By Kevin Bachman

There are hundreds of companies selling employment screening products across the country, all with varying levels of accuracy, service and quality. I’d hate to be an HR Director tasked with sorting out which background screening company is best. Slogans like “Free!” “Instant!” “Nationwide!” Promises like “Seamless!” “Comprehensive!” “Automated!”

Pounded with marketing materials and website demonstrations that all look the same, it’s reasonable to think organizations can’t always predict which choice is the best one. And unfortunately, shortcomings aren’t evident until they happen in real time, with real candidates, causing real harm to your organization.

That’s why EmployeeScreenIQ recommends choosing wisely. Of the 700+ employment screening firms, partner with 1 of the 9 that are NAPBS Accredited.

What Accreditation Means to You

As an EmployeeScreenIQ client, you have chosen an Accredited partner whose quality, accuracy and service standards are shared by only 1% of all employment screening companies. That’s something to be proud of. It validates your choice and provides maximum possible protection for your organization.

It ensures our company processes and procedures are compliant with industry best practices and we take proper precautions to protect confidential applicant data from misuse.  It demonstrates accountability and clear communication of our products and services. Finally, accreditation is an affirmation of our industry knowledge and expertise within the company.

As an HR professional who is a faithful reader of EmployeeScreen University (but not a client), ask your provider; “are you accredited?” If they are not, ask a few more questions. Do they plan to? Did they apply and fall short? What is holding them back? Earning Accreditation is not as simple as asking for it. It’s a process that requires total commitment, focused intensity, and above all else, an extended period of time. Below is the story of our journey.

EmployeeScreenIQ: Path to Accreditation

The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) launched the Accreditation program in the spring of 2010. So it might come as a shock to hear that EmployeeScreenIQ began pursuing it more than 5 years ago.

It emerged from a long held belief within the industry that self-regulation and oversight was necessary for a variety of reasons. To separate companies from the fly by night operators whose processes caused legal harm to their clients. To distinguish and honor those whose commitment stands out as industry experts. To demonstrate to regulatory agencies the background check industry cares enough to establish and promote best practices. And a commitment to educate clients on ways to appropriately use background checks in their hiring process.

But beyond that, we were interested in pursuing this from the start because of what it represented. Quality. Accuracy. Service. Compliance. To EmployeeScreenIQ, it was simply the right thing to do.

How It Began

When the National Association of Professional Background Screeners was founded, creating and adopting some sort of standards was in the minds of many of the Association’s founding members, among them EmployeeScreenIQ.

As the industry evolved, working groups began creating and circulating drafts of what an Accreditation program would look like. Companies provided feedback, shared best practices, and the final form began to take shape.

We began reviewing these drafts of the proposed Accreditation standards, the highest standards the industry had ever set forth. We quickly noticed that it’s one thing to apply for Accreditation and another thing entirely to demonstrate you abide by its values and principles well in advance of an audit. We did not want to be an accredited company beginning the day of the audit. We wanted to do it as soon as we could. So we did, molding our operations to the highest standards possible. For all intents and purposes, EmployeeScreenIQ acted in a manner consistent with an accredited company several years before the program was officially launched.

How We Did It

A NAPBS accredited background check company must demonstrate full compliance with unique standards in multiple areas. Legal compliance, consumer protection, information security, organizational integrity and ethics, client knowledge and awareness, and our quality, accuracy and service level commitments.

But in order to determine our strengths and weaknesses during the self-evaluation process, we needed to review each step within our organization. There were areas where EmployeeScreenIQ created processes to enhance the client experience, strengthen compliance steps, and more strongly protect consumer data. Our auditing programs became stronger. The selection of public record researchers and internal standards were reviewed. We approached each process with an open mind. Willing to modify anything that would result in stronger processes. Flexible enough to consider new tactics to helping clients get accurate information faster. Anything that gets in the way of providing clients with the information they need is identified and rooted out of the system as a normal course of business. We were happy to find that we did not see major structural problems that forced us to rethink the way we conduct background checks or build new systems from scratch.

When we were finished with our organizational self-review, we felt pretty good. Truth be told, the operational foundation of EmployeeScreenIQ was pretty strong to begin with.

The Application Process

This was the easy part. And by easy, we mean 6 months of preparation proving compliance through processes already in place. This is an important distinction. Because EmployeeScreenIQ operated in accordance with most of these principles, the process was primarily documenting and assembling the several binders worth of information for the independent auditor. Hundreds of pages of supporting documents demonstrating we abide by each clause and each subsection. We did not spend this time “becoming” an accredited screening company. That work was already done.

Fast forward to a desk audit and an onsite audit, and it was smooth sailing. Compared to the challenges of the previous 6 months assembling documents and the past several years building the foundation, the audits were routine. A nice opportunity to sit back and reflect on what was created and who we’ve become. The day of the onsite audit was a very proud day for our team.

Looking Forward

In today’s economic climate, state and federal agencies continue to evaluate how information is used to make hiring decisions. Now more than ever, companies need to rely on partners they can trust to provide accurate, compliant information. Accreditation is the measuring stick employers can rely on to sort through the noise among competing background screening companies all touting the same unparalleled excellence, service, and accuracy. Few employment screening companies have had these claims affirmed by an independent auditor. EmployeeScreenIQ is proud to be one of them.

Kevin Bachman is Vice President of Quality Service for Cleveland-based EmployeeScreenIQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Kevin can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 450 or by email at kbachman@employeescreen.com.

It’s a pervasive trend: more and more companies are establishing offshore operations and also hiring overseas’ talent for their U.S. operations.  These candidates still need to undergo a background check before they can qualify for employment and organizations look to companies like EmployeeScreenIQ to help with their global screening efforts. As this practice matures, employers must take a strict approach to developing best practices and understanding the individual laws and guidelines of each country.

We’ve enlisted the help of the Pre-Employment Directory’s Barry Nixon to help us keep you apprised of notable legislation and other compliance that takes place on a global level.  This month’s installment includes information about the European Union, France, Germany, India and Mexico.

Big Changes in EU Privacy Law Coming?

Out of Brussels comes the news that the European Commission has circulated a document containing a draft strategy for improvements in data protection, including a long-awaited set of proposals for revamping of the EU Data Protection Directive. The proposals are prompted by the changes in technology and changes in the ways in which people share information since the adoption of the Directive in the 1990′s. It appears that the Commission intends to propose changes in the law and non-legislative steps to bring about the changes that are being discussed. According to Bloomberg, “[c]hanges could be made to the document before regulators discuss it on Dec. 4. They will then ask for support from national governments and EU lawmakers before they draw up draft legislation in mid-2011.”

French DPA Releases New Guidance on Personal Data Security

On October 7, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released its first comprehensive handbook on the security of personal data (the “Guidance”). The Guidance follows the CNIL’s “10 tips for the security of your information system “ issued on October 12, 2009, which were based on the CNIL’s July 21, 1981 recommendations regarding security measures applicable to information systems. The Guidance reiterates that data controllers have an obligation under French law to take “useful precautions” given the nature of the data and the risks associated with processing the data, to ensure data security and, in particular, prevent any alteration or damage, or access by non-authorized third parties (Article 34 of the French Data Protection Act). Failure to comply with this requirement is punishable by up to five years imprisonment or a fine of €300,000.

German Government Moves on Draft Law Regarding Employee Data Protection

On August 25, 2010, the German government approved a draft law concerning special rules for employee data protection , originally proposed by the Federal Ministry of the Interior. A background paper on the draft law was published on August 25, 2010. The draft law would amend the German Federal Data Protection Act (the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz or “BDSG”) by adding provisions that specifically address data protection in the employment context. Currently, employee data protection is regulated by (1) general provisions in the BDSG, (2) the new Section 32 of the BDSG introduced by the most recent reform in September 2009 , (3) the Works Constitution Act, (4) guidance from state data protection authorities, and (5) comprehensive case law from federal and local labor courts.

The approved draft law now goes before the German Parliament, where it is expected to undergo further
discussions and may be amended. The first reading is expected in November 2010, leaving open the possibility that the law may be passed this year.

Employers Urged To Check Candidates’ Qualifications

Employers are being urged to verify employee qualifications directly with education establishments after a bogus dentist with no qualifications managed to work as a dentist for nine years.Vinisha Sharma used a forged degree certificate from the Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research in Amritsar, India to claim she had a Bachelor of Dental Surgery degree. The bogus degree enabled her to register with the General Dental Council (GDC) and then secure employment in seven NHS hospitals.Lastweek, Sharma admitted forging qualifications and earning £230,000 by deception. She admitted one count of using a forged degree and four counts of obtaining a pecuniary advantage. Sharma also admitted a charge of fraud by false representation relating to the Queen Victoria Hospital in East Grinstead.

Mexico Elected to Lead the Ibero-American Data Protection Network

Following its recent enactment of an omnibus data protection law , Mexico has been unanimously elected to lead the Ibero-American Data Protection Network, a consortium of the governments of Spain, Portugal, Andorra and 19 Latin American countries. The group’s mission is to foster, maintain and strengthen an exchange of information, experience and knowledge among Ibero-American countries through dialogue and collaboration on issues related to personal data protection. The IFAI announced on September 29, 2010, that Jacqueline Peschard, head of Mexico’s Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection (the “IFAI”), will represent Mexico during its two-year term.

The FTC has announced that they are proposing revisions to the notices that consumer reporting agencies (such as employment screening firms) provide to consumers, and to users and furnishers of credit report information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The proposed changes seek to alter the consent and authorization form needed to conduct an employee check as well as the “Summary of Your Rights” document which must be provided to the job applicants before a background check can be conducted.

See notice from FTC below.

The Federal Trade Commission is proposing revisions to the notices that consumer reporting agencies provide to consumers, and to users and furnishers of credit report information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FCRA requires the FTC to publish model notices for several forms that must be provided by consumer reporting agencies. The proposed changes are designed to reflect new rules that the FTC and other financial regulators have enacted under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, and to make the notices more useful and easier to understand.

In addition to revising the general Summary of Rights notice, which informs consumers about their FCRA rights, such as how to obtain a free credit report and dispute inaccurate information in credit reports, the FTC also is proposing improvements to the notices that credit reporting agencies provide to users and furnishers of credit report information. The User Notice and Furnisher Notice inform users and furnishers of their obligation to provide certain protections to consumers. The model notices were originally issued in 1997 and revised in 2004. The FTC is accepting public comments on the proposed changes until September 21, 2010. The Commission vote authorizing the Federal Register notice was 5-0. (The staff contact is Pavneet Singh, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2252.)

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

The decision to perform background checks is embraced today by virtually all employers. However, there is much that should be considered once you arm yourself with better information. Employment screening has more benefits than simply identifying more qualified candidates and contributing to a safer workplace. It may protect you from potentially significant damages in a negligent hiring lawsuit, if you handle the information properly. Additionally, treating job applicants fairly and objectively during the evaluation process is respectful to them and will reflect well on your organization. The paragraphs that follow illustrate ways that consumer information can be considered in relation to your hiring decisions. It is important to note that every company’s hiring standards and/or criteria for a satisfactory background check are unique and should be crafted with the advice of legal counsel familiar with the industry and each state in which that company operates.

What constitutes adverse information?

Adverse information in a consumer report could be considered anything that contradicts information the applicant has provided during the application/interview process, or anything negative that turns up in the course of looking into the applicant’s background. It may be as simple and innocuous as misstating dates of employment in a previous job, or as serious as a history of violent felony convictions. There is a broad spectrum of potentially adverse information, so it is important to give some thought as to how much weight should be assigned to different types of adverse information in your hiring decision. Adverse information can be considered using the following questions:

• How serious is the discrepancy?
• Is it related to the duties/responsibilities the applicant will be performing?
• How long ago did it happen?
• Is there a pattern of discrepancies?
• If you choose to ask the applicant directly about adverse information, do they offer a reasonable and verifiable explanation for the discrepancy?

There can and will be borderline scenarios where you want to hire someone who really stands out as the best candidate, but they have a discrepancy in their past for which you have previously denied employment to another candidate. In these cases it is important to document why you may have chosen to hire one applicant with a specific type of adverse history and not another with the same. Let’s use an example: last year you hired a file clerk and the background check revealed a DUI conviction from 9 years ago. A check of the file today reveals that the applicant otherwise had a clean record and in all other respects was the most qualified for the job. While most would consider a DUI a serious driving offense, the job involves no driving, it happened long enough ago that the applicant has established and maintained a responsible history since, and there are no other discrepancies to suggest a pattern. Given these factors, you chose to ask the applicant for details about the incident, and the file is documented that you were impressed with the community service and self-improvement activities the applicant initiated as a direct result of the incident. Another candidate, when asked, may have provided no evidence of having taken responsibility for their action and was not hired (obviously, this should be documented as well).

Criminal Records

Criminal research is considered the foundation of most background checks, and adverse information here is very commonly used as the disqualifier for employment. For most positions, the mere existence of a criminal record should not automatically disqualify an individual from employment. First and foremost, be sure to read carefully all details provided about the record. The relevant dates, the charges, and the final disposition should all be evaluated. After cross-checking that the record is reportable under state and federal law, employeescreenIQ will report all criminal court information we find, including those that result in dismissals or other non-convictions. Many employers wouldn’t consider a single misdemeanor conviction (unrelated to the job duties) grounds for disqualifying an otherwise strong candidate, however, three or four misdemeanor convictions in the last two years might suggest a pattern of irresponsibility. Applying the questions listed above will help you determine the impact that criminal records should have in the hiring decision.

Social Security Number Traces and Credit Reports

SSN Traces and Credit Reports are both products of the credit bureaus. The most important point to understand is that billions of payments and transactions take place every day around the world and this data flows electronically into the databases of the credit bureaus. The vast majority of data flowing into these databases is correct and properly recorded. However, it is simply not possible for human oversight or quality control to ensure every piece of data is correct and accurate every time. In practical terms, what this means is that when you see a name other than your candidate or an address where they claim never to have lived on their SSN Trace, it is usually not cause for alarm. There are many legitimate reasons that other names and addresses may appear on a SSN Trace. Someone that has cosigned a loan is likely to be associated with that SSN. A simple data entry error (this is all electronic information, remember) becomes a part of the record. The reason these entries should still be investigated in the background check is the very reason the SSN Trace is run – it is simply the most reliable tool available upon which to base the audit trail of the background check. If you were simply to ask the individual where they’ve lived and what names they’ve used, it would be very easy for a dishonest applicant to hide criminal records from you.

A pre-employment credit report is also considered a standard requirement of the background check by many companies. Credit reports can seem a bit intimidating. The long list of active and dormant accounts, abbreviations, and codes can look dizzying. There is a better way. The “header” or Profile Summary can be used as a quick gauge of an individual’s credit history. The header will let you know of any existing public records (which might include bankruptcies, tax liens, civil judgments), the total amount of installment, revolving, or mortgage credit in place, an estimate of short term (monthly) obligations, and a summary of recent delinquent payments as reported by financial institutions. Contact employeescreenIQ for more information on interpreting this information.

Poor credit alone should not disqualify an applicant who is strong in other areas. This can lead to disparate treatment of protected classes (read: lawsuit). However, you can make a reasonable estimate as to whether the salary of the position is enough for the candidate to meet their ongoing financial responsibilities.

Verifications

One of the most common discrepancies occurs in the application process when unscrupulous applicants misrepresent – or blatantly lie about – experience, education, or their ability to perform essential functions of the job. There is an easy way to confirm that the candidate who sounds too good to be true actually has the experience or education required: contact schools and former employers and make sure their records match the applicant’s resume/application data. You wouldn’t necessarily fault the applicant if they claimed they began working as a Rocket Scientist on July 4, 2002, and the Acme Rocket Company reported their start date as the following week, on July 11. However, a flag should be raised when the verifications uncover a pattern of misrepresentations. Sometimes the discrepancies are an obvious attempt to mislead. Unearned degrees claimed, or stretching dates of employment to shorten or eliminate gaps of unemployment are discrepancies that can identify a dishonest candidate. Other times the discrepancies may be less egregious and represent an honest mistake. One option is to confront the candidate with discrepancies and give them an opportunity to explain the circumstances.

Better Information = Better Employees

There is no magic dust for making a perfect hire every time. Once in awhile you may get lucky when the perfect candidate happens along just when the perfect job for that person opens up. The majority of the time, however, the background check is the due diligence necessary to ensure the story presented by the candidate is one they’ve truly written.

Rob Thomson is Communications Manager and Senior Account Executive for Cleveland-based employeescreenIQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Rob can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 438 or by email at rthomson@employeescreen.com.

For more information on the content provided in this article please use the following helpful links.

Adjudication Modules Sabotage Your Hiring Process

For those of you that conduct DOT drug and alcohol tests as part of your employment screening process, we thought we would share a great document prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary, entitled “What Employers Need to Know About DOT Drug and Alcohol Testing”. We have included an excerpt from this informative document below. The full version can be view by clicking here. Also check out the important links we have added to this document and those provided as helpful links at the bottom of the page.

What specimens are collected for DOT drug and alcohol tests?

DOT drug tests are conducted only using urine specimens. DOT alcohol screening tests are conducted using either breath or saliva. DOT alcohol confirmation tests must be conducted using Evidential Breath Testing Devices (EBTs) that only analyze breath.

• In addition to urine testing for drugs, the FRA also requires blood specimens for its Post-Accident testing.
• The USCG [United States Coast Guard] permits collection of blood specimens for its Serious Marine Incident (SMI) testing.

Where must I have DOT urine specimens analyzed?

DOT urine specimens can only be tested at drug testing laboratories certified by the HHS. There are no “point of contact” or “instant” tests permitted by the DOT. All specimens must be urine.

• You can find the current HHS laboratory listing at: http://workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/Level_1_Pages/CertifiedLabs.aspx

For what drugs does DOT require me to test?

DOT urine specimens are analyzed for the following drugs or drug metabolites:

• Marijuana metabolites / THC
• Cocaine metabolites
• Phencyclidine (PCP)
• Amphetamines and Methamphetamine
• Opiate metabolites [Codeine, Morphine, and Heroin]

What types of DOT tests must I conduct?

You must give employees the following kinds of tests, when called for by DOT Agency and USCG rules:

• Pre-employment
• Random
• Reasonable Suspicion / Reasonable Cause
• Post-Accident
• Return-to-Duty
• Follow-up

Here are explanations about each type of test:

PRE-EMPLOYMENT

Drug Tests: You are required to: (1) Conduct a pre-employment drug test; and (2) Receive from the MRO a negative test result on the pre-employment drug test for a person prior to hiring or prior to using that person in a safety-sensitive position for the first time. This requirement also applies when a current employee is transferring from a non-safety sensitive position to a safely-sensitive job for the first time.

Alcohol Tests: Unless you are regulated by the USCG, you may conduct pre-employment alcohol testing under DOT authority, but only if two conditions are met: (1) The pre-employment alcohol testing must be accomplished for all applicants [and transfers], not just some; and (2) The testing must be conducted as a post-offer requirement – meaning you must inform the applicant that he or she has the job if he or she passes a DOT alcohol test.

• The FAA has specific “prior-to-hire” and “transfer into safety-sensitive function” requirements. They also require employers to receive MRO written confirmation of negative pre-employment drug test results. Check FAA regulations for details.
• The FRA has a one-time pre-employment drug test requirement for each employee subject to the “Hours of Service” laws. Check FRA regulations for details.
• The FTA requires employees who have been removed from the random testing pool and out of work for 90 or more days to have pre-employment tests upon return.
• The USCG requires employees who have not been subject to random drug testing for at least 60 days of the last 185 days to be pre-employment tested. [Please click here to view What Employers Need to Know About DOT Drug and Alcohol Testing in its entirety] (files/DOT_Drug_Testing.pdf)

For more information on the content provided in this article and, or the organizations referenced, please use the following helpful links.

employeescreenIQ Substance Abuse Screening
LabCorp
Quest Diagnostics

Nick Fishman is Chief Marketing Officer for Cleveland-based employeescreenIQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Nick can be reached

When working with criminal records every day it’s easy to forget that what we know, understand, and analyze isn’t always as easy for employers to understand. With so many different terms used in the judicial process we know why. Here at employeescreenIQ we like to make our criminal reports simple to read by following a strict formatting process. We also use side-notes to try and explain abnormal terms or phrases. We hope that this article further assists you in understanding some of the scenarios surrounding a non-conviction. I do have to explain and disclaim that the use of “usually,” “almost always,” and “most of the time” will be frequently used in this writing since most of the time there is almost always an exception to a rule, usually! We’ll now dive a little deeper into the confusion. There are multiple terms that tell us a criminal charge is a non-conviction. The terms used in any given court jurisdiction around the country can vary while essentially meaning the same thing. The following terms are examples of commonly used court rulings that mean a case is a straight non-conviction, or a non-conviction without stipulations:

• Not Guilty
• Dismissed
• Nolle Prosequi (Nolle Prosse)
• No Bill
• No True Bill
• No Action
• Acquitted

Some similar terms we see less often but specific to certain geographic areas:

• Stricken Off without Leave to Reinstate (Illinois)
• Information Filed (Florida)
• Not Responsible (North Carolina)

Some of those terms mean the same thing, while others mean things very similar. They can offer clues as to when a court decided on the non-conviction. A good example is Nolle Prosequi, which usually occurs very soon after a case is filed and probably even before an indictment. The term Nolle Prosequi loosely means “We do not wish to prosecute”. On the other end of the spectrum an Acquitted ruling could come much later in the chain of events most likely after a trial. Dismissed, the catch-all, occurs in different time periods throughout a case. Whatever the scenario, under each of these terms, the end result was that the subject was not convicted and there is nothing the named defendant owes to the court. Here it gets a little trickier. There are some judgments that are equivalent to a non-conviction but have stipulations. This occurs when a court sentences a defendant but does not consider the judgment a conviction. Even though the defendant served a sentence they wouldn’t have to disclaim conviction. Probation is usually a part of this sentencing along with the possibility of fines and sometimes even short jail terms. A guilty plea or nolo contendre (no contest) plea can be associated with the cases where a court decides to sentence but not convict. Plea bargains can play a role in a judge’s decision too. The following terms are associated with this type of disposition:

• Adjudication Withheld
• Deferred Adjudication
• Deferred Judgment
• Diversion/Intervention Programs

Here again we see some geographically specific terms:

• ARD Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (Pennsylvania)
• Non-Adjudication of Guilt, Agreed Plea (Texas)
• First Offender’s Program (Georgia)

Of course there’s the matter of the stability of these non-convictions. It is possible if any part of the sentencing is not complied with the case can be turned into a conviction. Probation violations and warrants may flag this scenario, although the court might continue probation after a violation and keep the case in non-conviction status. Believe it or not there are cases with multiple probation violations where the court continues to keep a judgment withheld instead of convicting. Sometimes after the sentencing is complied with a court will then dismiss the case, sometimes there is no further entry at all.

The most common terms and meanings of a non-conviction have been covered. As always, our clients and associates are welcome to inquire with us directly about the many terms and meanings of non-convictions or any other part of the criminal record.

Andrew Cashman is Director of Public Records for Cleveland-based employeescreenIQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Andrew can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 435 or acashman@employeescreen.com.

For more information on the content provided in this article and, or the organizations referenced, please use the following helpful links.

Searching Criminal Records
employeescreenIQ

The Physical Inspection: What it is,
Why and How We Do It

Few EmployeeScreen IQ clients are surprised to learn that all screening candidates must sign a release form, or that they must keep all information provided by a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) confidential between HR staff, hiring managers, and the candidate her/himself. Virtually all hiring and security managers are aware of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the importance of observing its requirements to protect the privacy of their candidates and the integrity of their hiring decisions.

What frequently comes as a surprise to new clients is that CRAs must conduct a physical site inspection of the commercial business location before initiating any services on behalf of that client. Since July 2003, the credit bureaus have mandated that all CRAs must physically inspect all client locations that will receive Consumer Reports. For multi-site organizations that screen employees on a decentralized basis, or local levels, this means each facility that receives, maintains, or houses consumer reports must be inspected. CRAs originally had the discretion to decide whether to conduct this inspection on their own, or hire a third party service to conduct it. In October 2005, the credit bureaus removed this discretion; now all CRAs must use one of a select few organizations, approved by the credit bureaus, to conduct these physical site inspections.

What Can I Expect?

The inspection itself is a straightforward process. It simply represents validation that the organization setting up the account is a legitimate business entity with a permissible use for Consumer Report information, and that it is reasonably apparent that the information will be used for employment decisions. At the present time, there is no existing technology that could be used to automate this process. The mere existence of a business might be reasonably established by researching the internet. However, that does nothing to stem one of the most notorious causes of identity theft: criminals attempting to set up an account with a CRA by fraudulently claiming to represent a legitimate business when they in fact have no connection to that business. The inspection serves to validate the existence and physical location of the business, that the individual(s) setting up the account intends to obtain Consumer Reports for employment purposes, and that reasonable security is present at the facility to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumer information.

Why All the Drama?

Information contained in Consumer Reports is personal in nature and could be used for many purposes that are not permissible or legal under the FCRA. Examples include loan decisions by predatory lenders who have been barred access to credit information or identity theft by criminals who are able to gain access to consumer information. The intent, obviously, is to provide an additional measure of security and protection to consumers such that their personally identifying information will not be used for illegitimate purposes.

Our Responsibility

As a Consumer Reporting Agency, EmployeeScreen IQ holds no responsibility higher than that of representing our clients as professionally as possible, and protecting the privacy of the individuals we obtain information on in the course of that representation. Observing the strict letter of the myriad federal and state laws nationwide, as well as non-legislative industry mandates provides unsurpassed risk management for our entire client base and ensures any job applicant screened by EmployeeScreen IQ receives the full rights and recourse allowed under the law, and then some.

Rob Thomson is Communications Manager and Senior Account Executive for Cleveland-based EmployeeScreen IQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Rob can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 438 or rthomson@employeescreen.com.*

Ask any HR executive about their I-9 process and their eyes begin to water before they can spit the words out. Names spelled wrong, social security numbers don’t match, proper identification isn’t verified. Let’s face it, it’s a time consuming process that often is executed incorrectly and the penalties for lax policies are scary. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 mandates that US employers verify the employment eligibility status of new employees. Until recently, this was accomplished most typically by examining a few pieces of identification while hoping the ID documents were authentic, entering the relevant information on the I-9 form, and filing it away in the employee file. It was pretty much forgotten at this point unless and until the government decided to audit your I-9 files to make sure you were not employing illegal workers. Still, many employers are fined for incorrectly filling out the I-9, even though they are employing legal workers. There was no external oversight or feasible process available to gain assurance that you are indeed employing legal workers, or gain the peace of mind that your documentation was all in order every time.

What Can You Do?

Fortunately, this problem is common to all organizations and now employeescreenIQ offers Employment Eligibility Verification and Electronic I-9 Filing through our partnership with Form I-9 Compliance LLC. These tools can reduce your workload and keep you in compliance. The product that Form I-9 has developed allows employers the ability to fill out a “smart” I-9 form on-line that ensures it is filled out completely and correctly. From there, an employer can simply store the document in an on-line archive or can seamlessly and electronically verify employment eligibility instantly through the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Within moments the system will give you a confirmation of the employee’s eligibility or it will indicate a non-confirmation. In occurrences of non-confirmation, the system will walk the employer step by step through the error and illustrate how to resolve the issue. Some of the common issues may be resolved with a few keystrokes. Others require follow-up from both you and your employee; the Form I-9 system will send you regular reminders indicating the number of days your employee has to resolve the non-confirmation. If the non-confirmed employee fails to respond through the appropriate channels within the legally mandated grace period, or if employment eligibility is ultimately found ineligible for employment, the system will indicate that the employee must be terminated. You may continue to employ workers who have received the initial non-confirmation until their employment eligibility has been confirmed through these channels.

The system can also be used for re-verifications, such as when an individual legally changes their name or when a foreign employee’s Green Card expires and is re-issued. The system will track and notify you of upcoming expiration dates for workers without permanent authorization.

Realize Instant Measurable Benefits

The Form I-9 system produces instant results. It will allow your organization to improve the efficiency of your process while decreasing, in fact eliminating processing errors. Further, it will allow you to minimize risk as it relates to non-compliance and the expenses incurred as a result of non-compliance. Lastly, it can aid your organization’s transition to a paperless environment with a reliable archival system.

Why Is I-9 Compliance Important?

As mentioned above, the penalties for non-compliance even with the absence of intent to circumvent the process are strict:

• For employers who fail to properly complete, retain, or make I-9 Forms available for inspection, fines range from $100 to $1,100 per individual I-9.
• For employers who knowingly hire or knowingly continue to employ unauthorized workers, civil penalties range from $250 to $11,000 per violation.
• For employers engaging in a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, fines can be as much as $3,000 per employee and/or 6 months of imprisonment.

How Can You Take Advantage of this Product?

Contact your employeescreenIQ representative to schedule a demonstration of this revolutionary product or visit our Partners page a click on the Form I-9 icon for further information.

Quick Tips for I-9 Compliance

• Did you know that you have to see the approved original identification documents in person in order to certify authenticity? Facsimile documents can be accepted.
• Did you know that the I-9 form must be completed within the three business days that your employee begins work?
• Did you know that employers must retain the original I-9 form for each employee either for three (3) years after the date of hire, or one (1) year after employment is terminated, whichever is later?

Nick Fishman is Executive Vice President of Cleveland-based employeescreenIQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Nick can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 441 or nfishman@employeescreen.com.

Compliance Update: Document Disposal

On June 1st, 2005, the FTC will begin enforcement of the FACT ACT provision requiring all businesses and organizations maintaining or possessing consumer report information to properly dispose of consumer report information. The rule’s purpose is to mitigate the risk of identity theft when information is improperly stored and destroyed.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT ACT) was created “To amend the FCRA, to prevent identity theft, improve resolution of consumer disputes, improve the accuracy of consumer records, make improvements in the use of, and consumer access to, credit information, and for other purposes.”

Beginning June 1st, 2005 the requirement to properly dispose of employee and applicant personal information will be enforced. [15 U.S.C. 1681 § 1681w] (a).

Action

All businesses and organizations that use consumer reports are impacted by this rule. The FTC now requires you to perform an independent review of your internal policies and procedures regarding the disposal of consumer report information. This rule does not require disposal, it only addresses what businesses should do if they choose to dispose of the information.

Businesses and organizations must use reasonable measures to protect against unauthorized access to or use of consumer information. This measure should be followed both during and after the disposal process. Reasonable measures are determined by the sensitivity of the consumer information, the nature and size of the entity’s operations, the costs and benefits of different disposal methods and relevant technological changes.

Disposal is not required; if you do choose to dispose of consumer report information you simply must do so properly.

Some examples of proper disposal:

*Burning * Shredding  *Certified Third Party Disposal Company (Shred-it, etc) *Permanent Destruction of electronic files *Implement a formal “Disposal Policy”

If you have any questions regarding this new rule, please visit the FTC web site at www.ftc.gov, or contact the FTC Division of Financial Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection at 202.326.3224.

Access to Consumer Reports Restricted to End-Users Only; Consumer Reports May Not be Shared with Any Third Parties

At EmployeeScreen IQ, we always keep an eye toward the future of the employment screening industry. There has been a clear and distinct trend over the last several years as technology has broken down barriers to information and greatly increased the potential for privacy violations and identity theft. As these trends continue we have seen much stricter enforcement of privacy rules and procedures at all levels. Credit bureaus and state motor vehicle departments are leading the way in placing restrictions on obtaining, using, handling, and disposing of personal information. These organizations do not hesitate to deny access to Consumer Reporting Agencies and other end-users who fail to follow mandated and comprehensive precautions in handling confidential and private information.

As a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA), EmployeeScreen IQ is frequently asked by clients and potential clients about sharing Consumer Reports with third parties who are not formal end-users (only the DIRECT CLIENT of a CRA is considered an authorized end-user of Consumer Report information). The most common scenario is employment staffing agencies inquiring about sharing the Consumer Report with their client, for whom the subject will be working. Frequently the cost of the Consumer Report is billed to the client by the staffing agency, so there is a false perception that they have a “right” to access the report as well. Other common scenarios include child/elderly care and residential contracting businesses who wish to make Consumer Reports available to their customers, as the subject employee will have access to the homes or loved ones of their customers.

Consumer Reports may not be viewed by or shared with anyone outside the CRA that assembled the report, the subject of the report her/himself, or the end-user organization (direct client of the CRA). Credit information and Motor Vehicle Record information is STRICTLY forbidden from being viewed by anyone other than the direct end-user. Given the clear trends over the past several years, every business should take the cue from these data sources and ensure that all Consumer Report information is protected from any unauthorized party. Speaking from a best practice perspective, the only end-user personnel that should have access to Consumer Reports are end-user Human Resources and Loss Prevention/Security personnel who have a clear understanding of privacy and data security laws and protocols, and those that are directly involved in the hiring decision. Anyone within the end-user organization that is given access to Consumer Reports should be briefed on the importance and responsibility of keeping the information confidential and secure, as well as proper document disposal procedures to comply with recent enforcement of the FACT Act Document Disposal provision.

The responsibility for protecting Consumer Report information (i.e. the individual’s privacy) lies with the CRA and the end-user of the Consumer Report, who (again) must be the direct client of the CRA. Organizations that use a CRA for their employment screening needs must agree to abide by the requirements of the FCRA in protecting consumer information and individual privacy. Clients and other third parties of the end-user are party to no such agreement. Disseminating Consumer Report information to any third party other than the subject of the report itself is a violation of that subject’s privacy rights.

Similarly, when a CRA takes on a new client, there are several steps of due diligence required to ascertain 1) a permissible use for the information, 2) that the end-user is indeed a legitimate hiring enterprise, and 3) that the end-user’s business location(s) offer sufficient security to house and safeguard the information. CRAs that do not conduct this due diligence or allow their end-users/clients to share or resell Consumer Reports to third parties may find their privileges to obtain information revoked by one or many record sources if their policies do not uphold sufficient data security and privacy standards.

The best takeaway is always to err on the side of caution when it comes to handling confidential/private information, and never share it with anyone who is not member of your end-user organization, and who does not have a clear understanding of the importance and responsibility to protect individual confidentiality and privacy rights.

Rob Thomson is Communications Manager and Senior Account Executive for Cleveland-based EmployeeScreen IQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Rob can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 438 or rthomson@employeescreen.com . EmployeeScreen IQ is a 2005 Weatherhead 100 Award Winner.*