Criminal Records | EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

Breaking News on CORI Background Check: Where’s Ron Burgundy?

Published on 12 July 2011 by Nick Fishman in Background Checks in States, Breaking News, Criminal Records

I can just see it now. The investigative team at Boston’s Fox channel 25 is high fiving and sipping on their Appletinis while celebrating the huge story they broke about the loopholes in the state’s CORI background check system. Ron Burgundy would be jealous.

It turns out that these intrepid reporters discovered that the CORI system only provides information on criminal records from the state of Massachusetts. Cue the sinister music.

One question. How hard did these reporters have to work to identify this loophole? How many hours did they spend toiling away. Perhaps they did a little undercover work, Fletch-style.

Well, we could have saved them the trouble. We’ve been breaking this “hard-hitting news” for at least 3, maybe 5 years. And we probably weren’t the first ones to say it either.

Okay. I’ll be serious now. The station found a woman that was employed by a state contractor was a wanted fugitive in the state of Florida. They also found that the state court reporter accused of rape that we told you about a couple months ago had convictions for other sexually deviant crimes in South Carolina.

The state really needs to rethink their screening program. See the full story below.

Background check loophole exposed: MyFoxBOSTON.com

EEOC Hearing Scheduled on Use of Criminal Background Checks

Published on 05 July 2011 by Nick Fishman in Announcements, Breaking News, Criminal Records, Industry News, Legislative Updates, Upcoming Events

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will hold a meeting on the use of criminal records for employment screening purposes on Tuesday, July 26, in Washington, D.C. The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), which we are members of, is preparing comments for submittal to the EEOC on the relevance and benefits of access to criminal history records by employers. NAPBS is also partnering with other associations and coalitions as we move toward the July meeting date. This will be a full Commission meeting, meaning all five Commissioners and EEOC’s General Counsels will attend. This includes Chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien, Commissioner Chai Feldblum, Commissioner Stuart Ishimaru, Commissioner Vicky Lipnic and Commissioner Constance Barker. A formal agenda has not yet been released but it is excepted there will be multiple panels including academics, lawyers, victim’s groups (i.e., those who have been denied employment due to their criminal history), government officials, litigants from the El v. Septa case and others.

Given the importance of this meeting to our industry, to our clients and our blog followers, we want to ensure that you are aware of this upcoming meeting and have the opportunity to join in our efforts to ensure that the interests of the providers and users of criminal records are represented.

The role of the use of criminal records in employment screening will be the focus of this meeting and as employers have an important stake in what is being considered during the meeting, we encourage you to add this date to your calendar and make plans to attend the hearing on July 26 if possible. The meeting will be open to the public and it will not be webcast or televised, although a transcript will be available after the meeting.

New Indiana Law Gives Safe Harbor to Those With Criminal Records

Published on 01 July 2011 by Nick Fishman in Background Checks in States, Breaking News, Criminal Records, Legislative Updates

Effective today, July 1, 2011, a new Indiana law takes effect which will allow ex-convicts with non-violent criminal records to hide their past from potential employers.

The law, which applies to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor or a Class D felony that didn’t result in injury, gives the ex-offender the legal right to petition the court to limit access to their criminal histories for eight years if they don’t commit any more crimes.

Indiana officials are making it known to those that successfully petition the court to wipe out their record that they can tell employers that they have not been convicted of criminal activity on a job application.

However, there’s a rub. While the conviction would be cleared from the actual court, it cannot be purged from criminal record databases that previously catalogued such information. This will can create an interesting situation for both employers and applicants when the actual background check is conducted.

Interestingly enough, this development would actually benefit those that do not take extra steps to verify criminal records at the source when they have been found on a criminal record database. Those that engage in the best practice of confirming these records at the court will be unable to report the record because it cannot be substantiated.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Stay tuned.

Florida Gov. Rejects Bill That Would Weaken Background Checks

Published on 24 June 2011 by Nick Fishman in Background Checks in States, Criminal Records, Legislation Articles

I’ll keep this one short and sweet. Kudos to Florida Governor Rick Scott for vetoing a bill that would have allowed some volunteer workers with in-home social service groups to avoid background checks.

Who in their right mind would think this bill was a good idea? Haven’t we already seen enough stories (especially out of Florida) which deal with abuse of the elderly and those with disabilities? Haven’t we seen our fair share of stories these folks are robbed blind by people offering in-home care?

View Full Story

Marion County, IN Redaction Could Destroy Background Checks

Published on 03 June 2011 by Nick Fishman in Breaking News, Criminal Records, Judicial Rulings

We recently learned that the Marion County, Indiana (Indianapolis) Courts and Clerk’s Office has approved the redaction of month and day of birth from court records made available to subscribers to their Criminal Court Records Search Service leaving only year of birth. See court ruling.

This is being done to protect the personal data of those who have records, however an unintended consequence of this ruling will leave those who conduct background checks in this county with no way to confirm that the criminal records they have found actually belong to their candidates. This measure would effectively kill the ability of employers (and anyone else who searches public records) to conduct background checks. Or employers will continue to perform background checks and stand to make hiring decisions based on information which belongs to someone else.

EmployeeScreenIQ has joined in with the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) to voice our concerns over the damage this measure would cause. We have been successful doing so whenever similar measure have arisen and expect to be again. However, we would strongly encourage anyone who feels they may be affected by this ruling to appeal to the court. You can do so by faxing a letter to the following individuals at (317) 327-3844.

Glenn Lawrence, Court Administrator
John Hanley Honorable, Presiding Judge
Becky Pierson-Treacy Honorable, Judge
Marc Rothenberg Honorable, Judge
Kelly Campbell, Director of Court Operations
David Certo Honorable, Judge

Fire All the Recruiters! Background Screening Satire

Published on 20 May 2011 by Nick Fishman in Background Check Service Spotlight, Criminal Records, Humor

Quick and easy isn’t always safe and legal. Check out our satirical video on national criminal background checks and how they can put your company in hot water. Remember, a quality employment background check is accomplished by searching records at the county courts! You can always use a national database search to complement a county criminal record search.

Anyone Think Employment Screening Legislation is Hypocritical?

Published on 05 May 2011 by Nick Fishman in Credit reports, Criminal Records, Legislative Updates, Rants

I’ve been thinking about all of the legislation (both enacted and proposed) and hearings designed to blunt the efficacy of background checks lately. Issues such as the “proper” use of criminal records, credit reports and efforts to “ban the box”. And my pervasive thought is that this legislation is both hypocritical and championed by populist sentiment. These laws consistently rely on a small minority of abuses and anecdotal evidence.

Do we really think for a second that our politicians, whether Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner, don’t perform thorough background checks on their employees? And do we think that those background checks might be even more stringent than what the average employer would require? The same can be said of the EEOC. Now, they would counter by saying that they have a need to know this information about their employees before making an informed decision. And I would wholeheartedly agree with them. Does anyone question what they can and can’t use and what is fair game and what is not? Trust me, the biggest abusers of onerous and burdensome background checks is our federal government. Private sector practices pale in comparison. Lastly, why are the same people who are calling for curbs on background checks the same people that are regularly calling for mandatory background checks when things go wrong? You can’t have it both ways.

Recent laws designed to curb the use of credit histories for employment screening purposes in Illinois and Maryland seem to emphasize my point about the populist sentiment. Have you seen how many exemptions they include? How many employers that aren’t in these exempted categories were running credit reports in the first place? These laws appear to cow to public pressure without really changing things at all. These exemptions weren’t included by accident.

So before designing laws that the government is not prepared to follow through on for themselves, it would be great to address some real solutions to these problems. Why do 65 million people in this country have criminal records? What programs can we develop that make it easier for employers to hire those that have truly been rehabilitated?

65 Million Americans with Criminal Records

Published on 03 May 2011 by Nick Fishman in Criminal Records, Rants

Okay. This must be some kind of record. I had another thought in my head for the second day in a row and all I can think about is the number 65,000,000.

I read an article published in the New York Times which was largely unfavorable to employers’ use of background checks. At one point the writer attempts to win us over by telling us that 65 million Americans have a criminal record. The insinuation is that so many people have criminal records, it’s hardly fair that an employer would use such information to make a hiring decision.

Really? Maybe it’s just me, but I think that is exhibit #1 as to why employers might want to conduct a background check on potential employees. Her argument appears to be, that we should stop conducting background checks because everyone has a record. Does she think we should shut down all of the prisons as well?

And while I’m at it, the title of the article cracks me up as well: “Internet Lets a Criminal Past Catch Up Quicker”. What? Those with criminal records deserve a head start and the internet is just too darn fast?

Two thoughts in two days. I’m spent.

Mindless Rant About Current Background Screening Issues

Published on 02 May 2011 by Nick Fishman in Criminal Records, Rants, School Background Checks, Social Networking Sites

I had a couple thoughts rolling around in my empty head over the past couple of days and thought you’d enjoy some insight into my frontal lobe.

First and foremost, good riddance to Osama Bin Laden. I’m sure both you and Adolph Hitler will enjoy each other’s company in a very warm spot for eternity. I just regret that each of you were cowards in the end. (Hitler killed himself and OBL used a woman as a human shield in his final stand.)

On t0 background checks now . . .

Issue #1

Continued news out of Brockton, MA where a student tutor was accused of raping an elementary school student. All charges have been dropped due to lack of evidence. Further, a CORI background check was conducted on the accused tutor and no record was found.

I hope that the school takes no solace in either of these two developments. Their lack of proper protocol is still not excused. They didn’t conduct a background check on this individual and it was later revealed that they failed to meet a statewide directive to rescreen all employees in 2010.

Further, I hope no one is satisfied that a CORI background check is sufficient to ensure thorough screening for school employees. What happens if a potential employee committed a crime outside of the state of Massachusetts? (And why do I constantly need spell check to tell me how to spell Massachusetts?)

Issue #2

I wrote a post last week about my thoughts on employers’ use of social networking sites as part of the background screening process and I’ve thinking about the kind of person that has a public profile on Facebook or other similar social networks. Thought I would express myself in an open letter (feel free to forward as you see fit).

To all mental midgets that are dumb enough make your profiles public:

You have no right to privacy when it comes to your pages. I guess if you are dumb enough to allow the world to view your profile, you are probably the same idiot that posts the kinds of stupid things that would cause you not to get hired.

That’s all I have for now. But I’m sure before too long another thought might emerge. Stay tuned.

Note to NFL: You Better Do Your Background Checks

Published on 26 April 2011 by Nick Fishman in Criminal Records, Humor

You might recall a story we posted last month about a Sports Illustrated/CNN poll that found 7% of all players on the roster of NCAA Football’s Top 25 list had been charged with, or convicted of criminal activity.

In anticipation the National Football League draft, BleacherReport.com just published a list of the Top 10 Craziest Arrest Stories of Players in this year’s draft.

Lowlights include Notre Dame’s Michael Floyd, USC Quarterback Mitch Mustain and Arkansas Quarterback, Ryan Mallett (formerly the pride of the Michigan Wolverines). Thankfully, there are no Ohio State Buckeyes on this year’s list. They must have been busy selling memorabilia or bartering for tattoos.

So, all 32 teams are on notice. Start the vetting process early and often. I can hear Hank Williams Jr. now, “Are you ready for some background checks?”

By the way, perhaps another blog post for another time. We should evaluate which NFL general managers have robbed their teams with awful player selections. I still can’t get over Ernie Accorsi of the Cleveland Browns drafting of Duke University linebacker Mike Junkin with the 5th pick in the 1st round. I’m taking nominations now.