EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

No background check is created equal. If you haven’t heard this before, this simply means that there is no standard background check that will be sufficient for every job candidate or industry. It’s up to each company’s policy or hiring manager to determine if a candidate should have a criminal background check (and if that includes county, state, etc.), employment verification, education verification, etc. However, one industry in which this is especially complicated is education, and any organization that cares for children.

With frequent news stories of teachers or day care employees found with criminal records, it’s clear that many schools and child care centers lack a solid structure for their background screening process. Due to the fact that there isn’t a standard employee background check, each school district, county or state determines its own regulations for background checks. Each may use different background screening companies or another method for their background checks. In the instance that a criminal record is missed, it’s not that a background check wasn’t completed, but most likely the record wasn’t found in the first place. And while there is currently no way to regulate all child care centers and schools, steps are being taken to increase safety within at least one area-federally funded child care centers.

As an example, we posted a blog in December of last year about 31 military day care workers who passed background checks, and it was later discovered that they had criminal records. Considering stories like this, it’s without question that steps should be taken to create stronger background checks in order to protect children, in both schools and child care centers. When someone entrusts their child’s life to a stranger, a background check should not be an option, but a requirement. Not only is the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services taking action to improve employee background checks in federally funded child care centers, but they are taking additional steps to ensure overall safety.

[...]

Continue Reading

Today’s employers are faced with a growing dilemma: whether or not to use social media to screen job candidates.

EmployeeScreenIQ’s latest article, “Screening Job Candidates via Social Media: Reckless Practice or Savvy Strategy?” takes on this timely topic and offers you invaluable insights into three key areas of legal risk that accompany the use of these sites. This article also features advice for employers who do want to use social media for screening candidates, to ensure you won’t find yourself or your company in legal trouble.

For example, one guideline to consider when using social sites:

Don’t ask candidates for passwords. It’s already illegal to request passwords in six states, and 21 additional states are considering similar legislation. Asking for passwords may also damage your company’s reputation (if candidates start spreading the word) and its employment brand, making it harder for you to engage and hire top talent.

Don’t miss out on these 7 Do’s and Don’ts! Get your copy of “Screening Job Candidates via Social Media: Reckless Practice or Savvy Strategy?”

Download a complimentary copy today!

Related Content from EmployeeScreenIQ:

• Register for our upcoming webinar, The Risks & Rewards of Screening Job Candidates Through Social Media,on Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM EDT.
• Watch our latest Quick Takes video series release:  Is a Candidate’s Profile Picture Worth a Thousand Words?

Continue Reading

As an employer, it’s important to follow the proper procedure when it comes to hiring ex-offenders. Ban the box legislation has continued to spread in various cities, municipalities and states, necessitating employers to stay up-to-date on what they can and cannot do in a criminal background check. Employers should always keep in mind that even if an applicant has a criminal past, they could still qualify for the job.

However, there are positions that ex-offenders should not qualify for, due to the nature of the job. One example that may be obvious-someone who is a sex offender should not be hired to work in a school or with children. In California, many cases have been uncovered in which both sex offenders and ex-offenders have easily gained jobs as substance abuse counselors-a position that carries a higher degree of responsibility due to the nature of their relationship with clients. With that, certain criminal records should disqualify individuals from working as counselors-if a background check were completed.

Due to the fact that California is one of two states that do not require drug & alcohol counselors to have a background check in order to work as a counselor, it’s easy to see how they have slipped through unnoticed. While there are organizations that certify and register counselors, they do not require background checks, nor do counselors have to self-report if they are arrested.

[...]

Continue Reading

One of my favorite all-time posts is the story we wrote about Chester Ludlow who was awarded a diploma from Rochville University in 2009.  What made it so great?  Chester Ludlow is a dog and Rochville University is a diploma mill used by those without real degrees to pull the wool over unsuspecting hiring managers’ eyes when they conduct employment background checks.  Now, Chester wasn’t really looking to fool anyone.  His owner thought it would be funny to expose this fake university.

Unfortunately, the new diving coach at Indiana University was not so pure of heart when he applied for his position.  Apparently, IU was not fooled by Drew Johansen’s “white lie” and decided to hire him anyway. [...]

Continue Reading

EmployeeScreenIQ’s Weekly Wrap Up features content we post throughout the week with the latest updates and trends within the background screening industry. We know you might not have time to keep up with our blog throughout the week, so take a few minutes to read the highlights from the EmployeeScreenIQ blog. Earlier this week we posted, Should Employers Ask Candidates for Their Facebook Passwords? in relation to the recent bill that was passed by Congress, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). You’ll also find a post on our second Quick Takes video release, Is Your Background Screening Company a Fraud or the Real Deal? discussing what you need to know when evaluating or re-evaluating your background screening company. Lastly, we covered the FTC’s warning to ten data broker companies, stating that they are at risk for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, FTC Puts Background Screening Companies on Notice for Possible Privacy Violations.

Should Employers Ask Candidates for Their Facebook Passwords? 

The U.S. Congress recently passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which helps individuals protect their right to privacy and prohibits an employer from impersonating an employee online when other employees are interacting across social media platforms.  Removed from this bill at the last minute was a provision that would have banned employers from asking job candidates and employees for their social media passwords. Given the public sentiment on this issue, not to mention the media outcry, this omission is a big surprise to me. Read More

Is Your Background Screening Company a Fraud or the Real Deal? 

Background screening companies exist to help employers find reliable and trustworthy employees. Do you know what qualities you should evaluate when seeking a provider? Our experts discuss the fundamental requirements that should be on your checklist-whether you’re seeking a provider for the first time or re-evaluating your screening program. Jason, Nick and Kevin discuss several topics, including the notion of an “apples to apples” comparison, the importance of accreditation and how to separate marketing claims from the real deal. Read More

FTC Puts Background Screening Companies on Notice for Possible Privacy Violations

The Federal Trade Commission recently sent letters to ten data broker companies warning that their practices could violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) after a test-shopping operation by the FTC indicated the background screening companies were willing to sell consumer information without abiding by FCRA requirements. Read More 

Continue Reading

The Federal Trade Commission recently sent letters to ten data broker companies warning that their practices could violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) after a test-shopping operation by the FTC indicated the background screening companies were willing to sell consumer information without abiding by FCRA requirements.  It’s unclear what requirements they are accused of violating, but the commission included the following commentary in the release:

“Data broker companies that collect, distribute or sell this information are considered consumer reporting agencies under the FCRA, meaning they must reasonably verify the identities of their customers and make sure that these customers have a legitimate purpose for receiving the information. This requirement ensures that the privacy of sensitive consumer report information is protected. Of the 45 companies contacted by FTC staff in the test-shopper operation, ten appear to violate the FCRA by offering to provide the information without complying with the law’s requirements.”

In other words, background screening companies need to engage in proper due diligence to ensure they know who they are doing business with and establish that the entity has a permissible purpose to obtain the information.  Much of this information can be established through a compliant User Agreement.  But beyond the agreement are taking the proper steps to verify the information provided — things like conducting a 3rd party site inspection of the client’s place of business, independently verifying the client’s physical address, their phone number and the type of business they are engaged in.

According to the FTC release, “staff members posed as individuals or representatives of companies seeking information about consumers to make decisions related to their creditworthiness, eligibility for insurance or suitability for employment.”

Other FCRA requirements include certifying that their clients obtain a signed release from the subject of an employment background check, provide the subject with a summary of their rights under the FCRA, allow the subject to dispute the results of their search and engage in the prescribed Adverse Action process if they choose not to hire the candidate based on the outcome of their background check.

It is clear from these actions that the FTC is aggressively enforcing their background screening guidelines and in my opinion, for good reason.  These laws are designed to project all of us: job candidates, employers and background background screening companies.  Abiding by these requirements is just good business.

I am not suggesting that the companies that received these letters have blatantly violated FCRA law (in bold for those who accuse us of capitalizing on negative industry information).  These could be technical violations or misconstrued information by the FTC.  However it is important for employers to properly vet their providers so that they don’t unknowingly violate these requirements.

For more information on how to select a qualified provider, check out the following video:

Continue Reading

Late last week the state of Maryland passed Senate Bill 4 on Employment Background Checks which prohibits state employers from asking job candidates if they have been convicted of a crime on a job application.  The so-called “ban the box” law applies to “specified appointing authorities in the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of State government from inquiring into the criminal record or criminal history of an applicant for employment until the applicant has been provided an opportunity for an interview; providing that the Act does not prohibit specified appointing authorities from notifying an applicant for employment of specified information; providing for exceptions; etc.”

The act was signed into law by Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley on May 2, 2013 and is expected to take effect October 1, 2013.  It is important to note that this law only applies to state employers and not those in the private sector.  It is also important to point out that while state employers may not ask the question on the job application, they can make inquiries after a person has been given an interview.

It is worth noting that there are a number of exemptions in this bill:

• Positions in the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
• Positions for which an appointing authority has a statutory duty to conduct a criminal records check
• Positions for the Office of the Sheriff in any county

Finally, the bill does not in any way prevent the state from conducting employee background checks or creating positions which prohibit those with certain criminal records from employment.

For more information about Ban the Box Laws check out the following video:

EmployeeScreenIQ Quick Takes Video: Your Applicant’s Criminal Past- Does It Matter?

Continue Reading

Background screening companies exist to help employers find reliable and trustworthy employees. Do you know what qualities you should evaluate when seeking a provider? Our experts discuss the fundamental requirements that should be on your checklist-whether you’re seeking a provider for the first time or re-evaluating your screening program. Jason, Nick and Kevin discuss several topics, including the notion of an “apples to apples” comparison, the importance of accreditation and how to separate marketing claims from the real deal.

While every company’s needs vary when it comes to background checks, our panelists present a few questions to take into consideration:

• How long has it been since your background screening program was reviewed?
• Do your criminal background check results have a high or low hit ratio?
• Do you receive good data from your background checks?
• Are you receiving accurate and quality results?
• Can your background screening provider explain your results?

[...]

Continue Reading

The U.S. Congress recently passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) which helps individuals protect their right to privacy and prohibits an employer from impersonating an employee online when other employees are interacting across social media platforms.  Removed from this bill at the last minute was a provision that would have banned employers from asking job candidates and employees for their social media passwords. Given the public sentiment on this issue, not to mention the media outcry, this omission is a big surprise to me.  Kudos to Congress for not caving to public pressure on this one.

Let’s get this out of the way.  I think that asking candidates or employees for their social media passwords for employment background screening purposes (or any other reason), is a bad idea for nearly all employers and infringes on a person’s right to privacy.   I think it’s a bad business practice and would dissuade people from wanting to work for a company that engaged in this practice.

So why am I applauding our politicians? [...]

Continue Reading

Our friend Pam Devata at Seyfarth & Shaw blogged yesterday that Colorado became the ninth state to prohibit the use of employment credit reports in hiring. As Pam reports, Colorado’s law will prohibit employers from using “consumer credit information” for employment purposes.

Colorado joins eight other states–California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont and Washington—in restricting access to consumer credit in the hiring process. The rational for the state action is summarized in the bill’s introduction: [...]

Continue Reading