EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

This Friday (March 30th) The Proactive Employer podcast will be airing an interview with yours truly about how organizations currently use background checks, how they respond to adverse findings, their greatest concerns, and what lies ahead.

This installment will air on Friday, March 30th at 8:30 AM Eastern on BlogTalkRadio and will be available for on-demand listening at The Proactive Employer website, on mobile devices via BluBrry and via iTunes following the broadcast.

Much of the interview focuses on our most recent Background Screening Trends survey results.

Continue Reading

Earlier this month the Palm Beach Post published the results of their six month investigation about the affect Florida’s policy of not licensing camps has had on the state’s camping industry.  Their findings were despicable.  According to the Post,  “Palm Beach County paid a convicted child molester, thieves, drug dealers and other people with criminal records nearly half a million dollars to run summer camps for homeless and foster children during the past three years.

Before his camp opened, one operator repeatedly sexually assaulted a 6-year-old girl. Another scammed trusting women out of thousands of dollars. Still another dealt crack in an open-air drug market.

All ran companies that received tax dollars to watch over at-risk kids. None was required, or even asked, to pass background checks, a Palm Beach Post investigation has found.”

Some other findings from the report:

• Roughly one in eight companies was run by at least one person with a criminal conviction or arrest history. One camp operator was convicted of nearly two dozen felonies during a 28-year stretch.
• Since 2007, 617 homeless, foster or disadvantaged children have attended camps run by people with criminal records. During that period, the county paid these camps $473,059.50, or about $767 per child, in tax dollars, grants and contributions.
• Day-to-day responsibility for administering the scholarships falls to a single county employee who spends part of her time on the program. She ensures camps meet basic requirements, such as providing access to bathrooms and drinking water, but stops far short of screening camp operators’ backgrounds.
• No state agency runs background checks on camp operators because laws meant to protect the vulnerable don’t apply to children in summer camps. Although the Department of Children and Families screens owners and operators of day-care centers and other child-care providers, an exemption in Florida statutes effectively allows anyone, even a registered sex offender, to open a summer camp and gain unsupervised access to children.

You might be wondering why I am only choosing to share this information now.  Well, I think I, like many others are becoming immune to these stories.  We see stuff like this every day and are no longer surprised when things like this happen.

When I consider the EEOC’s bent on limiting the use of criminal background checks in the hiring process, I wonder if they pay attention to stories like these.  And if nothing else, I hope that the state addresses this issue yesterday.

Continue Reading

Last week, I attended the Due Diligence, Background Checks and Employment Conference at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C.  This one day symposium featured presenters and panelists that spoke directly about the need for employers to conduct criminal background checks and the role they play in protecting their employees, their customers and their businesses.  Today, I wanted to highlight the panel discussion, “Why Businesses, Non-Profit Agencies and Government Entities Need Access to Criminal Background Checks”.

The panel was comprised of the following individuals: Jim Hmorovich, President and CEO of Prevent Child Abuse America (PCAA), Richard Mellor, Vice President of Loss Prevention at the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Donald Livingston, Partner at Akin Gump and former General Counsel at the EEOC.

Richard Mellor, former head of security at Helzberg Diamonds, spoke about the important role criminal background checks play in protecting businesses, co-workers and customers.  He spoke of some of the horrible things he has seen employees do over the course of his career including murder, rape, armed robbery, and too many thefts to count as well as the fact that U.S. businesses lose billions of dollars each year to internal theft.

However, he also spoke about the proper balance between protecting the business and ensuring everyone has a fair chance at employment.  He highlighted the standards employers are held to under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and also the fact that the presence of a conviction is not an automatic trigger to eliminate the candidate from consideration or terminate an existing employee.

Donald Livingston also discussed the imperative employers have to screen and provided an in-depth analysis of an employer’s compliance responsibilities to ensure fair treatment. Citing U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) standards, he pointed out that the Federal government often requires extensive background checks for a wide range of positions. He questioned why the Federal government is being afforded protection for use of credit and other sources of information that are being denied to private employers .

And while both Mellor and Livingston did a masterful job of making their cases, the most impactful speaker was PCAA’s Jim Hmorovich.  Jim provided statistics on the number of children that are abused in this country and the rates are alarming.  Obviously, he advocates for the necessity to conduct background checks in order to protect children.  But Jim’s perspective on the issue wasn’t just to protect children now, but to ensure that they become productive members of society.  Jim offered that children who are abused are far more likely to turn to a life of crime themselves (whether they become abusers, addicts or otherwise).

He also made the case that if someone wasn’t swayed by the emotional arguments, then perhaps they’d consider the fiscal benefits.  If children aren’t abused, they have a much better chance of getting educated, of finding jobs and not engaging in criminal activity.  That means less people on welfare, less people in our prison system and less victims. It means more people prepared to enter the workforce, to pay taxes and contribute to society in a positive way.  It’s also has the added benefit of reducing unemployment.

Overall, I found this panel to be highly effective because they addressed a wide perspective on why criminal background checks are vitally important not only for employers but for society in general.

Continue Reading

EmployeeScreenIQ recently released our annual background screening trends survey: “Threading The Needle: Employment Background Screening in an Age of Increased Litigation and Legislation.” More than 650 HR professionals from across the country, in organizations large and small, shared their thoughtful (and sometimes surprising) insights on everything from falsified resumes to the phenomenon of Facebook in our revealing 20-page report.  Listed below is one of our Top Findings which deals with how widespread the use of Social Media background checks.

Social Networking Websites:

As with online universities, employers are split regarding their use of social networking websites as part of the background screening process. 48% of respondents consult these sites as part of their screening process (only 9% say they always consult this sites), while 52% say they never do. These results show how divided employers are when it comes to this relatively new source of background information. The findings also refute a somewhat common perception that all employers spend their time pouring over the online activities of workers and potential new hires. Frankly, most HR departments don’t have the time or resources to do so even if they wanted to.

While the instant gratification of a Google search is undeniable, employers who answer “never” may be taking into account the inherent risk of uncovering “protected class” information that could lead to future legal problems if the candidate is not selected. Age, race, and religious affiliation are all characteristics that are readily available in social media sources. And then there is the issue of accuracy of the data, which is always at issue with the self-generated content that prevails on social networking sites.

Despite the potential they might hold, social networking websites are not yet widely accepted as trusted background-checking resource. We anticipate that the trend of those who utilize these sites as a screening tool will only increase in the coming years. It will be interesting to see whether the percentage of those who regularly use these sites increases in future surveys.

Important Note: We just met with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and learned that they will be looking very closely at this issue in 2012.  In fact, on the screening side both social media and the use of mobile apps to conduct background checks are their two biggest priorities.

Continue Reading

According to TMZ (never thought I’d get to say that), American Idol has announced that they will give show contestant, Jermaine Jones, the boot after they learned about the following criminal records:

“One incident went down on March 5, 2011 … when Jones was involved in a fight at a Howard Johnson Hotel in Jersey. We’re told cops responded … but Jermaine gave them a fake name – Joel Jones. Jermaine was charged with public nuisance and obstruction of justice. He was also arrested for having outstanding warrants.”

“The next incident went down November 27, 2011 … when Jermaine was the passenger in a car that was pulled over in Gloucester Township, NJ. Jermaine was questioned by cops and ONCE AGAIN gave them a fake name – Kareem Watkins.”

Jones has a total of four outstanding warrants which he chose not to share with show producers when directly asked about a criminal history.

Idol might do itself a favor in the future and run better background checks before contestants actually appear on the show.  Although, according to at least one Yahoo.com writer, perhaps there’s an alternate theory here.

” . . . the crafty conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this was a ratings ploy all along: You know, bring Jermaine back for the semifinals to create some drama and buzz, then create even more drama and buzz later on, when his criminal-past bombshell leads to his “shocking” disqualification. I just find it a little hard to believe that “Idol’s” staff would not have been able to uncover Jermaine’s (very recent) alleged crimes via a standard background check, and it seems fishy that the one contestant that was given a last-minute reprieve is now the one getting the boot. Is it possible that by bringing back a contestant who was already set up for an early disqualification, the show’s producers had sneakily hoped to generate headlines and boost “Idol’s” flagging ratings, without jeopardizing any actual worthy contestants’ future chances? We’ll never know.

Inquiring minds do, indeed want to know.  I’ll leave you with the the smooth musical stylings of one Jermaine Jones, whom fans all over the world will never have a chance to hear on Idol again.  So long Jermaine.  We hardly knew ye.

Continue Reading

EmployeeScreenIQ recently released our annual background screening trends survey: “Threading The Needle: Employment Background Screening in an Age of Increased Litigation and Legislation.” More than 650 HR professionals from across the country, in organizations large and small, shared their thoughtful (and sometimes surprising) insights on everything from falsified resumes to the phenomenon of Facebook in our revealing 20-page report.  Listed below is one of our Top Findings which deals with how HR professionals view online universities.

Division Over Online Universities:

Employers are divided on the legitimacy of online universities. 45% believe that online universities are less credible than brick-and-mortar universities, while 55% do not. For employers who are ambivalent about this issue, the next few years will likely help them clarify their positions, as more and more trusted, brick-and-mortar schools are expected to add online programs.

While some employers embrace the “advantages” that online universities offer attendees (such as lower costs, flexible scheduling and accelerated programs—all of which can be helpful to students who already hold jobs or who cannot afford tuition at traditional universities), other employers remain wary of online options due to the less-than-ideal reputation these programs earned when they first gained recognition.

This negative perception has been slowly but steadily changing, not only in the court of public opinion but among educators themselves. And even well-known traditional universities have begun offering their own online programs. If these trends continue, employers’ perceptions will likely shift accordingly. Additionally, it will be interesting to see whether employers come to prefer or make distinctions between brick-and-mortar institutions that have online courses and those that offer only online course work.

Continue Reading

It is no secret that both state and federal governments have been scrutinizing the practice of employment background screening like never before and that they have been actively pursuing legislation and litigation to limit the use of this hiring tool.  See list below for examples:

• dozens of new federal and state laws that affect hiring practices, employee rights and labor relations;
• increased enforcement actions and lawsuits brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) challenging the use of credit and criminal history;
• a growing risk of discrimination charges (the EEOC received 99,947 discrimination charge filings in 2011—the highest number in its 46-year history);
• legislative attempts to expand “protected class” status to the unemployed and ex-offenders;
• an explosion of “failure to hire” suits due, in part, to the tight job market and a greater number of rejected applicants;
• an increase in lawsuits for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act;
• legal action related to the use of arrest records (PepsiCo recently lost a $3.1 million settlement related to this);
• costly challenges related to obtaining proper consent to conduct background checks (First Transit lost a $5.9 million settlement for failure to do so);
• “Ban the Box” initiatives at the state and local levels;
• new state laws restricting the use of credit reports;
• the prevalence of social media and other new technologies as screening tools;

Over the past couple of years, I have had the pleasure and privilege of working closely with a group of organizations and individuals determined to make sure that employers voices are being heard and that their concerns are being addressed.

I have not publicly broadcast my involvement in this group because I didn’t want to tip my hat as to strategies we were pursuing and tactics we intended to utilize along the way.  And while, we have only just begun, we are at a point where our efforts are becoming more public.

The biggest issue we have been addressing lately is the EEOC’s efforts to develop new guidance on how employers should use both criminal records and credit reports.  And as these issues have been coming to a boiling point over the past several months, the group decided that it was time to go on record with our concerns about EEOC’s actions and advocate on behalf of employers who use these screening tools to mitigate risk in the workplace.

This week, we held the Due Diligence, Background Checks and Employment Conference at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C.  This one day symposium featured presenters and panelists that spoke directly about the need for employers to conduct criminal background checks and the role they play in protecting their employees, their customers and their businesses.

Over the next week or so, I intend to highlight some of the information that was shared at this conference. But here is one thing that is vitally important to communicate.  The EEOC circulated new guidance on credit reports a couple weeks ago to their five commissioners and has fast-tracked final guidance.  It could come any day now.

Be prepared for guidelines that will effectively end the practice of checking a job candidate’s credit report at any time during the hiring process or tenure of their employment.  The burden of proof will be on the employer to demonstrate a business need.  This is not a doomsday prediction.  EEOC Commissioner, Victoria Lipnic (who is largely supportive of employer’s rights on background checks) spoke at this conference and even she shared her concerns about the use of credit reports and their potential for disparate impact on minorities.  If Commissioner Lipnic has reservations, it is a foregone conclusion that her colleagues will take an even stronger position against employer use.

Please know that we are doing everything in our power to highlight the ramifications of the new guidance and how employers will suffer if their ability to make an informed decision is restricted.

Continue Reading

EmployeeScreenIQ recently released our annual background screening trends survey: “Threading The Needle: Employment Background Screening in an Age of Increased Litigation and Legislation.” More than 650 HR professionals from across the country, in organizations large and small, shared their thoughtful (and sometimes surprising) insights on everything from falsified resumes to the phenomenon of Facebook in our revealing 20-page report.  Listed below is one of our Top Findings which deals with the how much influence a criminal record has on hiring eligibility.

Qualifications vs. Criminal Records

In keeping with the findings of our survey last year, this year’s results show once again that qualifications are more important than criminal records to the great majority of respondents—73% in 2012, up from 70% in 2011. These findings continue to challenge the EEOC’s position—and legislators’ concerns—that organizations place far too much emphasis on criminal records. The findings also support employers’ longstanding contention that their background checks are just one of many considerations in the hiring process. This is why resumes, interviews and personal references are also highly valued in reviewing candidates.

As employers search for qualified talent, they will have to continue to walk a tightrope of sorts, balancing their need to know everything they can to make an informed hiring decision that minimizes risk while accounting for the growing legislative and litigation activity.

Continue Reading

EmployeeScreenIQ recently released our annual background screening trends survey: “Threading The Needle: Employment Background Screening in an Age of Increased Litigation and Legislation.” More than 650 HR professionals from across the country, in organizations large and small, shared their thoughtful (and sometimes surprising) insights on everything from falsified resumes to the phenomenon of Facebook in our revealing 20-page report.  Listed below is one of our Top Findings which deals with the type of criminal records found on a background check that concern employers.

Severity of Criminal Convictions Correspond to Levels of Concern:

It’s not surprising that 99% of participants would be concerned about felony convictions. In an increasingly litigious business world, today’s employers must remain acutely sensitive to their responsibility to protect the interests of shareholders, partners, customers and their workforce at large. Workplace violence, fraud, theft, sabotage of computer systems and other potential criminal conduct can have far-reaching effects on an organization’s reputation, its ability to compete for talent and its bottom line.

More interesting is the finding that 63% of participants would be concerned about misdemeanor convictions and 30% concerned about infractions and, or traffic offenses. Understandably, employers are interested in felonies for clear reasons of safety and security but their interest in misdemeanor convictions and infractions isn’t as immediately intuitive—until you read their comments (see below). Their primary interest in misdemeanor convictions stems from their need to identify patterns of potentially troubling behaviors or lack of judgment related to the jobs they are filling. In other words, it’s a matter of responsibility to their organizations.

It’s important to note that, as the percentages show, the severity of the convictions and offenses is directly related to employers’ level of concern—i.e., felony convictions are of greatest concern, misdemeanors are of lesser concern and infractions are of even less concern. And, as they reveal in their comments, employers are primarily interested in misdemeanors because they’re searching for patterns and/or frequency of troubling behaviors related to the jobs they are filling.

Continue Reading

Not likely, according to some 90 percent of you who said you would pass on our theoretical “superstar performer” because of the results of his background check. The basis for our fictional candidate? None other than Charlie Sheen.

Find out exactly how your HR colleagues feel about candidates with criminal records and what really impacts their decision to hire (or not) in our hot-off-the-press 3rd annual trends survey report: “Threading the Needle: Employment Background Screening in an Age of Increased Litigation and Legislation.”

More than 650 HR professionals from across the country, in organizations large and small, shared your thoughtful (and sometimes surprising) insights on everything from falsified resumes to the phenomenon of Facebook in our revealing 20-page report.

Be the first to get a copy!

Continue Reading