Fingerprint-based criminal checks can be a valuable tool to help mitigate risk in an organization’s background screening program. More organizations would probably utilize this tool except for the simple fact that access to state and federal fingerprint databases for employment purposes requires legislated permission. Each state also sets their own parameters regarding permissible purposes and procedures in running an individual’s fingerprints. If your industry or certain positions within your organization require fingerprint checks, you are probably already aware. If you are unsure, check with your state law enforcement agency to determine eligibility.

Advantages of Fingerprints

The primary advantage of a fingerprint criminal check is that it establishes an absolute match with a criminal record based on a single unique physical attribute. Other identifiers, even alias names, are rendered meaningless. If the fingerprints match, you have identified the owner of the criminal record. Non-fingerprint criminal checks rely primarily on a name match, with additional identifiers required as a cross-check for compliance.

Disadvantages of Fingerprints

Many people outside the law enforcement and screening industries believe that a fingerprint-based criminal check is the ultimate determinant of criminal history. The most important point to remember is that if a criminal record is identified through a fingerprint match, then yes, you can be confident that the record belongs to the individual in question. However, if a fingerprint check comes back showing no criminal history, can you be confident that the individual is indeed 100% “clean”? The answer is no. Every law enforcement jurisdiction across the country determines its own procedures for recording and reporting criminal record information. Fingerprint databases will only identify criminal records that have been reported to the database. If a given law enforcement agency takes fingerprints only on felony arrests, an individual could have a laundry list of misdemeanor arrests and convictions that would go unnoticed in a fingerprint check. Generally speaking, fingerprint databases are subject to the same types of flaws as any other database. The integrity of information available is dependent upon the diligence and consistency of every law enforcement agency in its data universe. Criminal records identified by a fingerprint check must still be validated by the prosecuting jurisdiction to ensure the record is accurate and up-to-date.

EmployeeScreenIQ Fingerprint Services Available in Ohio

EmployeeScreenIQ currently offers fingerprint-based criminal checks for employers located within the state of Ohio. In Ohio, fingerprints can be processed at both the state and national level. The Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation & Identification (BCI&I) maintains this state’s fingerprint database. BCI&I is the channeling agent for the FBI within Ohio that has the authority to conduct fingerprint transactions for the entire state. BCI&I determines an employer’s eligibility to run a fingerprint criminal check based upon the industry and Ohio state law, as well as what can be reported as results. Requirements by the state have been put in place to determine what type of fingerprint transaction would need to be conducted. Other states have different arrangements and rules for accessing fingerprint criminal databases. Consult with your state law enforcement agency, attorney general, or secretary of state to determine the options available to you.

Requirements for Fingerprinting in Ohio

Determining whether Ohio BCI&I fingerprints, FBI fingerprints, or both, are required can depend on different factors. Industry rules, legislated permissible purposes, and how long an individual has resided in the State of Ohio must all be considered. Ohio utilizes the “five year rule”. This means that if the individual has not resided in Ohio for five years previous to their application for employment, they are required to have both BCI&I and FBI fingerprints processed. However, an employer may decide to do both regardless of the length of residency.

Electronic Fingerprinting

Historically, fingerprints were recorded by rolling the fingers in ink, then onto a print card and submitting to the state via snail mail. The process could take up to 6 weeks or longer to obtain the results. Ohio now requires electronic fingerprinting for both BCI&I and FBI requests. The electronic fingerprint systems now in use easily capture an individual’s fingerprints, and eliminate the messy ink/roll process. Electronic fingerprints only need to be captured once and can be used to request both BCI&I and FBI fingerprint criminal checks. Once captured, the fingerprints are electronically uploaded for research. Results of electronic fingerprints are returned much quicker, typically within 30 days of the initial request. There are instances though, where an individual will not be able to be fingerprinted via the electronic system. Ohio has strict exceptions on when an ink-rolled fingerprint card must be obtained. One example is if the individual lives more than 75 miles from the nearest electronic system. A state exemption form must be submitted to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation explaining why the fingerprints could not be obtained electronically. A determination would then be made if adequate justification exists to accept the ink-rolled prints.

Results

Fingerprint results can be mailed back directly to the employer if a candidate is applying for a position where fingerprinting is a requirement. They may also be mailed back to the candidate to forward to the employer. Generally speaking, these policies can be established by the employer where licensing is not involved. For those positions where licensing is involved, the state would request that the results go to the appropriate licensing board (e.g. medical, education or legal professions). If transactions are being conducted by a third party, the third party is not permitted to review any of the results. All results would need to be mailed to the appropriate entity. Organizations that have purchased their own electronic fingerprint system can have the results returned directly through their system as long as there is no criminal record. If a criminal record is identified, it will be mailed out to the appropriate entity and will never be returned electronically. As stated in previous articles about state and national criminal database searches, the need to authenticate the information if a criminal record is found holds true for BCI&I and FBI fingerprints. Any record found should be properly authenticated before it is used in the hiring decision. This means conducting a county criminal record search in the county where the record has been revealed. This is a compliance step that is necessary to ensure the information used in the hiring decision is accurate and current.

Fingerprinting Agencies and What Candidates Need to Know.

To locate an agency in your area that can perform fingerprint criminal checks, look up the website of your state’s Attorney General, Bureau of Criminal Identification, or state law enforcement agency. In Ohio, go to the Ohio Attorney General’s website. [http://www.ag.state.oh.us/](http://www.ag.state.oh.us/ )

If you are an individual in need a fingerprint criminal check, below are a few key things to remember:

• Do you need a BCI&I background check, FBI background check, or both? Make sure you understand the policy of your potential employer and/or your state’s requirements.
• Bring identification such as a state ID or driver’s license with you to your appointment. Without this, you may not be able to get fingerprinted.
• Make sure you have the complete address where the results will be mailed. Do they need to go directly to your potential employer? Do they need to go to a state licensing board?
• FBI fingerprint transactions may only be conducted for state of Ohio employment purposes.
• FBI fingerprint results cannot be transferred from one employer to the next. If you are applying for another position that requires a FBI background check, you will need to get fingerprinted again. For BCI&I background checks in the state of Ohio, you can request a copy as long as it was done within the last year.

Following these simple steps will help to ensure you get fingerprinted in a timely manner, and that you or your employer will not incur additional costs for not conducting the proper type of fingerprint transaction.

John Sferry is the Director of Business Development for Cleveland-based EmployeeScreen IQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. John can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 475 or by email at jsferry@employeescreen.com.

What is a credit report? Why are they so difficult to understand? Why are they so long? We could go on and on illustrating the types of questions we are asked on a daily basis about credit reports. And with good reason. They are difficult to understand. Further, understanding what constitutes good and bad credit is a moving target depending on what job an applicant is being considered for and no one can provide a solid definition or litmus test for determining such. Rather than attempting the impossible task of defining good and bad credit or what on a credit report makes an individual ineligible for employment, I spoke with Maxine Sweet, Vice President of Public Education at Experian to get a true insider’s perspective of this tool. Let’s start with a few definitions and then we’ll look at how this information is best applied to an effective employment screening strategy.

Employment Credit Report v. Consumer Credit Report

Did you know that there are two distinctive types of credit reports commonly issued by the credit bureaus? One is the standard credit report and another is a credit report that has had certain information suppressed so that it can be used for employment purposes. Here are the differences:

• Credit Score – the credit score is an algorithm or equation developed by credit scoring companies, such as Experian Decision Analytics or Fair, Isaac Corporation. Contrary to popular belief, credit bureaus do not develop or formulate the algorithm. Credit scoring algorithms are proprietary to the risk score developer and are not known by the credit bureau. They are called credit scores because they use information from a credit report to do the calculation. Credit scores are tools used by lenders to analyze the information in a credit report. Credit scoring is an entirely separate process from credit reporting, and credit scores are not part of a credit report. That myth has evolved because lenders typically have the scores printed with the credit report, and so the scores appear to be part of the report, when in fact credit scores are the result of an entirely separate process. Credit scores cannot be used for employment purposes. Therefore, a credit score will only be provided on a Consumer Credit Report (not on an Employment Credit Report).
• Account Numbers – account numbers are purposely left off an Employment Credit Report. This is for the protection of both the applicant and the employer. An employer would have no need to access their applicant’s account numbers. Lack thereof in the Employment Credit Report mitigates the risk of an un-authorized person accessing such information and doing significant damage and as we all know the protection of data is a hot topic these days.
• Hard Inquiry v. Soft Inquiry – each time a Consumer Credit Report is accessed a record of that access is added to the credit report. That record is called an inquiry. There are two different types of inquiry. Inquiries resulting from your application from credit can be shown to others when they request a report, and are often referred to as “hard inquiries.” Hard inquiries can count against a consumer’s credit scores. Recent hard inquiries mean you may have taken on new debt which has not yet had time to be reported in your accounts. The more hard inquiries, the more debt you may be taking on, which is an indicator of risk. However, inquiries are a minor factor and are only significant if they occurred in last few months. The second type of inquiry is not shown to others, and so has no impact on a lender or employer decision or credit scores. Soft inquiries are a record of your report being accessed when you have not applied for credit. They include pre-approved offers, account management, reports for employment purposes and requesting a copy of your personal credit report. An Employment Credit Report inquiry, therefore, does not count against an applicant’s credit score.

Because EmployeeScreenIQ focuses solely on employment screening, we only offer Employment Credit Reports. This means that your candidates can rest assured there will be no adverse impact on their borrowing capability resulting from your employment screening strategy.

What Information does an Employment Credit Report Reveal?

An Employment Credit Report reveals the following information:

• A Profile Summary showing information such as total number of active lines of credit or accounts, number of delinquent accounts, liens or judgments, etc. While it is important to review the entire report, we typically tell our clients to start with the Profile Summary, which could be considered the “dashboard” of the report. It shows the number of public records an individual has, if any, and reveals monthly payment obligations such as mortgage payments and revolving credit (credit card obligations for example). It also reveals the percentage of revolving credit available to the consumer in relation to the maximum currently available. So if your applicant has a credit line of $5,000 and they have borrowed $2,500 against that line, it will show that they have 50% of their revolving credit available. The summary also shows the number of accounts in good standing and the number of delinquent accounts, both current and in the past.
• The Public Records section follows the Profile Summary. This will list any existing liens or judgments that have been reported to the credit bureaus, if any. These may include any suits or judgments against a consumer in regards to their failure to make proper payments to a creditor and/or bankruptcies.
• The next area is the Trades/Account Status report which details the balance for all lines of credit (active and inactive). This may include accounts such as mortgages, car loans, credit cards, bank accounts, etc. The account status descriptions include when the account was opened and closed (if no longer active), a monthly payment history, any existing balance, whether the account is/was considered in good standing, etc.

Okay so now we know what we are looking at. How do we go about making a decision? Before we answer this question, it makes sense to evaluate the theory behind credit report evaluation. According to Maxine Sweet from Experian an employment credit report is one tool that an employer should use to evaluate a candidate’s personal responsibility. Sweet says, “A credit report will not automatically tell you that you should or should not hire a candidate. Instead, in simplified terms, it will highlight whether they have paid their bills when they said that they would.”

When asked who should get a credit report Sweet indicated that the most common candidate for a credit report should be someone who is being considered for a position where they will be exposed to financial records, books, etc. and those that will be entrusted with large amounts of money or financial responsibility. However, with proper consent, employers have the right to evaluate credit reports on any candidate. How each candidate manages their own personal finances can be an indicator of how responsible they will be in managing a company’s assets. If an employer is considering several candidates with comparable resumes, their credit management skills can be a distinguishing factor.

I asked Maxine what employers should pay closest attention to on the credit report and she indicated that the Profile Summary was a great place to start. She thinks the most important questions to answer are:

• Does your candidate have public records (liens, judgments, bankruptcies)?
• Do they pay their bills on time?
• Do their monthly payments exceed the salary you intend to offer?
• And have they maxed out their available credit so that they are stressed with excessive financial obligations?

Once you have been able to assess this information, you can evaluate whether they are suitable for employment. In the event of adverse information, some employers choose to discuss some of the concerns with their candidates and ask for explanations.

Lastly, as we discussed earlier, a credit score cannot be used in the hiring decision; however, Sweet indicated that employers can develop their own evaluation system that is applied indiscriminately based on what information is important to them and then use that scoring system consistently across the board.

What tools do EmployeeScreenIQ clients have available to them for further support on credit report-related issues and questions? First and foremost, our Client Relations Department is available to answer any questions by phone or email. For independent research, clients are invited to the “Resources” page of our website www.EmployeeScreen.com. There we have sample reports with explanations of each field found on a credit report. We have a glossary of terms and codes furnished by the credit bureaus as well an FAQ manual. The credit reporting companies have Web sites with extensive education resources for consumers, such as sample consumer reports, answers to frequently asked questions, and advice columns, such as Maxine Sweet’s Ask Max (www.experian.com/ask_max) on the Experian Site.

The bottom line with credit reports is that there are many questions that arise when using them. It is important to know that you are not alone and we invite inquiries when you run into barriers. As always, we will be able to help you review the report and what the information reveals. What we cannot answer is how you should treat the information found or whether your candidate should be hired or disqualified. That decision should be a result of combining all the information gathered throughout your hiring process, and weighing it as a whole against the duties and responsibilities of the position.

Nick Fishman is Chief Marketing Officer, EVP for 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.

As you may know, in March we successfully launched EmployeeScreen University, a first of its kind interactive, educational Web site for security, risk management and human resource professionals that features regularly updated, free background-screening information; all aimed to help hiring managers make better hiring decisions. The reaction from the marketplace has been overwhelmingly positive and we have evolved the content based on the responses we receive from our visitors.

Some of the new features added since the launch include:

Guest Articles Section- A unique point of view about background checks and, or other related topics from industry insiders and experts. Sample of Guest Contributors includes:

• Ron Bower, Vice President and Director of Talent Sourcing at AmTrust Bank on Developing Employee Referral Programs
• Pam Devata, Labor and Employment Attorney at Seyfarth Shaw on new FACT Act requirements aimed to protect personal identifying information
• Keith Greene, former Vice President of Workforce Readiness at SHRM on developing strong partnerships with background screening organizations
• Michael Sankey, Founder and CEO of BRB Publications on how to search criminal records

EmployeeScreenIQ Podcast Channel- Interviews with relevant hiring professional experts and content specific programming from employeescreenIQ associates. Sample of Podcasts already conducted includes:

• China Miner-Gorman, C.O.O. and Interim President of the Society for Human Resource Management
• Joel Cheesman, Head Cheese at Cheezhead.com
• Jonathan Goodman, Vice President of Business Development at HRMarketer.com
• Many More Podcasts available

Resources Page for FCRA and Other Important Links

Court Delays Update Page

Announcements Section

In the coming months we plan to include additional social networking tools, introduce new videos, and conduct best practice webinars both live and recorded and much, much more.

If you haven’t yet visited the site, please check out what you’ve been missing a http://www.employeescreen.com/university. We also invite all visitors to offer feedback. What did you like? What didn’t you like? What topics would you like to see more of? Etc.

Nick Fishman is the Chief Marketing Officer for Cleveland-based EmployeeScreenIQ, a best practices provider of pre-employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Jason can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 441 or by email at nfishman@employeescreen.com.

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

Video Transcript of EmployeesScreen University Launch

EmployeeScreen University Launch Press Release Employee Screening

Firm Seeks to Educate Employers (SecurityInfoWatch.com)

With our presidential election around the corner, both John McCain and Barack Obama are lobbing claims of flip-flopping on the issues back and forth in order to discredit the other. Considering that we have always criticized the national databases as a standalone research tool, I thought now might be a nice time to publicly do one of our own: Is it Time to Embrace the National Criminal Database Search?

Flip-Flop?

The mere hint of this question might cause long time followers of our exquisite literary works (translation: endless and incessant rants), to wonder what is going on in this bizarro universe. So let’s get it out there. EmployeeScreenIQ has been opposed to conducting National Criminal Database Searches as the sole resource for a criminal background check. That position has not and will not change. Where we have become not-so-publicly enlightened up until now is the benefit of conducting such a search as a complement to a thorough criminal record search.

What Do We Mean?

The best method for revealing criminal convictions has been and will continue to be searching for records in all counties and all names where the applicant has resided, worked and attended school for at least the last seven to ten years. Since this is where most, if not all convictions that would be considered for employment (save federally prosecuted crimes) would be filed, prosecuted and stored, conducting this type of search gives you the best chance of identifying criminal records. Now, in a perfect world, it wouldn’t cost tens of thousands of dollars to conduct a county criminal record search in every county throughout the country. This would allow you to stack the odds in your favor of ensuring that if your applicant has ever been convicted of a crime that you would find it. Since we don’t live in a perfect world and organizations simply can’t afford this type of search, a standard county criminal background check will only reveal convictions if they were convicted in that particular county. If someone committed a crime in a jurisdiction that wasn’t searched, the record will not be found.

Adding a National Criminal Database Search to a comprehensive county search might reveal criminal convictions that have taken place in other jurisdictions. Might is the operative word. The scope of a database search still hasn’t changed. Databases are compiled by for-profit companies that aggregate criminal records from wherever they can get them and by whoever is willing to furnish. There is no mandate for how often information is reported, what types of information is reported and for accuracy of information. With that said, how can I make a case for adding this search as part of a thorough, accurate and compliant background check?

Establishing Rules of Engagement

If you are interested in utilizing this search, here are couple helpful tips.

• Do not use this type of search as the sole means of identifying criminal convictions (hah! We haven’t really flip-flopped, have we?) A County Criminal Record Search is still your best bet. The database should be used as a complement to your search.
• Do not use the presence of a record on a database search in your hiring decision. What? Yes, you heard me. The record found should be properly authenticated before it is used in the hiring decision. This means conducting a County Criminal Record Search in the county where the record has been revealed. This step will allow you to authenticate the record and ensure that it belongs to your applicant. Remember, you don’t want to use a record that doesn’t belong to your applicant, was supposed to be expunged, isn’t legally reportable, etc. Failing to adhere to this step can and most likely will get you in legal compliance hot water.
• Understand that a lack of a reported criminal conviction on a National Database does not mean that the individual has not been convicted of a crime. While the applicant might not in fact have ever been convicted a crime, the lack of records simply means that the database did not have any records on this individual.

Show Me The Benefits!

• When combined with a thorough County Criminal Search, National Criminal Record Searches allow you to cast a wider net and give you the opportunity to identify convictions outside of the counties of residence.
• The price for this inexpensive search usually does not exceed the price of a single county criminal records search
• Many National Databases have the added benefit of additional searches such as a Multi-Jurisdictional Sex Offender Registry.
• Inexpensive Add-On
• Instant Results when there is no presence of a record
• Allow your organization to make a more informed and confident hiring decision.

Are There Any Drawbacks?

There can be unintended consequences of conducting these searches, but if you adhere to the advice shared above these consequences can be mitigated.

• False Positives- Since there are little to no regulations on databases, sufficient identifiers are often missing from records making it difficult to confirm that the record belongs to your applicant. Remedy: Follow up each hit with a County Search to authenticate the record.
• Time- While a “No Record Found” is reported instantly, the presence of a record necessitates a follow up search in the jurisdiction where the offense took place. This would seem like a minor inconvenience when a record is actually authenticated. However, because there are instances of false-positives, unreportable information, etc. the follow up just takes time to tell you that there is nothing that you can use in your hiring decision.

Who’s Flip-Flopping?

The truth is, not us. We are still adamantly opposed to using database searches as the sole source for a criminal background check. However, the National Database Search is a great value-add when coupled with a best practices countywide criminal records search. The phrase we hear most often when employers are brought into court for their employees’ alleged harmful actions is that “if you could have known, you should have known”. Conducting this inexpensive complementary search allows for greater due diligence. For more information about this service and others, please contact EmployeeScreenIQ at (800) 235-3954 or at [www.EmployeeScreen.com](http://EmployeeScreen.com)

Nick Fishman is Chief Marketing Officer for Cleveland-based [EmployeeScreenIQ](http://EmployeeScreen.com), a best practices provider of employment screening services throughout the U.S. and worldwide. Nick can be reached at (800) 235-3954 ext. 441 or nfishman@employeescreen.com.

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

employeescreenIQ’s National Criminal Database Search
Close Doesn’t Count: Know the Rules of the Game!
The Employment Screening Value Proposition: A Primer

One of the primary tenets of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which governs consumer reporting for employment purposes, is that each job candidate should be evaluated fairly and objectively, taking into account the unique set of skills and experiences an individual has to offer to a given position. Verifying previous periods of employment should be considered a mandatory component of an effective employment screening strategy, since there is simply no better source of information than someone who has directly observed, or been a stakeholder in, an individual’s work performance.

In a perfect world, hiring managers would obtain a detailed and comprehensive performance profile of each candidate directly from former supervisors. However, they empathize with the reluctance of many organizations to part with the very information that would be considered most useful. This includes information such as: Was this individual considered a high-level performer? Does this person have a history of aggressive behavior or personality conflicts? Were there attendance or punctuality issues? What was the reason they left the company? Would you rehire this individual?

The Emergence of the Defamation Claim

Years ago, employment verifications were provided openly and with little restraint. Details on job performance, attitude, and other qualitative factors were commonplace. In the 1980s and 1990s, courts began upholding defamation lawsuits based on negative employer references that could not be established as fact. Fear of a defamation lawsuit from a former employee who received a less-than-positive reference led employers to scale back the amount of information they made available. The “neutral” (dates/title only) employment verification became commonplace.

The neutral reference policy places both prospective employers and top job candidates at a disadvantage, while potentially rewarding candidates who are marginal performers, or worse, outright threats to your company, customers, employees, and business assets. The effectiveness is essentially limited to confirming that someone was employed by a particular company, and to identify gaps in employment or exaggerated job titles. Candidates may be eliminated from consideration for dishonesty if these discrepancies are revealed by the neutral verification. If the discrepancy is minor, the hiring manager may explore the issue with the candidate to see if there is a satisfactory explanation, allowing the candidate to remain under consideration. However, the neutral verification, by design, provides no real information to predict future performance, risk, or ‘fit’ for the organization.

Defamation is no longer the only litigation risk

Playing it safe with a blanket neutral reference policy no longer precludes an employer from litigation risk. In recent years courts have begun to uphold the theory of “negligent referral.” Negligent referral is defined as “the failure of an employer to disclose complete and factual information about a former or current employee to another employer.” For example, suppose a former employee causes damage or harm at the new workplace that might have been predicted based on prior behavior that was known, but not disclosed, in a neutral employment verification by the former employer. This may also be considered negligence, even if the employer has a documented neutral reference verification policy.

The theory of negligent referral has been established under several misrepresentation scenarios:

• False negative reference – In Robinson v. Shell Oil, it was found that former employees, as well as current employees, are covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a negative reference was given in retaliation for an earlier claim of racial discrimination, rather than based on factual, documented information
• False positive reference – a student alleged sexual molestation by a teacher and was permitted by the California Supreme Court to sue the teacher’s former employer because that employer had provided a positive and unconditional recommendation while failing to mention complaints of sexual harassment and improper touching during the teacher’s tenure there
• Neutral reference – In Jerner v. Allstate Insurance Co. an employee who worked at Allstate for nine months exhibited notably bizarre behavior and was ultimately terminated when found to be carrying a gun in his briefcase. Allstate wrote a letter of recommendation stating the employee had voluntarily resigned, despite a company policy against recommendation letters. The individual was subsequently hired based on the recommendation letter by another company in the same industry, then killed three people in a shooting rampage after he was fired by the second company. The families of those killed then sued Allstate for providing a reference and misrepresenting his history to the second company, settling for an undisclosed sum

Job Reference Immunity Statutes

In recent years many states have enacted “job reference immunity statutes” which presumably provide protection for employers that choose to provide more in-depth information about former employees. The consensus of these statutes in the legal community is that while they codify immunity for employers providing employment references, in practice they may not provide a significant upgrade in protection over existing employment laws. Job reference immunity statutes generally establish a presumption of good faith on the part of the former employer, meaning that it must be shown that the employer knowingly provided false information, or acted with malice, depending on the statute, to establish negligence.

Employers still have to defend against lawsuits for defamation or negligent referral, even in states that have enacted job reference immunity statutes. Employers have generally not been found negligent if the principle of ‘qualified privilege’ can be established. This principle recognizes the importance of employers being able to share relevant and truthful reference information about former employees. Qualified privilege generally requires only that the reference information was provided in good faith and without malice, meaning that the employer believed the reference to be truthful, it served a legitimate business need (employment reference), and was provided to an individual with a legitimate use for the information (prospective employer).

Honesty is the Best Defense (that and a dash of diligent documentation!)

Sticking to factual information and being able to establish those facts with documentation is the simplest defense to a defamation or negligent referral lawsuit: truth is generally considered absolute. This is also a key element in establishing qualified privilege, whether or not your state has enacted a job reference immunity statute. Securing a signed release from the former employee, authorizing you to provide the employment reference, is another best practice in providing employment references.

Best Practice Tips for Giving Employment References

Consult your legal council in developing a written policy – the information in this article is not legal advice, it is a discussion of general terms and concepts. Your organization’s employment reference policy should be formulated with the advice of attorneys familiar with your industry and the legal framework in the states in which you conduct business

• Obtain a signed release from the former employee that authorizes the reference before giving it – in the event of litigation, this is a brick in your wall of legal defense
• Provide only relevant and factually accurate information – remember truth is an absolute defense
• Conduct regular performance reviews and be meticulous about documenting both positive and negative performance – documentation can be key in establishing truth and/or factual accuracy
• Always conduct employer reference/verification checks on your own candidates, whether internally or through a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA); even a neutral reference can identify relevant or disqualifying discrepancies. Ignorance is not a negligent hiring defense if there is adverse information out there and you made no attempt to find it

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 by email at rthomson@employeescreen.com.

The Myth

First, let’s dispel a commonly held misconception: A Social Security Number Trace is not conducted through the Social Security Administration, nor is it a service that can definitively indicate if the subject of your search is “legal”.

Reality

The Social Security Number Trace should really be referred to as an “Address History Search”. This important screening tool provides a roadmap to a thorough and effective background check by revealing the addresses at which your applicant has been presumed to live and every name they have been presumed to use over at least the past seven to ten years. Completing this search gives you the greatest opportunity to commence a thorough, extensive criminal record search.

The Method

Social Security Number Traces are offered through a variety of sources. The most common sources are the credit bureaus. Companies such as Experian and TransUnion aggregate address and name history by identifying information reported by lending institutions such as banks, credit companies, utilities companies, cable operators, etc. If you have applied for any type of credit, chances are the credit bureaus will have a record of that. Of course when you apply for credit, you provide your name, address and social security number. This information is passed on to the credit bureaus and Voila! A credit event has been recorded. Another source for traces is through other commercially aggregated databases. Like all databases, some are better than others. Some will include aggregate information from credit bureaus as well as additional sources such as magazine subscription databases, customer affinity programs (e.g. frequent flier accounts), grocery accounts, etc.

EmployeeScreen IQ has conducted exhaustive testing of both credit bureau and aggregate database traces. While it would be irresponsible to suggest that these tests or any others draw a conclusive result, our preference is for Experian traces on the credit bureau side and a database called “PASST”.

What is the best source?

Clients often ask, “What source is the best?”

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a best method of identifying address history. Information can vary from database to database, so you choose the one you are most comfortable with. One thing is certain, there is not a single source that can guarantee the information it provides is 100% accurate. For instance, let’s say that you lived with a friend for a period of time and never applied for credit while there. There’s nothing to tie you to that location. Therefore, a Social Security Number Trace will not reveal that address. Another issue occurs when tracing a number that belongs to an individual who has never applied for credit. Most commonly, this occurs with younger individuals. Most often, the number will not trace. The same logic applies to an individual who has recently moved to the United States. Even though they may be in this country lawfully, they have not established a history of credit. The lack of information on an address history search does not mean that the individual is illegal. It simply means that the credit bureau has not aggregated any data on the individual.

Why Not Just Contact the Social Security Administration?

There are two definitive reasons as to why a Social Security Number Trace cannot be conducted through the Social Security Administration (SSA). First, the SSA does not maintain such address history information for commercial purposes.

Secondly, only an employer can contact the SSA for information and only after the individual has become an employee. Contacting the SSA is something that an employer can do to determine Right to Work Eligibility Status, which applies to the I-9 process.

Some Unintended Consequences

Since we are performing an in-depth dissection of the Social Security Number Trace, it is important to address some of the inherent “flaws” contained within. However also noteworthy is that none of these “flaws” or “anomalies” whether contemplated individually or together make a compelling argument for foregoing this search. Bear in mind that the data contained in a trace is done so by human beings over the course of time. The old saying of “garbage in, garbage out” applies. Since the information for each credit event must have been keyed in at some point by hand, it is inevitable that entry errors will occur, such as incorrect spelling of an individual’s name, the wrong address or a transposed social security number. This can and does happen and often, it is difficult to pinpoint when or where the error happened. The other commonly “flawed” information relates to the date of birth contained on the Social Security Number Trace. The best way to explain this anomaly is by posing a question. When was the last time you were asked to provide your birth date when you applied for credit? Even if you were asked, what is the likelihood that you were asked to prove it? This is the most commonly misreported information on a trace and we often tell clients to disregard the date provided. The SSN Trace is simply not a reliable resource to validate date of birth. Ultimately, the date of birth has no bearing on the information that is being used in the trace anyway.

Dollars & Sense Using a Social Security Number Trace

Now that we have dealt with the “what” and “who” let’s consider the “why”. What can an employer do with this information? A trace can be conducted for only a few dollars. However, the low cost doesn’t diminish its importance. As mentioned earlier, the trace will provide a roadmap for conducting a thorough criminal record search. Failing to perform this search virtually guarantees that your goal of an effective and reliable background check will not be accomplished. Another useful aspect of the SSN Trace, when conducted through certain providers, is related to security. As an example, Experian offers a “Fraud Shield”. This feature cross references the social security number with more than 20 different databases to ensure that the number hasn’t been used in conjunction with reported identity theft, that the number does not belong to a deceased person, that the number was assigned during an appropriate birth date range, etc. Obviously, if an alert is offered in this regard, a background check should be taken with a grain of salt and more information must be sought from the applicant.

Summary

The address history and alias names identified by a SSN Trace represent an inexpensive and objective roadmap for conducting criminal history research. Without this objective resource, you must rely on your applicant to tell you where to search for criminal history, which can lead to obvious consequences. A dishonest applicant could easily conceal the fact that they moved 3 years ago to get away from a felony conviction. While the precise content of the SSN Trace cannot be considered 100% conclusive, no criminal background check should be considered complete without referencing this important tool.

So you’re looking to hire an applicant that has lived or resides outside of the United States? You should still conduct a background investigation, right? Far too often, well intentioned HR executives and recruiters overlook this vital step in the hiring process, thinking international background information is either inaccessible or unduly expensive. Increasingly, U.S.-based companies and multinational employers based overseas assume unnecessary risk when hiring candidates from outside the U.S. if they fail to perform due diligence on those individuals.

The “Background” on international background screening

Today, we are at an interesting crossroads for both U.S. and international screening. The advent of the internet has made access to and mobility of information easier than ever worldwide. This has resulted in great efficiencies, as well as unintended side effects, such as privacy violations and identity theft. In the U.S., these side effects have been addressed through federal and state legislation requiring a permissible use for the information and strict guidelines regarding information handling and ensuring accuracy and reliability.

Internationally, there are few standards in employment screening processes. From one country to the next, records maintenance capabilities, procedures, and rules for access vary widely. To begin with, the ability to access information in various countries is dependent on compliance with global information exchange rules for ensuring data security across international borders. One such compliance framework is the European Union’s Directive on Data Protection, which prevents the transfer of personal data to non-EU nations that do not meet the European “adequacy” standard for privacy protection. A select few U.S. companies, including employeescreenIQ, are Safe Harbor certified with the U.S. Department of Commerce to meet the requirements for international data exchange and privacy protection.

Viable options

There are effective screening tools available to organizations that employ individuals from around the globe. employeescreenIQ provides access to country-specific criminal history research, and language-based services to verify past employment, education, and personal references. Another important tool when conducting an international background check is an OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) Terrorist Watch List Search, enabling an employer to cross reference their applicant against a global list of known terrorists and deviants.

International criminal history

International criminal history research begins with identifying the office(s) or agency responsible for maintaining criminal records in a particular country or region, then following whatever procedure that office makes available. employeescreenIQ has established access to criminal history information in more than 150 countries around the world. The cost and turnaround time of a criminal history search varies widely from one country to the next, and typically there is no process for oversight or auditing of the results. The key is that the tool is available and can be considered the best information reasonably available in a given country.

Language-based verification services

Verification services (employment, education, and reference checks) are typically not dependent on a national office or agency, but must be requested directly through the employer, school, or individual. They are performed via telephone, and fax when necessary, in the native language of the locality. Distinctions between U.S. and overseas verifications include the increased expense of multiple long distance phone calls and faxes, and the fact that complete and accurate contact information is mandatory, as it can be virtually impossible to locate a company or individual overseas without precise contact information. As in the U.S., educational institutions and personal references around the world typically consider it their obligation to vouch for those upon whom they have conferred degrees or agreed to act as references. Precise contact information, again, is crucial to completion. employeescreenIQ offers verification services in over 14 languages and dialects, covering over 225 countries around the world.

Key considerations

Collectively speaking, International screening tools are in their infancy compared with the current state of employment screening in the U.S. This means that there are drawbacks: they are more expensive, they average longer turnaround times, and in most cases there is little recourse if an applicant disputes something in the report. Compared with the average company’s investment in recruiting, relocation, training and salary of a new employee, the expense is miniscule. Due diligence and consistency in the hiring process are industry standards for U.S. companies, and are closely scrutinized in the event of employment litigation. These standards are becoming increasingly relevant overseas as international economies and business practices continue to evolve.

employeescreenIQ Global Screening Services

employeescreenIQ’s Global Screening Services are an important tool in an increasingly global business environment. As with our domestic services, you can trust employeescreenIQ to stay on top of the latest developments worldwide in accessing reliable, timely, and compliant information to increase the value of your hiring decisions.

For more information regarding international background checks and the valuable service employeescreenIQ provides, please visit us at www.employeescreen.com/global.

As a Consumer Reporting Agency, EmployeeScreen IQ gathers information from many public record sources. Statewide Sex Offender Registries are somewhat unique among public record sources, in that access to a significant amount of personal information on sex offenders is widely available for free and with few or no questions asked. This seems to run against the steady current of increasing legislation designed to safeguard personal information against identity theft and other invasions of personal privacy. Additionally, many employers don’t perceive a need to check a sex offender registry if they are already conducting a county-level criminal record search. Read on to understand why and when a check of the sex offender registry is appropriate for your applicants.

Unparalleled availability of personal information

Virtually every state makes sex offender information available through the internet without asking so much as a password, reason for the information, or name of the requestor. Type in a name to search, and you can find out if that individual is a registered sex offender. Even better, type an address or zip code, and you can bring up all sex offenders living within the neighborhood, zip code, city, county, or state. Typically you’ll see the individual’s name, age, date of birth, ethnicity and address, the crime they were convicted of, a physical description including known tattoos and piercings, and even a photograph of the individual. This is an indispensable tool for parents, families, and others who want to keep track of this information in their local neighborhood.

By contrast, other public record sources generally don’t make such detailed information available to the public. County courthouses that provide criminal searches via public access offices or the internet require that you provide the name and correct spelling for each individual you are checking. Search results in metropolitan areas will typically deliver a long list of ‘hits’ for even marginally common names, which may or may not be associated with your particular candidate. Positively associating a criminal record with your candidate requires use of additional identifiers, which are not always readily available through public access points. An advantage of using a reputable Consumer Reporting Agency is access to a nationwide network of experienced professional court researchers who know how to perform this validation and when additional research is warranted.

What makes Sex Offender Registries unique?

All states have enacted a “Megan’s Law,” requiring convicted sex offenders to register with local law enforcement for the statewide database. While few would argue the rights of sex offenders in relation to their crimes, privacy advocates and the ACLU fought hard against making this personal information so easily accessible to the general public. But the Supreme Court ultimately ruled (in reversing Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety vs. Doe, 01-1231, March 5, 2003) that because convicted sex offenders pose a unique threat to local communities (primarily juveniles as well as the elderly or disabled), and because they are “much more likely than any other type of offender to be re-arrested for a new rape or sex assault,” that the community’s right to awareness of that local threat outweighs the offender’s right to privacy of her/his personal information.

The issue has recently been expanded as several communities across the country have enacted local legislation barring sex offenders from living within their boundaries. This has elicited a new wave of as yet unresolved debate.

Recent developing trend: Methamphetamine Registries

Another related development is registries enacted in a handful of states and planned in several others to track individuals convicted of manufacturing and selling methamphetamine. Because it is manufactured from household items, meth labs have sprung up in homes and neighborhoods across the country. The meth manufacturing process produces toxic waste, so the theory is that anyone in the neighborhood is a potential victim of a meth lab, not just the individuals involved in making, selling, or using the drug. Therefore, while this debate is ongoing, the implication is that meth offenders, like sex offenders, pose a unique threat to communities, and the general public has a right to awareness of their whereabouts.

Implications for employment screening

One of the most frequent questions we’re asked is “if someone is a sex offender, wouldn’t we find that in a county criminal record search?” The sex offender registry seems redundant in this respect. The answer is usually yes. However, depending on the severity or habitual nature of the criminal act(s), and how much time has passed, there are legitimate reasons you would find these records through one resource and not the other. The most serious offenders are required to register for life including when they move to another state. If the conviction occurred over seven years ago, there is no guarantee it will be reported by the county, but they will be found in the sex offender registry. Conversely, prosecution of a criminal case in the county court system can take months or years, and longer for the conviction to make its way into the state sex offender database. In this case, the county criminal search will show each stage of the record throughout the adjudication process (though it should be cautioned that an employment decision should not be based solely on an arrest record). The case will not appear in the state sex offender registry until a final conviction has been rendered plus processing time for the entry into the registry database.

When is it appropriate to run one or the other, or both?

The next question is then “how do we know when to run a county criminal search, the sex offender registry, or both?” The answer is logical:

Industry best practices dictate a seven year county criminal history be run on all employees. Each county jurisdiction of residence, including where the individual has worked or attended school over the past seven years should be checked for criminal history, and any alias names used by the individual should be checked in these areas as well.

Building from this foundation, ANY individual that will be in contact with children, the elderly, the disabled, or that will have access to residences, hotel rooms, or other living spaces is strongly recommended to be run through the sex offender registry check in addition to the 7 year county criminal history. While sex offenders are mandated to re-register every time they move, a known drawback of sex offender registries is that some offenders move out of state and fail to register with authorities at their new locale. Therefore a comprehensive check for sex offenders should include each state’s registry corresponding with any state’s the applicant has lived, worked, or attended school over the past seven years.

If it’s so easy, why use a Consumer Reporting Agency?

Sex offender registries are designed to make detailed information about potential threats to safety in the community widely available to local residents. Ease of access to these information resources shouldn’t be mistaken by employers for perfect information. Using a reputable CRA with sufficient oversight and compliance procedures in place will ensure you do not attribute a record to the wrong individual with the same or similar name. It will ensure your applicants have FCRA-mandated recourse and dispute resolution procedures in place if they believe information has been reported in error. For you, the employer, it will ensure reasonable scope of the criminal record search so that it is extensive enough to cover all areas the individual has lived, worked, or attended school going back seven years.

Essentially, any concerns over violation of privacy are eliminated when using a reputable Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA) for employment screening. The candidate or employee has provided signature consent and her/his own personal identifiers, and both the Consumer Reporting Agency and its end-user client are bound by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to keep the information confidential and protect the individual’s privacy in all respects regarding the information in the consumer report. Use of a reputable CRA will maximize the safety of your customers and employees, and minimize your risk of a negligent hiring lawsuit.

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.

Instant nationwide criminal database searches are extremely tempting. From the day we are born we appreciate “instant” gratification. “Statewide” and “nationwide” are powerful words and imply something extremely comprehensive. “Low-cost” and “inexpensive” are also words that trigger a Pavlovian response in most of us. Put all of these words in the same sentence and you’ve overcome the arguments of all but the most determined skeptics!

Few hard statistics are provided by those proffering these tools and it is virtually impossible to know exactly what is missed. Not many of us can realistically put perspective around numbers like “millions” and “billions” (frequently used to describe the number of records housed in a typical commercial database) except to say “gosh, that’s a lot.” A million is certainly a lot of SOME things, but if you have 500 million records in your database and there are 5 billion records in existence across the country, would you still believe that to be an accurate and reliable criminal background check?

How big is the universe?

How many criminal records actually exist in the United States? Few of us can declare the exact number of counties that comprise the state we live in or certainly across the entire United States. There is no feasible way to measure or reliably estimate the total number of criminal records in existence, due to terminology and archiving disparities, widely varying records retention policies, and the simple geography of thousands of court jurisdictions (there are over 10,000 court jurisdictions spread among 3,127 counties nationwide). In attempting to gauge the reliability of these databases, it is important to understand what they consist of.

One way to illustrate the risks is to look at the “whole” as the sum of its parts. The “millions” and “billions” of records claimed by database vendors do not adequately describe the sources or usefulness of those records. Take the resource list from one of the most prominent nationwide database vendors as an example. Using a font size of 8.5 (a bit small for comfortable reading), this resource list fills 26 standard-size pages. A pessimist might consider this seemingly endless list of minutiae an attempt to overwhelm the curious and encourage them to simply rely on the fact that “millions” of records must mean it is comprehensive and accurate.

The sources

Dissecting this resource list provides a clearer picture of what this database contains. The “millions” of records all fall into one of the following four categories:

• County Felony / Misdemeanor Criminal Court Records – County-based felony/misdemeanor records are the primary information needed for employment screening. These records require the most effort to obtain and are the least likely to make it into the nationwide databases. County court records are obtained by database vendors either from a statewide court repository, where available, or purchased from individual counties. Individual counties have no mandate whatsoever to provide data to commercial database vendors. Similarly, those that choose to provide data have no responsibility to provide regular or consistent updates. In this particular nationwide criminal database, there are 36 states for which the database either contains no county court records at all, has extremely significant coverage gaps, or the state has suspended updates altogether. Based strictly on this database’s own disclaimers, less than 42% of counties nationwide are covered by this database. Even 42% is an especially generous estimate because for the states without a disclaimer, it assumes full participation by every county in the state, which is widely known to not occur.
• State Department of Corrections Records (DOC) – DOC databases contain records ONLY on persons who have served time in state correctional facilities. Most would consider this important information, but it contains significant gaps that can only be avoided with county court research. Any conviction that did not result in prison time, resulted in a suspended sentence or credit for time served, or resulted in serving time in a municipal, county, or federal correctional facility will be missed. There are 14 states, including California, that provide no DOC information to this database. The probability of identifying an existing criminal record is far greater through direct county research.
• State Sex Offender Registries (SOR) – each state maintains a Sex Offender Registry, virtually all of which are accessible via the internet. This too represents important information, and several industries, including those involving child- and elderly-care, mandate it. While the nationwide database search can be considered an effective tool for checking SORs, the registries themselves are a database tool and subject to the same limitations. Ernie Allen, President and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, recently stated “Today, there are more than a half million sex offenders that are “supposed” to be registered in the United States; however at least 100,000 of these offenders are actually “missing” from the system.”¹ Sex offenders are required to register when they move to a new location, but if they fail to do so, county criminal history research based on their address history is the only reliable way to identify this criminal past.
• Proprietary Criminal Data – “proprietary” is another word commonly used to create the illusion of quality. This simply means that if, by chance, a particular individual has previously been screened by this specific database vendor and a record was found, that record will be included in the report. This process ignores the FCRA requirement that a reasonable effort be made to ensure any records reported are accurate, complete, and current.

The research

Faithful readers of The Verifier™ may recall the test² EmployeeScreenIQ recently conducted on one of the most popular nationwide criminal databases. In that test we submitted 651 randomly selected criminal “hits,” found in county court searches by our professional researchers, to one of the most prominent instant nationwide criminal databases. 451 of these known records were disqualified from the test by the database vendor as being from county jurisdictions that were not covered by this database. Speaking ONLY of the 200 records that were accepted for the test, more than 35% were missed completely by this database, and of those that were found, 50% contained incomplete or inconsistent information compared with what our researchers found at the primary source, the county courthouse. Extrapolating these numbers back to the original sample of 651 records, this “nationwide” criminal record database identified less than 20% of the known criminal records, with half of those containing discrepancies.

Nationwide databases do serve a purpose

Industry best practices dictate conducting physical research in each county in which your candidate has lived, worked, or gone to school over the past 7-10 years. There is always a small chance that someone may have committed a crime far from the specific counties in which they have lived, worked, or studied. A nationwide criminal database can be used to attempt to identify “vacation” criminal records, understanding that if such a record does exist there is no guarantee it will be found in a nationwide criminal database. Once identified through a database, the record will also need to be validated by the local court jurisdiction to satisfy FCRA requirements.

Perspective

While some databases are better than others, the key takeaway is that the very best criminal database search falls FAR short of the accuracy and reliability of conducting primary research in county courthouses. Nationwide criminal databases can be considered a useful supplement to criminal research in county courts by professional researchers, but as a standalone product cannot be relied upon to identify threats to the safety and security of your customers, employees, and corporate assets.

Please note that the database vendors used for these analyses remain anonymous, as the intent is not to detract from a particular vendor’s product, but rather to educate on the information gaps rampant within all of these tools. The nationwide databases used in these analyses are considered to be (and sell themselves as) among the most comprehensive with the most sources of database records in the industry.

¹Allen, Ernie, “NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN JOINS WITH CONGRESSMAN FOLEY, SENATOR HATCH AND VICTIM FAMILIES TO ANNOUNCE TOUGHER SEX OFFENDER LEGISLATION,” press release, Washington, D.C., May 18, 2005

²Bachman, Kevin, “BIS Research Exposes Holes in Instant Criminal Records Databases,” The Verifier IV, 3rd Quarter 2004

Obtaining federal government contracts can be lucrative and highly competitive. Some individuals and business entities, not content to have won a hard-fought battle for a good piece of business, may seek to unethically exploit a business relationship with the federal government. Those that have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, will probably wind up on what is commonly referred to as an Excluded Parties List.

Excluded Parties Lists should not be confused with lists created for the exclusive use of the law enforcement community or terrorist watch lists, such as the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list, published by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Individuals and entities appearing on the OFAC SDN list have had their assets blocked and all U.S. persons are prohibited from dealing with them in general (a Social Security Number Trace will reveal matches with the OFAC SDN list).

Excluded Parties Lists identify those individuals and entities who are not permitted to receive Federal contracts and certain subcontracts, or from receiving Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contains the policies and procedures for administering Excluded Parties Lists. FAR Subpart 9.402(a) states “Agencies shall solicit offers from, award contracts to, and consent to subcontracts with responsible contractors only.” To qualify as a responsible contractor, an individual or entity must have “a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics” and must possess the necessary organization, accounting and operational controls. The General Services Administration (GSA) compiles and maintains a current list of all parties debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, or declared ineligible by government agencies or by the General Accounting Office (GAO). There are other government agencies that maintain their own Excluded Parties Lists, with evolving attempts at coordination between them.

A well-known example of activities that landed a couple of high-profile companies on the GSA Excluded Parties List is the accounting scandal at Enron Corporation, which resulted in Enron and Arthur Andersen losing their privilege to perform federal government contract work. Also resulting from this scandal were suspensions of various individual employees of these organizations. Individuals may be excluded from federal procurement and non-procurement programs, and their names will also appear on the Excluded Parties Lists.

While the Enron/Andersen scandal may seem worlds away from the daily routine of most companies, it is just one of a myriad of ways individuals and organizations may be debarred from federal work. More common examples occur, for example, in the health care industry, where federal Medicare and Medicaid payments are made to countless medical facilities and practitioners. Health care organizations that bill these or other federal programs may jeopardize their eligibility by employing a provider who is listed on the Excluded Parties List maintained by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health & Human Services.

While it is relatively simple to check for a name match on an Excluded Parties Listing, the fact that the scope of these listings is worldwide means that a name-match alone may have a high probability of being a “false hit.” Verifying name-matches in conjunction with other identifiers to confirm or deny the match is very important if using this information as the basis for a hiring decision.

If your business or industry is dependent on federal contracts or subsidies, Excluded Parties Listings can be a useful tool in ensuring sound hiring decisions. It is a small piece of due diligence in the hiring process, but the consequences to your business of ignoring it could be substantial.