Last month, the AP published an article titled, “When Your Criminal Past Isn’t Yours”, which ruffled the feathers of many in the background screening industry because they questioned the practices of the entire industry rather than the few that caused this issue they highlighted. And while the industry as a whole should not be cast in a negative light, the practices of a few continue to drag many of us down.

That said, I sent an email to both authors acknowledging that while the practices of some screening companies have led to events such as these, that the industry is not to blame, but rather the few who operate recklessly.  Below, is a copy of that email sent to authors Michael Liedtke from the Associated Press and Jordan Robertson, now from Bloomberg News.

Dear Michael/Jordan,

I appreciated your recent article, “When Your Criminal Past Isn’t Yours,” and I wanted to offer some additional information for your consideration.  Your article was very thorough and I largely agree with you — except in one respect: all background screening companies are not the same. There are companies committed to accountability and performing to the highest standards of professionalism.

Your article calls out a few background check companies for reporting  incorrect, and unverified information to employers, who then may use these inaccurate reports to deny people jobs, hurting innocent  people simply looking for work.  This is a problem.  There are companies that are careless and quick to pass along outdated or inaccurate information, that use only databases and don’t research actual court records and that simply scrape data off of court websites without checking it for accuracy. It’s these companies that give us all a bad name, pushing the idea that screening is a commodity.

There are reasons for this.  Conducting background checks is a complicated business. Employers are generally unaware of the nuances of local, county, state, and federal laws, their processes, problems or regulations. And that’s not their fault; it’s not their business.  But without this knowledge, and with all companies claiming to do the same thing, it’s easy to discount claims of service and accuracy and simply look at price and whiz-bang technology systems.  On the other side, these screening companies know this and their use of terms like “criminal search,” “instant,” and “national background check,” combined with a bells and whistles software allows them to perpetuate a higher degree of accuracy than their processes actually provide.

There is no doubt that both individuals and employers are harmed by careless background checks and companies that operate either on the fringe or outside the parameters of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

It’s because of all this that EmployeeScreenIQ takes a “no shortcuts” approach to screening.  It is the foundation for how we operate our business and is employed at every level of our organization in order to advance informed hiring decisions. One of the worst things one can do in the background screening process is to make a hiring decision based on inaccurate data. Rather than just reporting raw, unconfirmed information, EmployeeScreenIQ takes the necessary steps to ensure the results are reliable, accurate and up to date.

Before reporting criminal records, our Public Records department actually confirms that the information we’ve found belongs to the applicant. They also actually consult our 50 state compliance guide to ensure that the record is legally reportable. The same methods apply to verifying other pieces of adverse information such as employment and education verifications. We are willing to point out our dispute rate — only .017% of all county criminal checks we complete are disputed.

EmployeeScreenIQ has successfully achieved compliance with the National Association of Professional Background Screeners accreditation program and is formally recognized as Background Screening Credentialing Council Accredited.  This recognition affirms our commitment to excellence, accountability, high professional standards and continued institutional improvement. Less than 2% of employment screening companies have earned this distinction and we are pleased to share such a small stage.

Accreditation is an important seal of approval that all companies should look for when choosing a provider as it is the only program in our field that proves their procedures are compliant with industry best practices. It also affirms security protocols, industry knowledge and expertise.

I would be happy to discuss any of this with you at your convenience, answer any questions you may have and be a resource to you for future stories. Thank you again for keeping this issue in the public eye and I look forward to reading more of your work.

An Illinois man is suing both his former employer and their background screening provider because they errantly reported that he was a registered sex offender and didn’t take the time to ensure that the record found actually belonged to him.

Stories like this really get my blood boiling because they make us all look bad.  The perception is that all employment screeners don’t care whether they report accurate information or not and that employers blindly make hiring decisions without allowing the candidate to refute the information.  It is also stories like these that cause government agencies and advocates to scream that employers are misusing background checks and that the practice requires further regulation and guidelines.

Here’s the story according to ABC News:

“In October 2010, [Samuel] Jackson was offered a job as a live chat response specialist for Optics Planet, an Illionois-based online catalog for binoculars, camera lenses and other optical equipment. The company then contracted Infotrack to run a background track, and Infotrack returned information tying Jackson to seven ‘possible matches’ from the national sex offender registry, according to the suit.”

“The background check misidentified Jackson, who is a white male in his twenties, as a black male in his fifties who had been convicted of sex crimes in states where Jackson has never lived.”

We’ve talked for years about the importance of confirming and verifying the information that is found before reporting it to an employer.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires Consumer Reporting Agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure accuracy and to notify individuals when a report may adversely affect their job application.

In EmployeeScreenIQ’s case, we won’t report a record without confirming the proper identifiers.  We look for a combination of the following matches name, date of birth and, or social security number.  That means a name match only is not sufficient to authenticate a criminal record.

Furthermore, we work with our clients to ensure that they provide the candidates’ with proper notice when they take adverse action and allow them to dispute any information they believe is erroneous.

In this case, it seems that neither of these things happened.  And rather than face the negative publicity, the expense of litigation and potential damages, it would have been a heck of a lot easier to just follow the proper protocol.

View Full Story

Question: What do the producers of Sesame Street and the Iowa City Fair have in common?

Answer:  They both don’t want the publicity they drew when it was discovered that the fair hired a registered sex offender convicted in 2005 of lascivious acts with a 7 year old girl to wear a Cookie Monster costume and greet children.

I don’t know, just a thought, but do you think maybe the fair should have conducted an employment background check?  Between a criminal record search and a check of the sex offender registry they most surely would have discovered that maybe the should move on to the next applicant.  But hey, that’s just me.

According to Reuters,  “The owner of the costume company that hired Rogers says that they did not run a background check. The owner said that Rogers needed a job, so he was put to work almost immediately. Rogers would have also been sent to work at other private events and birthday parties if he hadn’t been discovered by a parole supervisor who recognized him at the fair.”

Thank goodness nothing happened.

View Full Story

Who’s screening the screeners?  This is a question we’ve been asking for many years.  Nothing shoots a big gaping hole into a good background screening plan like when the people who are charged with the oversight of the plan decide not to run the background checks.

Such is the case that we are now reading about where background checks were falsified and individuals were granted top-secret government clearance without the checks actually being performed.

According to the Washington Times, “court records show at least 170 confirmed falsifications of interviews or record checks and more than 1,000 others that couldn’t be verified. The background investigators, whose work helps determine who gets top-secret security clearance, were submitting forms saying they conducted interviews or verified official documents when they never did.”

And while the motive for these falsifications was not offered in the article, I chalk it up to pure laziness.  Yes, these investigators are being overwhelmed with requests for these clearances, but this is our national security we’re talking about.

Read Full Article

A Brockton, MA elementary school student was raped (allegedly) by a college student tutor employed by the school.   This is one of the most hideous, disgusting and sickening crimes that we’ll ever see and probably the best (or worst) example of why background checks are so vitally important in the hiring process.

It is unclear as to whether the school screened this student teacher for criminal records or to see if they were a registered sex offender, but it has been discovered that while school employees were originally checked at the time of hire, the district failed to meet their requirement of conducting a new criminal background check in January of 2010.

The superintendent of the school claims that this was due to human error, but my goodness, isn’t this one thing you can’t afford to get wrong?

Read Full Story

We all know that if an employer intends to conduct a background check through a Consumer Reporting Agency (employment screening company), that they must obtain an applicant’s written consent to do so.  Further, we know that if an employer decides to take adverse action against a job candidate or employee based on the outcome of a background check, they must provide them with proper adverse action notification.  Isn’t that background screening 101?

Evidently, no one told that to a school bus transportation company who has just settled a $5.9 million class action suit for failing to provide the requisite disclosures to applicants before running a background check on them and also failed to follow the required two-step adverse action process when they denied employment based on information revealed on a criminal background check.

Seyfarth Shaw FCRA attorney Pam Devata just posted a complete write up on the case.  See excepts below.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), an employer has a number of detailed requirements with which it must comply both before it can procure a background report (consumer report) about an applicant or employee, and if it intends to take action in whole or in part based on information in a consumer report. See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq. Specifically, an employer must: (i) have a permissible purpose for procuring a report in the first place; (ii) certify to the background screening company that it will comply with applicable law and will not use any information in violation of Equal Employment Opportunity laws or regulations; (iii) provide a written disclosure to the applicant or employee indicating that specific background checks will be conducted by a third party and obtain authorization from that applicant or employee to conduct such checks; and (iv) follow the detailed two-step adverse action requirements (including providing a copy of the report, a Summary of Rights, and a pre-adverse action notification letting a person know he or she could dispute inaccuracies in the report).

The Court in Hunter, et al v. First Transit,, Inc., Case Nos. 09-CV-6178 & 10-CV-7002 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2011), granted preliminary approval of the settlement for more than 143,000 class members. The Court has scheduled a final fairness hearing for August 1, 2011.

And here’s Pam’s big advice for all employers out there who conduct background checks

It behooves employers to view these cases as an impetus to evaluate their current policies and procedures relating to the use of background checks in employment and seek legal guidance to ensure compliance with the FCRA and similar state laws.

We are closely following a proposed bill in the state of Florida which would remove certain protections the state’s employers currently receive against negligent hiring suits in the event that they conduct an employment background check.

Florida House Bill 449 “Jim King Keep Florida Working Act” would remove a provision in Fla. Stat. § 768.096 (Employer presumption against negligent hiring) which was enacted as part of the 1999 Florida Tort Reform Act.

According to one legal expert I have spoken with, “The statute provides that in a civil action for death or injury caused by an employee’s intentional tort, the employer is presumed not to be negligent in hiring the employee if he engaged in one or more pre-employment background investigation steps that did not ‘reveal any information that reasonably demonstrated the unsuitability of the prospective employee for the particular work to be performed or for the employment in general.’”

The state’s website introduces this bill as follows:

“Criminal Justice; Designates act “Jim King Keep Florida Working Act”; requires state agencies & regulatory boards to identify & evaluate restrictions on licensing & employment for ex-offenders; prohibits state agencies from denying certain applications based on person’s lack of civil rights; provides exception; requires employer to review results of criminal background investigation & not place employee with criminal record where conduct similar to past criminal conduct would be facilitated, etc.”

This bill should be of significant concern to employers in the state of Florida.  It basically means that even if you performed a comprehensive background check which did not indicate any adverse information, you can still be held accountable for negligent hiring.  Does that make any sense?  I suppose state lawmakers would prefer that employers look into a crystal ball to predict the future.

Read full version of Florida HB 449

It’s common knowledge that a good onboarding program can improve a new employee’s engagement and productivity while also contributing to organizational performance. Yet employers are only beginning to grasp the importance of the candidate experience. Inside that world lies the critical stage of background screening.

EmployeeScreenIQ’s new white paper, Background Screening and The Candidate Experience, is a must-read for employers and HR professionals. Our paper explains how background checks can directly impact the onboarding process and your company’s brand.

Inside you’ll learn about:

• Viewing candidates as potential employees, clients, and/or consumers
• Maintaining transparency with background screening policies and practices
• The importance of verifying negative information before it’s reported
• Protecting your brand when a candidate disputes the findings of a background check
• Choosing a screening firm that’s dedicated to best practices and compliance
• And more!

Joseph Mannino, a registered nurse who previously served three years in a North Carolina prison on an involuntary manslaughter conviction, was fired from his job at Lehigh Valley Hospital in 2008 for lying about his conviction status on his application for employment.  Time employed before the hospital found out: about three years.

Why did three years go by before his lie was discovered?  I have a better question.  Why didn’t the hospital learn of his conviction when they conducted the background check on him?  Better yet, how was he able to get a nursing license in the state of Pennsylvania?

If you guessed that both his nursing school and employer only conducted statewide criminal checks through the Pennsylvania State Police, you are spot on!

While the PA State Police criminal check may be a good tool to finding records in the state of Pennsylvania (but only as a supplement to a comprehensive countywide criminal search -remember!), it is definitely not a good source for any records maintained beyond its borders.  His school and employer make the argument that he met the two year residency requirement so that is why the statewide search was conducted.  In no way is that a legitimate excuse for not knowing about the conviction!  Convicted felons should not get a pass just because they meet some arbitrary residency requirement.  This is a person who was employed to care for vulnerable people, had access to controlled substances and sensitive personal  information.  The bottom line is that his employer should have been aware of his criminal past prior to making the hiring decision.  Conducting a thorough criminal search in all of the places your applicant has lived and worked (as far back as you can go) is the best way to find out who you are really employing.

Convicted Killer Hired As Nurse

By Bo Koltnow, WFMZ-TV – March 15, 2010

SALISBURY TWP., Pa. — A convicted killer landed a nursing job and years went by before he was outed.  

By all accounts, Joseph Mannino of Palmer Township, Northampton County was a good employee when he worked as a nurse for Lehigh Valley Hospital.

But in 2008, he had his nursing license revoked and was fired for lying on his job application.  

The lie? Not being a convicted felon.  

Lehigh Valley Hospital said it never would have hired Mannino in 2005 if it knew then what it knows now. 

 More

An audit conducted by New South Wales’ Auditor General has found that fourteen people employed as volunteers for children’s organizations had dangerous criminal pasts that posed a significant risk to children.   According to the Auditor General, the Children’s Commission, the organization that oversees the health and well-being of children in New South Wales, can only stop the employment of volunteers if they are found to have serious child-related offenses in their past.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I would consider many different crimes unrelated to children to be a basis to deny employment to someone looking to work with children. 

1.  Murder

2.  Assault (with or without a weapon)

3. Drug Related Offenses or Use

4.  DUI (if the position requires transporting children)

5.  Sexually related offenses (against adults)

I could go on but I think you catch my drift.  NSW and the Children’s Commission better get on the ball and plug these holes in their background check process before somebody gets hurt.

Background checks leave kids vulnerable

At least 14 people known to pose a significant risk to children were employed to work with young people in New South Wales last financial year, the state’s Auditor-General has found.

ABC News Australia – February 24, 2010

An audit by Peter Achterstraat has found the process used to check people who work with children in NSW does not reliably identify everyone who poses a danger to young people.

The audit has also found that people who have been assessed as being a significant risk to children can be employed to work with them.

Releasing the findings this morning, Mr Achterstraat said there were 14 such cases last financial year.

He said the Children’s Commission could only stop people identified as being dangerous from working with children if they had been convicted of a serious child-related offence.

Mr Achterstraat said it was also not known how many volunteer organisation were running Working With Children safety checks.

“Whether we like it or not, there is a danger that perpetrators of child abuse will deliberately target voluntary associations to get access to children…” he said.

“Parents expect that people working with their children would have been checked. There is a safety net but it has got holes in it and those holes need to be mended quick smart.”

More