S0996 amends South Carolina Code section 63-13-190, which governs fingerprint-based background checks for certain Department of Social Services (DSS) personnel and contractors. The bill narrows the existing language by removing a provision that specifically required a state fingerprint-based background check for a person who has direct unsupervised contact with a child in DSS custody, while preserving the broader background-check framework for volunteers and contractor or subcontractor employees providing child welfare and related services.
Under the bill, covered individuals connected to DSS-contracted services such as protective services, family preservation, foster care, reunification, and adoption services remain subject to fingerprint-based checks through both the State Law Enforcement Division and the FBI. The bill also continues to bar employment, volunteer service, or access to a child in DSS custody for anyone convicted of, or who pled guilty or nolo contendere to, crimes listed in section 63-13-40(A). The act takes effect upon gubernatorial approval.
Impact
The bill updates the statutory background-check requirements in section 63-13-190 of the South Carolina Code by removing one specific state-check provision while leaving the rest of the screening regime intact. It affects DSS contractors, subcontractors, volunteers, and other child welfare service personnel who have contact with children in DSS custody, and it continues to rely on both state and federal fingerprint-based criminal history checks for those covered workers. The bill does not appear to change the disqualifying offenses or the general prohibition on access by persons with certain criminal convictions.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition: the Senate passed second reading 43-0, and the House passed the bill 110-0. With no committee transcript available, the overall sentiment appears to be broadly favorable and noncontroversial, suggesting lawmakers viewed the measure as a technical or clarifying update to DSS screening rules rather than a major policy shift.
Contention
No explicit points of contention are reflected in the available record. The only potentially notable issue is the bill’s narrowing of the background-check language for persons with direct unsupervised contact with children in DSS custody, which could raise questions about whether the change reduces redundancy, aligns the statute with existing practice, or alters screening obligations in any meaningful way. However, the unanimous votes indicate that any such concerns were not significant enough to generate recorded opposition.