EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

Effective on May 4, 2012, employers in Massachusetts will need to follow some new state regulations if they conduct criminal background checks through the state’s Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI).

The state’s 2010 CORI law created a new source for employers to access criminal records, and along with that access is a new set of rules and regulations.  A “Ban the Box” provision went into effect in November, privacy and data security rules in March (these provisions apply to all Mass. employers regardless if they use CORI or not), and now the next wave, relating specifically to CORI criminal background checks, goes into effect next month.

The highlights:

• Employers who want to access 5 or more CORI reports annually are required to have a written policydescribing the method and use of the records.
• Safe Harbor provisions for employers who use the system.
• Written notification requirements for employers who take adverse action based on the records, including a requirement to provide the applicant with a copy of the report. This requirement is regardless of whether the employer obtains the information directly, or from a third party CRA (Consumer Reporting Agency).
• Employers using a CRA must make certifications to the CRA that it is compliant with CORI including providing required disclosures.
• Employers and CRAs must register for an account on the iCORI system, and undergo training and retraining as required.
• When employers are obtaining CORI information directly, they are required to provide consent forms for each applicant, and maintain those forms for one year from the date of signature. In addition, the employer mustverify the identity of the applicant by examining a government-issued ID, and certify that the applicant was properly identified.
• Employers are subject to storage rules, and must store copies of CORI reports in a secured, locked location with limited employee access. Electronic CORI records must be password-protected and encrypted and may not be stored using public cloud storage methods.
• Employers may not retain CORI reports for longer than seven years. If an employer disseminates CORI outside of its organization, the employer must maintain a detailed log, which must be maintained for at least one year for audit purposes. Employers may be subject to audits and complaints for failure to comply with the law.
• Penalties for violations of the CORI Law include civil fines of up to $5,000 for each knowing violation of the CORI law, and some violations may lead to criminal prosecution.

More information about this new law will be distributed as the regulations are reviewed and as guidance becomes available.  Please note that employers are never permitted to require an individual to provide a copy of his or her own CORI.  Also note, that unless mandated to do so, employers are not forced to use the CORI system.  County criminal record searches are still allowed (and recommended).

Continue Reading

Warning: This is definitely a shameless plug (but I love our new graphic).

What do Facebook passwords and the Virginia Governor’s chef have in common?

They’re all part of the often lively, always informative background screening dialogue crossing our
social network in the last 48 hours.

Wherever you hang out, we’re there – Won’t you join us?

Continue Reading

EmployeeScreenIQ recently released our annual background screening trends survey: “Threading The Needle: Employment Background Screening in an Age of Increased Litigation and Legislation.” More than 650 HR professionals from across the country, in organizations large and small, shared their thoughtful (and sometimes surprising) insights on everything from falsified resumes to the phenomenon of Facebook in our revealing 20-page report.  Listed below is one of our Top Findings which deals with how much emphasis respondents place on choosing accredited background screening firms.

Accreditation of Screening Providers:

71% of respondents said it’s important that their screening providers be accredited by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS). However, it seems that perception and reality are not one and the same regarding accreditation, as less than 2% of screening providers are accredited by the NAPBS.

It is possible that employers are confusing a background screener’s involvement in this association with the actual accrediting process and program. If accreditation is indeed important to you (and it should be), do not assume that a provider is accredited because they are a member of NAPBS. You should inquire specifically about this special designation. Companies can search for accredited screening firms. Remember, you screen your job candidates and you should do the same with your screening providers.

NAPBS accreditation is far more than an ornamental distinction. In practical terms, it’s an important “seal of approval” that ensures employers are working with providers whose procedures are compliant with industry expertise and best practices. Perhaps this finding signals a good opportunity for NAPBS to better communicate to employers the benefits of having their providers accredited.

More information about Accreditation can be found at http://www.employeescreen.com/accreditation.asp

And for those of you don’t know, of course EmployeeScreenIQ is among the 2% of accredited firms. Sorry for the shameless plug. Had to be done:)

Continue Reading

I was recently interviewed by Stephanie R. Thomas, PhD, from The Proactive Employer, about how organizations currently use background checks, how they respond to adverse findings, their greatest concerns, and what lies ahead .

Background checks are a critical component of the hiring process for many organizations, helping to protect employers, their employees and their customers. But many organizations struggle with the question of how to conduct background screening in a universally acceptable manner. In an age of increased litigation and legislation, employment background screening isn’t as simple as it once was.

Aside from the amplified legal risks, employers are struggling to filter through all of the information that’s now available. Many are asking, should we use social media? If we do, what should we do with that information? How concerned should we be about distorted or exaggerated information on a candidate’s resume? What about candidates with criminal records – what are our obligations?

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Continue Reading

Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell learned why it is important to conduct background checks before you hire someone after it was discovered that his executive chef had been convicted of embezzlement before he was hired.

According to the Washington Post, “McDonnell’s staff failed to conduct the required criminal background check on Todd Schneider, who recently left his job amid a police investigation after a tip about possible wrongdoing at the mansion.”

When asked why the governor wasn’t aware of this, his office insisted that they conduct background checks on all employees but this one slipped through the cracks while the governor was making quick preparations to take office.

Time for a rant?

Trust me.  I considered it.  However, I thought this would be a better opportunity to educate employers on the necessity to ensure everyone undergoes a background check per company policy (some do it pre-hire, some post).

These days, everyone is rushing to get qualified people hired and get the them to work.  Unfortunately, things can slip through the cracks when that happens as it did with Governor McDonnell.

One other thing that I found interesting from the story is that the Post pointed out that the chef was in debt by hundreds of thousands of dollars.  This is particularly interesting coming from the media who have gone out of their way to slam employers for their use of credit reports (in fairness to the Washington Post, I don’t know if they’ve done this or not).

But as the EEOC continues to evaluate the role an individual’s credit plays in their eligibility for employment, perhaps this offers a snapshot of why it can be valuable in some cases.

Continue Reading

As many of you know EmployeeScreenIQ has an out-of-the-box integration with the iCIMS talent management platform.  This integration allows system users to request a background check with the click of a button without the need for duplicate data entry.

We recently published a case study which shows how we were able to enhance the hiring process of one of our mutual clients, Corix Group of Companies.

If you are interested in integrating your background screening program with the iCIMS Talent Platform in order to enhance your talent pipeline, team productivity, and bottom line check out our partner portal.

Continue Reading

As reported last week, the story about employers asking for Facebook passwords has exploded.  I have seen no less than thirty stories on the topic.  Yesterday, I was interviewed by MSNBC on this very topic.  First, the reporter asked me how widespread the problem actually was.  Without hesitation, I let her know that I don’t think its as widespread as the media is reporting.  I have never come across an HR professional that would even consider this practice.  I feel strongly that this is being done by smaller employers that really have no clue what to do or say in a proper interview.  I equated it to employers that still ask how old an applicant is or if they are married!  Secondly, she wanted to know if employers were searching the internet for informtion on employees and candidates. Well, as we reported in our latest background screening survey, they are, many of them.  However, when asked what they are actually looking to find? I was very matter of fact in saying, I don’t even think they know what they are looking for.  Its easy to just Google someone!  When they do it however, I don’t think they realize what they want to find, or what to do with the information once they find it!

You can read the full story below!

Public opinion is clearly with Facebook on this, and many took to social media to condemn such password shakedowns. But it’s time to tone down the hysteria. It turns out, few hiring managers choose to put on their Sherlock Holmes cyber snooping hats.

Yes, it’s disturbing to hear that some hiring managers are asking for Facebook passwords from job candidates. And in this tough economy, saying no to such a request may mean you don’t end up landing the gig because there are still so many people out there looking for work.

Continue Reading

Yesterday, I was interviewed by Bill Moller from First Business News about why employers need to conduct employment background checks and what rules they need to follow when doing so.  Check it out.

Continue Reading

This Friday (March 30th) The Proactive Employer podcast will be airing an interview with yours truly about how organizations currently use background checks, how they respond to adverse findings, their greatest concerns, and what lies ahead.

This installment will air on Friday, March 30th at 8:30 AM Eastern on BlogTalkRadio and will be available for on-demand listening at The Proactive Employer website, on mobile devices via BluBrry and via iTunes following the broadcast.

Much of the interview focuses on our most recent Background Screening Trends survey results.

Continue Reading

The Federal Trade Commission issued a report today addressing the privacy of consumers.  In the report, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers,” the FTC pushes Congress for general privacy legislation, data breach notification legislation, and data broker legislation.

Taking a look at the report, it is clear that the FTC is concerned about a few key areas—namely, data brokers, transparency, and mobile applications.  The report calls out data brokers for being in the business of buying and selling personal consumer information, claiming that they do so without a great deal of transparency or awareness as to how the process works or the purposes for which the information is used. In addition to calling for new legislation, the report recommends creating a centralized website where consumers could get information about their practices and “opt out” of data use. As for mobile technology, the FTC wants companies offering mobile apps to improve their privacy protections, including disclosures.

“Do Not Track” is still a key part of the FTC privacy strategy, but still missing in this report is any real guidance for a “Do Not Track” option for consumers—something that has been widely discussed but does not seem to be any closer to being defined or implemented. “DNT needs to mean ‘do not collect’, not just ‘advertise back,’” said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. “The industry recognizes that if a real DNT does not come to fruition by the end of the year, there will be a lot of support legislatively for DNT.”

That should be enough to motivate businesses–marketers in particular– to get on the stick to put DNT practices in place voluntarily.  Anyone who transacts business on the web has reason to fear new legislation, increased regulation of the internet and the unintended consequences that inevitably get rolled up into the process.

The vote approving the report was 3-1. Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissented from the issuance of the Final Privacy Report. His concerns: 1) in contravention of our promises to Congress, it is based on “unfairness” rather than deception; 2) the current state of “Do Not Track” still leaves unanswered many important questions; 3) “opt-in” will necessarily be selected as the de facto method of consumer choice for a wide swath of entities; and 4) although characterized as only “best practices,” the Report’s recommendations may be construed as federal requirements.

Continue Reading