We just published The Verifier XXIV, Fall 2011 Edition, a publication intended as an educational tool and information resource for human resource professionals or anyone interested in keeping abreast of recent employment screening and background check industry developments.

Highlights of this issue include the following:

Articles:

• Time to Streamline Your Background Screening Process? Check Out Our Latest Video
• No Shortcuts. Smarter Screening Equals Intelligent Hiring.
• Top Commercial Airline Flies High With EmployeeScreenIQ
• 2011 Background Check Turkey Awards
• Background Checks Gone Wild Hurt Us All

Announcements and Legislative Updates

• EmployeeScreenIQ Rated Top 5 Screening Firm in U.S.
• California Governor Bans Use of Employment Credit Reports
• EmployeeScreenIQ Announces Integration with Taleo Business Edition
• EmployeeScreenIQ Recognized as Fastest Growing Company

Check it out!

We just published a great study about our relationship with the folks at Hospice Compassus.  Check out the preview below.

With more than 1,500 annual background checks that span all 50 states and cover candidates in 14 U.S. office locations, Hospice Compassus needed a quality provider that understood the complicated needs of a company that cares for people in their last stages of life.

Opened in 1979, Hospice Compassus is a family of community-based hospices backed by a vast nationwide network. The company prides itself on a common culture based on three core values: compassion, integrity, and excellence, all of which factor into the hiring process.

In addition to hiring caregiver staff, the company brings in hundreds of volunteers nationwide annually who each must pass stringent background checks based on guidelines that differ from state to state. Recruiter Michele Hinton was not only seeking a provider that could manage their complicated employment screening program, but one that also exemplified the Hospice culture of strong values, reliable service and accountability.

“With companies I have worked with in the past, we had trouble understanding the background check reports,” Hinton explained. “If there was a criminal record, we didn’t know what that meant, or what was wrong. Customer service was a real problem.”

The problem, she explained, was that it would be difficult to know when an employee or volunteer could start work. When there was a delay, she would not know about it, or would not understand the nature of the delay.

Looking for a better solution, Hospice Compassus brought in EmployeeScreenIQ to manage their background screening program in 2010.

“I have worked with several different background screening providers, and this is by far the best experience,” says Hinton. She notes that background checks are completed in a timely fashion and the process is always handled professionally. “Because EmployeeScreenIQ always lets me know how each background check is progressing, I can get that information right back to our teams all over the country and they can update new
hires on when they will be starting.”

The improvements were startling, immediate, and deeply appreciated, she adds. Thanks to the EmployeeScreenIQ team, Hinton now understands which counties throughout the U.S. may cause delays, or what records are legally reportable and which are not. Delays are usually due to searches that can only be performed by court clerks in specific areas or those with archaic research methods. So for instance, if a candidate has lived in several states, Hinton knows that the check may be delayed for several days as opposed to the normal two- to three-day turnaround time. She can then communicate with the hiring manager so that everyone understands when to expect results.

Read More

Want to see just how prevalent background screening has become in the United States?  The National Retail Federation (NRF) just released survey results that show nearly 97% major national retailers conduct background checks on potential employees.

“Background screenings help retailers ensure the safety of both shoppers and employees from the very beginning of the application process,” said NRF senior asset protection advisor Joe LaRocca. “Pre-employment screenings are one of the tools retailers use as a first line of defense, especially during the holiday season when companies many have hundreds – if not thousands – of applications to sift through.”

The study revealed that retailers routinely screen a range of associates from senior executives (85.7%) to store associates (55.2%), with a particular focus on customer-facing employees and managers.

Check out their full release.

We just published a great study about our relationship with Continental Airlines.  Check out the preview below.

When Continental Airlines was faced with a two-week downtime on employment background checks with a previous vendor, the pressure was on Darby James, human resources director of then Continental, now United Continental Holdings Inc., to solve the problem. Enter EmployeeScreenIQ.

“It started out as an interim solution. We just could not go two weeks without this essential hiring tool,” explained James. Immediately, the difference between EmployeeScreenIQ and the previous vendors she had utilized began to show. The short-term solution led to a permanent assignment which has lasted for nearly seven years.

Background checks for pilots, flight attendants and other airline personnel became even more crucial in the years that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Continental Airlines had been working with several other vendors that were not providing acceptable levels of quality, accuracy and speed.
“We went through a lot of other vendors. We had to kiss quite a few frogs before we found EmployeeScreenIQ,” says James. “You get really tired of the process of finding a new vendor. You don’t want to remarry every few years. It is nice to have a high quality company that delivers excellent results.”

For the merged United Continental Holdings, a company with more than 80,000 employees and many relationships with contracted business partners, screening is a critical component of doing business. The company screens not only employees, but also employees of contractors who will be doing business with them.

“We felt with EmployeeScreenIQ that it was a partnership, that they truly want us to be successful at what we do. I noticed a difference immediately in turnaround time and in the depth of the screening results,” says James.

EmployeeScreenIQ researchers provided high standards for accuracy and depth of information. In fact, the company is only one of a few that are accredited. Other highlights included on-time delivery, reliability, customer service that redefines the vendor-client relationship, and a keen eye on statistics that ensure the checks are delivering intended results.

Read Full Case Study

I read a very interesting case yesterday that is impactful both for employment screening providers and the organizations they support.  A registered Sex Offender in the state of California sued a background screening provider for reporting such information it found on the Megan’s Law website which led to him getting denied for employment.  He didn’t sue because the information was inaccurate, but rather because he said the company violated the terms of the site which specified that it prohibits the use of such information for employment purposes.

The screening provider successfully argued on the basis on their First Amendment right to Free Speech.  They simply republished information found on a public website.  At no time, did they make a hiring recommendation or decision.  The court ruled in their favor.

According to Jones Day, the firm representing the provider, “In a case of first impression, trial court dismissed the case pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP law, which prohibits suits challenging an exercise of free speech unless the plaintiff can show a likelihood of success on the merits.”

Recently a long awaited study was published on the recidivism rates of ex-criminals in the United States.  This study known in our industry as the “Blumstein Study” examined New York State Arrest records for more than 88,000 individuals who were first arrested in 1980.  Their recidivism rates were followed for 27 years through 2007.  The study which was published in the Journal of Criminology was conducted by Carnegie Mellon Professor Alfred Blumstein and Co-Author Kiminori Nakamura.

To summarize the report, ex-offenders do in fact have a high rate of recidivism within the first five years after arrest.  However, the study suggests that for offenders who “stay clean” for five years or more are much less likely to get arrested.  They suggest that after five years they are almost as likely to commit a crime as the rest of the general population of the United States.

The study is timely and important for many reasons.  First, the Obama administration has made it a point to break down those barriers for individuals who have committed crimes to gain employment.  Secondly, the EEOC has a mission to ensure a disparate class of ex-offenders is not created in the Untied States.  The problem is that the study has a lot of holes.

Noted employment screening industry experts and members of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS)  have commented on this study for months.   This week  Security Management Magazine published a great article on the topic.  One well respected expert concluded that because the study was limited to New York state it fails to find those criminals who may have committed crimes in other states.  Blumstein acknowledges this and expects that might lead to a 10 percent increase in the risk findings after that data is added.  The same expert also notes that because the study only looks at arrests and not convictions the true sample size is greatly reduced.

In my opinion these industry experts are spot on! Having examined the findings of the study I find even more shortcomings.  First, what are the parallels between major crimes and minor ones.  Meaning, how does the recidivism rate for someone convicted of Armed Robbery compare to someone convicted of Petty Theft? Secondly, the study is only able to track the rate of crimes re-committed that the individual has been caught committing.  Many times employees are simply fired and never prosecuted for breaking the law.  Lastly, in the pre-employment screening world, many times we are very concerned with “white collar” crimes.  There is no data on crimes committed at the Federal District Court level.  These crimes could include embezzlement, bank fraud, kidnapping etc..  These are only three examples of where I feel the study falls short.  I will reserve further comments because I feel an article brewing in my head and I don’t want to give it all away here!

In conclusion, the study is very important.  It would have had a huge impact on the recent El Vs. SEPTA case, had it been published a few years back.  It’s also important because it could pose a great defense to employers being sued under the Negligent Hiring doctrine.  What we do know is this; the current administration has made the “ex-offender in the workplace” issue a priority to solve.  The question is do employers want the government telling them which perspective employees are a risk enough to take?

As organizations continue to identify methods to streamline their hiring processes and to save money, they look to their various providers for solutions.  The emergence of applicant tracking and HRIS systems has accelerated this process, taking manual tasks and processes and automating them.  One such process is the ability to request a background check through these systems, thereby porting all of the necessary data to the screening provider with the click of a button.  No additional data entry is needed.

However, there’s one hitch in completely automating this process: the refusal of employers and academic institutions to accept an electronic signature from a job applicant as proof of consent to release information.  We highlighted this issue a couple months ago in the article Expediting Your Background Checks Through Electronic Signatures?

Further, we just released our study on the acceptance of electronic signatures.  See below.

Struggle to Find a Job Can Increase When Schools and Employers Don’t Recognize Law

Global employment screening company finds shocking non-compliance rates with legislation signed 10 years ago

Cleveland (PRWEB) March 24, 2009 — An alarming 57 percent of requests for employment and education verifications were rejected when an electronically signed consent form was used, according to research conducted by the Quality Service division of employeescreenIQ, a global screening company. This verification of previous employment and degree is a critical step in the hiring process. Human Resource professionals rely on this information to make informed hiring decisions and with resume fraud at an all-time high accuracy and timeliness of information is essential. “Even though the Electronic Signature Act of 1999 expressly recognizes such signatures as legally binding consent, we find that most employers and academic institutions still want to see an actual signature before releasing information,” said employeescreenIQ’s Vice President of Quality Service, Kevin Bachman. “If an HR Manager can’t get the information they need to make a hiring decision, there’s the likelihood they could simply move onto another candidate.” employeescreenIQ’s research also revealed these interesting facts:

• Academic institutions rejected the request for information 59% of the time when an electronic signature was used
• Employers rejected the request for information 55% of the time when an electronic signature was used
• Turnaround time increased if the company wanted to try again once they obtained an actual signature

This is a case where technology may not be the panacea it’s intended to be. As we released in our 2009 background screening trends, integrating the employment background check process into Applicant Tracking Systems and HRIS platforms is on the rise. And while this can streamline the process, saving both time and money, it doesn’t completely eliminate roadblocks. “Companies that leverage technology find themselves making a choice. Either they exit their automated system half the time to obtain handwritten signatures, decreasing the benefits of integration, or they receive less information, said Bachman. “It’s also a risk for the candidate who may not get a job because their former school or employer doesn’t follow a law passed 10 years ago.”

Read More

A new study conducted by The Pew Center sheds light on how much States spend to house inmates in correctional facilities.  The study also asks the questions: Do certain crimes really warrant jail time?  Can punishment for non-violent crimes be left up to the community instead cutting costs significantly?  These are very intriguing questions which I’m sure impels much debate among those in the criminal justice field. 

If sentencing laws were changed so that less offenders ended up serving jail time, how might this affect the offenders’ ability to obtain work?  Is there less stigma attached to offenders that are sentenced to probation or electronic monitoring than those who carry out their sentence in jail? 

For example:  You have two applicants with disorderly conduct convictions on their background check.  One of those applicants was sentenced to 10 days in jail.  The other was sentenced to 6 months probation and 30 hours of community service.  Does the applicant that didn’t spend time in the slammer seem more appealing because of the way society looks at those who have been incarcerated?  Or do you look at them the same way because of the type of crime committed, disregarding the sentencing?  I would love to hear some HR professionals’ opinions on this one!

Cost of locking up Americans too high: Pew study

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – One in every 31 U.S. adults is in the corrections system, which includes jail, prison, probation and supervision, more than double the rate of a quarter century ago, according to a report released on Monday by the Pew Center on the States. 

The study, which said the current rate compares to one in 77 in 1982, concluded that with declining resources, more emphasis should be put on community supervision, not jail or prison. 

“Violent and career criminals need to be locked up, and for a long time. But our research shows that prisons are housing too many people who can be managed safely and held accountable in the community at far lower cost,” said Adam Gelb, director of the Center’s Public Safety Performance Project, which produced the report. 

The United States has the highest incarceration rate and the biggest prison population of any country in the world, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Justice.

More 

Well color me surprised!  OJ Simpson is in trouble again.  This time, he was convicted of kidnapping and robbery in a Nevada court.  Now, he faces life in prison; something that comes about 13 years too late.  Evidently, this time the glove fit.  Gone are the good old days of the Juice dashing through airports for Hertz and reporting from the sidelines of a football game for NBC.

What would these companies find of they conducted a background check on Mr. Simpson today?  If they ran a Civil Records Search they would find a wrongful death judgment against him by Ronald Goldman’s family.  They might also find several liens and judgments if they ran a credit report.  Mind you, they would not find a conviction for murder in the LA courts because, well, he had the best attorneys money could by and some opined even the best jury money could buy.  Also noteworthy is the fact that arrest records greater than 7 years cannot be reported or used in a hiring decision.  However, if they conducted a Criminal Records Search in Clark County, Nevada they would find the aforementioned felony convictions for kidnapping and robbery.

Now on to Employment Verifications.  Very soon, Mr. Simpson might have the following experience on his resume: License Plate Engineer for the Nevada Department of Corrections.  That has a nice ring to it.  That would be a fun supervisor interview.  Reference Interview?  Where’s AC Cowlings these days?  Unfortunately, Simpson’s original defender, Robert Kardashian (father of Kim Kardashian, girlfriend of Reggie Bush), has passed away and can no longer vouch for his good friend.  I guess that just leaves Kato Kaelin.

I’m thinking Mr. Simpson will no longer qualify for employment.  Perhaps he was a visionary who saw his 401K plummet and decided that he would rather be a guest of the government until the market comes back.

Hurricane Ike

In early September 2008 Southeast Texas was hit with one of the worst hurricanes in its history.  Hurricane Ike, making landfall as a category two hurricane peaked at a 5.1 hurricane while still out in the Gulf of Mexico.   In total, Hurricane Ike was blamed for 153 deaths, 71 in the United States.  According to Wikipedia, Damages from Ike in US coastal areas are estimated at $27 billion.

At this point you are probably saying to yourself “What does this have to do with background checks?” Well, I’m glad you asked.  Marketwatch.com had an article yesterday titled; “Hurricane Ike Victims Should be Wary When Hiring to Rebuild.”  Hurricane Ike will bring many out of state builders and contractors to Texas to help rebuild the areas most damaged by the storm.  According to the Texas Association of Builders (TAB):

“Our industry understands that people want to quickly put their homes and their lives back together,” said Bill Pittman, president of the Galveston County Builders Association. “But the State sets stringent requirements for building and remodeling in Texas that are designed to protect homeowners. Using a builder or remodeler who has met these requirements will help safeguard a homeowner’s rebuilding investment.”

Under state law, home builders and remodelers must register with the Texas Residential Construction Commission (TRCC) in order to do business in Texas. Registration assures homeowners that their builder or remodeler has passed a background check and maintains a Texas business address. In addition, work performed by that builder or remodeler must meet specific building standards and be covered by a warranty.

“Using an out-of-state builder, remodeler or contractor is risky,” said Beaumont builder Bill Little, a director of both TAB and the Home Builders Association of Southeast Texas. “Neither they nor their work is held accountable to standards set by the State of Texas. Hurricane Ike victims run the risk of being re-victimized as they try and rebuild their lives.”

Homeowners or anyone looking to hire a contractor should check their registration status via the TRCC online database at www.texascc.org or by calling 1-877-651-TRCC.

We can only learn from past experiences.  August 27, 2001, Sue Weaver was brutally raped and beaten to death by a twice convicted sex-offender hired to do service work in her home. Sue had contracted with a major department store to have the air ducts in her home cleaned.  Burdine’s did not conduct criminal background checks on those workers they sent into their clients’ homes.  Sue’s life is over. Had a criminal background check been done, Sue might still be alive today.  The Sue Weaver C.A.U.S.E. was created to promote Consumer Awareness of Unsafe Service Employment.