An ominous trend could make it more challenging to hire the most qualified candidate

In today’s economic climate, companies that can hire have a distinct advantage. As unemployment soars, talented employees are available simply as a result of corporate downsizing. Individuals that were nowhere to be found at 4% unemployment are abundant at 8%. Trusted with conducting the employment verifications, a screening partner plays a vital role supporting these talent acquisition initiatives. As healthy companies position themselves for an economic upturn, it is necessary to validate whether the qualifications of the star performer who fell in their laps are true.

Here’s where things are beginning to get dicey. With the increase in organizations that are downsizing, we are finding an alarming trend. Often, these organizations are no longer adequately staffed to be able to provide verifications in a timely manner, if at all for former employees. It makes sense this function would be lost on the cutting room floor. It doesn’t add any value to the company and can be a time drain. Employees are encouraged to focus on tasks that help make money or cut costs. And providing dates of employment, job titles or the salary does neither.

So as companies refocus their efforts, EmployeeScreenIQ anticipates a further shift in personnel, human resources, and accounting departments. In honor of the typical experiences of the door to door encyclopedia salesman, here’s how the employment verifier could soon be as rare as a shelf full of Britannica’s.

• Try back later- Information that was once provided in one day with one phon call will now take one week and multiple phone calls.
• We’re not interested- An organization still says they will cooperate and provideinformation but doesn’t jump when the phone rings.
• No one is home- That department full of administrative staff that supported backoffice business functions has been laid off. Obtaining averification, or a even a return phone call, is unlikely.

Looking beyond the salesman and the 9 year old who doesn’t get to learn about aardvarks and antelopes, what’s the broader impact of the downsized company’s disinterest? It’s the potential employee and the hiring company that are the big losers. The candidate misses out on an opportunity through no fault of their own. A company runs the risk of hiring an inferior candidate because their background check is “complete” even though another candidate has a stronger, yet unverified history. But even if information is obtainable, its quality is another worrisome trend potential employers may be faced with as is the time it takes for them to respond.

Many companies provide dates and title only, but you’d be surprised how many continue to provide information on the candidate’s performance, attitude, skills and experience. This information usually comes from that candidate’s direct supervisor and EmployeeScreenIQ passes along any insight this person offers. But if your candidate was downsized, chances are his boss was as well. Which means information available may be limited to what is in the payroll system. No more insight into whether he was a star performer or let go because of sticky fingers.

More and more companies outsource this verification process to a third party provider, like The Work Number and refuse to provide any information directly. In today’s economic environment, we project this to be the “fastest growing” segment of employment verifications.

This third party administrator simply provides the payroll data that their client, your candidate’s former employer, uploaded to their system.  But if the data provided by these automated third party systems is materially different or confusing than what an applicant claims, EmployeeScreenIQ will, as an added, free service, contact the company directly and attempts to clarify what was provided. Usually, the original company would take the phone call. We anticipate, as a function of downsizing, fewer companies will do this going forward and the number of companies unable or unwilling to provide deeper insight will grow.

Kevin Bachman is Vice President of Quality Service for Cleveland-based EmployeeScreen IQ, 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.

The year 2009 ushers in with it an unprecedented emphasis on personal credit. Economic conditions worldwide may be as difficult as they’ve ever been in most of our lifetimes, and no one can say for sure if we’ve yet hit the bottom. Identity theft is a term we have all become familiar with, and despite the intense focus that has been placed on protecting individual identities, the threat continues to proliferate as identity thieves carry on in refining their methods and developing new and more devious ways to steal identities. If you’ve taken care over the years to cultivate and maintain a strong credit rating, it has never been more valuable than today. Even if it is less than perfect, the last thing you need is someone else wreaking havoc with your credit. The saddest part is that if these criminal minds applied the same level of ingenuity and creativity to legitimate, productive occupations, they would be among the greatest assets to employers!

The most common perceptions of how identity theft happens are still the stolen laptop computer containing a large database of personal information, simple old-fashioned dumpster diving, or email-based phishing scams that sway the unsuspecting into volunteering their own financial account passwords or personal information. Some of these techniques may be within our control to prevent, but some are completely outside our control. Therefore, no one is immune from the potential of having their identity stolen and credit compromised. No matter how many precautions and safety protocols are implemented by companies armed with your personal information, there are that many more criminals out there working to overcome each obstacle.

Is Help Available?

There is no shortage of products and services out there to take your money in exchange for offering varying levels of protection ranging from electronically monitoring your credit to assistance in cleaning up the mess if your identity is breached. The value represented by any given credit protection tool really depends on the individual comfort level you have with keeping tabs on your own information. Monitoring your own credit report on a regular basis is the first key in spotting potential fraudulent activity under your name. Under federal law you are permitted to review your credit report, upon request, once per year from each of the three major national consumer reporting companies (Experian, Equifax and TransUnion).

It is useful to point out a couple of keywords here that can be a bit confusing in the way they apply to accessing credit reports online: “Annual” and “Free”. AnnualCreditReport.com is the official website to help consumers to obtain their free credit report. AnnualCreditReport.com was created by the credit bureaus for the specific purpose of accessing individual free credit reports upon request annually, as required by law. The credit “score” is not part of the free credit report offer, but can be obtained from each credit bureau for an additional one-time fee. There is another website you are probably more familiar with, after having their catchy jingles running through your head for a few hours at a time: FreeCreditReport.com. This website advertises heavily on television and is run by a private company called ConsumerInfo.com. The only way to obtain a “free” credit report from FreeCreditReport.com is to agree to a free trial membership of Triple Advantage (sm) Credit Monitoring. Failure to cancel the trial membership within 9 days results in being billed $14.95 per month on an ongoing basis for the credit monitoring service. This is fine if your intent is to enroll in this service, but some would argue that the trial membership requirement (along with subsequent billing arrangements) is not made as obvious as it should be.

There are many other companies which offer credit monitoring services as well, for varying fees. These services will notify you of inquiries and new accounts opened under your name, and typically send you a monthly report of activity.

You may also purchase “insurance” against identity theft. Depending on the provider, if your credit is harmed by fraudulent activity or identity theft, you would have protection against monetary losses, assistance in rebuilding your credit, and representation in dealing with consumer reporting companies, creditors, and other information sources.

If you feel you can benefit from paying for any credit monitoring or insurance services, compare costs and the different products available to understand exactly what you are getting.

What Can I Do on My Own?

There are several steps an individual can take to help deter and defend against identity theft that cost nothing. Many are simply common sense; the following is a list of things anyone may do at no cost to prevent falling victim to identity theft:

Shred! Dumpster diving sounds primitive, but it is another of the most common methods used in search of your personal information. Shred any bills, account statements, or other documents that contain personal or account information, or combine your name and address

Safeguard your Social Security Number – keep your Social Security card (and other personal information) at home in a secure place. Ask to use other identifiers whenever possible. Don’t print your SSN on your checks.

Unsolicited phone calls, emails, and mail – never provide personal information in response to unsolicited requests. If you are interested in following up on an unsolicited communication, use an independent resource to find contact information for that organization.

Review financial accounts and billing statements regularly – contact the issuer of the statement to follow up on charges you do not recognize.

Password Security – don’t use numbers or phrases that are obvious such as your mother’s maiden name, or your birthdate. While these may be easy for you to remember, they are also more vulnerable in terms of protecting your identity. Choose passwords that are difficult to remember and commit them to memory or document and store them in a secure place at home.

Inspect your credit report annually – you are entitled to receive one copy of your credit report per year from each of the three nationwide consumer reporting companies – Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion. Visit AnnualCreditReport.com to request your free copy from each credit bureau. Even better, create a rotating system by checking one of the three credit reports every 4 months. This will give you 3 opportunities per year to spot inconsistencies or potentially fraudulent activity.

Have You Been a Victim of Identity Theft?

If you have been (or suspect you may have been) a victim of identity theft, there are a couple of steps to take immediately:

- Place a “Fraud Alert” on your credit report. This requires additional steps to be followed by any creditor prior to opening new accounts or making changes to existing accounts in your name. The initial Fraud Alert lasts 90 days and can be renewed upon request. Once you have documented evidence (police report, FTC Identity Theft Affidavit) that identity theft has been perpetrated against you, you may request an extended Fraud Alert, which will remain in effect for seven years. Contacting any one of the three credit bureaus will initiate the Fraud Alert with all three bureaus.

• Experian: (888) 397-3742
• Equifax: (800) 525-6285
• TransUnion: (800) 680-7289

- Close Accounts – close any accounts you did not open, or any existing accounts that were tampered with by contacting the security or fraud departments of each company

- Report the Theft to the Federal Trade Commission

• www.ftc.gov/idtheft
• (877) ID-THEFT (438-4338)

• Mail: Identity Theft Clearinghouse 

  Federal Trade Commission 

  Washington, DC 20580

- File a Police Report – a police report will allow you obtain the extended Fraud Alert, as well as aid with creditors who may require proof of the crime.

Federal Trade Commission Consumer Response Center
AnnualCreditReport.com
FreeCreditReport.com
Onguardonline.gov.

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.

Let’s face it. We’re all looking for creative ways to speed up our daily tasks. We got Blackberrys so we could quickly respond to messages when we weren’t sitting at our computers. Instant messaging became en vogue when we didn’t want to take the time to write out a long email message. We even invented our own IM language because we didn’t have the time to write out complete words or sentences. Example: r u going 2 finish that project. That would b g8. L8er. Tks.

Those of us who focus on hiring and on-boarding are no different from the rest of society. We are constantly looking for solutions that allow us to expedite the hiring process and decrease the cost of processing applicants. One such method is the electronic job application which then populates the applicant tracking solution. The applicant simply fills out the application on-line and the data flows seamlessly without the need for duplicate data entry. This saves both time and money.

A Panacea for Background Checks, Right?

Now that the applicant’s personal data has been captured in the electronic application, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the background check process can become fully automated? Yes and No.

We all know that the Fair Credit Reporting Act mandates that our applicants’ must grant written authorization that allows us to conduct a background check. Traditionally, employers provide this document to job applicants and ask for a “wet” (traditional ink) signature on the document. This document is then filed away for proof of signature or sometimes faxed to the background screening provider for processing. So with all the technology available today, why can’t we just obtain consent electronically and move on?

The answer is that we can. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000 (both electronically and in ink), giving electronic contracts the same weight as those executed on paper (be it for background checks, or any other purpose). However, just because it made this form of consent lawful doesn’t mean that it mandated recognition of such signatures if both parties didn’t agree to the format.

A Fly in the Ointment

While employers are obligated to certify that they have received consent to conduct a background check, most services requested do not require a hard copy of the authorization form. However, when employers conduct employment, education or professional license verifications or access Motor Vehicle Records in a handful of states, it is rare when proof of signature is not required. Most employers and academic institutions will not release information without proof. And here’s where things can unravel with electronic signatures. This requires the requestor of information to fax a hard copy of the release to their screening provider and for the screener to fax it to the information provider, thus adding time and effort to the process.

In a recent study conducted by EmployeeScreenIQ , we submitted 500 electronic releases to past employers and academic institutions as proof of applicant consent. Only 45% of the time, were these signatures recognized and information provided. 55% percent of the time, the source of information refused to provide a response until a wet signature was faxed or scanned and emailed as proof. That means that 55% of the time, we had to go back to the requestor and ask for a hard copy of the signature. In each case, the requestor had to go back to the applicant and seek a wet signature. Once received, they had to fax or email the executed document. This of course, slowed down the process drastically and ran the risk of creating a negative impression on the job applicant.

Other findings:

• Academic institutions only accepted the electronic signature 41% of the time
• Employers only accepted the electronic signature 43% of the time
• Larger employers rejected the electronic signature far more often than small to mid-size employers

When Does The Electronic Signature Work?

If an employer does not conduct employment, education or professional license verifications or check Motor Vehicle Records in a handful of states, the electronic signature will do the trick. At the time the background check is conducted, the employer simply certifies that it has written authorization to conduct a background check. In this case, the electronic signature allows the process to be completely automated. No more faxing of releases. The electronically signed document is simply submitted with the other applicant information and seamlessly transferred to the background screening company. That document can then be fed electronically to the information source and the information sought can be returned by them in the same fashion. For those looking to cut down on paper, this has the added benefit of being an environmentally friendly process.

In 2008, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS)  presented some helpful guidelines for utilizing electronic signatures.

• E-signature process should require the applicant to consent to electronic storage and submission
• Choices for consent should be stated in unambiguous terms (“I consent” & “I decline” vs. “send” or “submit”)
• Applicant should be informed of their right to withdraw consent and explain any conditions, consequences or fees that would result from such a withdrawal
• Provide explicit instructions for the applicant to request a copy of their record in non-electronic form (A Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA)
• An electronic record should be retained and readily available for reproduction
• You should outline the hardware and software requirements for accessing and retaining the electronic records that the applicant is consenting to receive

How Do We Improve Recognition of E-Signatures?

Certainly as time goes on, more and more institutions will begin recognizing these signatures. But rather than wait for that time, organizations are getting more and more creative. One of our strategic ATS partners, MyStaffingPro, allows releases to be signed electronically with a mouse, rather than a checkbox. They are then able to catalog the signature and store it on file through a third party auditor for future authentication. Other advanced organizations obtain signatures through electronic pen. Both forms of electronic signature should significantly improve acceptance as most verifying institutions want to just see some form of a scribble.

Conclusion

The concept of developing a completely automated and paperless background screening process is right at our fingertips. For those that do not require verification services, electronic signature is a proven way to expedite the process and reduce the labor involved in requesting a background check. The process has not yet been perfected for those that do require verification services, but we are closer than ever to realizing success in this regard. We can’t make people recognize these signatures, but we will continue to innovate creative solutions until they do.

Nick Fishman is Chief Marketing Officer for Cleveland-based EmployeeScreenIQ , 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.

The use of bogus or fraudulent degrees is accelerating rapidly in today’s workforce. And those who engage in this behavior are getting better at perpetrating this type resume fraud. Diploma Mills are the most common tool used to perpetuate this activity.

EmployeeScreenIQ just recently published a Guide to Identify Diploma Mills and Fraudulent Degrees. This is a great resource for hiring professionals who wish to limit their exposure to claims of false degrees. The resource is free to anyone who is interested. We just ask for some basic contact information in return.

The following excerpt is a sneak peek to our 30 page guide. The entire resource can be downloaded by clicking here.

Definition of Diploma Mills:

According to Wikipedia, “A diploma mill (also known as a degree mill) is an organization that awards academic degrees and diplomas with substandard or no academic study and without recognition by official educational accrediting bodies. The purchaser can then claim to hold an academic degree, and the organization is motivated by making a profit. These degrees are often awarded based on vaguely construed life experience [or no experience at all]. Some such organizations claim accreditation by non-recognized/unapproved accrediting bodies set up for the purposes of providing a veneer of authenticity.”

Impact of Diploma Mills:

Those with “degrees” from diploma mills are perpetrating fraud in a variety of ways. Most commonly, these phony degrees are used to obtain employment where the lack of such academic credentials would disqualify them from consideration. Secondly, many employers reimburse their employees for continuing education or offer merit compensation for academic achievement. Therefore a diploma mill degree is used to financially defraud employers. A fraudulent degree can be used to facilitate career advancement. Many employers require a certain degree in order to qualify for promotion. Lastly, these fake degrees can be used to misrepresent qualifications to unsuspecting consumers. Think of what a person who represents themselves as a doctor, a lawyer or an accountant, for example to do to defraud a patient or client.

EmployeeScreenIQ’s List of Known Diploma Mills

The first step in insulating your organization from degree fraud is utilizing a resource that identifies known diploma mills. If you have not heard of the university, proper due diligence is suggested. Pages 3-25 of this white paper represents our list of recognized fraudulent academic institutions (updated through September 24, 2008). This list is comprised of our own internal research and various government websites.

EmployeeScreenIQ’s List of Recognized Accrediting Organizations

Consulting the list of known diploma mills is just the first step. New diploma mills are popping up every day, so if it’s not on the list, you still have more work to do. Try to find the academic institution on-line. Check out the accrediting body. According to the U.S. Department of Education, “The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality. Here you will find lists of regional and national accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education as reliable authorities concerning the quality of education or training offered by the institutions of higher education or higher education programs they accredit. Listed on page 26-30 is a guide to identifying sanctioned accrediting organizations as well as our list of Unrecognized Accrediting Organizations . . .

Download full Known Diploma Mills Resource Guide here …

Nick Fishman is Chief Marketing Officer for Cleveland-based EmployeeScreen IQ, 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 by email at nfishman@employeescreen.com.

Related Links:

employeescreenIQ
Definition of Education Verification
The Employers Guide to Outsourcing Employment Verifications

Thank you for visiting employeescreen University. For first time visitors, we trust that you will find something useful here to increase your background screening “IQ” from Industry News to Legislative Updates. For those of you that are returning, we hope that the regularly updated content keeps you coming back for more.

Speaking of regularly updated content, we wanted to point out some new materials recently added to the site. See below.

Recent Updates

• Resources Section- This page which is accessible from the top tool bar provides visitors with the ability to review various compliance tools such as the FCRA or how to read a Credit Report.
• Court Delays Section- This page can be accessed either from the home page or under the “Industry News” heading and allows visitors to track U.S. court closures and delays.
• Announcements- Accessed from the home page and under the “Media Center” tab.

Coming soon:

• Guest Articles Section- Relevant content experts will provide their own unique takes on the issues affecting those who conduct employment background checks.
• PodCasts
• Webinars & Other Demonstrations

We encourage you to use this free interactive content as often as you’d like. Please provide feedback at info@employeescreen.com on what you like, don’t like or want to see in the future. Remember, the future evolution of this site will be dictated by our visitors.

Verifier readers know that we strive to shed light on the “latest and greatest” products offered in the pre-employment screening field. None of these emerging products is more worthy of our attention than the Adjudication Module, more commonly referred to as a Pass/Fail/Review, Hire/Don’t Hire or Red/Yellow/Green system.

What is an Adjudication Module?

Generally speaking, adjudication modules are matrices, grids or charts that dictate specific reactions to convictions for identified crimes. They provide users with what is perceived to be a simple guide for making a complicated decision. Some can be as basic as directing the hiring manager not to hire any applicant with a felony conviction while others are sophisticated models that attempt to identify the entire spectrum of crimes and stage certain if/then scenarios such as whether the applicant has been convicted of multiple crimes or convicted within a certain time frame to determine if the individual is eligible for employment.

Perceived Benefits Quickly Become a Liability

What seems like a great way to develop consistency in your hiring practices and eliminate the ability of a hiring manager to make the “wrong” decision quickly becomes a slippery slope. One challenge to developing an effective adjudication module is that different jurisdictions define crimes differently. Thus, different states (or counties for that matter) may refer to similar crimes by different names or may ascribe different elements to similarly named crimes. For instance, in the state of Texas it is considered check fraud if you have ever knowingly or unknowingly bounced a check for more than $5.00. The general reaction of an employer is to consider such a conviction as serious conviction. A matrix cannot tell the difference between fraud in the state of Texas as opposed to fraud in the state of California. As a result, the employment decision is placed at the mercy of a chart as opposed to a human being capable of making the appropriate distinctions. Under these conditions, a comprehensive and detailed matrix is virtually unachievable, and often does not result in the decision you would have made had you considered all of the relevant information.

In addition to the aforementioned obstacles, the application of adjudication modules can be extremely challenging and ultimately run afoul of a myriad federal and, or local laws and regulations. For example, numerous states restrict the number and kind of criminal offenses that can be considered in making employment decisions. Adjudication modules must anticipate these restrictions, or expose the employer to significant liability exposure.

If these unintended consequences cause concern, so too does the provision set forth by federal and state agencies with oversight of employment processes who require a more detailed and subjective deliberation than allowed by adjudication modules. The Equal Opportunity Commission has deigned that each and every employment application inquiring about criminal history should include the following disclaimer (or its like):

A criminal conviction will not necessarily be a bar to employment; rather, such information is only relevant in determining whether the conviction is directly related to the job for which you are applying. Factors, such as age and time of the offense, seriousness and nature of the violation, and rehabilitation will be taken into account.

Many states have similarly legislated (or have included in regulations or guidance) that the elements of a crime for which an individual was convicted must be “substantially related” or “directly related” to the job duties of the position sought. Applying a matrix subject to the deficiencies described above is inconsistent with this goal because matrices do not allow for extenuating circumstances, deviations or mistakes that often occur when evaluating the employability of applicants or employees. Moreover, matrices by definition preclude the detailed case by case analysis often required to overcome the disparate impact on minority groups that inevitably results from criminal background screening. Thus, the employment of an adjudication module created to apply consistency and objectivity actually may result in inconsistency in the hiring process and most likely will violate federal and local laws and regulations.

Other Practical Considerations

Now that we’ve discussed the pitfalls involved in the implementation and execution of an adjudication module, let’s address a recent trend among employment screening providers to implement related services. By allowing a screening provider to interpret an adjudication module, companies are effectively ceding control of their hiring decisions to a third party. This is both ill-advised and has potential legal implications. Employers should be aware that they will not escape liability by ceding the hiring decision to a third party by virtue of a matrix. An employer utilizing a matrix should seek indemnification from the third party administrator. Unfortunately, the administrator also will seek indemnification from the employer for any liability stemming from the application of the matrix, and will resist extending indemnification to the employer. This adds a level of complexity that many employers would rather avoid but only will do so at their peril.

What can an employer do?

We are often asked by our clients, what elements of a background check deserve the most attention. The answer is, review everything. Every organization is unique in their hiring needs and practices. As a hiring manager, you know what is important to your organization and cannot entrust the decision-making responsibility to anyone outside of it. Formulate an opinion of the candidate based on the application, resume, interviews, test results, and the candidate’s assertions of skills, experience, aptitudes, character traits, and moral compass. Once you’ve decided this person is the prime candidate to fill the position, use a background check to ensure these criteria withstand impartial scrutiny. Every individual that you consider for employment should be judged on their own merit, strengths and weaknesses, by someone in the hiring organization that can consider the complete individual as the sum of each piece of information available.

As you know, EmployeeScreen IQ prides itself on its ability to be on the forefront of our industry when it comes to emerging trends whether related to legislation, compliance or market demands. Therefore, we have created a list of the Top 10 trends in employment screening in the coming year.

Privacy, data protection

Privacy issues will continue to dominate the news and industry dialogue. Several bills are currently before the U.S. House and Senate, and although they will probably be tabled during this session, the issue continues to be a hot topic on the Hill.

Verification of right-to-work

The government is discussing mandating electronic verification of the I-9 form, the form used to verify citizenship and right-to-work in the United States. Currently, employees fill out the form, show documentation that proves identity and are then eligible to work. The new system, dubbed The SAVE Program (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements), debuted two years ago, is electronic and allows instant confirmation. EmployeeScreen IQ believes it is likely this new system will be mandated for use by all employers by the end of this year. The system has already been mandated for use in Colorado.

Blogs and Social Networking Sites

These Web sites continue to be an extremely hot topic, with the question being, how should they be used in the hiring process?

International screening

While not a new facet of the industry, international background screening continues to gain in importance as U.S. companies open offices globally and/or recruit overseas candidates to work in the U.S.

Credit reports

Should an applicant’s credit history factor into his or her background check? If so, what determines hirable or non-hirable credit?

Universities

Following the tragedy at Virginia Tech, the topic of screening students, faculty and staff has been raised and will continue to be discussed as educational institutions look to avoid future catastrophic events. Universities are beginning to see the value in screening staff and even branching into screening new students.

Disputing records

As employers look for more information during the hiring process, they and their background-screening agents must continue to protect consumers by providing avenues for them to dispute background reports.

Application tracking systems

The prevalence of applicant tracking and HRIS systems will continue to increase, especially among mid-sized companies. These systems allow HR departments to consolidate work.

Industry growth

Before 9/11, only the largest companies did background checks. Today, nearly all large- and mid-sized companies are employing the use of background checks. Over the next year, this practice will continue to trickle into the small-business arena.

Balancing rights

Finding ways to balance comprehensive background reports with consumers’ rights so as to not create a class of people with records who cannot get jobs.

The debate about the use of social networking sites as an acceptable means for evaluating potential employees continues to grow and will only heat up in the coming months and years. While there are strong opinions out there, this is unchartered territory. I certainly have my opinions on the subject. So here goes. I am adamantly opposed to this practice. I understand that social networking sites such as myspace and Facebook have become fertile ground for identifying qualified job candidates. This makes finding individuals for consideration easier for recruiters. Where I draw the line is using social information found on-line as part of the background screening process. Why? First and foremost, there is no way of authenticating whether the content found on-line is true or accurate. The internet has become a place where many people (especially younger people) are comfortable and a place where they, believe it or not, can develop anonymity they cannot achieve in their daily lives. They take on personas that they throw out there for others to see. They can make themselves on-line whoever they want to be or fantasize about being, but could or would never become. They share information about their lives which may or may not be true in order to validate these personas.

How about the posting of pictures on these sites? Amy Polumbo, the recently crowned Ms. New Jersey found out the hard way how what you post, can come back to haunt you. As most young adults do, she posted non-pornographic pictures of herself with her friends on her private Facebook site. Yes, some were a bit risqué, but overall they were benign pictures of a college aged woman having fun with her friends. Someone gained access to these photos and threatened to blackmail her with them. Rather than give in, she decided to release them herself in a nationally televised interview with Matt Lauer from the Today Show.

No, she wasn’t being considered for a job, but one person putting their own spin on these photos and attempting to portray Polumbo in a negative light threatened her ability to attain the position of Ms. America. It’s easy to draw a correlation to how such a thing can happen in the employment environment. It doesn’t even have to be a blackmail situation. All it takes is an Internet savvy individual browsing a social networking site and then whatever is found can be interpreted in many different ways.

Lastly, I am concerned about the comments or statements people feel comfortable making about others in otherwise anonymous postings that could cause harm to the subject’s reputation. All of these concerns invite many questions for employers that would consider using on-line social networking content in their background screening process. What qualifies as information that would prevent an individual from being employed? Who decides? How is the information found verified to ensure both that it is true and accurate?

As an employment screener, it is our job to provide clients with reliable information about their candidates so that they can make informed hiring decisions. It is the mutual responsibility of both employer and employment screener to adhere to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which among other things obligates us to use the most reliable and verifiable methods available when evaluating a candidate through a background check. Social Networking sites cannot live up to this standard. And employers who engage in this practice are only opening themselves up to a long legal battle.

>All of these concerns invite many questions for employers that would consider using on-line social networking content in their background screening process.