Earlier this month, we released our our latest white paper: Background Screening and the Candidate Experience.

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.

For a brief introduction of the material covered in our white paper, check out the video below.  And of course, don’t forget to download a copy.

Background Screening and the Candidate Experience from Nick Fishman, EmployeeScreenIQ on Vimeo.

Our U.K. strategic partner, Verifile Ltd. has published their 2011 report on diploma and accreditation mill activity and reveals an astounding 48% increase worldwide in the number of known diploma and accreditation mills in the past year alone. As the Internet is the primary home for these bogus education and accreditation providers, little action is taken to stop them from helping unscrupulous candidates deceive unsuspecting employers. This year’s Accredibase™ report examines the current status of the diploma mill situation and considers what can be done to protect the public and businesses.

The Accredibase™ report identifies the following red flags that may help in the identification of diploma mills*:

• The institution does not have authority to operate or grant degrees from the education authorities where it claims to be based.
• Degrees are delivered in a very short space of time – sometimes just a few days.
• Degrees are granted based entirely on work or life experience.
• Contact details are limited to an email address and the institution is vague about its location.
• The institution will allow the student to choose his/her own course title and specify the graduation year to appear on the certificate.
• Sample certificates, transcripts or verification letters are available to view on the website.
• Institutions make over-complicated or misleading claims about accreditation or recognition.
• The institution’s name is similar to that of a recognised and respected education institution.
• Internet domain names are misleading – such as ‘.ac’ instead of the regulated ‘.ac.uk’ used by higher education institutions in the United Kingdom.
• The website is poorly designed, has poor spelling and grammar or it plagiarises copy from other institutions.

Verifile’s proprietary database of diploma and accreditation mills, Accredibase™, keeps track of the credential fraud industry. Verifile’s Accredibase™ has identified approximately 5000 suspect educational institutions and accreditors, including 2,615 known bogus education and accreditation providers. In addition to the huge number of confirmed mills known to Accredibase™, new suspect institutions are discovered on a daily basis – more than 2,000 are currently under investigation by Accredibase™ for inclusion in the database.

Download the full report

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!

Last month, we published a white paper on the potential liabilities incurred by employers that use adjudication modules or hiring matrices to make employment decisions when adverse information is found on a background check.  And to any of you who read the material, or followed us over the years, you know that we have big concerns when it comes to this practice.  Why?  Because time and time again we see employers getting in trouble for their use.  Sometimes it’s their fault for developing a matrix that runs afoul of the law and sometimes it’s because they are using a matrix that was given to them by another company or CRA that does not fully contemplate their needs.

After publishing this white paper, I received an email from a competitor whom I know and respect asking me to recall the material.  Among other things, he felt that the material damned all employers and background screeners who employ this practice and that it suggested that adjudication modules could never be legally adopted.  He also believes that background screeners who offer this service (in full disclosure, we offer the service but are not big advocates of it), differentiate themselves and dissuade the marketplace of the notion that a background check is a commodity.

So, here’s my response.  The white paper was intended to create awareness and point out how those that engage in this practice can unknowingly take on liability.  At EmployeeScreenIQ, we’ve always taken the approach that we want employers to understand how to operate their screening program effectively, efficiently and within the confines of the law.  We also want to ensure that they understand the potential liabilities of certain practices so that they can make an informed decision about what is best for them. We see far too many employers that don’t have or are not given all of the facts make decisions without understanding the risks.  We felt and feel that this white paper pointed out those risks and even offered advice for how employers using hiring matrices can avoid some of these liabilities.

That said, we did some soul searching and decided that we would modify the content slightly to allow for the fact that a sophisticated hiring matrix can be created to address differences in job responsibilities, local reporting laws and similar charges in states that do not have the same meaning.  The only thing we modified was the following paragraph:

As far as the sentiment that not providing this service commoditizes our product, I couldn’t disagree more.  When an employer looks at a red, green or yellow dot or a hire, review, don’t hire conclusion and chooses not to review the contents of a report, I believe that signifies that the information contained within is unimportant.

So at the end of the day, I apologize to anyone who read the original document and concluded that adjudication modules are either illegal or wrong in every instance.  The idea was merely to make employers aware of the potential liabilities.  I believe we did that and the modification we made makes that clear.

Feel free to download a copy here (no registration required).

As you know, we recently released a white paper on the potential liabilities employers may take on by using adjudication modules when conducting background checks.  We’ve summarized our opinions, findings and conclusions in a podcast recorded with HRMarketer’s Elrond Lawrence.  Check it out.

Many employers turn to adjudication modules for guidance when they discover an applicant has a criminal conviction or poor credit. Such modules are designed to provide hiring mangers with a simple guide for making complicated decisions; however, organizations that blindly follow them could be exposed to significant liability as the government cracks down on discriminatory hiring practices.

A new white paper from EmployeeScreenIQ reveals the challenges of these modules and offers ways for hiring professionals to avoid a legal slippery slope. “Adjudication Modules and the EEOC: When Consistency Becomes a Liability” is written by employment background screening authority Nick Fishman and covers the following:

• The EEOC’s recent scrutiny of hiring practices, including recent lawsuits
• New laws such as Illinois’ “Employee Credit Privacy Act” that restrict the use of credit history and criminal records in employment decisions
• The dangers of allowing third-party providers to develop modules and judge applicants
• “Do’s and don’ts” tips for managers that use adjudication modules

Download a complimentary copy of EmployeeScreenIQ’s new article by clicking here.

EmployeenScreenIQ recently published a white paper on the need for organizations to ensure employment background checks are being conducted on their contingent workforce.  “Screening Your Contingent Workforce: What HR Professionals Should Know” examines the dangers of hiring contract workers without performing the same background checks as on permanent employees.

I sat down with HRMarketer’s Elrond Lawrence earlier this week to talk about some of the key issues addressed in our study.  Topics include the following:

• Why screening the contingent workforce is so important
• How companies can work with contracted staffing agencies to ensure consistency and compliance
• How organizations can protect themselves from from claims of hiring discrimination

Check out our podcast.

EmployeeScreenIQ’s newest article explains how to use credit reports fairly, legally, and effectively.

Nearly 50 percent of employers use credit checks for relevant jobs . . . but in these challenging economic times, many have been accused of using credit reports to unfairly deny people work. Legislators are listening to these concerns and some states are passing or proposing legislation designed to limit or ban the use of credit histories. A new article from background screening provider EmployeeScreenIQ is designed to help you:

• Determine when credit reports are relevant to the job.
• Identify red flags among applicants.
• Know what to do when a red flag is discovered.
• Evaluate each applicant or employee on an individual basis.

Download your free copy of “Credit Reports and the Hiring Process: The Value (and Risk) to HR Professionals” by clicking the link below:

Download Here

We just published the 20th edition of our quarterly newsletter, The Verifier!  This publication is intended as an educational tool and information resource for human resource professionals or anyone interested in keeping abreast of recent employment background screening industry developments.

Highlights of this issue include the following:

Recruiting with Social Networking Sites: What you DO know can hurt you

Applicant Release Form (Consumer Authorization): Back to Basics Series

Violence in the Workplace: A Growing Problem in America

Legislative Alert: Oregon Law Severely Restricts Use of Credit Reports

EmployeeScreenIQ Recognized as World Class Customer Service Honoree

Check it out at http://theverifier.employeescreen.com/

We just released a  new white paper which examines the risks of judging job candidates by Facebook: Social networks – what you know can hurt you.

This new article from background screening provider EmployeeScreenIQ uncovers:

• • • • • The dangers of over-reliance on social networking to find candidates
        • Horror stories such as Stacey, the Drunken Pirate
        • Legal and ethical issues and the appearance of discrimination
        • Legally-defensible alternative programs

Sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook offer new ways to find job candidates and build relationships. However, employers who rely too much on social networks face legal and ethical dangers… because in the world of social network recruiting, what you know may actually hurt you.

Download A Copy Here