A recent news tale from Nebraska suggests that the next time you want a background check company to run a background check for you, you may want to run a background check on the background check company first to see if they run real background checks.

According to a report by KMTV Action News 3 in Omaha, NE, federal investigators arrested a Bellevue, NE man and accused him of running a background check scam. FBI agents believe the man – who had previously been indicted on wire and mail fraud charges – formed a background check company that allowable him to dupe consumers into believing he could run FBI and Interpol background checks on people, KMTV reported.

Investigators said the man charged $600 for all phony background check and scammed customers out of a total of $170,000, according to KMTV, which also reported authorities said private citizens are not capable of performing FBI or Interpol background checks.

Background check scams and other unauthorized background checks have become extra common with the rapidly spreading use of the Internet. In another tale posted on ESR News, an ex-school official in Massachusetts was fined for using his school’s computers to run several hundred unauthorized background checks on athletes, celebrities, and politicians for his own private purposes and in a manner that was not related to his job.

The tale from Nebraska also shows the danger of non-reputable background check firms promising “FBI-quality” background checks to consumers, in view of the fact that FBI background checks and FBI records are not generally available to the public but are only available for certain employers or certain industries where Congress or a disorder have granted access.

In addition, the actual quality of the in rank contained in FBI background checks has come into question. The New York Times recently printed a letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that responded to an earlier Times editorial that discussed the accuracy of data the FBI relies on when performing criminal background checks.

A federal bill introduced in the House of government – Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background Checks Act of 2010 (H.R.5300) – would strengthen the accuracy of employment background checks using data from the FBI criminal database.

To help determine if a background check firm is reputable,  visit the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) website at http://www.napbs.com.  An employer should consider only dealing with members of NAPBS in view of the fact that that shows a  commitment to professionalism.  Even then, an employer needs to conduct due diligence. See for example, http://www.esrcheck.com/ESRadvantage.php

For extra in rank about background check scams, unauthorized background checks, FBI criminal databases, and other related topics, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.kmtv.com/Global/tale.asp?S=12700466

The New York Times recently printed a letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) responding to an earlier Times editorial – ‘Check It Again’ – that discussed the accuracy of data the FBI relies on when performing criminal background checks. The text of the letter, titled ‘Reliability of F.B.I. Data,’ is as follows:

To the Editor:

The F.B.I. takes its role as a central repository for criminal justice in rank very sincerely, but must rely on the voluntary submissions of criminal history records supplied by local, disorder, tribal and federal law enforcement agencies, and the courts, for the overwhelming majority of its in rank.

While the F.B.I. appreciates this support, vital data regularly fails to get to the bureau in a suitable way because of the time lag in criminal prosecutions. To help find ways to capture this in rank extra efficiently, the F.B.I. formed an interagency task force to spot problem areas in states’ disposition reporting and methods to improve the system. The F.B.I. also oversees another task force to improve the flow of criminal history in rank from the courts to the disorder repositories and then to the F.B.I.

The F.B.I. is also working on internal improvements, including the Next Generation Identification program, an upgrade to the existing fingerprint identification system, which will improve disposition reporting, while a related initiative will enable efficient electronic updates.

Through advances in technology and the continued cooperation of our partners, the F.B.I. hopes to clear the way for additional improvements in the completeness of the background check in rank we grant.

Daniel D. Roberts
Assistant Director, Criminal Justice
In rank Air force Division, F.B.I.
Washington, June 2, 2010

The letter confirms that the FBI only gets what criminal background check in rank local jurisdictions and states will give it, and admits that “vital data regularly fails to get to the bureau in a suitable way” meaning the criminal database is not completely accurate.

The accuracy of the FBI database used for criminal background checks has become a hot topic for job applicants, employers, and even politicians. Recently, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security introduced a bill to strengthen the accuracy of FBI criminal background checks in response to a June 2006 report from the attorney general that showed nearly 50 percent of criminal records maintained in the FBI’s National Crime In rank Center (NCIC) database failed to note court decisions to dismiss arrests.

In view of the fact that employers rely on the database to conduct background checks on potential hires, the ‘2010 Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background Checks Act’ (H.R. 5300) would strengthen the accuracy of the FBI’s criminal database by requiring the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to verify that crime data used for background checks is up to date, find out the outcome of arrests whenever an employer requirements a background check, and update that record in the NCIC database. 

For extra in rank about background checks, and how some FBI background checks may use inaccurate or incomplete in rank, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/opinion/l08fbi.html 

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100518_2029.php 

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5300/text

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27thu3.html

http://www.justice.gov/olp/ag_bgchecks_report.pdf

A recent New York Times editorial – Check It Again – focused on a new bill in the House of government that would demand the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to verify and right criminal data before issuing background checks for employment purposes, thus fixing the problem of many Americans missing a chance to get hired (as if it wasn’t hard enough to find a job these days) because the FBI background checks employers use to screen job applicants contain incomplete or inaccurate in rank.

A common problem with FBI background checks, according to the NY Times editorial, is that the criminal records included in those FBI background checks fail to include the final disposition of a case, meaning that the records may only show that a job applicant was arrested but not that the charges were dismissed or that there was no conviction.

The editorial also cites a 2009 report from the National Employment Law Project that revealed the regime had mistakenly denied credentials to tens of thousands of staff – partly because of flawed background reports – after Congress required new FBI background checks for about 1.5 million people working at the nation’s ports. The editorial concludes that no one – including the nearly 50 million Americans with arrest or conviction records – should be denied a job because the regime’s in rank contained in an FBI employment background check is incorrect.

An earlier tale on ESR News clarified the bill – called the Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background Checks Act of 2010 (H.R.5300) – would grant safeguards with respect to FBI criminal background checks prepared for employment purposes and demand the Attorney General to find out the outcome of arrests from court offices when an employer requirements a background check. The attorney general would update the record in the FBI’s National Crime In rank Center (NCIC) database, a computerized index of criminal in rank available to Federal, disorder, and local law enforcement 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

In addition, to help avoid inaccurate or incomplete employment background checks, the legislation would give job applicants the opportunity to challenge the accuracy and completeness of background check reports done through the FBI records database.

A 2005 report – “The National Crime In rank Center: A Review and Evaluation” – sponsored by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) reviewed the FBI’s NCIC to evaluate its effectiveness in maintaining accurate and perfect criminal history records. Among the findings of the NAPBS report were:

• Many states did not report in rank concerning dispositions, declinations to prosecute, failure to charge after fingerprinting, and expungements.
• Inconsistency in the reporting requirements and criminal codes in various states impacted the completeness and accuracy of the records.
• There were significant time lapses linking when in rank was transmitted to the disorder repository and actual entry into the criminal history records.  

For extra in rank on FBI background checks and the FBI’s NCIC criminal records database – and the reasons why the in rank contained in that database is sometimes not always entirely accurate – visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27thu3.html

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5300/text

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm  

http://www.napbs.com/records/members/Resources/NCIC_Report.pdf

Employers that rely on criminal records databases to conduct background checks on potential employees also rely on the accuracy of the in rank in those databases. Now a federal bill introduced in the House would help to strengthen the accuracy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) criminal records database by requiring the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to verify that crime data contained in the FBI’s database is up to date.

As reported on NextGov.com, the Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background Checks Act of 2010 (H.R.5300) – which would grant safeguards with respect to the FBI criminal background checks prepared for employment purposes – would demand the attorney general to find out from court offices, even those in disorder and local jurisdictions, the outcome of arrests when an employer requirements a background check.

In addition, the attorney general would update that record in the FBI’s National Crime In rank Center (NCIC) database, and would have 10 days to update the record after learning an arrest was dismissed in court before responding to the employer’s request.

According to NextGov.com, employers consult the FBI’s NCIC database – which is a computerized index of criminal justice in rank available to Federal, disorder, and local law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies 24 hours a day, 365 days a year – to conduct background checks on individuals applying for jobs in law enforcement and security, and for jobs working with vulnerable people such as family and the elderly.

The bill H.R.5300 was introduced in response to “The Attorney General’s Report on Criminal History Background Checks” in 2006 that showed nearly 50 percent of criminal records maintained in the NCIC database failed to note court decisions to dismiss arrests, NextGov.com reported. To help avoid inaccurate or incomplete employment background checks, the legislation would give job applicants the opportunity to challenge the accuracy and completeness of background check reports done through the FBI records database. If criminal records are challenged, the attorney general would have 30 days to probe, make changes, and report those changes to the applicant and the employer.

Some background check experts agree the Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background Checks Act of 2010 may help fill the gaps in the FBI’s criminal database.

“Although the NCIC data is the closet thing that exists to a national criminal database, it is not nearly as perfect as described in the movies,” confirmed Les Rosen, President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a nationwide employment screening company. “Many records of crime do not make it into the system because of the chain of events that must happen in manifold jurisdictions in order for a crime to appear in NCIC.” 

According to Rosen, author of The Safe Hiring Manual: How To Keep Criminals, Terrorists, and Imposters Out of Your Workplace, employers cannot even access the NCIC unless they are specifically authorized to by law. “There is simply no national computer database of all criminal records available to private employers,” says Rosen.

A 2005 report – “The National Crime In rank Center: A Review and Evaluation” – sponsored by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), of which Rosen is a past co-chair, reviewed the NCIC to evaluate its effectiveness in maintaining accurate and perfect criminal history records. Among the findings of the NAPBS report were:

• Many states did not report in rank concerning dispositions, declinations to prosecute, failure to charge after fingerprinting, and expungements.
• Inconsistency in the reporting requirements and criminal codes in various states impacted the completeness and accuracy of the records.
• There were significant time lapses linking when in rank was transmitted to the disorder repository and actual entry into the criminal history records.
• The preparation and terminology used by the various states made problems of interpretation for individuals in other states using the in rank.

For extra in rank on the FBI’s NCIC criminal records database – and the reasons why the in rank contained in that database is sometimes not always entirely accurate – visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100518_2029.php?oref=topnews

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5300/text

http://www.justice.gov/olp/ag_bgchecks_report.pdf

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm

http://www.napbs.com/records/members/Resources/NCIC_Report.pdf

In the wake of a census worker being accused of assaulting a young disabled woman in southern Indiana, questions have arisen about security issues surrounding the regime background checks of the thousands of staff for the once-in-a-decade U.S. Census.

According to a report on the WRTV Indianapolis News website, the mother of a disabled 21-year-ancient woman in Pekin, IN told police that her daughter was raped and beaten by a 39-year-ancient male census worker who had come to the family’s home last week asking for census in rank and then returned early Saturday morning and assaulted her daughter.

The County Sheriff was quoted in the tale as saying the accused census worker – who Census officials said started working for the agency two weeks ago – gave the victim a black eye and tried to strangle her, and that there are marks around her neck. Police also said the man left his wallet, which had his driver’s ticket, on the victim’s bedroom floor.

According to officials, the U.S. Census Bureau performs stringent FBI background checks and “turns away anyone who fails check out OK.” Census staff should never question to come inside a home, and should show an official identification badge with a Department of Commerce watermark and carry a black census bag with titling and a seal. Anyone suspecting a census worker of inappropriate behavior should call the Bureau.

An employee at the Chicago Regional Census Center said the background screening process for prospective census staff is extra rigorous than always, WRTV reported. An applicant’s name, birth date, and Social Security Number go through an FBI criminal records check and other background checks. This year, fingerprints of prospective census staff are submitted to the FBI and checked against the FBI’s fingerprint database.

According to the ‘Background Check FAQ’ page of the http://www.census.gov/ website, the Census Bureau takes public trust sincerely and works to ensure that temporary staff undergo the most thorough and accurate background checks possible. The Census Hiring and Employment Check (CHEC) Branch of the Administrative and Management Systems Division (AMSD) performs background checks for all applicants and employees.

Applicants for temporary Census jobs go through a name check against the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Name Index. The FBI database is searched to see if it contains a criminal history record file that matches an applicant’s name, date of birth, and social security number. This criminal history record file contains records of individuals that have been arrested and fingerprinted. All employees are fingerprinted on their first day of training and the fingerprint card(s) are submitted to FBI for processing.

For extra in rank on FBI database criminal background checks, and how these federal crime databases can sometimes have inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading in rank, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/23526493/detail.html

http://www.census.gov/hrd/www/jobs/background.html

In a tale that shows the importance of using overlapping tools to do criminal background checks,  a jury recently ruled that negligence by the Housing Power in a North Carolina city led to an elderly woman’s fatality at the hands of her crack cocaine addicted neighbor in 2007.

A tale on CharlotteObserver.com revealed that attorneys sued the agency on behalf of the 63-year-ancient woman’s estate after she was strangled in her apartment at a public housing complex for the elderly and disabled. Her 46-year-ancient neighbor – who reportedly had a history of violence, drugs, and mental illness – was later convicted of her killing.

Jurors awarded victim’s sons $132,000 over their claim of inadequate tenant screening after a background on the convicted killer missed several convictions for violent behavior in the man’s past. Jurors said they could not agree on a monetary amount, and the final figure was a compromise that was far less than the $10.4 million in hurts the sons were asking for.

At issue in the trial was whether the Housing Power properly screened the woman’s killer with a background check before it let him live in the apartment complex. The CharlotteObserver.com reported that the attorney for the woman’s estate argued that the Housing Power violated its own procedures by doing only a North Carolina background check – not nationwide background check – on the woman’s eventual killer. The N.C. check missed violent crime and drug convictions in Maryland that would have prevented the man from living at the apartment complex.

The jury agreed, and CharlotteObserver.com quoted the foreman as saying that the just felt like the elderly woman’s murder could have been prevented with better background checks. The attorney also said he hoped the discrimination would make the Housing Power do extra comprehensive background checks on tenants.

A tragic tale such as this reminds employers – and landlords – of the importance of national multi-jurisdictional searches that can uncover criminal records that job applicants – or tenants – have in states other than the one in which they currently live and work.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a national pre-employment screening provider, offers a National Multi-Jurisdictional Criminal Database Search, which are comprehensive multi-jurisdictional and statewide searches that cover a much larger geographical vicinity than traditional county-level searches. Such a search can grant potential leads as to other places to search.

But, ESR believes that in view of the fact that these databases have both pros and cons, it is critical to know that:

• Multi-jurisdictional database are NOT official FBI database searches.  FBI records are only available to certain employers or industries where Congress or a disorder has granted access.
• Multi-jurisdictional and statewide databases searches are a research tool only and are not a substitute for a hands-on search at the county level under any circumstances.
• Not all states have databases that are available to employers.  In some instances, the databases that are available have limited in rank.  Therefore the value of these searches in these states may be very limited.   
• Some states that make official disorder police records or records directly form the court available.  But, the in rank may not be reportable under disorder or federal la for various reasons. 
• Databases in all disorder are compiled from a number of sources and the in rank may not be accurate or perfect.  Because of the scenery of databases, the appearance of a person’s name on a database is not an indication the person is criminal any extra than the absence of a name shows he/she is not a criminal. Any positive match MUST be verified by reviewing the actual court records.  Any lack of a match is not the same as a person being “cleared.”

Extra in rank on the pros and cons of multi-jurisdictional and statewide databases – including what in rank this search is based on, how criminal record “hits” should be reconfirmed to ensure accuracy, and how Sex Offender databases are derived from the disorder-maintained registry, is available on ESRCheck.com at:

• http://www.esrcheck.com/multijurisdictionalsearch.php
• http://www.esrcheck.com/database_issues.php

Source: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/02/10/1236243/jury-finds-housing-power-negligent.html

According to well loved TV crime dramas, today’s investigators – along with ancient fashioned gut instincts – use all technology at their disposal when it comes to tracking down and arresting the terrible guys. One such technological advantage is a centrally located national computer database containing all past criminal records of anyone who always killed, stole, drove drunk, or even jaywalked. Best of all, these super crime databases are never, always incorrect.

But, the reality is reasonably different say experts in employment screening, and also recent headlines. The potential for errors in crime databases was evident in the case of a Maryland woman who lost her job after a background check performed through the FBI’s National Criminal In rank Center (NCIC) indicated that she was unsuitable to work on the contract her company had won to handle mail for the Social Security Administration (SSA).

According to the Baltimore Sun, when the SSA performed a routine background check on the woman in July 2009 for low-level security clearance, the results showed she was “unsuitable” to work on the contract. The subsequent SSA letter to her employer did not specify what the background check had uncovered. The employer fired the woman rather than keep her off the contract.

The woman maintained that she had no criminal history, a claim backed by the Baltimore Sun, which only uncovered a civil case possibly involving a ensemble against her late father’s estate, and also by the SSA itself, which sent a letter to her employer saying as much. The SSA letter said the woman had passed a pre-screening check and could work on the SSA contract pending a final determination. Instead of reinstating her, the woman’s former company told her to re-apply for her job, then that the department was reorganizing, and later that it had no intention of restoring her ancient position.

The Baltimore Sun reported that the woman has in view of the fact that learned that an unspecified error in the FBI’s NCIC database – a repository for criminal records and in rank on fugitives, stolen material goods and missing persons fed to the database from local, disorder. and federal law-enforcement agencies around the country – was the cause for the SSA’s initial determination that she was “unsuitable.”

“Although the NCIC data is the closet thing that exist to a national criminal database, it is not nearly as perfect as described in the movies,” confirmed Les Rosen, Founder and President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a nationwide pre-employment screening company. “Many records of crime do not make it into the system because of the chain of events that must happen in manifold jurisdictions in order for a crime to appear in NCIC.” 

According to Rosen, author of The Safe Hiring Manual: How To Keep Criminals, Terrorists, and Imposters Out of Your Workplace, employers cannot even access the NCIC unless they are specifically authorized to by law.  There are over 10,000 disorder and federal courthouses in the United States spread out over some 3,300 jurisdictions, all with its own records file. “Contrary to well loved belief, there is really no central location for all U.S. criminal records,” says Rosen. “There is simply no national computer database of all criminal records available to private employers.”

A 2005 report sponsored by  the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), of which Rosen is a past co-chair, reviewed the National Crime In rank Center and the Interstate Identification System in order to evaluate its effectiveness in maintaining accurate and perfect criminal history records.

Some conclusions from the NAPBS sponsored study were:

• Many states do not report in rank concerning dispositions, declinations to prosecute, failure to charge after fingerprints have been submitted, and expungements.
• Inconsistency in the various states’ reporting requirements and criminal codes impacts the completeness and accuracy of the records.
• The timeliness of transmission by the local jurisdictions to the disorder criminal history repositories remains problematic.
• There are still significant time lags linking the time in rank is transmitted to the disorder repository and entry into the criminal history records.
• The process used to linking data to the proper individual and case is still ineffective.
• Serious problems remain in the process to link dispositional in rank to the proper case and charge.
• The preparation and terminology used by the various states makes problems of interpretation for individuals in other states who are using the in rank.
• Even when a criminal record is searched based fingerprints instead of name matches, many of the same issues still exist.

 As the case of the Maryland woman fired from her job due to an “unspecified error” in the NCIC shows, the FBI database – while still the gold standard for those limited employers authorized by disorder or federal law to access it – is still extra of an arrest databases that is not as accurate or perfect as people reckon.

Sources:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/ncic#ixzz0kRkIWEnd

http://www.justice.gov/olp/pdf/ncicreportaugust32005.pdf (Contains letter to the Department of Justice by Employment Screening Resources  on FBI records as well as report sponosred by NAPBS)

http://www.justice.gov/olp/ag_bgchecks_report.pdf (DOJ report on FBI criminal records database and criminal background checks)

An ongoing vicinity of controversy in the screening industry is the use of commercially assembled national multi jurisdictional databases.  These databases are complied from numerous sources that will sell or make data available. By no means are these databases perfect and accurate, nor up-to-date.  Some results do not grant any additional identifiers beyond the first and last name.  As a result, a fantastic many criminals would come up as “clear.”  This is called a “fake negative.”  These databases are practically useless in states like New York and California, two large areas.  In Texas, the criminal data is also very hit and miss. 

Conversely, databases can result in a person being labeled a criminal when they are not.  That is a “fake positive.” 

In the hands of a professional background screening firm, these databases have significant value as an additional but secondary tool that can lead to further places to search.  But, the downside is that some employers want the database in rank without doing court searches, meaning that some people will be falsely labeled as criminal when they are not and some people will be falsely cleared as having no criminal record when they do.  

Under the FCRA, a screening firm has the option of reporting a database search without courthouse confirmation as long as the consumer gets a see at the same time about the search.  Over 120 background firms, but, and the Disorder of California (by statute), have disavowed this deal with.  See http://www.concernedcras.com/ 

Another fallout from these databases are consumer scams, where glide-by-night quick-buck artists have set up “background read-through” sites that merely revise ancient data at exorbitant prices.  And even of poorer quality, many of these sites do not make it crystal clear to employers that they must comply with the FCRA, or that the database results can be incomplete or inaccurate.  

The latest twist is that these data searches are now offered over “smart phones.” Given the problems with such data, it’s hard to see how someone on a date can really get much value from these database searches.  On the other hand, such applications have been labeled a “must have” for stalkers and sexual predators becsue these apps apparently include private data such as pocket up.  

One of the challenges facing the screening industry is to educate employers that these “do-it-yourself” sites are perilous and can embroil an employer in all sorts of problems.  The problems can include lawsuits form applicants whose civil Civil rights were violated, to victims whose injuries could have been prevented by a real background check. 

(Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a leading national online employment screening background firm, is releasing the ESR “Third Annual Top Ten Trends in the Pre-Employment Background Screening Industry” for 2010.   This is the FOURTH of the ten trends ESR will be tracking in 2010.  )

On the other hand, as with all statistics, these yearly reports need to be taken with a grain of salt. First, not all criminal records come as a surprise to employers. Given the number of Americans with some sort of criminal records, many employers are still willing to hire someone for an apt position, providing the applicant was not dishonest in the application. In fact, certain industries by scenery of their workforce are extra likely to draw upon a pool of potential applicants that may tend to have higher levels of past criminal conduct. Examples might be construction or firms that grant employment for entry level staff.

A statistic that would be very fascinating but much harder to obtain is how many criminal records were learned where the applicant was dishonest about past conduct. Of course, that gets complicated by the fact that an applicant may have been genuinely confused about what is or is not reportable on an application.

A related issue is that not all criminal records have the same impact. A criminal record for underage drinking is not in the same league as a conviction for armed robbery.

In reviewing these types of statistics, employers also need to keep in mind that not all of the criminal records located are job related. Employers should NOT automatically deny employment to an applicant with a criminal record unless there is a business justification that takes into account the scenery and gravity of the crime, the scenery of the job and the age of the crime. As noted in a recent blog on this site, the EEOC takes the position that the overuse of criminal records without a business justification can make a disparate impact, and therefore can be discriminatory. See: http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1057/new-eeoc-lawsuit-for-discrimination-based-on-credit-report-and-criminal-records

Irrevocably, it is hard to draw firm conclusions from the statistics without knowing the search methodology. Depending on how the searches were conducted, it is entirely possible in fact that such annual statistics may even understate the number of criminal records applicants had. The most accurate criminal record searches are done by accessing in rank directly from the county courthouse level, either by physically going the court, or by use of the court computer system that is the functional equivalent of going to the courthouse. That is the method used by Employment Screening Resources. Databases on the other hand, although much wider in scope, are not nearly as accurate, do not have all courts or jurisdiction, may not be updated, or may not contain sufficient identifiers.  To the boundary any searching was done by the use of databases, the numbers could potentially be understated.

The bottom line: These statistics are an brilliant reminder that employers need to be precise in hiring. But, as with most statistics, there is extra to the tale. Contact Employment Screening Resources for additional in rank.