The Department properly approved 56 (93 percent) of 60 license applications tested, based on the results of applicants’ criminal history checks, as required by statute.
In addition, the Department appropriately followed statute when it denied five other applications. However, while the Department was able to (1) document the date and whether
an applicant “passed” or “failed” the criminal history check in its licensing system and (2) provide criminal history checks for purposes of the audit for the 56 applications tested,
it could not provide documentation to support its approval of the other four applications. Specifically:
The Department could not provide the results of the criminal history checks for three license applications.
A criminal history check for the remaining applicant returned an undisclosed criminal charge in another state.
The Department could not provide documentation to show how it verified that the criminal offense did not disqualify the applicant.
The Department uses a third-party vendor to identify updates in licensees’ criminal histories. However, the Department did not document when those updates to criminal
histories were reviewed or whether any new criminal charges were identified during those reviews. In addition, the Department acknowledged that it did not consistently
remove people from its monitoring list whose licenses have expired.
Jump to Chapter 1