employeescreenIQ helping those in need!

The employeescreenIQ philanthropy committee is at it again! I was very impressed when I opened yesterdays edition of the Cleveland Plain Dealer and saw some of our employees on the front page of the Metro Section. Taking a break from doing background checks our team wasFlipping For Food,a fund raiser that we participated in to help raise money for the Cleveland Food Bank.

Nightmare for applicants and screening firms

Not sure how to describe this one, but a recent headline in the Cleveland Plain Dealer could pose a nightmare for us all. Summit County Cases Proceeded Without Formal Charges. My wife actually found this one this morning reading our edition of the Plain Dealer, this one hits closer to home because we live in Summit County! When the prosecution virtually ignores the Grand Jury and Prosecutions Nolle Prosequi status and charges the individual anyway, where is the Due Process? How in the world would an employment screening company and, or an employer adjudicate the results of a background check when the case should not have been indicted in the first place? Food for thought, I know the answer but its a good starting point for some good old fashioned commenting to this post!! Comment away!

The Ohio State University Admits Three Sex Offenders

So three of my esteemed colleagues emailed me this story which was published in Ohio State's student newspaper which reveals that three graduate students were admitted to the school with even though they were registered sex offenders. At the time of admission the school did not ask those that applied to enroll at the university if they had been convicted of a felony "in the past several years" as it now does.

Each person who emailed me the story wondered whether I would fry my own Alma Mater for this lapse in security the way that I have other academic institutions (see previous blog posts)over the past several months. The answer is yes and no.

One of these grad students was a teaching assistant who worked directly with students. Therefore, I'm towing the line on this one. There is no excuse whatsoever for a university not to conduct a background check at least on those that are charged with the education of its students. Furthermore, the school doesn't claim that the loop hole has been closed by now requiring background checks. It says that it closed the loophole by asking if they had been convicted of a felony. Are you joking me? How many of those with felonies are going to answer honestly? There is no excuse for not requiring a background check.

I don't know what to make of the remaining grad students who were characterized as "research associates" and didn't have any supervision over others. I guess that falls into my next opinion or lack thereof about the next topic that arises from this article: Should schools conduct background checks on students? This question is being contemplated in many circles now and could be an emerging trend in the near future.

I'm sure most would expect me to immediately say "yes" to that question since I am in the business of providing background checks. I can see how knowing of particular offenses would cause a university to question a prospective student's suitibility for enrollment. Let's look at a couple of things. Most undergrads that enroll are 18 or under. What would a background check reveal? I know juvenile records cannot be used for employment, so I would assume that couldn't be used for this purpose either. Next, what type of offense would constitute being denied admission and how can it be applied consistently? Until I get a clearer understanding of how a background check would be executed, what sources would be utilized and how decisions are made, I'm staying on the fence.

Next question. Should grad students be treated differently than their undergraduate counterparts? Maybe. Certainly if they are teaching other students. Even if they are not, grad students are typically older than undergraduates and arguably have higher standards for admission. The older part helps as far as providing a bigger picture for potential criminal records.

Since I have copped out a bit on this issue by not taking a side, I would like to invite your opinion or expertise on this subject. What do you think? And by the way, no comments about our heartbreaking loss to the Illini last weekend. We'll bounce back against the enemy to the North this Saturday.

GSA Contrators Given Access to Information Systems without Background Checks

I realize that our government is so large that often things slip through the cracks, but how can it happen that the General Services Administration let contract workers have access to their information systems without being subjected to a background check?

IG: GSA contractors get system access before background checks

This excerpt from the article says it all: In its audit, the IG said current safeguards do not guarantee that officials will complete investigations before granting access to agencies’ information systems. Even security measures mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, which requires credentials for all federal employees and government contractors after they have undergone a background check, does not offer that protection.

In this day and age, information systems are a treasure trove to those with nefarious motives. How can our government not recognize that and take our security more seriously? Shouldn't there be some accountability here?

Background Checks for Teachers Not Cutting It

I just put my daughter on the school bus to go to kindergarten for the very first time and I actually made it through without having to be restrained from accompanying her or from being put in a straight jacket. As I drove to work, I thought about all the people we as parents entrust our children to when they go to school. Teachers, school administration, the bus driver, maintainance workers, etc. Because I am in the business of employment screening, I am acutely aware of the substandard searches required by the states and executed by the schools. So obviously I was looking at an excuse to rail on the system as I have for some time now. Only now, it's very real to me and very personal.

Imagine my surprise (not!) when I saw this article where the State Auditor in Missouri says more thorough background checks need to be conducted. I am impressed that an employee in this state is actually admitting that there is a problem and trust me when I tell you that this problem exists in every state. They say that they've used the state mandated FBI Check and a Central Registry Child Abuse Search, but it's not enough. And they're 100% right. It's not enough for anyone working with children.

So why hasn't anyone done anything up to this point? Two reasons: enlightenment that the methods the state imposes is just one resource and does not constitute a thorough check. Secondly, and here's the big one: funding. Where will they get the money to conduct a thorough check? It seems to me that if a state can fund bridges and road construction, not to mention pork barrel spending attached to every bill, that surely they could find a budget that wouldn't cost more than $100 per school worker. Relatively speaking, the total annual spend would be a drop in the bucket.

Here's hoping someone takes action.

Broward County Florida Bilked for $2 million: Forgot to Conduct a Background Check

Now this is brilliant. Broward County in South Florida began instituting background checks for new employees, but didn't think to go back to those that were already working within the organization. As a result, a woman that was already employed managed to steal over $2 million from the county. Had they performed a background check, they would have seen that she already had a conviction for Grand Theft on her record. Below is a link to the article published in the Miami Herald.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/189757.html

Don't Punish Employers: Criminal Background Checks are Vital Part of the Hiring Process

The Cleveland Plain Dealer recently pusblished a story, Ex-cons need jobs, but bill that would seal their records goes too far , which describes a State of Ohio Senator's efforts to have certain criminal records, including felonies wiped off convicts records so that they can find better jobs. I am not so delusional to think that this a one-sided story, but as an employment screener and a business owner I can't help but think that this solution just punishes employers and dilutes the deterrance of committing a crime. I wrote the following letter to the editor which was then cut down and published. Rather than give you the condensed published version, I thought I would post the un-edited version here.

I am deeply concerned about how a new piece of legislation proposed by State Senator Shirley Smith (Senate Bill 197), which would allow certain felonies to be expunged, will affect our state’s employers. As a both and employer in the state of Ohio and a professional employment screener, we are charged by corporations, large and small, with obtaining any existing criminal records on their job applicants. Obtaining this type of background is necessary because it allows a decision-maker to qualify their applicants. It also allows them to protect their company from the potential risks of hiring those who have a criminal past that would affect their ability to perform a specific job function. Failing to factor in a candidate’s criminal past represents a major liability to employers.

We see it every day — an employee commits a crime while at work that negatively affects a co-worker, customer or vendor. The crime victim files a lawsuit against the employer. It is then discovered the employer failed to perform an adequate background check and the jury rewards the defendant millions at the cost of the employer — this is in addition to the billions of dollars employers lose each year to internal theft. While the cost of a lawsuit or theft can be overcome, the negative publicity and loss of public confidence cannot.

The senator will argue that this measure will apply only to those certain felony offenses that she deems not to be harmful to employers. I contend that a felony conviction is a felony conviction, regardless of the crime and that if it wasn’t a serious crime, than it wouldn’t be prosecuted as a felony. How does this affect employers? If a record is expunged, then it ceases to exist on an individual’s criminal record. When a background check is conducted, that record cannot be found, therefore cannot be factored into an employer’s hiring decision. This leaves the employer twisting in the wind.

Employers are not unchecked when it comes to conducting background checks and acting on adverse information. They must consider the various attributes of the conviction and the individual that committed them; what type of crime was committed, how long ago did it take place, is the person a repeat offender, etc. It is not acceptable for employers to simply adopt a policy with no tolerance for past transgressions. Perhaps a small group of employers have done so and it is my recommendation that rather than hamstring our state’s employers with the inability to properly evaluate job applicants, that Senator Smith propose funds for educating employers on how to make proper hiring decisions and holding them accountable in the isolated incidents when they run afoul of the law.
Remember that a background check is an acceptable tool for determining a candidate’s qualifications and suitability for employment. There is a job out there for everyone including those with past transgressions. Just don’t inhibit the ability of employers to make an informed decision.

Social Networking Sites and Employment Screening Continued

The debate about the use of social networking sites as an acceptable means for evaluating potential employees continues to grow. We remain opposed to this practice, but rather than write volumes on why we reject it, thought it made sense to provide a quick illustration.

Amy Polumbo was recently crowned Ms. New Jersey and seeks to become Miss America. As most young adults do, she posted non-pornographic pictures of herself with her friends on her private Facebook site. Yes, some were a bit risque, but overall they were benign pictures of a college aged woman having fun with her friends. Someone has gained access to these photos and threatened to blackmail her with them. Rather than give in, she decided to release them herself as you will see in her interview with Matt Lauer from the Today Show.

No, she wasn't being considered for a job, but one person putting their own spin on these photos and attempting to portray Polumbo in a negative light threatened her ability to attain the position of Ms. America. It's easy to draw a correlation to how such a thing can happen in the employment environment. It doesn't even have to be a blackmail situation. All it takes is an Internet savvy individual browsing a social networking site and then whatever is found can be interpreted in many different ways.

Who's Guarding the Henhouse?

Who's guarding the guards.  According to this article written by the Associated Press and posted on Yahoo private security guards charged with protecting us from terrorist attacks are both underpaid and not properly vetted.  Setting aside the pay scale, let's address the concerns with background checks.  Yes, it is of major concern that these guards are not undergoing a thorough and effective check before they are charged with protecting us.  And yes, there should be regulations for doing so.  However, has anyone noticed that when the government starts to regulate in this area, they fall far short of the intended goal?  If you are going to regulate, then put some teeth behind the effort and require not just a background check, but a stringent background check that doesn't involve an internet search at cheapinstantbackgroundchecks.com (made up company).  To do anything short of this is to create a false sense of security.

While I do agree with the premise that background checks should be performed, I have some concerns with the author of this article for the implication that "criminal records" should disqualify those seeking employment.  This is a slippery slope for any employer and an unfair practice.  Each record should be evaluated on its own merit or lack thereof and then considered for how the past transgression would impact the applicant's ability to perform well with integrity.

Bottomline, there is no excuse for employing a security guard without executing a thorough and effective background check.  Without it you must ask "who's guarding the henhouse". 

Database Searches Strike Again: Ask Home Depot

Home Depot Rescreens Workers Sent into Homes.  This story posted by WCVB in Boston chronicles another instance where an inexpensive database search ended up costing a national organization far more than they anticipated.  Bottom-line, whatever short cuts they were taking in the background screening process didn't reveal that they were hiring a violent sex offender and placing him in people's homes.  Thankfully, no one was hurt, but if Home Depot had to do it all over again I'm guessing they would have spent the money to do a proper background check rather than trying to rebuild its image in a major US city.