0

thumb2In spring 2010, more than 600 HR professionals shared their views on the trends and challenges that will shape the future of employment background screening. The results are in and EmployeeScreenIQ has compiled them into a 14-page report that covers:

• Attitudes about emerging issues
• Changes in the importance of background screening
• Laws to protect job applicants
• Screening contract workers
• Attitudes of hiring managers and candidates

Respondents also share their insights and perspective about topical issues such as diploma mills, credit checks, employment history fraud, and more.

NOTE: For an engaging commentary on the survey findings, check out a new podcast interview with EmployeeScreenIQ’s Nick Fishman below.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

kindle3

EmployeeScreenIQ is surveying the HR world, and six minutes could win you a Kindle

How important are background checks in your hiring process? Which matters more: criminal background checks or credit reports? Where do contractors fit in?

You’re invited to participate in the 2010 Employment Background Screening Trends Survey from EmployeeScreenIQ. It takes only 6-7 minutes to complete and covers attitudes about emerging issues, diploma mills, laws to protect job applicants, and more.

Just by completing the survey, you’ll be entered in a prize drawing to win an Amazon Kindle E-reader. All participants will receive an executive summary of the survey results in June.

Click below to share your thoughts!

kindle

Share This Post

Continue Reading

2

Two job applicants with minor criminal records have gone to court to challenge the way the Census Bureau screens applicants for work as census takers.

census workersIn a class action suit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in New York, Eugene Johnson, 48, of the Bronx, N.Y., and Evelyn Houser, 69, of Philadelphia say they were unfairly rejected for census jobs this year because they could not provide court records of their cases settled decades earlier.

Johnson and Houser say they are among thousands who were not hired because records are no longer available for misdemeanor offenses committed long ago. The two, who are African Americans, say the Census Bureau’s screening practices amount to discrimination against blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, who have higher arrest rates that remain on their records even if there was no prosecution or conviction.

The Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, declined to comment on a pending lawsuit, but spokesman Nick Kimball cited safety as a reason for rules about hiring job candidates with criminal histories.

“Americans must be confident that if they don’t mail back their forms and a census taker must come to their door, we’ve taken steps to ensure their safety,” he said.

Johnson, who has done field survey work for pollsters and market researchers, was arrested on misdemeanor assault charges in 1995 stemming from a dispute with his landlord over rent. He was sentenced to perform community service and pay restitution.

Houser, a retired housekeeper and home health aide, has a 1981 case for theft and forgery involving a check that she found near a dumpster and cashed. She was placed in a diversionary program and was not formally convicted. She was hired as a census taker in 1990.

This year, when the Census Bureau is expected to hire more than 700,000 temporary census takers, FBI fingerprint checks have been run for the first time on all applicants. Serious felonies automatically disqualify applicants, but people convicted of less severe transgressions can be hired. Census Director Robert M. Groves has been vague about which crimes could keep a job candidate in contention. Hundreds of job seekers with criminal records have shown up at job fairs in Washington to take the test given to all applicants.

Samuel R. Miller, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said the FBI database collects arrest records from states but has a notorious backlog in keeping track of dispositions.

More

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

I really wasn’t using this story as a reason to post a album cover from one of my favorite bands, really!  It is an interesting story, a position that many HR professionals have found themselves in during their career.  What do I ask? How do I ask it? How do I NOT get sued for asking it wrong….

Skeletons“Dr. Young” was a candidate for a senior administrative position at an institution that was a very good match for his interests. The chair of the search committee asked him to meet for a long lunch in a nice restaurant in a city a couple of hours away (an attempt at a bit of privacy). The lunch went incredibly well. Their conversations were completely relaxed and laughter punctuated much of their time together.

As the committee chair outlined details of the challenges and opportunities of the position, Dr. Young found himself even more interested than he had been prior to the meeting.

As their time together dwindled, the chair leaned in and said, in a half-whisper, “Before we leave, I have to ask you one last question. Please understand that I feel awkward asking this, but this is the best setting to ask since it’s just the two of us. Do you have any skeletons in your closet?”

Dr. Young was caught off guard by the question. What exactly did this mean? He thought immediately of an old job-interview joke he had once heard: Interviewer: “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” Interviewee, in a relieved tone of voice: “Convicted? Whew! No.”

How far back did he need to go in his answer? College indiscretions? High-school hijinks? What kind of skeletons? Financial issues? Romantic complications?

The chair clarified slightly: “We will do a complete background check, including a credit check, on finalists for this position, so I figure it’s better to ask in person and let the candidate withdraw in advance if something might be found. It’s better for everyone to ask this early.”

Dr. Young later asked a friend who was an employment lawyer about the question, and the lawyer said, “He was trying to get you to self-disclose information that they might or might not discover on their own. It’s sort of a trick question, a little like ‘When will you stop beating your spouse?’”

What advice might you offer a candidate who fields such a question?

Full Article

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) has just finished several studies regarding background checks, criminal record searches, reference interviews and pre-employment credit reports.  The numbers are not surprising, they show that over 75% of U.S. organizations are currently conducting more than one type of employment screening services. Over 430 companies were surveyed and the results were interesting:

  • 88% of companies either partially or fully outsource criminal background checks
  • 87% of companies either partially or fully outsource credit background checks
  • 48% of companies either partially or fully outsource reference checks
  • Between 34 – 51% of companies use these types of services internationally

Each study, there are four total, break down the metrics into hundreds of different categories.  For instance, out of the 75% of companies that screen their employees most are obviously larger organizations.  The study further breaks them down by industry and size.  I found it most interesting when they break down the reasons for the screens and how many use the negative information in their decision.

Spend some time with these studies, if you are a member of SHRM they can be found at:

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/ConductingReferenceBackgroundChecks.aspx

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/BackgroundCheckCriminalChecks.aspx

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/BackgroundCheckingGeneral.aspx

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/BackgroundChecking.aspx

Pay special attention to the studies on Credit Reports.  As we all know the EEOC is attempting to crack down on their use.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

Our neighbors to the north are decades ahead of us in passing legislation to curb workplace violence. Major changes to the provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act called Bill 168 create new rules to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace. The bill does not directly address background checks or employment screening, however, another provision obligates an employer to warn employees if its knows, or should know, that a worker could come into contact with a person with a history of violence. (Kind of sounds like the Negligent Hiring Doctrine) How would it know this; the answer is simple, comprehensive screening of their employees.

workplace-violenceOntario employers face tough new violence laws

There were plenty of warning signs of trouble in the months before nurse Lori Dupont’s final shift at Hôtel-Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor, Ont.

In February of 2005, she had broken up with Marc Daniel, a 50-year-old married anesthesiologist, after he tried to kill himself. The two had met while working in the hospital, where Dr. Daniel had a history of harassing nurses, both verbally and physically.

When he was released from hospital after his suicide attempt, Dr. Daniel returned to work, where he intimidated and stalked Ms. Dupont, a 36-year-old single mother. He left compromising photos of her on her car and threatened to distribute them. He was suspended, but soon back at work again, on the recommendation of a psychiatrist.

On the morning of Nov. 12, when the pair were on a shift together, Dr. Daniel hid behind a pillar in the recovery room. Minutes later, he stabbed Ms. Dupont to death, plunging a hunting knife into her upper chest and back seven times. He was later found in his car, with a syringe in his arm and no vital signs. He died three days later in the same hospital.

Almost five years later, new workplace violence and harassment rules prompted by Ms. Dupont’s death are set to take effect in Ontario. On June 15, employers in the province will have to comply with the major changes to the provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act, contained in amendments known as Bill 168.

Other provinces, including Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have some comparable legislation, but some legal experts say Ontario’s new rules are vague in places and leave questions that will likely have to be answered in court.

And employment lawyers in Ontario say that with the deadline now less than three months away, many of the province’s corporations are only now coming to grips with the changes.

Under the coming regulations, employers will have to conduct workplace violence risk assessments, draft new policies on workplace violence and harassment, and warn employees if they could be exposed at work to someone with a violent past.

Employees will also have the right to refuse to work if they feel they are at risk of workplace violence.

The reforms also broaden the definition of workplace harassment, which is currently limited to sexist, racist or other comments covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code. Now, harassment will be defined as including “course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.”

More

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

1

While we respect and admire Workforce Management, we were troubled by the article, “Burden of Proof,” which was part of a special report on Background Checking (February 2010 issue).  Having been quoted in this article, I was disappointed that my quotes, and those of one of my colleagues, were presented out of context.   The author attempts to make a correlation between the lack of empirical data on the ROI of background screening and the benefits of doing so for employers.   The fact is our industry trade group, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), has not conducted such studies.  However, the author fails to mention that such studies do exist outside of the trade group.

Additionally, some important points and studies on background screening were left out. For instance:

Probably more than anything, the ROI comes from bad press. Consider the following:

  • The news that a Radio Shack chief executive falsified his diploma, causing their stock to tumble drastically.
  • Last week’s revelation that at least 10 senior executives and directors at publicly-traded companies had corporate biographies claiming unearned academic credentials.

Background screening is one of the most important aspects of the hiring process; in fact, Workforce Management has published many articles over the years citing similar stats, studies and horror stories.

While I agree that the EEOC does have several initiatives to curb some background screening practices, it’s a far stretch to say the burden of proof will be on employers.  Admittedly, some companies are performing screening in a less than desirable manner.  However, NAPBS members have worked hard to separate themselves from these types of companies.  If background screening is done properly, it finds the right jobs for the right people.  If the selection of employees is done properly and no discriminatory hiring practices are utilized, the EEOC finds no cause for action.  Consider that fact that the largest user of background screening services in the world is the U.S. Government and their contractors!

Jason B Morris, President

EmployeeScreenIQ

Past Co-Chairman NAPBS

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

1

Kudos to the National Association of Professional Background Screners (NAPBS) for passing and launching the industries first accreditation program.  Since before I was Co-Chairman of NAPBS hundreds of people have put in thousands of tireless hours to get this program off the ground.  The Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) was formed two years ago to take the hard work that was done previously and implement it into reality.  I couldn’t be more proud of my competitors being able to work together to finally get this done!  EmployeeScreenIQ is looking forward to the challenge of going through this process in the coming year!

napbsNew Accreditation Effort Introduces a Self-Regulating Program Poised to Change the Industry

MORRISVILLE, N.C., Feb. 24 /PRNewswire/ — The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) announced today they will be launching the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP), the first ever industry-specific background screening accreditation program at the opening ceremonies of the NAPBS 2010 Annual Conference on March 7th in San Antonio.

Each year, U.S. employers, organizations and governmental agencies request millions of consumer reports to assist with critical business decisions involving background screening. Background screening reports, which are categorized as consumer reports, are currently regulated at both the federal and state level.  Since its inception, NAPBS has believed that there is a strong need for a singular cohesive industry standard and created the BSAAP. Governed by a strict professional standard composed of requirements and measurements, the BSAAP is positioned to become a widely recognized seal of approval that brings national recognition to background screening organizations (also referred to as Consumer Reporting Agencies). This recognition will stand as the industry “seal” representing a background screening organization’s commitment to excellence, accountability, high professional standards and continued institutional improvement.

“The BSAAP is the industry’s primary vehicle for quality assurance, self-regulation and public accountability,” said Tracy Seabrook, CAE, executive director of NAPBS. ”Developed and sustained by background screening professionals, the BSAAP reflects, reinforces, and promotes best practices, institutional ethics, and the highest standards of background screening operations.”

More

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

1

In response to what it perceives as a barrier to people getting jobs, the Oregon Senate has introduced a bill to curb employers’ use of credit reports.

Oregon Senate Bill 1045 would prevent most employers from using a prospective candidate’s credit history into pre-employment screening, promotion or other employment-related decisions.  According to The Oregonian “[the] bill would continue to allow businesses to look into an applicant’s criminal and employment history and do other background checks. And certain employers could continue to consider credit histories, such as banks, law enforcement agencies and other businesses that can show credit checks are necessary to evaluate candidates for specific positions.

The proposal will be reviewed by Governor Ted Kulongski and is expected to pass.  Oregon is among the states with the highest unemployment rates in the country and is well-known for its liberal policies and practices.  Opponents are stating that this law would be anti-business by limiting the information employers can use to make an informed hiring decision.

If the law is passed, Oregon would join Hawaii and Washington as the only states that limit the use of credit reports.

We anticipate that NAPBS will advocate on behalf of employers on this issue and will keep you posted. ??We are, of course, opposed to this bill.  As long as credit reports are used legally and without discrimination, employers should have the ability to exercise the rights granted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

1

Yesterday we covered the Amy Bishop shooting story on our blog.   Later in the day we were contacted by the Associated Press for comment due to our extensive coverage of Workplace Violence issues.  Other than being a bit mis-quoted, the story turned out great.  Background screening firms do NOT check weapon registrations are part of the employment screening process.  There was obviously a bit of confusion, what I said was a reference check or employment verification MAY have uncovered something.  Oh well, we are working to have the quote restated!

Jason Morris, president of EmployeeScreenIQ, a Cleveland, Ohio, company that does background checks for colleges and other large institutions, said it’s possible a background check would not have turned up the incidents in Bishop’s past, particularly since she wasn’t charged.

Part of the problem is that college professors often come to campus with very lofty credentials, like Bishop’s degree from Harvard University, Morris said.

“Sometimes they overlook certain characteristics because they’ve got this great person coming to campus,” Morris said.

“It’s not a silver bullet,” he said of background checks, but a check of weapons records “might have uncovered something.”

For the full story, read below:

Husband: Ala. prof went to range before shooting

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The husband of an Alabama college professor accused of shooting her colleagues says the couple went to a shooting range weeks before the killing but he didn’t know where she got the gun.

James Anderson told The Associated Press Monday that he did not know how long Amy Bishop had a gun before Friday’s attack. He says the family did not own a gun.

Bishop is accused of opening fire at a faculty meeting at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, killing three and wounding three.

Anderson says she was acting like “a normal professor” in the days before the shooting.

He also says he and his wife were cleared in the investigation of a pipe bomb sent to one of her former bosses in Massachusetts in 1993.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) — Disclosures that an Alabama professor accused of fatally shooting three colleagues was twice questioned by criminal investigators years ago raised concerns Monday of why background checks didn’t prevent her hiring at the school in 2003.

University of Alabama in Huntsville officials were meeting privately to review the files concerning Amy Bishop, a Harvard-educated neurobiologist accused of pulling a gun at a Friday faculty meeting and shooting six people, three fatally. Two of the survivors remained in critical condition Monday.

More

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

All information contained on this website is provided by employeescreenIQ solely for the convenience of the site viewers. employeescreenIQ is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this website or otherwise by employeescreenIQ should be deemed as legal guidance or advice. Users are solely responsible for complying with all local, state, and federal laws relating to the use of any information provided on this website and any information products provided by employeescreenIQ. Users should consult with their own legal counsel if they have questions regarding their legal responsibilities or any information provided by employeescreenIQ.

Switch to our mobile site