A tale in the Daytona Beach (FL) News-Journal reveals that an ongoing investigation into Florida’s local child care licensing office found that some local child care facilities have not been implementing criminal background checks on all child care employees.

According to the News-Journal, records in over 100 child care centers and homes providing child care in one county were found to be “in disarray” regarding background checks and inspections because of problems with some former staff at the disorder Department of Family and Families (DCF). One worker was fired and two others have in view of the fact that resigned.

It is not clear how many child care employees without current background checks are still supervising family, the News-Journal reported, in view of the fact that preliminary investigations by the DCF into one of its child care licensing offices showed some DCF staff had falsified records and did not ensure that child care centers had current background checks in records.

The investigation into the office was sparked by an indistinctive report about inspections not being done properly after an incident in April at one of the child care facilities in question in which a toddler and a 4-year-ancient girl walked away from the center and were gone for at least a half hour before being found by a neighbor, the News-Journal reported.

In response to a public records request, preliminary reports by DCF licensing staff released to the Daytona Beach News-Journal show that:

• Eighty-eight child care centers or homes providing child care did not have current background checks in their records.
• Fifteen checks and a money order were found in drawers or records that had either not been sent to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for background checks or were not cashed by DCF for ticket renewals.
• In some cases, child care centers thought the employees had an approved background checks because the money was sent to DCF.

While the News-Journal reports that DFC officials have not found any indication that child safety was compromised, DCF officials have confirmed that not all background screenings have been concluded and that it is “a work in progress.”

For extra in rank on background checks, please visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Source:

http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/east-volusia/2010/07/18/investigation-some-child-care-staff-not-properly-screened.html

A case against a Kentucky nursing home may reveal holes in laws meant to protect nursing home residents in view of the fact that the disorder only requires criminal background checks for employees caring directly for nursing home residents but not background checks for nursing home support staff like maintenance staff.

According to a tale by the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader posted on Kentucky.com, a lawsuit filed against a nursing home in the disorder indicates that the nursing home hired a maintenance worker without a criminal background check after he had been arrested for sexual solicitation of a minor and retained his air force even after he was placed on Kentucky’s sex offender registry.

The Herald-Leader reported that a former nurse’s aide at the nursing home said in a lawsuit filed that the maintenance worker in question – who underwent a credit check but not a criminal background check – sexually harassed her and stalked her before he was suspended by the nursing home. The maintenance worker’s status as a registered sex offender also place nursing home residents at risk, according to the lawsuit.

While there are no disorder law specifically calls for criminal background checks for all nursing home employees, there are disorder and federal regulations that nursing home facilities shall not use “individuals who have been convicted of abusing, neglecting, or mistreating individuals,” according to the Herald-Leader.

In addition, the Herald-Leader reports that the lawsuit alleges that nursing home officials could straightforwardly have found out about the maintenance worker’s past before they hired him, in view of the fact that the Kentucky Disorder Police had announced that the man had been arrested for “unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor” in January 2008 before the facility hired him in July 2008.

The founder of an advocacy group called Kentuckians for Nursing Home Reform is quoted in the tale as saying he thinks all nursing home employees should have criminal background checks.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a leading provider of background checks, believes due diligence for an effective Safe Hiring Program (SHP) requires that all employees at a business who may have contact with co-staff and the public – from Management to maintenance – should undergo criminal background checks.

For extra in rank about background checks in general, including background checks for nursing home employees, visit ESR at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Source:

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/07/16/1352563/not-all-nursing-home-staff-get.html

In an try to help ensure campus safety, higher educational institutions across the country are starting to consider conducting criminal background checks on both applicants and admitted students, according to a recent article on USAToday.com.

As an example, USAToday.com reports that following the murder of a student at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in 2004 by a classmate with a history of violence against women – and the subsequent lawsuit filed by the deceased student’s parents – the North Carolina system started requiring all of its campuses to conduct criminal background checks on students with red flags on their criminal records.

But, a panel discussion at the National Association of College and University Attorneys revealed that the questions of whether to conduct student background checks – and how to – are not resolved and that criminal background checks on applicants and students can be described as a “legal and policy jigsaw puzzle” with pieces that include campus safety, legal risk, and individual civil Civil rights, according to the USAToday report.

The article cites a recent survey by the American Association of Naive Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) in which 66% of educational institutions reported having collected criminal record in rank from students, with the most common method of being paid criminal in rank being nature-disclosure questions on applications. Yet of the 144 institutions that reported collecting criminal justice in rank from applicants, only ten used criminal background checks, USAToday.com reported.

Higher culture institutions in North Carolina are not alone in considering student background checks. Both Maryland and Virginia are considering requiring colleges and universities to conduct background checks on students in the wake of a murder of a female student at the University of Virginia allegedly at the hands of a fellow student.

For extra in rank about background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Source:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/culture/2010-07-01-IHE-college-applicants-criminal-background-checks01_ST_N.htm

(Originally posted on HR.Toolbox.com)

From the mailbag: I have heard the argument made that using business connections sites is extra accurate than resumes and can even replace a past employment check, in view of the fact that a candidate is not as likely to lie on an online service where many friends and colleagues may see it.

Pledge: Looking at business connection sites during the recruiting or selection stage can certainly be another tool for HR or recruiting to try to differentiate a large group of candidates and whittle it down to a smaller and extra manageable group. Even then, there are significant issues to keep in mind, such as the potential for discrimination.

In terms of using such sites as a substitute for an application, background check or other tools to demonstrate due diligence, recruiters and employers may well be on watery ice.

First, if a person lies on a social networking site, there are no preside over consequences. These sites do not independently verify any proof. The basic problem is that all of the qualifications are nature-confirmed. Remember those terrible home loans issued recently on the basis of “confirmed income,” where a person just made up any income they needed? Some of these sites operate in a similar way.

These sites also do not contain a comment or feedback vicinity where others can disagree, or warn employers that qualifications are overstated. Furthermore, if an applicant has listed a certificate or educational accomplishment that is not right, exactly how are colleagues suppose to knew that, much less bring it to anyone’s attention. A colleague may not even know that an applicant has lied.

Of course, if a person has legitimate recommendations, that can help somewhat. But, a single-minded con artist could well make a “chain” of other fake identities that can be used to verify the phony credentials. It may well pocket a single-minded recruiter or employer to see the fraud or track it down. If such a fraud is even learned, what is the mechanism to alert the business listing site of the fraud.

Employment Screenings Resources has done advanced searches using the names of known diploma mills that offer worthless degrees. It is shocking the number individuals on these business connection sites working for well recognized firms that openly advertise a worthless degree obtained from a degree mill as part of their qualifications. This in fact was demonstrated at a recent meeting on the topic of culture fraud by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (www.napbs.com).

Irrevocably the suggestion without metrics that people do not lie or fabricate on a social network site because others will view it will not likely be much of a defense in court if a firm hires a fibber and it turns out a background check costing a few dollars would have revealed it.

The bottom-line once again: There is nothing as effective as actual verification of a candidate’s claimed experience.

For extra in rank on the use of social network sites and employment, see: http://www.esrcheck.com/articles/Caution-Using-Search-Engines-MySpace-or-Facebook-for-Hiring-Decisions-May-Be-Hazardous-to-Your-Business.php

For extra in rank on background checks in general, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.ESRcheck.com

Source:

http://hr.toolbox.com/blogs/background-checks/can-recruiters-or-employers-really-rely-on-business-connecting-sites-instead-of-an-application-background-check-or-other-due-diligence-tools-39771

As noted previously on ESR, the disorder of Oregon recently passed a law preventing most employers from using the credit histories of job applicants or employees for employment-related decisions by prohibiting an employer from using credit history for employment purposes unless that credit history in rank is “substantially job-related” and the reasons for using credit in rank are told to the employee or applicant in writing.

The new Oregon law – which took effect July 1 – establishes any violation as an unlawful employment practice enforceable by the Civil Civil rights Division of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). According to a BOLI press release, the final rules for employer use of credit histories were concluded quickly to protect employees and help employers. These rules prohibit employment discrimination by employers on the basis of worker’s credit history in rank with an exclusion for in rank that is “substantially job-related.”

In a document titled “Employer Obtainment or Use of Credit History In rank” available on the BOLI website at http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/, “the determination of whether credit history in rank is substantially job-related must be evaluated with respect to the position for which the individual is being considered or holds” and that “credit history in rank of an applicant or employee is substantially job-related” if:

• An essential function of the position at issue requires access to fiscal in rank not customarily provided in a retail transaction that is not a loan or extension of credit (Fiscal in rank customarily provided in a retail transaction includes in rank related to the exchange of cash, checks, and credit or debit card numbers); or
• The position at issue is one for which an employer is required to obtain credit history as a condition of obtaining insurance or a surety or dependability bond.

Oregon’s new rules on credit history use by employers also define “Unlawful Discrimination” by stating “it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to obtain or use for employment purposes in rank contained in the credit history of an applicant for employment or an employee, or to refuse to hire, discharge, demote, place on hold, retaliate or otherwise discriminate against an applicant or an employee with regard to promotion, compensation or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment based on in rank in the credit history of the applicant or employee.”

In addition to the new rules available online at http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/LEGAL/docs/RulesSoS0052010.pdf, Oregon has also provided a Technical Help for Employers hotline at 971-673-0824 for further help.

For extra in rank about use of credit history for employment screening, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/LEGAL/docs/RulesSoS0052010.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/docs/06.01.10_BOLI_Release_-_SB_1045_Rules.pdf

(Originally Posted on Toolbox for HR)

From the mailbox: Why shouldn’t employers simply do their own background checks in-house? They can hire people from the screening industry and can certainly figure it out.

Pledge: First, the fact that a firm may be able to set up an internal screening program does not mean it makes sense. All sorts of professional air force could be done in-house. Successful firms typically spend time and energy doing what they are excellent at (their core function), and they outsource functions that although critical, do not need to pocket up in-house resources. Of course, if a firm is large enough it may make sense. Of if the firm has a special place in the market where there is a need to be able to tell people they control the process, then that may be a excellent reason to perform air force in house. Most successful firm outsource those HR endeavors that are unusually complicated or regulated, which would include many creature resource air force such as benefits, retirement plotting and screening.

Secondly, it can be a trap to reckon that the federal Honest Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the law that controls third party background checks has no application to in-house processes. An employer that performs these activates in-house can straightforwardly hit an FCRA “tripwire” thus invoking the FCRA. There are numerous examples. Hiring an out of disorder agency to pull a court record for example could, per an FTC staff letter, make what appears to be a non-FCRA investigation into an FCRA regulated activity. Accessing non-public databases can make it an FCRA event. California has applied some FCRA type rules on a limited basis to employers that do public record checks in-house. So unless every single thing an in-house department does is done by your own W-2 employees and you only access public records, you may end up tripping the FCRA. Our advice is that even if done in-house, act as though the FCRA applies.

One argument made in favor of in-house processes is that a firm can conduct better reference checks because it knows what it is looking for. Verifications are an fascinating issue. There are two types of verifications. Managers may call to determine if someone should be hired. Screening firms are typically called upon AFTER a tentative hiring choice has been made for the purpose of a methodical review of the work history to confirm employment. Hiring managers cannot always be counted on to document the entire work history. Either Creature Resources, an internal department or an outside vendor needs to ensure that all employers have been contacted.

Irrevocably, there are a number of specialized skills and resources that are needed, such as figuring out culture fraud, or if a criminal record can be used. Unless a firm has access to experts on the laws of all 50 states, and an understanding of EEOC rules, etc, doing it in-house can be very risky. Accessing records from 1,000’s of different courts can be very tough. A fantastic deal of knowledge is required,

The bottom-line is that if a business does it in-house and they miss a record that a competent third party firm would have found and someone is harmed, it would not be much of a jury defense that the business was trying to save a few bucks by doing something in-house that requires such specialized skills and knowledge.

There is also the cultural issue that some firms find it advantageous to have a third party do the background checks, so the employment link does not start with what may seem an invasion of privacy.

So, the bottom-line is an establishment needs to figure out if at the end of the day, the time and try it takes to perform service in-house is worth it, if it can be outsourced. There are certainly organizations that for cost savings have essentially set –up their own internal background units successfully, but they essentially have became an in-house background firm that needs to know how to do everything a third party firm can do. But, for the right firm, an in-house process can make sense as long as they know how to do everything a third party firm can do and if it makes economic sense.

For extra in rank about background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Source: http://hr.toolbox.com/blogs/background-checks/the-dangers-of-doityourself-background-checks-39727

(Originally Published on HR.Toolbox.com)

It’s a sobering thought, but every time a recruiting professional makes a placement, there is the possibility that new hire can place them out of business.

Why? Because if a perilous, unqualified, unfit, or dishonest candidate is placed in a job – and harm occurs, the hiring firm risks a lawsuit for negligent hiring. Perhaps just as importantly, a terrible placement can result in loss of business and hurt to a professional reputation that may have been years in the making.

The root of the problem, of course, is that some candidates lie on their resumes and applications. Industry statistics suggest that up to 10% of applicants can have criminal records. Fraudulent misrepresentations as to culture and employment occur in as much as 40% of the time, according to some studies.

Individual recruiters can, in fact, be sued for negligence if harm occurs, and if she or he knew or should have reasonably foreseen that a terrible placement could cause a problem. At that top, the sensitivity of the staffing professional may sink when those dreaded words echo across the courtroom: “Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury.”

Those are words you never want to hear, and a situation in which you never want to be. Your protection and your best defense is to exercise “due diligence,” which means to verify the representations and qualifications of the candidate.

The allegation in a “Negligent Hiring” lawsuit (or “Terrible Hire” lawsuit) would be that the staffing professional placed someone that they either knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known was unfit or perilous. Of course, in view of the fact that a staffing professional would not intentionally place someone who was perilous or unfit, the question before the judge or jury is whether the staffing professional reasonably should have known that the placement was terrible if they had only exercised a greater degree of care in screening the applicant.

In such a lawsuit, a staffing professional would need to show, for example, whether credentials and culture were verified, whether past employment was checked, and whether a criminal background check was done.

Lawsuits occur usually in cases where there is some sort of serious harm either to a business, such as embezzlement, or theft, or to an individual, such as assault, rape, child molestation, identity theft, or even homicide.

A staffing professional who is responsible for a terrible placement can be sued by a number of parties, including the business entity that relied upon the professional discrimination of the recruiter or staffing firm. Certainly, a co-worker or member of the public who was injured by the terrible hire can sue for hurts.

The worst case scenario would be that the terrible hire resulted in the fatality of a fellow worker, and the victim’s family is suing for wrongful fatality. This is just what happened in a highly publicized case in California. A 28-year-ancient female winery worker was stabbed to fatality by a co-worker who was a convicted murderer and had been placed at the winery by a temp agency. The agency did NOT conduct a background check. The jury awarded the family $5.5 million.

If a recruiter is sued, it may well be an uphill Movement to win in court. The jury will hear prove that the recruiter recruited, recommended, or placed the offender. In most cases, the staffing professional probably makes representations about the quality of their air force. The staffing professional’s website and sales literature may suggest that they grant only the best candidates who are “carefully screened.” But, in the world of recruiting, “screening” really only means that resumes have been reviewed to determine “a excellent fit” as opposed to “background screening” for criminal records and verification of proof represented on the resume.

The employer, hoping to lay the blame on someone else, will of course claim that they relied upon the professional abilities of the staffing professional to send them qualified and safe candidates. There would likely be prove that the recruiting or staffing firm made a fee on the placement. In the end, the attorney for the injured or deceased employee would question jury members, “Didn’t the staffing professional have not only the resources and opportunity, but also the duty to conduct employee screening on the potential employee before complimentary their introduction into the workplace?”

In this scenario, it is not likely that the jury members will have much sympathy for the hiring firm or staffing professional.

Some recruiting professionals have resisted the thought of background checks because they believe that with their years of experience, they are excellent judges of people. That is no longer a defensible position, nor is it even accurate. A growing body of scientific prove suggests that even the most experienced recruiters cannot eliminate potential terrible hires by detecting lies and evasions at the interview. Studies show that even though people believe they can detect liars, most people have only a 50-50 chance at best of detecting a liar. According to one recent study, even trained law enforcement officers are only right a modest over half the time. The traditional means of reading body language, for instance, to screen out liars are useless against an accomplished con artist who can tell tales very convincingly.

Some recruiters may be concerned that background checks add to the cost of their air force or hinder placement with unneeded delays while screening results are obtained. But, in today’s litigious world, recruiters and staffing professionals need to make a risk-management assessment: Is saving a few dollars and a modest time worth playing Russian Roulette with all candidate you send out? Which one of these candidates will ground you in court, or on the front page of the newspaper? Will your professional reputation be tarnished forever – perhaps beyond renovate?

The bottom line is that due diligence and background checks go to the very integrity of the “product” being sold by recruiting and staffing professionals – staff who are qualified and fit for the job. Selling staffing air force without knowing who you are sending to a client’s business would be like selling medicine with no thought of what is in the bottle.

Staffing and Search professionals have traditionally focused on Sourcing and Sales. It is worth noting that at some recruiting conferences, there are a large number of sessions devoted to making money through result candidates and selling air force. But, there are few sessions, if any, on the subject of how to ensure the integrity of the very product being sold. Recruiting and staffing professionals can protect their own business, their clients, and the public by shifting their focus from just Sourcing and Sales to “SVS” – Sourcing, Verifying and Sales.

For extra in rank on employment screening and background checks for recruiters, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Source:

http://hr.toolbox.com/blogs/background-checks/recruiting-russian-roulette-why-every-placement-you-make-has-the-potential-of-putting-you-out-of-business-35960

(Originally published on HR.com)

Part of the on boarding process for most in-house recruiters is the completion of the pre-employment background check.  The challenge for in-house recruiters is that they are typically under intense time pressure to perfect the hiring process quickly and to get the new person started.  On the other hand, it is mission critical that employers exercise due diligence in their hiring.  If an employer hires someone who turns out to be perilous, unfit or unqualified and some harm occurs where it was foreseeable that a terrible hire could cause hurt, then the firm can be on the hook for a negligent hiring lawsuit, not to bring up all of the other expenditure, workplace problems and negative publicity associated with a terrible hire.  Of course, a terrible hire does not reflect well on a recruiter either. 

In a perfect world, a recruiter want to be able to go to a web site that has an accurate and up-to-date database so the employer can get an immediate thumbs up or down.   But, no such web site exists because much of the data needed to do a background check is not gathered and databased ahead of time.   There is not even a comprehensive national criminal records database that reveals an accurate criminal history. Most private employers do not have access to the FBI criminal database, and even that database is subject to numerous sources of errors. 

As a result, background checks are conducted by really calling up schools and past employers and going to courthouses.  A background check will typically pocket three days, and that is assuming the universe is cooperating and there are no delays out of anyone’s control.  But, there can be delays if an employer has gone out of business or refuses to call back, or a school is closed for a holiday or requires a release or check sent by mail.  Further delays can occur if there are potential criminal record matches, and the court clerk delays producing the file so a screening firm can confirm identifiers to determine if the record applies to the applicant and whether the case can even be reported under complex federal and disorder rules.   

Those time requirements for a background check can conflict with the time pressure a recruiter is under.  The excellent news is that a recruiter can be pro-active in speeding up background checks in several ways:  

• Recruiters must know the process can be delayed if screening firms are sent incomplete in rank, or supplied with forms that are indecipherable or incomplete. For example, screening firms regularly face problem in deciphering an applicant’s past employers or social security number. In view of the fact that a screening firm is not expected to read hieroglyphics or be a “mind reader,” the screening firm has to contact the recruiter to clarify the in rank. Some screening firms will make their best guess and if they are incorrect, the report is delayed even further, proving the ancient adage that “no excellent deed goes unpunished.” Recruiters who review all applications for completeness, legibility and accuracy with the candidates before sending the applications to a screening firm will find their work is concluded much quicker.
• An in-house recruiter needs to communicate with hiring managers to eliminate unrealistic expectations. A hiring manager may not know, for example, that criminal records are searched at all relevant courthouse, or that delays can occur if there is a potential match and the court needs to bring records from storage. Hiring managers must also be advised that employment and culture verifications can be delayed for a number of reasons, such as schools that are on vacation or that demand a check or release to be mailed, or employers that are closed, merged or refuse to cooperate. If there is a delay in receiving a concluded screening report, the recruiter should inspect the source of the delay.
• If a recruiter is working with a screening firm that has an online ordering system, the process is considerably quicker. Not only does this ensure accuracy, which makes the process quicker, but it also avoids delays caused by sending a request to a screening firm and waiting for the firm to do manual data entry.
• Irrevocably, there are times when a recruiter should determine that even though the screening firm has not been successful in obtaining all of the in rank, enough data is available to make a hiring choice. This typically happens in the vicinity of verifying previous employment. When conducting employment verifications, regularly times the earliest employment is the most hard to obtain. But, it may also be the least relevant. If the applicant, for example, worked in a quick food restaurant six years ago after being paid out of school and the quick food place will not call back, then there may be no reason to delay the hiring choice, especially if the screening firm has obtained the most recent, and presumably extra relevant, job verifications.

Experienced recruiters know that background checks are not only a critical part of the hiring process, but are a fantastic deal extra complicated than merely putting a name in a database. A competent background read-through process requires specialized knowledge, resources and experience. This is particularly right in view of the fact that employment screening is a highly regulated vicinity. The best way to speed up the process is to know exactly what is involved in facilitating the smooth flow of accurate data.

For extra in rank on how background checks for recruiters, please visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Source:

http://www.hr.com/SITEFORUM?&t=/Default/gateway&i=1116423256281&application=tale&active=no&ParentID=1119278002800&StoryID=1244757230498&xref=http%3A//www.google.com/search%3Fsourceid%3Dnavclient%26ie%3DUTF-8%26rlz%3D1T4SUNA_enUS287US289%26q%3DRecruiters+and+Background+Checks—How+to+Speed+up+the+Process+

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal on WSJ.com, insurance conglomerate Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. has agreed to sell its corporate-intelligence unit Kroll to global security firm Altegrity Inc. for $1.13 billion.

Altegrity started in 1996 as U.S. Investigations Air force (U.S.I.S.) when the regime privatized the business of security clearance background investigations, WSJ.com reports, and in 2007 Providence bought the company for $1.5 billion and renamed it Altegrity. Altegirty also owns another screening firm called HireRight, according to a tale on DailyFinance.com. 

In 2004, Marsh & McLennan paid $1.9 billion in cash for Kroll, a company that helped lead the way the corporate investigations and security business, but WSJ.com reports that the insurer has sold off smaller pieces of Kroll recently to focus on its insurance and consulting businesses, with the sale to Altegrity completing the divestiture.

Altegrity, a company that performs U.S. regime employee background checks and consults foreign governments on counterinsurgency techniques, is owned by private-justice firm Providence Justice Partners, according to WSJ.com. 

For extra in rank on employment screening and background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703303904575292322037231554.html

http://www.dailyfinance.com/tale/investing/kroll-mmc-altegrity/19506027/

Employment Screening Expert Lester Rosen, President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a leading employment screening firm headquartered in the San Francisco vicinity, will present a session on background checks at the SHRM Annual Conference and Exhibition on June 30, 2010, in San Diego, California. 

The annual event – the world’s largest creature resources conference – is sponsored by the world’s largest creature resources association, the Society for Creature Resources Management (SHRM), and features top HR and business experts allotment their perspectives, strategies, tools, and tips for growing a company’s talent.

The session to be presented by Rosen – “Negligent Hiring and Background Checks: Best Practices and Legal Compliance” – will help creature resources professionals avoid employee problems by identifying potentially problematic applicants through with permission complaint due diligence tools.  The session addresses new trends and legal challenges facing employers, and will also cover issues such as the use of social networking sites, global background checks, and concerns over the use of credit reports and criminal records.  

“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to review cutting-edge applicant selection topics that can help employers select the best candidates,” commented Rosen. “Exercising due diligence and staying out of court is mission critical for businesses of all sizes, and this presentation is aimed at identifying for  employers and recruiters the latest trends, tools, and legal developments.”

Rosen, a nationally recognized expert on employment screening background checks, is a writer and lecturer on the Honest Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), pre-employment screening, and safe hiring issues. In addition, Rosen authored the first comprehensive book on employment screening – “The Safe Hiring Manual: The Perfect Guide to Keeping Criminals, Imposters, and Terrorists Out of Your Workplace” – and also wrote “The Safe Hiring Check.”

In addition, Rosen was the chairperson of the steering committee that founded the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), the professional trade establishment for the employment screening industry, and served as its first co-chairman in 2004.

For extra in rank about the SHRM Annual Conference and Exhibition, visit http://annual.shrm.org/. For extra in rank about background checks and employment screening, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at www.ESRcheck.com.

Sources:

http://sanfrancisco.dbusinessnews.com/shownews.php?newsid=212110&type_news=latest

http://annual.shrm.org/