Concerning information collected for a background check by entities that provide non-employment-based educational opportunities.
House Bill 26-1143 limits when entities may require a Social Security number for a background check tied to a non-employment-based educational opportunity. If an entity requires a Social Security number as a condition of participation, it must also accept an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) in its place. The bill specifically covers opportunities such as unpaid volunteer roles, unpaid internships, unpaid pre-apprenticeships, and unpaid clinical experiences, including clinical placements required for graduation or licensure in health-related academic programs.
The bill creates exceptions for certain settings. Licensed or certified hospitals and covered schools do not have to accept an ITIN, but must allow a fingerprint-based background check instead. State institutions of higher education and local district colleges must accept either an ITIN or a fingerprint-based background check for opportunities involving work with vulnerable populations. The bill also allows Social Security numbers to be required when needed by state or federal law, grant requirements, certain compliance programs, or some financial-account verification situations. It excludes employment positions from its scope and does not prevent compliance with federal immigration-related eligibility law.
The bill authorizes the attorney general to enforce the new requirements through civil action and imposes civil penalties of $2,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for subsequent violations. Penalty revenue is directed to the Immigration Legal Defense Fund. It also sets out procedures for fingerprint-based checks, including use of local law enforcement or approved third parties, submission to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and FBI, and special handling when an arrest record lacks a disposition.
Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as an access-and-equity measure, with the legislative declaration emphasizing that immigration status should not be a barrier to educational and training opportunities when public safety can still be protected through existing background-check systems. The available context shows no recorded committee transcript debate or vote detail, but the bill ultimately passed and was signed by the governor, suggesting it had sufficient support to advance through the legislature.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the balance between expanding access for individuals who lack a Social Security number and preserving background-screening and compliance requirements for schools, hospitals, and health-related placements. The carveouts for hospitals, covered schools, higher education institutions, grants, and financial institutions indicate concern about operational, legal, and safety constraints, while the civil penalties and attorney general enforcement provisions suggest a strong compliance focus.
The bill adds a new section to Colorado law governing background checks for non-employment-based educational opportunities and amends the attorney general’s powers to include enforcement authority. It affects entities such as nonprofits, volunteer organizations, schools, colleges, hospitals, clinics, telemedicine providers, and other organizations that require background checks for internships, volunteer work, clinical placements, or similar opportunities. It also creates a new civil penalty structure and directs enforcement and penalty proceeds to the Immigration Legal Defense Fund.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure reflect generally supportive sentiment toward expanding access to education and training for people who do not have Social Security numbers, especially in health-related and volunteer settings. The absence of recorded committee testimony or vote detail limits direct evidence of opposition or support, but the bill’s enactment suggests it was not broadly controversial enough to block passage. The inclusion of multiple exceptions and alternative screening methods indicates an effort to address public-safety and compliance concerns while preserving the bill’s access goals.
The central tension is between preventing exclusion from educational and training opportunities and maintaining background-check integrity for vulnerable-population settings. Opponents or cautious stakeholders would likely focus on administrative burden, compliance with federal and state law, and safety screening in hospitals, schools, and clinical placements. Supporters would emphasize that name-based, fingerprint-based, and ITIN-based checks can adequately protect public safety without forcing applicants to disclose a Social Security number. The bill’s exceptions for certain institutions and legal requirements show where those concerns were most acute.