vetting Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (U.S. Department of Defense), Undated"Continuous Vetting" paragraph
“There are approximately 4 million individuals enrolled in CV.”
Continuous Vetting Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, Undated; read September 27, 2026"How does the Continuous Vetting (CV) process work?"
“Automated record checks pull data from criminal, terrorism, and financial databases, as well as public records, at any time during an individual’s period of eligibility.”
DCSA enrolls all DOD clearance holders in CV Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, October 1, 2021first sentence (October 1, 2021)
“The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) has successfully enrolled all DOD clearance holders in Continuous Vetting (CV).”
5 more passages behind this claim: all 8 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C147 · 9:56.21Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“For the child care worker alone in a room with a child, federal law requires a new check only once every five years.”Confirmed, with contextC148
“For the child care worker alone in a room with a child, federal law requires a new check only once every five years.” spoken
“FEDERAL LAW, CHILD CARE STAFF · 5 years · a new check · once every five years” on screen
“42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)” source line on screen
For child care staff, federal law requires a new background check at least once every five years and asks for nothing more often (42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(3)(B)). States may require more, and some use Rap Back for parts of the check.
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act, section 658H, as added by Pub. L. 113-186, section 7) Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives (uscode.house.gov), Text of laws in effect on September 26, 202642 U.S.C. 9858f(d)(3)(B)
“not less than once during each 5-year period following the first submission date under this paragraph for that staff member”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 164 KB) SHA-256 3ffb2888
More on this claim (3 more sources)
A new worker still waiting on checks must be supervised at all times (45 CFR 98.43(d)(4)).
Public Law 113-186, Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, 128 Stat. 1971 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, November 19, 2014sec. 7, new CCDBG 658H(d)(3)(B), 128 Stat. 1992
“not less than once during each 5-year period following the first submission date under this paragraph for that staff member”
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program, final rule, 81 FR 67438 (September 30, 2016) Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Federal Register), September 30, 201681 FR 67500, preamble, 'Frequency of Background Checks'
“The requests must be submitted prior to when the individual becomes a staff member and must be completed at least once every five years.”
Improving Child Care Access, Affordability, and Stability in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), final rule, 89 FR 15366 (March 1, 2024) Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Federal Register, govinfo.gov), March 1, 202489 FR 15386, preamble, 'Receiving Qualifying Results'
“require child care providers to submit requests for background checks prior to when an individual becomes a staff member and at least once every five years.”
Claim C148 · 10:02.15Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“That was a decision. It takes one to undo it.”ConfirmedC149
“That was a decision. It takes one to undo it.” spoken
“that was a decision · it takes one to undo it” on screen
Congress set the five-year minimum in the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-186, section 7). The five-year language is in the statute, so changing it takes an act of Congress; an executive order cannot amend it, and whether HHS could require more frequent checks by regulation has not been settled.
Public Law 113-186, Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, 128 Stat. 1971 Government Publishing Office (govinfo.gov), official Statutes at Large / Public Law text, November 19, 2014sec. 7, new CCDBG 658H(d)(3)(B), 128 Stat. 1992; approved November 19, 2014
“not less than once during each 5-year period following the first submission date under this paragraph for that staff member”
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 274 KB) SHA-256 56eb83b8
More on this claim (2 more sources)
States can already require checks more often, and HHS encourages, but does not require, enrolling child care staff in Rap Back.
45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (eCFR, up to date as of September 24, 2026) Office of the Federal Register and Government Publishing Office (eCFR), Current as of September 24, 202645 CFR 98.43 source note
“81 FR 67584, Sept. 30, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 15414, Mar. 1, 2024”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (XML, 12 KB)
Improving Child Care Access, Affordability, and Stability in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), final rule, 89 FR 15366 (March 1, 2024) Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (Federal Register, govinfo.gov), March 1, 202489 FR 15385, preamble on section 98.43
“the vast majority of the requirements are established in the Act and cannot be changed through regulations.”
Claim C149 · 10:11.23Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
“FComply IDENTITY COMPLIANCE · Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. FComply · Complied ID · Foster Care Compliance System fcomply.com” on screenFComply’s statementC150
“FComply IDENTITY COMPLIANCE · Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. FComply · Complied ID · Foster Care Compliance System fcomply.com” on screen
FComply is the trade name of Federal Compliance Systems, Inc., an Oregon corporation (Oregon Secretary of State registry number 222763492), maker of Complied ID and the Foster Care Compliance System. FComply is a private company, not a government agency, and it does not speak for any agency.
Oregon Secretary of State, Corporation Division, 'Active Businesses - ALL' dataset, record for registry number 222763492 Oregon Secretary of State, Corporation Division (data.oregon.gov; updated weekly, rows updated September 22, 2026), Read September 27, 2026Record fields (principal place of business row)
“"registry_number": "222763492", "business_name": "FEDERAL COMPLIANCE SYSTEMS, INC.", "entity_type": "DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION", "registry_date": "2024-02-23", "city": "HILLSBORO", "state": "OR"”
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)
More on this claim (4 more sources)
FComply home page (live site) Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (fcomply.com), Read September 27, 2026Home page, first paragraph
“"Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (FComply) is a next-generation compliance technology company that delivers the first platform to unify proven identity verification, federal background checks, and the nation’s first foster-care compliance system."”
FComply, Terms of Use Agreement (live site) fcomply.com, Last updated May 20, 2026Title line and section 4
“"TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT • FComply, Inc." and "The Sites are the property of FComply, Inc."”
FComply, Privacy and Data Security Statement (live site) fcomply.com, Amended as of May 20, 2026Opening paragraph; 'Some Important Vocabulary'
“"including FComply.com and related websites, applications, and services operated by FComply, Inc."; "we mean FComply, Inc. or its affiliates, as applicable."”
1 more passage behind this claim: all 5 of its documents are in the source library, and every passage is in claims.json.
Claim C150 · 10:16.07Link to this claimIts documents in the source library
5 corrections and 40 places where the film needs context, as of October 4, 2026.
We found 5 places where the film goes further than the record, or against it. The film above is shown as it was approved; each correction is here and on the claim’s own card.
- 0:21
In the film (on screen): “1980s · 3 laws · 9 of 28 laws · 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act • Elder protection P.L. 100-203, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act”
Correction: the wall in the film groups this law with those that require no check. It requires one: a Medicare or Medicaid nursing home may not use anyone as a nurse aide until it has checked the state nurse aide registry, which records state findings of resident abuse, neglect and misappropriation of residents' property.
Current law extends the inquiry to every state registry the home believes has information on the person. This enactment did not impose a general criminal records or fingerprint check. Current law: 42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(b)(5)(C) and (e)(2); 42 U.S.C. 1396r(b)(5)(C) and (e)(2); 42 CFR 483.35(d)(4) and (5) (eCFR, September 24, 2026). Federal rules also bar nursing homes from employing or otherwise engaging anyone found guilty by a court of law of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property or mistreatment (42 CFR 483.12(a)(3)).
Source: Public Law 100-203, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (title IV, subtitle C, Nursing Home Reform), December 22, 1987; 101 Stat. 1330, opening block (margin: 'Dec. 22, 1987 [H.R. 3545]')
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 3.0 MB) SHA-256 af9547e3
- 0:25
In the film (on screen): “since 2010 · 8 laws · 22 of 28 laws · 2010 CAPTA Reauthorization Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 111-320”
Correction: the wall in the film groups this law with those that require no check. It kept CAPTA's requirement, a condition of CAPTA state grants, that states have procedures for criminal background record checks of prospective foster and adoptive parents and other adults in the household, and required those checks to meet the Title IV-E standard in 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20), which calls for fingerprint-based national checks and child abuse registry checks.
Current law: 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xxii).
Source: Public Law 111-320, CAPTA Reauthorization Act, December 20, 2010; 124 Stat. 3459, sec. 1 (margin: 'Dec. 20, 2010 [S. 3817]')
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 251 KB) SHA-256 9eb425a9
- 0:53
In the film (spoken and on screen): “And none of them requires anyone to publish whether the checks worked.”
No law in FComply's catalog requires States or employers to publish their screening results. One cataloged law did ask whether checks worked: section 6201 of the 2010 Affordable Care Act required the HHS Inspector General to evaluate its voluntary long-term care check program, including, to the extent practicable, its effect on abuse, neglect and theft, and to report to Congress.
Federal child care law forbids releasing individual results and allows, but does not require, aggregate data by crime (42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(2)(C)). The Inspector General wrote in 2019 that 'the data available do not permit this analysis' and in 2024 pointed to 'several indicators' of success, chiefly that States disqualified at least 106,000 prospective employees with criminal convictions. The film returns to this at 4:36.
Source: Public Law 111-148, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (section 6201; Elder Justice Act, title VI, subtitle H), 124 Stat. 119, March 23, 2010; sec. 6201(a)(7)(A)(ii)(IV), 124 Stat. 726
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 2.5 MB) SHA-256 f5112f58
- 0:58
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Start with the people the law already says must be checked before they are alone with a child, an elderly adult, or a disabled adult.”
Federal law requires checks before unsupervised work for some of these jobs: child care staff in licensed or federally funded care and Head Start staff, who may not be left alone with children until every check is back, and foster and adoptive parents, who are checked before approval. Nursing homes must search the nurse aide registry before an aide starts.
For most school, nursing home and home health jobs, criminal checks come from state law, and the rules differ, including whether a new worker can start before the results arrive. In the most recent federal surveys, 46 states required checks for public school applicants (GAO, 2014), 43 for nursing facility staff (HHS OIG, 2011) and 41 for home health staff, 26 of which let new workers start while results were pending (HHS OIG, 2014).
Source: 45 CFR 98.43, Criminal background checks (eCFR, up to date as of September 24, 2026), Current as of September 24, 2026; 45 CFR 98.43(d)(4) (govinfo annual edition p. 559)
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (XML, 12 KB) SHA-256 0ceb261d
- 4:54
In the film (spoken and on screen): “None of it is connected, and none of it follows a person to the next job or the next state.”
Clarification. Criminal records are connected: the FBI's Interstate Identification Index links the criminal history files of the FBI, all 50 states and D.C. into one national system (34 U.S.C. 40316; 28 CFR 20.3(p)). What does not connect is the check itself.
Federal rules say records received through that system "shall be used only for the purpose requested" and that a current record should be requested for a later use (28 CFR 20.33(d)). Each employer, agency and state usually runs its own check, and a result usually does not carry over to the next job. Where the FBI's Rap Back service keeps watching, the watch belongs to the agency that set it up and must be removed when that relationship ends. A child care check does not carry into another state: the provider in the new state must request new searches, including of every state the worker lived in during the past five years. Child care is a partial exception within a state, where a recent result can move with the worker to a new provider, and Texas child care reuses an active Rap Back subscription instead of taking new fingerprints.
Source: Interstate Identification Index (III) / National Fingerprint File (NFF), as of July 15, 2025, As of July 15, 2025; page 2, first paragraph
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 166 KB) SHA-256 6f1c8c22
Where the film needs context: 40 clarifications
- 0:22
In the film (on screen): “1990s · 6 laws · 15 of 28 laws · 1999 Foster Care Independence Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 106-169”
It does not require a background check to become a foster parent or to provide personal care. Separately, its title II requires Social Security, before naming someone to manage a World War II veteran's special benefit as representative payee, to investigate the person, verify identity and determine whether the person has been convicted under the Social Security Act's criminal penalty sections 208, 811 and 1632 (113 Stat. 1846 to 1847; now 42 U.S.C. 1007(b)(2), since broadened).
- 0:24
In the film (on screen): “2000s · 5 laws · 20 of 28 laws · 2008 Fostering Connections Act Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 110-351”
Requires fingerprint-based criminal records checks of relative guardians, and child abuse registry checks of relative guardians and other adults in their homes, before kinship guardianship assistance is paid, but only in states that choose to offer that assistance. The film shows it with the laws that require a check; on the film's own legend it belongs with the checks required only inside a voluntary program.
- 0:25
In the film (on screen): “since 2010 · 8 laws · 24 of 28 laws · 2014 Child Care Block Grant Act of 2014 Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 113-186”
Category: child care (the film files it under child welfare and foster care). Sec. 7 requires states that take child care block grant funds to require and conduct background checks, including an FBI fingerprint check, of covered child care staff: staff of licensed, regulated or registered providers and of providers eligible for block grant assistance, excluding relatives who care only for related children.
- 0:26
In the film (on screen): “since 2010 · 8 laws · 28 of 28 laws · 2018 Child Protection Improvements Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 115-141, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act”
Category: background-check authority (the film files it under child welfare and foster care). Told the Attorney General to build a national fingerprint check program that organizations serving children, older adults and people with disabilities may use.
- 0:48
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Most of them require no check at all.”
Most of the 28 laws in FComply's catalog require no background check. The film's legend (6, 2 and 20) left out the 2010 CAPTA amendment.
- 1:27
In the film (spoken): “most of them required by law to be checked.”
By our estimate, federal or state law requires a background check for most of these jobs: about six in ten (about 12.1 million of 19.5 million). No government body has measured this share, and the estimate is ours.
- 1:31
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Then the people a check may not reach:”
Some records are harder for a background check to find. Records from tribal justice systems and from military justice do not always reach the national databases a check searches: federal law lets tribal law enforcement use those databases (28 U.S.C. 534(d)), each tribe decides what it enters, and in 2015 and 2016 the military had not sent the FBI 31 percent of the conviction reports it was required to send when its Inspector General checked.
- 1:42
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Only one hundred and fifty-nine of five hundred and seventy-five tribes are on the national crime systems.”
159 of the 575 federally recognized tribes take part in, or have been selected for, the Justice Department's Tribal Access Program, which connects tribal governments directly to the national crime information systems (DOJ, September 18, 2026). The film's line goes further than this figure.
- 1:47
In the film (spoken and on screen): “And in 2015 and 2016, nearly a third of military convictions never reached the FBI.”
In 2015 and 2016, the military had not sent the FBI 31 percent of the court-martial conviction reports it was required to send, as of the Defense Department Inspector General's 2017 review (780 of 2,502; DODIG-2018-035, December 4, 2017). The Inspector General told the Services to send the missing reports promptly, and they agreed.
- 2:13
In the film (spoken): “so a coach who takes on a second sport starts over.”
A coach who joins another organization, for example to coach a second sport, may have to be checked again, depending on that organization's rules and the state's law. Little League accepts only its own provider's check, USSSA does not accept results from other organizations, and AYSO does not accept California fingerprints taken for other organizations.
- 2:22
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Twenty million jobs where the law expects a check.”
About 20 million jobs in five settings where the law expects at least some workers to be checked. By our estimate, federal or state law requires a check for about six in ten of these jobs (about 45 percent on the strictest reading); no government body has measured this share.
- 2:27
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Communities the records don't reach.”
Communities where records do not always reach the national systems a check searches. Tribal justice systems: 159 of 575 tribes use or have been selected for the Justice Department's direct connection, many others connect through their state, and reporting arrests and final court outcomes to the FBI's criminal history systems is voluntary, as it is for state and local agencies.
- 2:34
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Count the people who work in our schools and in child, elder, and disability care. Add the adults who mentor young people and take out the overlap. By our estimate, that's about thirty million Americans.”
About 30 million is FComply’s own estimate, not a government figure. It counts people, not jobs, with the overlap removed: about 16.9 million people whose main job is in schools, child care, home health care, nursing care, residential care or individual and family services (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, 2025 annual averages), plus about 18.3 million adults who volunteered in 2023 and mentored young people (AmeriCorps and Census Bureau Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement, tabulated by FComply with 2017 shares), less about 2.9 million who are in both groups.
- 2:47
In the film (spoken and on screen): “What too many of them share is a check done once, if at all, that stays behind when the person moves on.”
What the film means: a check is usually tied to one job and one purpose, and it does not travel with the person. Federal rules say criminal history records received from the FBI's national system "shall be used only for the purpose requested" and that a current record should be requested for a later use (28 CFR 20.33(d)).
- 2:53
In the film (spoken and on screen): “And records keep coming after the check. When Florida kept checking people it had already cleared for care work, more than thirteen hundred lost that clearance after new arrests in seventeen months.”
From January 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014 (17 months), about 4,300 care workers in Florida who had already been cleared were flagged for new arrests through the state’s continuous monitoring, and about 30 percent of them became ineligible to work, according to the HHS Inspector General. A Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services slide gives the exact counts: 4,353 flags, and 1,337 people (30 percent) who went from eligible to not eligible.
- 3:14
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Nobody keeps a national list.”
We found no national list of the people who work or volunteer in these roles, and no agency publishes a single count of them; the government counts jobs by industry and occupation, and we added those counts up ourselves. We looked at federal law and at the national systems that exist.
- 3:17
In the film (spoken and on screen): “We built these numbers ourselves from the government's own statistics.”
We built these totals ourselves, mostly from the government's own statistics. Six of the seven figures on the summary screen come from federal agencies (the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau with AmeriCorps, the Defense Department, the Justice Department's Tribal Access Program with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Defense Department Inspector General).
- 3:31
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Hiring one child care worker takes at least five separate checks, more if they have moved,”
Federal child care rules require five checks for a new worker who has lived in one state for the past five years: an FBI fingerprint check, the national sex offender registry, and the state criminal record, sex offender and child abuse registries. Each other state lived in during those five years adds three more searches, so one move makes eight; the film's counter shows that one-move case.
- 4:16
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Every check starts with an ID.”
A background check begins with the identity the applicant presents. No single federal rule requires an ID document to be checked for every employment or licensing check; in 2006 the Attorney General recommended national standards for verifying the identity of people being checked.
- 4:36
In the film (on screen): “1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting · American BioIdentity · Colorado · AD&S · Mississippi · Biometric Impressions · 3 states · DTIS · Florida · Telos · 3 states · VetConnex · 18 states”
The labels on screen show where each regional company's own website lists fixed fingerprinting locations for its FBI fingerprint service, read September 2026: 1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting (Florida); American BioIdentity (Colorado); Biometric Impressions (Illinois, Iowa and Florida); DTIS (Florida, through 50 UPS Store locations); Telos, through its IDVetting service (Florida, Virginia and New York); and VetConnex (partner locations under 18 state headings).
- 4:40
In the film (on screen): “11 serve every state”
Eleven of the nineteen say on their own websites that they serve people nationwide. Six of them say in so many words that they reach all 50 states; the other five describe nationwide partner networks, affiliate sites or mail-in service.
- 4:45
In the film (spoken and on screen): “And when a set of prints is rejected, as about three in a hundred are for Minnesota's health licensing boards,”
Minnesota's criminal background check program for its health licensing boards says fingerprint rejections occur in about 3 percent of board applicants; its 2023 tip sheet puts rejected fingerprints at about 2 percent of those received. A rejection means the prints could not be read, not that anything was found in a record.
- 5:04
In the film (spoken and on screen): “When Congress did pay to find out, more than a hundred million dollars across twenty-nine states,”
In 2010 Congress created the National Background Check Program for long-term care workers (Affordable Care Act, section 6201; 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7l), capped its federal funding at $160 million, and required the HHS Inspector General to evaluate it, including its impact on abuse, neglect and theft of residents' property 'to the extent practicable.'
- 5:08
In the film (on screen): “29 took federal · money, 2010 to 2024 · · 27 states, · DC and Puerto Rico”
Twenty-nine jurisdictions were awarded grants and took part between September 2010 and May 2024: 27 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Maryland and Wisconsin withdrew early, and Wisconsin received no federal funds, so 28 of the 29 reported spending program money.
- 5:11
In the film (spoken and on screen): “and wrote that the data available do not permit this analysis.”
In August 2019 the Inspector General wrote: 'Congress required an evaluation of the Program's impact on reducing the number of incidents of abuse, neglect, and theft. However, the data available do not permit this analysis.'
- 5:19
In the film (spoken and on screen): “A check can only find what a record shows, and about one arrest in four in the state databases has no final outcome recorded.”
Correction to the on-screen source line: the figure is in Table 1 of the survey, not Table 1a. Forty-eight states and D.C. reported that, on average, 73% of arrests in their criminal history databases had a final disposition (how the case ended) recorded as of December 31, 2022, so about 27% did not.
- 5:28
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Ninety-four percent of child molestation arrests in a twenty-year New York study were of people with no prior sex offense conviction.”
Researchers at the University at Albany studied arrests for registerable sex offenses in New York State over 21 years, from January 1986 through December 2006, using the state's criminal history files. Of child molestation arrests, 94.1 percent were of people with no earlier conviction for a registerable sex offense, so none of them would have been on a sex offender registry at the time.
- 5:46
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Nine in ten children who are harmed are harmed by a parent.”
In federal fiscal year 2024, 89.1 percent of child abuse and neglect victims confirmed by state child protective services (substantiated or indicated) were maltreated by one or both parents, sometimes acting with another person. The figure covers all types of maltreatment, most of it neglect (79.3 percent of victims), and comes from the 47 states that met the data rules for that table.
- 5:56
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Today, it cannot.”
By 'prove' we mean a record anyone can check: who was checked, when, and against which sources. No federal law we reviewed requires that, and no national dataset reports it.
- 5:58
In the film (spoken and on screen): “There is one place where the duty has a clock.”
One of these duties runs on a clock measured in hours. When a child goes missing from foster care, federal law requires the state child welfare agency to report it immediately, and in no case later than 24 hours after it receives the information (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B)).
- 6:26
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Of the children reported missing from care last year, seventeen percent were likely being trafficked.”
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a private nonprofit, reports that, of the children missing from foster care who were reported to it in 2025, 17 percent 'were identified as likely victims of child sex trafficking.' This is NCMEC's own classification, not a government finding.
- 7:54
In the film (spoken and on screen): “not five years later.”
The five years is the federal rule for child care staff: a new check at least once every five years (42 U.S.C. 9858f(d); 45 CFR 98.43(d)(2)). States may check more often, and some use Rap Back, which notifies the State when an enrolled worker is arrested or convicted.
- 7:59
In the film (spoken and on screen): “Today, one fingerprint check costs about forty dollars in Texas”
Texas: $39.75 is the price the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services publishes for a fingerprint check for a paid employee (read September 19 and September 27, 2026). Its breakdown still lists an FBI fee of $13.25; the FBI fee has been $12.00 since January 1, 2025, so the same parts add up to $38.50.
- 7:59
In the film (spoken and on screen): “In the states that publish a price, the average is about sixty dollars,”
About $60 is FComply's estimate, not a government figure. It is the simple (unweighted) average price of one state and FBI fingerprint check across the 46 states where we could build a complete price from the state's published fees, from October 1, 2026: $60.10 (median $56.88).
- 8:06
In the film (spoken and on screen): “In the states that publish a price,”
46 is our count, not an official one. We counted a state when we could build a complete price for one state and FBI fingerprint check from fees the state publishes.
- 8:47
In the film (spoken and on screen): “And because a person proves who they are once, a parent who coaches three sports enrolls once renews for ten dollars a year instead of paying for three separate checks.”
This is arithmetic on published fees, not a measured saving, and the example is hypothetical. Three fingerprint checks at our 46-state average (mostly prices for paid child care and school workers) would cost about $180 from October 1, 2026.
- 8:59
In the film (spoken and on screen): “His order tells Health and Human Services to modernize the states' child welfare information systems,”
The order directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take appropriate action, within 180 days, to 'promote modernization of State child-welfare information systems and use of the most effective foster care management and outcome-tracking platforms' (Executive Order 14359, section 2(a)(ii)). The systems are the states'.
- 8:59
In the film (spoken): “President Trump has already started this.”
What 'this' means in the film: modernizing state child welfare systems. The per-person payment described just before this line is FComply's proposal; no federal program pays FComply today, and FComply has not been endorsed by the President or HHS.
- 9:37
In the film (spoken and on screen): “The president can direct him to finish it,”
This is the film's ask. The law gives this rule to the attorney general and makes it mandatory: 'The Attorney General shall, by rule, establish the criteria' (34 U.S.C. 40102(f)(2)(C)).
- 9:59
In the film (spoken): “A child cannot leave a system that has lost track of them.”
This line is the film's argument, not a finding of any report: an agency needs to know where the children in its care are, including children who go missing, if it is to help them leave care well.
Claims about FComply that only FComply can support: 12
- 6:45
In the film (on screen): “Create a new account · multifactor authentication · VERIFY YOUR IDENTITY · LIVENESS · CERTIFIED · DONE”
The enrollment screens in the film are a demonstration (an animation from FComply’s earlier film), not a recording of the live app. The word CERTIFIED on those screens is not a label the app will use on its own: at launch, the person’s phone will show ENROLLED at sign-up, SCREENING COMPLETED when the checks come back, and CERTIFIED COMPLIANT, issued by FComply, a private company, only when the whole process is finished.
- 6:46
In the film (spoken): “instead of a day spent hunting for a fingerprint counter.”
Federal agencies' own estimates of the time it takes to get fingerprinted, made for other programs, run from about one hour to almost four hours, depending on the program and the travel. It can take longer: Washington child care providers reported three-hour round trips and repeat visits after poorly taken prints.
- 6:56
In the film (spoken and on screen): “One proven person,”
FComply's screening step is designed, not yet live. An FBI check needs fingerprints and runs only through an authorized government agency, where a law authorizes it for that job; FComply does not search FBI records on its own.
- 7:09
In the film (spoken and on screen): “A clean record comes back in about ten to fifteen minutes.”
At launch, FComply expects the screening process to take about 10 to 15 minutes on average, and longer if a record needs adjudication. Complied ID is in development, so this is FComply’s expectation, not a measured result, and it can apply only to checks that answer electronically.
- 7:19
In the film (spoken and on screen): “That is how the right person is cleared and the wrong label never sticks to the wrong person.”
Complied ID is in development. As designed, it aims to catch a record that belongs to someone else before it is reported, and the person can see and dispute any record before a decision is made. No screening process can promise zero errors.
- 7:26
In the film (spoken and on screen): “One Complied ID that can be verified, from the Little League field to the classroom to the nursing home, and across a state line without starting over.”
One Complied ID that another organization can verify with a scan, in any state, without the person proving who they are again. 'Verified' means the identity is confirmed; it does not mean the person is cleared to work.
- 7:47
In the film (spoken and on screen): “And it stays current. FComply rescreens every person every year, so a new record reaches the people who need to know,”
FComply's design, not yet live: every enrolled person is rescreened every year, through authorized agencies and with the person's written consent, so a new result reaches the organizations entitled to it. In federally funded child care, the employer learns only whether the person is still eligible, not the record itself (42 U.S.C. 9858f(e)(2)).
- 8:15
In the film (spoken): “FComply is not asking for a grant.”
FComply no longer uses this line. What FComply asks for is that the President direct the Attorney General to finish the national background check program Congress ordered in 2018, under the Child Protection Improvements Act, and FComply intends to compete to be one of the designated entities that run its checks.
- 8:15
In the film (spoken and on screen): “It is offering a price, in two parts. For a coach, a teacher, or a company that pays its own way, forty-nine dollars to enroll, then ten dollars a year as offered.”
Complied ID price, as offered by FComply on October 2, 2026: $49 to enroll, government fees included, then $10 a year to renew. Complied ID is being built and will work at launch, so this is the price FComply states for when it launches. This is FComply’s offer, not an independent finding.
- 10:03
In the film (spoken): “The same proven identity, the same record on a foster parent's phone.”
The Foster Care Compliance System is FComply's product, and this description is FComply's own. FComply says that, as designed, foster parents and other adults in the home prove their identity once through Complied ID, and the same verified identity and record are used for check-ins on the foster parent's phone.
- 10:05
In the film (spoken and on screen): “A photo, a time, a place, and a caseworker who sees a missed check-in the same day.”
The check-in and alert screens in this scene demonstrate the Foster Care Compliance System as FComply designed it; the date and times shown are illustrative. As FComply describes the design, a check-in records a photo, the time and the place, and a missed or failed check-in is flagged to the agency the same day so that staff can follow up; a missed check-in is not by itself a finding that a child is missing.
- 10:18
In the film (spoken): “It runs on the same technology.”
FComply says the Foster Care Compliance System is built on the same platform as Complied ID. This is the company's description; no independent technical assessment was supplied for this page.
6 figures in the film are estimates. Each is shown with its inputs, the arithmetic and what it does not measure.
1:09“A million and a half work in child care.”
- What the record shows
About 1.5 million jobs in child care, by our estimate: 1,088,200 in child care centers (BLS, August 2026, preliminary) plus an estimated 414,000 to 491,000 childcare worker jobs that the BLS wage survey does not count, most of them self-employed providers or workers in private homes (our arithmetic from two BLS sources; the film's 1.58 million uses the upper figure). These are jobs, not people.
- What it is not
Federal law requires every state that takes federal child care funds to check the staff of each licensed, regulated or registered provider and of each provider eligible to be paid with those funds, except relatives caring only for related children (42 U.S.C. 9858f; 45 CFR 98.43). Outside those groups, federal law sets no general background check requirement for privately hired nannies or informal sitters; whether a check is required depends on the program, the state and the position.
- Source
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, Table B-1, row 'Child care services', column 'Seasonally adjusted, Aug. 2026 (p)', in thousands
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
Claim C039 · Confirmed, with context
1:26“Roughly twenty million jobs,”
- What the record shows
Together these rows add to 19,481,370 jobs, roughly 20 million. This is our own composite estimate, the sum of BLS and NCES figures from different surveys and dates (industry payroll jobs, an estimate of home-based child care jobs, and a count of private school teachers in full-time equivalents); no agency publishes this total.
- How it was built
Row in the film Jobs Child care centers 1,088,200 Home-based child care (estimate) 491,390 Local government education 8,193,800 Private school FTE teachers 517,780 Nursing and residential care 3,495,700 Home health 1,896,400 Individual and family services 3,798,100 Sum 19,481,370 - What it is not
These are jobs, not people: 5.4 percent of employed Americans held more than one job in August 2026 (BLS, The Employment Situation, Table A-9, seasonally adjusted), and no source measures how many of these jobs are second jobs, so the number of people is somewhat lower by an amount we cannot state.
- Source
The Employment Situation, August 2026: Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail, Table B-1 rows used in C039 to C043 (Aug. 2026, seasonally adjusted, preliminary)
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 277 KB) SHA-256 f40dc613
Claim C044 · Confirmed, with context
1:27“most of them required by law to be checked.”
- What the record shows
By our estimate, federal or state law requires a background check for most of these jobs: about six in ten (about 12.1 million of 19.5 million). No government body has measured this share, and the estimate is ours.
- How it was built
FComply's own estimate (not a published figure). Each of the five spoken rows (19,481,370 jobs) is split into pieces, and each piece is assigned the strongest legal footing that a primary source establishes for it. State coverage shares are weighted by where the jobs are, using QCEW 2025 private employment by state.
Piece Jobs Strongest legal footing a primary source shows Child care services (centers) 1,088,200 Federal statute and rule: 42 U.S.C. 9858f(a) and 45 CFR 98.43(a) require checks of staff at every licensed, regulated or registered provider and every provider paid with CCDF funds.
License-exempt centers that take no subsidy fall outside; no count of them was found.Public K-12 schools (local government education minus community colleges) 7,716,742 State law in nearly every state: 46 states required background checks of all public school applicants (GAO-14-42, survey of May to July 2013); national checks for teachers were run in all 50 states and DC (SEARCH/BJS 2020).
Community college jobs removed = QCEW 2025 local government NAICS 6112 (398,028) + 6113 (79,030) = 477,058 (different period from the August 2026 CES figure; ESTIMATE). Four states lacked an all-applicant rule in the 2013 survey; not weighted out.Skilled nursing care facilities 1,590,200 Federal regulation 42 CFR 483.12(a)(3) bars employing people with disqualifying findings, which HHS OIG (2025) reads as implicitly requiring a background check in every Medicare and Medicaid nursing home; separately, 43 of 51 states required a criminal check (HHS OIG, 2009 data).
On the state-law reading alone, the 8 states without a law (AL, CO, CT, HI, MT, ND, SD, WY) held 99,970 of 1,547,697 private nursing jobs in 2025 (6.46 percent), leaving 1,487,485.Home health care services 1,896,400 State law, weighted: 41 states required home health agencies to run checks in 2014 (40 a criminal check; Tennessee registries only). No federal requirement (HHS OIG 2014).
States with none (AL, CT, GA, HI, MT, NJ, ND, SD, WV, WY) held 141,675 and Tennessee 23,560 of 1,803,516 private home health jobs in 2025 (9.16 percent), leaving 1,722,655. This is an upper bound: 13 states covered only certain individuals.Not established (counted as not required) 7,363,573 Home-based child care estimate 491,390 (licensed family child care providers and subsidized providers are covered by 45 CFR 98.43, nannies and unlisted sitters are not); community colleges 477,058; private school FTE teachers 517,780 (13 states covered private school staff fully or conditionally in 2010); assisted living 1,026,900; residential disability, mental health and substance abuse 705,700; other residential care 172,900 (children's group homes are covered under Title IV-E, count unknown); home health in states without a criminal check law 173,745; individual and family services 3,798,100 (no federal requirement for personal care attendants; background checks were the most common state requirement in 2006, count of states not established).
Some of these jobs are covered by state rules that no fifty-state source counts, so this piece understates coverage.The share on each reading:
- Strictest floor (child care centers plus public K-12 only): 8,804,942 jobs = 45.2 percent
- Floor plus all nursing homes (HHS OIG reading of 42 CFR 483.12): 10,395,142 jobs = 53.4 percent
- Central (adds home health in the 41 states with a check law): 12,117,797 jobs = 62.2 percent (alternative with nursing weighted to state laws: 12,015,082 = 61.7 percent)
Jobs: BLS CES August 2026 (preliminary) and QCEW 2025. Legal counts: 2009 (nursing), 2010 and 2013 (schools), 2014 (home health), 2020 (teacher checks). These are the newest fifty-state federal counts found; state laws have changed since.
- What it is not
The requirement comes from different places: federal law for child care staff in licensed or federally funded care (42 U.S.C. 9858f; 45 CFR 98.43), state laws for public school, nursing home and home health workers, and a federal nursing home rule that bars hiring people with certain abuse findings (42 CFR 483.12(a)(3)). On the strictest reading, counting only child care centers and public schools, it is about 45 percent. The state counts come from federal surveys of 2009 to 2014, the newest fifty-state counts; when we re-weight using a 2025 peer-reviewed study's coding of state long-term care laws in force through 2024, our result is nearly the same. The table below shows each group of jobs, the law we relied on for it, and the jobs we counted as not covered.
- Source
42 U.S.C. 9858f, Criminal background checks (Child Care and Development Block Grant Act; added by Pub. L. 113-186, sec. 7), 42 U.S.C. 9858f(a)(1) and (i)(1)
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (HTML, 165 KB) SHA-256 79666d1d
Claim C045 · Confirmed, with context
6:19“Nationally, that is an estimated thirty-five thousand times in two and a half years.”
- What the record shows
Projecting from its sample, OIG estimated that 34,869 episodes (47 percent) were never reported to NCMEC, out of 74,353 episodes lasting 2 calendar days or longer in the 46 states that supplied data, July 2018 to December 2020. This is a statistical estimate: OIG's 90 percent confidence interval runs from 26,802 to 42,936.
- What it is not
It counts episodes, not children, and one child can go missing more than once (HHS OIG, A-07-21-06102, pp. 4 to 5 and 16 to 18).
- Source
HHS Office of Inspector General, State Agencies Did Not Always Ensure That Children Missing From Foster Care Were Reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Accordance With Federal Requirements, A-07-21-06102, printed p. 5, Findings (also p. 7 and Report in Brief)
OriginalArchived copyOur copy (PDF, 1.6 MB) SHA-256 f9124da8
Claim C102 · Confirmed, with context
7:59“In the states that publish a price, the average is about sixty dollars,”
- What the record shows
About $60 is FComply's estimate, not a government figure. It is the simple (unweighted) average price of one state and FBI fingerprint check across the 46 states where we could build a complete price from the state's published fees, from October 1, 2026: $60.10 (median $56.88).
- What it is not
Before October 1 it is $57.16. We used the child care price where a state publishes one, and otherwise the state's school, health care or general employment price. For 33 states we assumed the FBI's $3 increase is passed on. The price is counted whoever pays it; in at least 17 states the state, not the worker, pays for child care checks. Every state's price, source, saved copy and date read is in the table below.
- Source
FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division; User Fee Schedule (Notice), FR Doc. 2026-11435, 91 FR 34655, DATES and the Fingerprint-Based CHRI Checks table
OriginalArchived copy (same document, equivalent address)Our copy (PDF, 190 KB) SHA-256 d83b0791
Claim C120 · Confirmed, with context
8:47“And because a person proves who they are once, a parent who coaches three sports enrolls once renews for ten dollars a year instead of paying for three separate checks.”
- What the record shows
This is arithmetic on published fees, not a measured saving, and the example is hypothetical. Three fingerprint checks at our 46-state average (mostly prices for paid child care and school workers) would cost about $180 from October 1, 2026.
- What it is not
Volunteer coaches in the national youth sport programs we checked pay far less, or nothing, and those programs' pages do not mention fingerprints: Little League gives each league 125 free checks, then $1.50 each, paid by the league; U.S. Soccer charges $24 for two years; USA Swimming charges $30 every other year. Where a coach must be fingerprinted (for example school coaches in Maine), state prices apply, and the FBI's volunteer rate is $13.00 from October 1, 2026. Complied ID, as offered, is $49 to enroll, government fees included, then $10 a year to renew. 'Every sport, every state' is FComply's goal: today each league and state sets its own rules, some accept only their own screening provider, and federal rules limit reusing FBI results for a different purpose.
- Source
J.D. Palatine (JDP) and Sports Connect Integration FAQs, Q: Am I able to use the 125 free background checks that my league receives through JDP?
Claim C127 · Confirmed, with context
The source library: every document behind the claims, with the original, an archived copy and, for federal documents, our own unchanged copy.
The primary-source rule, and a second, independent check of every claim.
- The film
- 151 claims, every sentence and every piece of on-screen text that states a fact
- The primary document, read and quoted
- A blind second check by another AI model
- A review of the film’s exact words against the law
- A completeness check of every source, pin and quote
- This page
We listed every sentence and every piece of on-screen text in the film that states a fact as a claim, 151 in all. For each one we found the primary document (the statute, regulation, executive order, audit report or government data table), read the sentence or table cell that supports it, and saved a copy with the date and a fingerprint of the file (a SHA-256 hash).
A second AI model then checked every claim without seeing our answer or our sources. Where the two disagreed, we went back to the document and settled it there; where the second model found a source we had missed, we read it ourselves before using it. A separate review read the film’s exact words against the law and wrote the qualifier each claim needs. A final pass checked every claim for a source, a page or section, a quote and a saved copy.
The research was done by two AI models working for FComply: Anthropic’s Claude and OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra. It is not an independent audit, and we made the film we are checking. That is why every claim links to its document: you do not have to take our word for any of it.
The rules we held to
- Primary sources first: statutes, regulations, executive orders, federal reports and data, court records, state statutes and agency pages.
- A news or advocacy source is context only, and is labeled so.
- A claim is confirmed only when we have read the words at the source.
- Estimates are labeled as estimates, with their inputs.
- An arrest is not a conviction, and people with records are never called threats.
- Claims about FComply are FComply’s statements, and are labeled that way.
What we could not check: 6
- C070 (One person’s account): This is one applicant's account, shared with the film's producers in September 2026 and shown with his name withheld. When his errand took place is not recorded, and his account cannot be checked from public records.
- C111 (FComply’s statement): At launch, FComply expects the screening process to take about 10 to 15 minutes on average, and longer if a record needs adjudication. Complied ID is in development, so this is FComply’s expectation, not a measured result, and it can apply only to checks that answer electronically.
- C112 (FComply’s statement): Complied ID is in development. As FComply is building it, when a record may belong to someone else, a trained person will review it to confirm whether it belongs to this person before anything is reported. Deciding whether someone may work with children stays with whoever the law or the organization names; in federally funded child care and in foster care, that is the state.
- C113 (FComply’s statement): Complied ID is in development. As designed, it aims to catch a record that belongs to someone else before it is reported, and the person can see and dispute any record before a decision is made. No screening process can promise zero errors.
- C124 (FComply’s statement): FComply no longer uses this line. What FComply asks for is that the President direct the Attorney General to finish the national background check program Congress ordered in 2018, under the Child Protection Improvements Act, and FComply intends to compete to be one of the designated entities that run its checks.
- C125 (FComply’s statement): Complied ID price, as offered by FComply on October 2, 2026: $49 to enroll, government fees included, then $10 a year to renew. Complied ID is being built and will work at launch, so this is the price FComply states for when it launches. This is FComply’s offer, not an independent finding.
The narration, 112 sentences, each with the moment it is spoken, and the text shown on screen.
Timed to the approved render. Lines marked “On screen” are the text the film shows; captions carry the same narration.
- 0:00Last November, President Trump signed an order to fix how this country looks after the children in its care.
- 0:02NOVEMBER 13, 2025 Executive Order 14359 Fostering the Future for American Children and Families Federal Register, 90 FR 52227
- 0:06Most of what it takes to protect them and the elderly and disabled Americans who also depend on strangers was written into law long ago.
- 0:15Here is how much of it there is.
- 0:18SINCE 1965 28 federal laws
- 0:18One in the '60s, five in the '70s, three in the '80s, six in the '90s, five in the 2000s, eight since 2010.
- 0:181960s · 1 law · 1 of 28 laws · 1965 Older Americans Act • Elder protection P.L. 89-73
- 0:191970s · 5 laws · 2 of 28 laws · 1973 Rehabilitation Act • Disability rights P.L. 93-112
- 0:191970s · 5 laws · 3 of 28 laws · 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 93-247
- 0:191970s · 5 laws · 4 of 28 laws · 1975 Developmental Disabilities Act Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act • Disability rights P.L. 94-103
- 0:201970s · 5 laws · 5 of 28 laws · 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act • Disability rights P.L. 94-142
- 0:201970s · 5 laws · 6 of 28 laws · 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 95-608
- 0:201980s · 3 laws · 7 of 28 laws · 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 96-272
- 0:211980s · 3 laws · 8 of 28 laws · 1986 Protection and Advocacy Act Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act • Disability rights P.L. 99-319
- 0:211980s · 3 laws · 9 of 28 laws · 1987 Nursing Home Reform Act • Elder protection P.L. 100-203, in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
- 0:221990s · 6 laws · 10 of 28 laws · 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act • Disability rights P.L. 101-336
- 0:221990s · 6 laws · 11 of 28 laws · 1993 National Child Protection Act • Background-check authority P.L. 103-209
- 0:221990s · 6 laws · 12 of 28 laws · 1994 Multiethnic Placement Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 103-382, in the Improving America's Schools Act
- 0:221990s · 6 laws · 13 of 28 laws · 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 105-89
- 0:221990s · 6 laws · 14 of 28 laws · 1998 Volunteers for Children Act • Background-check authority P.L. 105-251, title II, subtitle B
- 0:221990s · 6 laws · 15 of 28 laws · 1999 Foster Care Independence Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 106-169
- 0:232000s · 5 laws · 16 of 28 laws · 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act • Human trafficking P.L. 106-386, division A
- 0:232000s · 5 laws · 17 of 28 laws · 2003 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 108-36
- 0:232000s · 5 laws · 18 of 28 laws · 2003 Long-Term Care Screening Pilot Long-Term Care Screening Pilot, section 307 • Elder protection P.L. 108-173, in the Medicare Modernization Act
- 0:242000s · 5 laws · 19 of 28 laws · 2006 Adam Walsh Act Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 109-248
- 0:242000s · 5 laws · 20 of 28 laws · 2008 Fostering Connections Act Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 110-351
- 0:25since 2010 · 8 laws · 21 of 28 laws · 2010 Elder Justice Act and section 6201 • Elder protection P.L. 111-148, in the Affordable Care Act
- 0:25since 2010 · 8 laws · 22 of 28 laws · 2010 CAPTA Reauthorization Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 111-320
- 0:25since 2010 · 8 laws · 23 of 28 laws · 2014 Preventing Sex Trafficking Act Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 113-183
- 0:25since 2010 · 8 laws · 24 of 28 laws · 2014 Child Care Block Grant Act of 2014 Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014 • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 113-186
- 0:25since 2010 · 8 laws · 25 of 28 laws · 2015 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act • Human trafficking P.L. 114-22
- 0:25since 2010 · 8 laws · 26 of 28 laws · 2017 Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act • Elder protection P.L. 115-70
- 0:26since 2010 · 8 laws · 27 of 28 laws · 2018 Family First Prevention Services Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 115-123, in the Bipartisan Budget Act
- 0:26since 2010 · 8 laws · 28 of 28 laws · 2018 Child Protection Improvements Act • Child welfare and foster care P.L. 115-141, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
- 0:26Every decade added its own.
- 0:30Laws for older Americans, for people with disabilities, for children in foster care, for the victims of trafficking, and for the background check itself, each one a new promise stacked on the last.
- 0:31older Americans people with disabilities children in foster care victims of trafficking the background check itself · each one a new promise, stacked on the last
- 0:39Laws for older Americans, for people with disabilities, for children in foster care, for the victims of trafficking, and for the background check itself, each one a new promise stacked on the last.
- 0:431960s · 1 law 1970s · 5 laws 1980s · 3 laws 1990s · 6 laws 2000s · 5 laws since 2010 · 8 laws · 28 of 28 laws · 2018 · Child welfare and foster care Child Protection Improvements Act P.L. 115-141, in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
- 0:43Twenty-eight federal laws since 1965.
- 0:4428 federal laws since 1965 · 1965
- 0:48Requires a check · 6 require a check 2 only inside a voluntary program 20 require none · 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act 2003 Keeping Children and Families Safe Act 2003 Long-Term Care Screening Pilot 2006 Adam Walsh Act 2008 Fostering Connections Act 2010 Elder Justice Act and section 6201 2014 Child Care Block Grant Act of 2014 2018 Family First Prevention Services Act
- 0:48Most of them require no check at all.
- 0:50And none of them requires anyone to publish whether the checks worked.
- 0:50Continuous monitoring not one of the twenty-eight makes continuous monitoring the rule · 1965 1973 1974 1975 1975 1978 1980 1986 1987 1990 1993 1994 1997 1998 1999 2000 2003 2003 2006 2008 2010 2010 2014 2014 2015 2017 2018 2018
- 0:53Screening results published none of the twenty-eight requires anyone to publish whether the checks worked
- 0:58Who do all those laws reach?
- 0:58Who do all those laws reach? · start with the people the law already says must be checked before they are alone with a child, an elderly adult or a disabled adult
- 1:00Start with the people the law already says must be checked before they are alone with a child, an elderly adult, or a disabled adult.
- 1:09WHERE THE LAW EXPECTS A CHECK · = one million jobs · 1.58M child care · 8.71M the schools · 3.50M nursing and residential care · 1.90M home health · 3.80M individual and family services · roughly twenty million jobs · Source line: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 · BLS OEWS, 2025 · NCES · child care includes home-based providers
- 1:09A million and a half work in child care.
- 1:13More than eight and a half million work in the schools.
- 1:16Three and a half million in nursing and residential care.
- 1:20Nearly two million in home health.
- 1:23Nearly four million in family services.
- 1:26Roughly twenty million jobs, most of them required by law to be checked.
- 1:31Then the people a check may not reach: three point seven million American Indians and Alaska Natives, and a million and a half military family members.
- 1:32AND THE ONES THE CHECK MAY NOT REACH · = half a million people · 3.7M American Indians and Alaska Natives, 2020 Census Bureau, 2020 Census, alone · 1.5M active-duty military family members Department of Defense, 2024 Demographics Profile · Source line: Census Bureau, 2020 Census, American Indian and Alaska Native alone · Department of Defense, 2024 Demographics Profile, 1,495,107 active-duty family members
- 1:34Then the people a check may not reach: three point seven million American Indians and Alaska Natives, and a million and a half military family members.
- 1:42WHERE THE RECORDS DO NOT REACH · 159 of 575 tribes on the national crime systems Tribal Access Program Department of Justice, 2026 · 31% military conviction reports never reached the FBI 2015 and 2016 DoD Inspector General · Source line: DOJ, Tribal Access Program, September 18, 2026 · BIA, 575 federally recognized tribes · DoD OIG, DODIG-2018-035, 2017
- 1:42Only one hundred and fifty-nine of five hundred and seventy-five tribes are on the national crime systems.
- 1:47And in 2015 and 2016, nearly a third of military convictions never reached the FBI.
- 1:55Then the ones federal law covers only narrowly.
- 1:55THE ONES FEDERAL LAW COVERS ONLY NARROWLY · = ten million people · 75.7M Americans volunteered in 2023 Census Bureau, 2023 · 6.9M coach youth team sports SFIA, 2026 · some leagues will not accept the check another league already ran · Source line: Census Bureau, November 19, 2024 · SFIA, September 24, 2026 · AYSO (California Live Scan) · Pacific Northwest Swimming
- 1:58Seventy-five million Americans volunteered in twenty twenty-three, many of them with children and through nonprofits, and nearly seven million people coach youth team sports.
- 2:09Some leagues will not accept the check another league already ran, so a coach who takes on a second sport starts over.
- 2:17Nearly nine in ten youth sports parents say a coach should pass a check.
- 2:17NEARLY NINE IN TEN PARENTS · 88% say a coach should pass a background check · Source line: Aspen Institute, State of Play 2025
- 2:22WHAT THEY HAVE IN COMMON · 20M jobs where the law expects a check · 3.7M American Indians and Alaska Natives 1.5M active-duty military family members · 159 of 575 tribes on the national crime systems 31% military conviction reports never reached the FBI · 75.7M volunteers · some roles require checks 6.9M coach youth team sports · Source line: BLS CES and OEWS, 2025 and 2026 · Census 2020 and 2023 · DoD, 2024 · DOJ Tribal Access Program, 2026 · DoD OIG, 2017 · SFIA, 2026 · the offer: FComply, as offered
- 2:22Put it all together.
- 2:23Twenty million jobs where the law expects a check.
- 2:27Communities the records don't reach.
- 2:30Tens of millions volunteer.
- 2:31Some roles require checks.
- 2:34Count the people who work in our schools and in child, elder, and disability care.
- 2:34THE FINAL TALLY · people who work in schools and care adults who mentor young people communities and record gaps · not added people, not jobs · overlap removed OUR ESTIMATE about 30M work in schools and care, or mentor young people not a count of people with records · Source line: FComply estimate · BLS CPS 2025: 16.9M people, main job in schools and care · AmeriCorps and Census CEV: 18.3M adults who mentored youth (2017 shares, 2023 volunteers) · 2.9M in both removed
- 2:38Add the adults who mentor young people and take out the overlap.
- 2:43By our estimate, that's about thirty million Americans.
- 2:47What too many of them share is a check done once, if at all, that stays behind when the person moves on, and records keep coming after the check.
- 2:47WHAT TOO MANY OF THEM SHARE · about 30M work in schools and care, or mentor young people our estimate · not a count of people with records a check done once, if at all, that stays behind · Source line: FComply estimate · BLS CPS 2025: 16.9M people, main job in schools and care · AmeriCorps and Census CEV: 18.3M adults who mentored youth (2017 shares, 2023 volunteers) · 2.9M in both removed
- 2:55AFTER THE CHECK · records keep coming FLORIDA KEPT CHECKING 17 months, 2013 to 2014 1,337 cleared for care work, then found ineligible after new arrests · Source line: HHS OIG, OEI-07-10-00420, Jan 2016, p. 9 · CMS National Background Check Program, Sep 3, 2015, slide 36 · Florida state records; Florida’s rules count pending arrests
- 2:57When Florida kept checking people it had already cleared for care work, more than thirteen hundred lost that clearance after new arrests in seventeen months.
- 3:06That is the opportunity: one proven identity, rescreened every year, wherever the person goes.
- 3:07THE OPPORTUNITY · FComply · one proven identity rescreened every year wherever the person goes · Source line: BLS CES and OEWS, 2025 and 2026 · Census 2020 and 2023 · DoD, 2024 · DOJ Tribal Access Program, 2026 · DoD OIG, 2017 · SFIA, 2026 · the offer: FComply, as offered
- 3:08That is the opportunity: one proven identity, rescreened every year, wherever the person goes.
- 3:14Nobody keeps a national list.
- 3:15Nobody keeps a national list. built from the government’s own statistics
- 3:17We built these numbers ourselves from the government's own statistics.
- 3:21TODAY how the check works
- 3:21Here is how the check works today.
- 3:24Fifteen and a half million times a year, someone is fingerprinted for a job or a license.
- 3:25FINGERPRINTED FOR A JOB OR A LICENSE, IN ONE YEAR · 15,543,500 noncriminal fingerprint records processed by state repositories, 2022 · records, not people · Source line: BJS and SEARCH, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022, table 1a
- 3:31HIRING ONE CHILD CARE WORKER · at least 8 checks +3 · FBI fingerprints national sex offender registry state criminal record state sex offender registry state child abuse registry · prior state criminal record prior state sex offender registry prior state child abuse registry · every state runs them differently · Source line: 5 checks for a worker who never moved, 3 more for each other state lived in, past five years · 42 U.S.C. 9858f(b) · 45 CFR 98.43(b)
- 3:31Hiring one child care worker takes at least five separate checks, more if they have moved, and every state runs them differently.
- 3:39HHS ACF INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON CHILD SAFETY, 2022 · nineteen states · 19 states, including the District of Columbia, as of January 2022 · 18 states and D.C. · staff may start before either check comes back all other states · D.C. · Source line: HHS ACF, Interagency Task Force on Child Safety, Report to Congress, 2022, Appendix B, Table 3
- 3:39A federal review in 2022 found nineteen states let child care staff start work before either background check came back.
- 3:49ONE APPLICANT’S ACCOUNT, 2026. NAME WITHHELD. · 1st stop a shipping store no fingerprints taken anymore · 2nd stop another store no fingerprints taken anymore · 3rd stop the sheriff’s office no fingerprints taken anymore · he asked the police whether the only way was to be arrested · the result two weeks or more · Source line: Washington DSHS, resubmitted prints: up to two weeks · Ohio Attorney General, complicated cases: up to 30 days · Illinois State Police, held inquiries: 30 to 45 days
- 3:49Getting printed is its own errand.
- 3:51One man we know sent for a fingerprint check, went to a shipping store, then another, then the sheriff's office, and none of them took fingerprints anymore.
- 4:00He asked the police whether the only way was to be arrested.
- 4:04And once the prints are taken, a result can take two weeks or more.
- 4:09WASHINGTON CHILD-CARE PROVIDERS, MAY 27, 2022 · 3 hours round trip to be fingerprinted · providers’ first-hand reports · Source line: Fair Start for Kids Act Temporary Licensing Subcommittee, Emergency Recommendation: Background Checks, May 27, 2022
- 4:09In Washington State, child care providers reported three-hour round trips just to get fingerprinted.
- 4:16Every check starts with an ID · ID · Federal investigators put it to the test · Using false identities and counterfeit papers · FALSE IDENTITY COUNTERFEIT · They applied for real U.S. passports · 9 of 11 real U.S. passports issued · ISSUED DENIED · They tried for driver’s licenses · 5 of 5 driver’s licenses issued 3 states · Source line: GAO-09-447 (2009) · GAO-10-922T (2010) · GAO-12-893 (2012) · / federal undercover tests with false identities
- 4:16So federal investigators put it to the test.
- 4:21Using false identities and counterfeit papers, they applied for real U.S. passports.
- 4:25Using false identities and counterfeit papers, they applied for real U.S. passports.
- 4:26The government issued one nine times out of eleven.
- 4:29They tried for driver's licenses five times, in three states.
- 4:32They were issued a license every time.
- 4:35Nineteen companies are approved to send fingerprints to the FBI, alongside the states' own programs.
- 4:35GETTING FINGERPRINTED · APPROVED TO SEND PRINTS TO THE FBI · 19 companies 11 serve every state · 1A Tampa Livescan Fingerprinting Florida American BioIdentity · Colorado AD&S · Mississippi Biometric Impressions · 3 states DTIS · Florida Telos · 3 states VetConnex · 18 states · Source line: FBI Compact Council, approved channelers, February 2, 2026 · coverage: company / websites, September 2026 · fieldprint.com · Minnesota health licensing boards
- 4:41GETTING FINGERPRINTED · APPROVED TO SEND PRINTS TO THE FBI · 19 companies 11 serve every state · 1,900+ collection sites Fieldprint’s own count · Source line: FBI Compact Council, approved channelers, February 2, 2026 · coverage: company / websites, September 2026 · fieldprint.com · Minnesota health licensing boards
- 4:41And when a set of prints is rejected, as about three in a hundred are for Minnesota's health licensing boards, the applicant goes back and does it again.
- 4:47GETTING FINGERPRINTED · APPROVED TO SEND PRINTS TO THE FBI · 3 in 100 rejected · Minnesota health licensing boards · Source line: FBI Compact Council, approved channelers, February 2, 2026 · coverage: company / websites, September 2026 · fieldprint.com · Minnesota health licensing boards
- 4:54None of it is connected, and none of it follows a person to the next job or the next state.
- 4:54none of it is connected · and none of it follows a person to the next job or the next state
- 5:00So twenty-eight laws later, does any of it work?
- 5:00TWENTY-EIGHT LAWS LATER does any of it work?
- 5:04HHS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, 2019 AND 2024 · $111 million across 29 states · 29 took federal money, 2010 to 2024 · 27 states, DC and Puerto Rico · 11 assessed by the Inspector General, 2019 · “the data available do not permit this analysis” · “the data available do not permit this analysis” · Source line: HHS OIG OEI-07-24-00100, November 2024 · OEI-07-18-00290, August 2019
- 5:04When Congress did pay to find out, more than a hundred million dollars across twenty-nine states, the inspector general looked at eleven of them in 2019 and wrote that the data available do not permit this analysis.
- 5:19A check can only find what a record shows, and about one arrest in four in the state databases has no final outcome recorded.
- 5:19A check can only find what a record shows · for every 100 arrests in the state databases, 2022 · 27% of arrests in the state databases have no final outcome recorded · about one in four, 2022 · Source line: BJS and SEARCH, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2022, table 1a: 73% carry a final disposition
- 5:28Ninety-four percent of child molestation arrests in a twenty-year New York study were of people with no prior sex offense conviction.
- 5:2894% no prior sex offense conviction of child molestation arrests · New York State, 1986 to 2006 Sandler, Freeman and Socia, 2008 · 106,000+ disqualified for criminal convictions federal long-term care background check program, 2010 to 2024 HHS OIG · 9 in 10 harmed by a parent of substantiated child victims · 47 states, FFY2024 HHS Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2024 · A background check was never going to be safety.
- 5:37Checks still stop some: one federal program for care workers disqualified more than a hundred thousand people with criminal records.
- 5:39Checks still stop some: one federal program for care workers disqualified more than a hundred thousand people with criminal records.
- 5:46Nine in ten children who are harmed are harmed by a parent.
- 5:49A background check was never going to be safety.
- 5:53What it can be is a duty the government can prove it met.
- 5:54WHAT IT CAN BE a duty the government can prove it met
- 5:56Today, it cannot.
- 5:56TODAY it cannot
- 5:58WHEN A CHILD GOES MISSING FROM FOSTER CARE · one place where the duty has a clock · the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children NCMEC · the police · 24 hours the state has 24 hours to tell both · Source line: 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(35)(B) · the reporting duty in force since September 29, 2016
- 5:58There is one place where the duty has a clock.
- 6:01When a child goes missing from foster care, the state has twenty-four hours to tell the police and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
- 6:11100 SAMPLED FILES, ONE SQUARE EACH · JULY 2018 TO DECEMBER 2020 · 45 never reported to the Center 22 reported late 33 reported on time · Source line: HHS OIG A-07-21-06102, March 2023
- 6:11Federal inspectors pulled one hundred of those files.
- 6:15In forty-five, no one ever told the center.
- 6:19Nationally, that is an estimated thirty-five thousand times in two and a half years.
- 6:20ESTIMATED TIMES A CHILD WENT MISSING FROM CARE AND THE CENTER WAS NEVER TOLD · 34,869 estimated episodes, not children · of 74,353 episodes, children missing from care two days or longer, July 2018 to December 2020, 46 states · projected from the 100 sampled files · Source line: HHS OIG A-07-21-06102, March 2023
- 6:26OF THE CHILDREN REPORTED MISSING FROM CARE IN 2025 · ONE SQUARE IS 1 PERCENT · 17% identified as likely victims of child sex trafficking of 23,348 reports to NCMEC in 2025 · Source line: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2025 Impact Report
- 6:26Of the children reported missing from care last year, seventeen percent were likely being trafficked.
- 6:33It does not have to work this way.
- 6:33It does not have to work this way.
- 6:36FComply's Complied ID has the first part built and the rest designed.
- 6:37Complied ID FComply · Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. · built as designed
- 6:42A person proves who they are once, from their own phone, in about ten minutes, instead of a day spent hunting for a fingerprint counter.
- 6:43an enrollment demonstration with sample personal data (not reproduced here)
- 6:50A real license, matched to the live face in front of the camera, tied to their phone.
- 6:56ONE PROVEN PERSON · FIVE KINDS OF CHECK · FBI criminal history, through an authorized agency · sex offender registries · state criminal records · child abuse and neglect registries · adult protective registries, where the state keeps one · proven person · Source line: the checks: FComply, as offered · they depend on the job and the state / 42 U.S.C. 9858f(b) · 42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)
- 6:56One proven person, checked against the records the law calls for: federal criminal history, sex offender registries, state criminal records, and abuse registries, as each state requires.
- 7:09A clean record comes back in about ten to fifteen minutes.
- 7:09A CLEAN RECORD COMES BACK · a clean record the checks run at once · as fast as 10 minutes a clean record comes back about 10 to 15 · Source line: the 10 to 15 minutes and adjudication: FComply, as offered
- 7:13A record that needs a closer look goes through adjudication, to make sure it is the right person.
- 7:13A CLEAN RECORD COMES BACK · a closer look a second path · adjudication a person checks it is the right person · the right person · Source line: the 10 to 15 minutes and adjudication: FComply, as offered
- 7:19That is how the right person is cleared and the wrong label never sticks to the wrong person.
- 7:19A CLEAN RECORD COMES BACK · cleared the right person · the wrong label never sticks to the wrong person · Source line: the 10 to 15 minutes and adjudication: FComply, as offered
- 7:26One Complied ID that can be verified, from the Little League field to the classroom to the nursing home, and across a state line without starting over.
- 7:26FComply IDENTITY COMPLIANCE Complied ID Jordan Ellis Share CERTIFIED DONE · Scan to verify Scanning CANCEL · Complied ID Verified Jordan Ellis Today, 4:21 PM DONE
- 7:37California Texas · Same Complied ID
- 7:42THE CHECK RUNS ON A PROVEN PERSON · a proven person · not a name that may not be theirs · Source line: Complied ID: FComply, as offered
- 7:42The check runs on a proven person, not on a name that may not be theirs.
- 7:47AND IT STAYS CURRENT · FComply TODAY · 01 rescreened every year · 02 a new record reaches the people who need to know · 03 the next check, five years later · Source line: yearly rescreen: FComply, as offered · today: / rechecked once in five years, 42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)
- 7:49FComply rescreens every person every year, so a new record reaches the people who need to know, not five years later.
- 7:56Now the money, because you will ask.
- 7:56BECAUSE YOU WILL ASK now, the money
- 7:59Today, one fingerprint check costs about forty dollars in Texas and a hundred and four dollars and fifty cents in New York.
- 7:59ONE FINGERPRINT CHECK TODAY · $39.75 Texas, a paid employee · $104.50 New York, one teacher · about $60 average of the 46 states that publish a price, from October 1, 2026 · Source line: Texas DFPS, September 19, 2026 · NYSED, February 2, 2026 · state fee pages, September 25, 2026 · 91 FR 34655 (FBI fee $15 from October 1, 2026)
- 8:06In the states that publish a price, the average is about sixty dollars, and a new job or a new state can mean paying again.
- 8:15FComply is not asking for a grant.
- 8:15PEOPLE WHO PAY THEIR OWN WAY · a price, in two parts coaches, teachers, companies, volunteers · $49 to enroll · $10 a year after that · Source line: the price: FComply, as offered
- 8:18It is offering a price, in two parts.
- 8:20For a coach, a teacher, or a company that pays its own way, forty-nine dollars to enroll, then ten dollars a year as offered.
- 8:30PROPOSED PUBLIC PAYMENT ROUTE · THE PEOPLE foster parents, child-care staff, publicly funded caregivers · WHO PAYS WHOM a federal program paying FComply per proven person · THE ROUTE directly, not through the states · instead of another grant to the states to build another system · Source line: the route: FComply, as proposed
- 8:30For the people whose checks public money already helps pay for, foster parents, child care staff, publicly funded caregivers, a federal program that pays FComply for each proven person directly, instead of another grant to the states to build another system.
- 8:47And because a person proves who they are once, a parent who coaches three sports enrolls once renews for ten dollars a year instead of paying for three separate checks.
- 8:47ARITHMETIC ON PUBLISHED FEES, NOT A VERIFIED SAVING · a person proves who they are once · today: one parent, three sports three checks at about $60 each = about $180 average of the 46 states that publish a price · with Complied ID $49 to enroll, then $10 a year every sport, every state as offered · $49 $10 · Source line: arithmetic on published fees: average of 46 states, about $60 from October 1, 2026 · FComply $49 and $10 a year, as offered · not a verified saving
- 8:59EXECUTIVE ORDER 14359, SECTION 2(A)(II), (III) AND (IV) · promote modernization of State child-welfare information systems · expand States’ use of technological solutions, including predictive analytics and tools powered by artificial intelligence · publish annually a scorecard · signed November 13, 2025
- 8:59President Trump has already started this.
- 9:02His order tells Health and Human Services to modernize the states' child welfare information systems, to put new technology to work, and to publish a scorecard on every state every year.
- 9:15Its first dashboard came out in January with seven measures.
- 9:17THE FIRST DASHBOARD, JANUARY 26, 2026 · 01 maltreatment in foster care · 02 recurrence of maltreatment · 03 permanency in 12 months, entering care · 04 permanency in 12 months, in care 12 to 23 months · 05 permanency in 12 months, in care 24 months or more · 06 re-entry to foster care · 07 placement stability · seven measures · not one asks whether a missing child was reported · add the eighth · PROPOSED missing child reported within 24 hours
- 9:19Not one asks whether a missing child was reported.
- 9:22Add the eighth.
- 9:25In 2018, Congress told the attorney general to build a national background check program within a year.
- 9:25THE 2018 NATIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK PROGRAM · 2018 Congress gives it a year · 2019 the deadline, March 23 · 2023 a proposed rule, August 25 · 2026 final rule date: to be determined · DOJ regulatory agenda · 2026 the President can finish it · the ask · Source line: seven years past the deadline · sequence not to scale
- 9:31Seven years past that deadline, the rule to run it is still not final.
- 9:37The president can direct him to finish it, and the same law requires him to choose organizations outside the federal government to review the results.
- 9:46That is the work FComply exists to do, and it intends to earn that designation.
- 9:47THE STATUTE · designate organizations outside the federal government to review the results · FComply intends to earn that designation · 34 U.S.C. 40102(f)(2)(A)
- 9:53FIRST LADY MELANIA TRUMP’S INITIATIVE · Fostering the Future for young people leaving foster care · Source line: Executive Order 14359, section 3, signed November 13, 2025
- 9:53First Lady Melania Trump's Fostering the Future initiative is for young people leaving foster care.
- 9:59A child cannot leave a system that has lost track of them.
- 10:03The same proven identity, the same record on a foster parent's phone.
- 10:05FComply WHEREABOUT + CHECK-IN · PHOTO ACCEPTED Date: 9/10/25 Time: 5:59pm · LOCATION VERIFIED · SUBMIT
- 10:08A photo, a time, a place, and a caseworker who sees a missed check-in the same day.
- 10:125:12 · Check-in missed
- 10:15FComply · Check-in missed · Scheduled 5:00 pm Foster parent did not confirm she is with the child Caseworker notified 5:12 pm
- 10:18It runs on the same technology.
- 10:19FComply FOSTER CARE COMPLIANCE SYSTEM · START
- 10:20It is the Foster Care Compliance System.
- 10:24This country already runs continuous checks on millions of people for other jobs.
- 10:29FEDERAL LAW, CHILD CARE STAFF · 5 years · a new check · once every five years · Source line: 42 U.S.C. 9858f(d)
- 10:30For the child care worker alone in a room with a child, federal law requires a new check only once every five years.
- 10:39That was a decision.
- 10:39that was a decision
- 10:41It takes one to undo it.
- 10:41it takes one to undo it
- 10:43FComply IDENTITY COMPLIANCE · Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. FComply · Complied ID · Foster Care Compliance System fcomply.com
Sources last checked September 27, 2026. We never delete a correction.
If you think something here is wrong, email info@fcomply.com or use the contact form, with the claim number (for example C101) and what you found. We check every report against the source. When a record changes, the change, the date and the reason are listed below, and the claim card says so. We never delete a correction.
Changes
- September 27, 2026: the page is built from the checked research. FComply’s decisions of that day are applied to claims C104, C106, C108, C111, C112, C113, C124 and C125.
- October 2, 2026: claims C052 and C061 are now listed as corrections, and the records of C052, C061 and C062 are revised. No federal law requires every volunteer to be background checked, but federal rules do require checks of volunteers in specific programs, so the film’s lines at 1:55 and 2:30 go further than the record.
- October 4, 2026: the page now carries the October 4, 2026 export of the film, 10 minutes 49 seconds, which replaces the 10 minute 22 second version, and every time on this page was re-measured against it. The film’s lines about volunteers changed ("Then the ones federal law covers only narrowly" and "Tens of millions volunteer. Some roles require checks."), so claims C052 and C061 are no longer corrections and now read Confirmed, with context; the October 2 note above stays as the record of why. The offer on the screen and in the voice is now $49 to enroll, then $10 a year, as offered (claims C125 and C127). The film says "people", not "adults", who coach youth team sports (C055, whose clarification is retired). Two claims are new: C151 (the estimate of about 30 million people who work in schools and care or mentor young people) and C152 (Florida, 2013 to 2014). The transcript and the list of text shown on screen were rebuilt from the new file.
Sources last checked September 27, 2026. This page reviews the approved render of Proven Once (10:49, SHA-256 8287729b). The film on this page is a web encoding of that render: proven-once-16x9.mp4 (SHA-256 e5d9e1c7) and proven-once-16x9-720.mp4 (SHA-256 9a176796). Every hosted file is listed with its fingerprint in SHA256SUMS.txt.
Who publishes this page, what it is not, and how the documents are used.
- This page and the film are published by Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. (FComply).
- Nothing here is legal advice. Laws, rules and fees change; check the current text of a law or a fee before relying on it.
- FComply is not affiliated with, and this film and page are not endorsed by, the White House, the Office of the First Lady, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Administration for Children and Families, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Government Accountability Office, any Inspector General, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children or any other body whose documents are cited here. Their names identify their documents.
- The presenter and the narrator’s voice are generated with AI. Some scenes are generated or stock footage and are illustrations. The app screens show sample data. The applicant’s account at 3:21 is shared anonymously and cannot be checked (claim C070).
- What FComply offers, in its own words; each line is on its claim card:
- Product status (claim C104): FComply now describes all of Complied ID as being built, and it will work at launch. Step 1 will prove who a person is (an ID document check, a live face match with a liveness check, and device and account checks); Step 2 will run the background checks, followed by a rescreen every year.
- Price (claim C125): Complied ID price, as offered by FComply on October 2, 2026: $49 to enroll, government fees included, then $10 a year to renew. Complied ID is being built and will work at launch, so this is the price FComply states for when it launches. This is FComply’s offer, not an independent finding.
- Timing (claim C111): At launch, FComply expects the screening process to take about 10 to 15 minutes on average, and longer if a record needs adjudication. Complied ID is in development, so this is FComply’s expectation, not a measured result, and it can apply only to checks that answer electronically.
- Documents: works of the United States government are in the public domain (17 U.S.C. 105) and are hosted here unchanged, with the date retrieved and a SHA-256 fingerprint of each file; some contain third-party images that keep their own rights. State, court, company and other documents are linked, with an Internet Archive copy where one exists, and are not hosted. Archived copies are kept by the Internet Archive.
- The film is copyright 2026 Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. Other organizations’ names and marks are used only to identify them.
- Corrections: see the policy above.
Protect the vulnerable and build trust at scale.
© 2026 Federal Compliance Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.