EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

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

For those of you interested in keeping up with the latest in pre-employment background screening compliance and the laws that affect your use of employee background checks, check out our latest publication, “BTW: Your Guide to Staying Out of Hot Water.” This compliance resource has been crafted by our VP of Compliance and General Counsel, Angela Preston and is a must-read for human resources and security professionals.

Our April issue of BTW focuses on the recent discovery that retailers have been using a database with information on internal employee theft. As Angela explains, not all of the information in the database is accurate and can potentially hurt employees, as this database should not be a replacement for an employment background check. Find out why these databases are ineffective in Angela’s post, Modern Day Blacklisting? Retail Databases Under Scrutiny. Our second story features information on the national criminal database and how it relates to employment background screening. Lastly, Angela shared her thoughts from a recent visit to Washington D.C. for the 2013 National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) Mid-Year Legislative Conference.

Access full stories here.

Hear Angela’s thoughts on this issue of By The Way:

Continue Reading

Imagine that you are diligently working at your job when you receive a letter from your employer telling you that you have been suspended due to a criminal record that was found on your employment background check.  That’s sucks, but if you are responsible for caring for children at a school, you kind of know that they take these things seriously.

But hold on a minute, you’ve never committed a crime in your life and the records that were reported belong to someone with the same last name.  Well, that can be irritating.  And then, you are forced to prove that those records don’t actually belong to you.  That’s probably where your patience begins to wear thin. [...]

Continue Reading

We often discuss the challenges of ex-felons going back to work and the problems they face when making this transition. From issues like ban the box to a company’s compliance in their use of criminal records in hiring decisions, there’s a never ending list of challenges that arise. One of these topics includes expunging criminal records, so that even if an employer conducts a background check, an applicant’s criminal record will not be found.

In Canada, a job candidate could simply submit an application and if accepted, their criminal record will be suspended. This action may allow those with a criminal history to find a job more quickly and will assist in making the hiring process much smoother. In Canada, they recently implemented legislation (in March of 2012) for this practice of record suspension, allowing ex-offenders a pardon for past crimes. According to Chris Heringer, a senior executive with Pardon Applications of Canada, a nationwide application firm, this is a great opportunity, particularly for those seeking employment:

“Employment seems to be one of the foremost reasons individuals decide to take this step…and it’s not just concern over finding a new job. Even those who are currently employed want to make sure their record does not come to light when opportunities for advancement are presented.”

For job candidates that made mistakes in the past and are ready to live a better lifestyle, this is a second chance. Without having to explain their past, the job search becomes hopeful as any previous record will no longer be available, even if a background check is done. According to the article, this pardon can also help “an individual’s ability to volunteer, further education, adopt a child, or even rent an apartment.”

[...]

Continue Reading

Ban the box is just a catchy way of saying that various states, municipalities and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wants to eliminate the option on a job application where employers ask if the candidate has ever been convicted of a crime. An ongoing debate for a while, we decided it would be a great topic to discuss in the first video release in our Quick Takes Series.

New legislation has been appearing in states and cities across the country, limiting employer’s use of employment background checks by preventing them from asking a job candidate about criminal history–at least until after a conditional offer of employment has been made. Officially, the states that have passed legislation limiting criminal background checks include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico and Washington DC. In addition, there are pending bills in New Jersey, Michigan, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Minnesota. For additional information, read our recent post, “Ban the Box” Bandwagon Rolls On.

As the ban the box issue continues to gain momentum, it’s important to be aware of ever-changing legislation in this regard. Our experts, Angela Preston, VP of Compliance and General Counsel, Jason Morris, President & COO and Nick Fishman, Chief Marketing Officer, discuss the most pertinent ban the box information in our first video, “Your Applicant’s Criminal Past: Does it Matter?” Find out why a little check box is such a huge controversy and how you can be aware of these changes within your company’s hiring process.

Quick Takes is a video series blending together bits of experience and expertise from EmployeeScreenIQ’s background screening experts.  With a newsroom feel, discussions surround the latest issues in the background screening industry. All of the videos were filmed unscripted-giving you the opportunity to hear genuine responses from the professionals. Topics range from social media background checks to conducting a thorough criminal records search. We’re releasing a new video every month, so stay tuned.

Continue Reading

Last month, we released our official 2013 Employment Background Check Trends Survey report.  The report includes findings from nearly 1,000 Human Resources professionals in various industries across the United States, who responded to our survey on background checks for employment at the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013.

One of the questions we asked was if their organization asks candidates to self-disclose past criminal history on their job applications.

Despite the guidance issued by the EEOC in April of 2012—recommending that employers should not ask candidates about convictions on job applications—79% of respondents say they are continuing to do so (see chart below). [...]

Continue Reading

Attending a college or university should be a safe and enjoyable environment where students are able to participate in a learning community with their peers and professors alike. Recent news stories feature background checks in typically in schools or day cares, but lately, there has been a heightened sense in conducting background checks at colleges and universities. Not only does this include conducting background checks for faculty members, but lately the idea of conducting background checks on students is beginning to increase in popularity.

Interestingly, even with attention called to conducting background checks on faculty candidates, it seems that colleges are still learning that this should not be an option but rather an essential. At Bob Jones University, a fundamental Christian university located in South Carolina, they recently discovered that their chief brand officer, Joseph Bartosch, had a criminal record from 22 years previous to working at the university. The record involved solicitation of a prostitute for which Bartosch served three days in jail and was sentenced to three years probation. When the school discovered the record, they confronted Bartosch, who confirmed it was true, and was indefinitely suspended. However, there are two facts to take into consideration:

• The university did not conduct a background check on Bartosch
• The criminal record was from over 20 years ago and might have been irrelevant due to the length of time that has passed

While Bartosch was not asked about criminal history on his job application, the university should have taken responsibility in conducting a background check. Several universities have had similar issues, whether it was failing to complete an employment verification or criminal record check on faculty. At Duke University, they already conduct background checks on all University staff and any faculty members involved in clinical work, but they are moving toward screening all faculty in the near future. Most importantly, they are approaching the issue carefully as they will consider the recency, severity and relevance of any criminal records found on job candidates.

[...]

Continue Reading

Pre-employment background checks are a part of everyday business and common to most employers in 2013. Some companies conduct background checks with no charge to the candidate, but others will impose the cost on the potential candidate. And who wouldn’t comply with a “small” fee, as long as it promises a job in the near future. Unfortunately, some unsuspecting candidates in desperate need of work are at risk for scams like this one in St. Louis.

You’ve probably heard the story, or rather a story like this one before-a company advertises work and lures in hopeful job candidates who soon find out the company is little more than a fake. The St. Louis Better Business Bureau reported that a company called Bio Advocate Pro has been taking $89 payments from job candidates for a criminal background check. As mentioned above, this might be standard for some companies that cannot afford to do a background check on every candidate. The problem is the job candidates handed over the money for a criminal background check…and never heard from Bio Advocate Pro again. Michelle Corey, BBB president and CEO commented:

“To take money from people who are struggling to support themselves and their families is reprehensible. These thieves and others like them are using bogus job offers to draw people into their scams specifically to steal whatever they can get.”

[...]

Continue Reading

Online background checks have been a controversial topic with many who wonder if these websites deliver legitimate results. From accuracy to efficiency, there are always questions as to the best method of conducting a background check at the lowest cost, but also with the best results.

Nebraska has announced a new online background screening system by the State Patrol, and it sounds like they might be making it seem easier than it should be. If you know anything about the background screening industry or really, any industry, if something seems “too good to be true“, it probably is. According to Gov. Dave Heineman, “We live in an electronic age. We need to provide these services online to be relevant.” While this might be true, there are several factors to take into consideration when it comes to online background checks.

One reason to be leery of this service is the claim of “instant” results. For a thorough background check, there should never be instant results, especially when it comes to criminal records. The term “instant” might be used loosely in this case, and could simply mean that employers have easier access to results online as opposed to receiving them via mail or fax. However, there should be concern over posting instant results of a criminal records search. Due to the wording used, it seems too good to be true:

“Pop in a name, a date of birth and your credit card info and you can get the skinny on someone.”

For full confidence that you’re receiving the complete results in a criminal history search, typically a verification of some sort should be done to ensure that a criminal record matches the job candidate, including full name, date of birth and Social Security Number. While full details are not given on the process of this online system, it is possible that no one is verifying the records found, therefore giving employers instant results that might be flawed.

[...]

Continue Reading

Earlier this month, we released our official 2013 Employment Background Screening Trends Survey report.  The report includes findings from nearly 1,000 HR professionals in various industries across the United States, who responded to our survey on employee background checks at the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013.

Among this year’s key findings were the types of criminal records found on an employment background check that would disqualify a candidate from employment.

Given the legal and privacy issues that abound in today’s business world, employers continue to engage in a delicate balancing act—juggling the needs and protecting the interests of shareholders, partners, customers and their workforces. As we have reported in past years, criminal conduct (e.g., workplace violence, fraud, theft, sabotage of computer systems, etc.) can have profound effects on an organization’s reputation, its ability to compete for talent and its bottom line.

Therefore, it’s not surprising that respondents showed greatest concern over felony convictions related to crimes of violence, theft and dishonesty. It is worth noting, however, that their concern dropped substantially regarding drug/alcohol felony convictions. This same drop off occurred related to misdemeanor convictions, with respondents showing significantly greater concern for misdemeanor convictions regarding crimes of violence, theft and dishonesty as opposed to drug/alcohol misdemeanor convictions.

Here’s some quick advice for employers when it comes to evaluating candidates with criminal records:

• Avoid to the extent possible any automatic disqualifiers or brightline hiring decisions
• Evaluate how the negative information relates to job in which the candidate is being considered
• Consider the recency and severity of the offense and whether the person is a habitual offender
• Conduct an individual assessment which includes allowing the candidate to provide further explanation
• If you still chose not to hire the candidate, make sure to follow the proper Adverse Action procedures

Download the entire 2013 Trends Survey Here

Continue Reading