The following ‘Due Diligence Checklist’ contains questions employers can use to find out if an employment screening company is utilizing due diligence in its employment screening process. A .PDF version of this ‘Due Diligence Checklist’ that employers can download and print is located at http://www.esrcheck.com/docs/Due-Diligence-22.pdf.

• Have there been any notes changes in the past year that would adversely affect your ability to grant industry standard employment screening reports?
• Is all work performed in the USA to protect privacy and control quality (i.e., nothing sent offshore to India or other places)?
• Are all employment and culture checks conducted by professionals in a controlled, call center type environment, so that nothing is sent to at-home staff?
• For employment verifications, are anti-fraud procedures in place, such as independent verifications of all past employer phone numbers instead of relying upon an applicant supplied number?
• For culture verifications, are steps taken to verify if a college or university is accredited and to watch out for Diploma Mills?
• Are criminal searches conducted using the most accurate means, which naturally means on-site (no database substitutes)?
• Do you search for both felonies and misdemeanors when available?
• When a criminal hit is reported, does a knowledgeable person in your firm review the findings to determine if there are any legal issues in reporting the findings (as opposed to having the in rank entered by a court researcher)?
• When there is a criminal “hit”, do you contact the employer immediately to advise that there is a potential problem?
• Does your firm pocket measures to ensure that ALL legal and relevant criminal records are searched, as opposed to just going back “seven” years?
• If a client orders a “multi-jurisdictional” database, do you re-verify any criminal “hit” at the courthouse level for maximum accuracy, instead of relying on notifying the applicant of a potential hit?
• Do you say your clients of changes in the FCRA and other applicable laws?
• Do you at least, on a yearly basis, do an internal FCRA compliance check?
• Do you offer global background checks?
• Is your firm “Safe Harbor Certified” to perform screenings of applicants from the EU (European Union)?
• Do you have data protection, privacy security and data breach policies?
• Are you a member of the background screening trade association, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), and does your firm actively participate and support professionalism in the screening industry?
• What is your average turn-around time?
• If there is a delay for reasons that are out of your control, are your clients told online with in-depth notes and the anticipated ETA of in rank?
• Are your clients provided with written documentation and resources on safe hiring, due diligence and legal compliance issues?
• Are your clients provided with upgrades in technology that would enhance workflow, such as the ability to have applicants consent online or integration with an ATS or HRIS system?
• Can you describe your initial training program for team members and ongoing training?

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

Sources:

http://www.esrcheck.com/diligence-check-current-provider.php

http://www.esrcheck.com/docs/Due-Diligence-22.pdf

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

With 15 million staff currently unemployed according to recent Department of Labor statistics, it has been argued that job applicants risk being paid caught in a “Catch-22” situation where they have terrible credit because they cannot get jobs but cannot get jobs because they have terrible credit.

As a result, states such as Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii have already limited the use of credit reports for employment screening by enacting bans on credit checks during background checks unless the in rank directly relates to occupational qualifications.

But, the Chicago Tribune reported that one of three foremost credit bureaus that collect fiscal in rank on Americans – Chicago-based credit reporting agency TransUnion – is fighting to preserve the use of credit checks during employment background checks.

TransUnion defends credit checks as a way for employers to protect themselves against theft and fraud, in view of the fact that employees with poor credit history may be extra likely to engage in unethical or illegal behavior, especially in jobs where they are involved with finances, according to the Tribune article.

Along with the other two large credit bureaus Equifax and Experian, TransUnion helps employers, fiscal institutions, landlords, among others to use credit in rank to guide their decisions about hiring, extending credit, lending money, and housing.

Although a recent survey from the Society for Creature Resource Management (SHRM) found that 60 percent of employers performed credit background checks on all job candidates or on selected job candidates, that statistic can be misleading in view of the fact that of the firms that use credit checks, it appears the use is generally selective. The survey revealed that 47 percent of the employment credit reports were used only on selected candidates for positions that presumably involved access to assets, cash, or sensitive in rank.  Only 13 percent of employers used credit background checks across the enter on all job candidates.  In addition, 40 percent of employers surveyed did not conduct any credit background checks. It could be argued that the alarm over the use of credit reports has been exaggerated. 

In addition, given the fact that regularly times past employers will not give a reference beyond dates of employment and job title, employers may well be in need of additional tools when hiring for sensitive positions. 

Critics find credit checks during employment background checks discriminatory and bills restricting the practice have been introduced in the U.S. House of government and many states. Even some background check firms advise caution with credit checks.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a leading national online background check firm, recently released its third annual “Top Ten Trends in the Pre-Employment Background Screening Industry” for 2010, which identified new trends making a difference as well as ancient trends that have evolved as the screening industry matures.

The first of the “Top Ten” trends ESR tracked for 2010 is the increased focus on whether credit reports used during background checks are discriminatory. ESR advises employers to deal with credit reports with caution during background checks and to articulate a clear rationale as to why a credit report is related to a particular job. Employers should also be aware of the potential for errors in credit reports in view of the fact that in rank could be incorrectly reported or the applicant may be the victim of spot theft which can lead to fake data.

On the other hand, ESR warns that hiring an employee that handles money, makes fiscal decisions, or has access to private data without running a credit reports during background checks could result in allegations of negligent hiring if a theft occurs.

Lester S. Rosen, the CEO of Employment Screening Resources, was quoted in an article on MSNBC as saying that “if a new worker is to have access to large amounts of company cash or fiscal systems, it’s only prudent for a hiring manager to find out if the applicant has a pile of unpaid debts.”

Rosen went on to say: “If an employer hires an embezzler and did not do a credit report in a sensitive position and the employer was then sued for negligent hiring, the argument would then be: ‘How stupid were you for not running a credit report?’”

Though many employers run credit checks on some applicants, relatively few are twisted down for a job because of terrible credit, according to ESR’s Rosen. “It takes something pretty horrendous in the credit report to reverse a choice that they’re vested in,” he says.

One extra thing to keep in mind, according to Rosen, is that it is an urban myth that employers receive a “credit score,” the three-digit numerical expressions – such as FICO – based on statistical analysis of a consumer’s credit records. Employment credit reports – which are different than credit reports used for lending – do not contain a credit score.

For extra in rank on credit reports used during background checks, read a white paper prepared jointly by LexisNexis and Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – “The Use of Credit Reports in Employment Background Screening – An Overview for Job Applicants” – at http://www.esrcheck.com/docs/credit_report_whitepaper.pdf.

Sources:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0429-credit-checks-transunion–20100428,0,5056644.tale

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1429/shrm-surveys-reveal-3-out-of-4-businesses-conduct-reference-background-checks-and-criminal-background-checks

http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1548/new-oregon-law-prohibits-use-of-credit-history-of-job-applicants-for-employment-screening

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35512038/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1237/employment-screening-resources-releases-third-annual-trends-for-pre-employment-background-screening-in-2010 

 http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1139/2010-trend-on-increased-focus-on-whether-credit-reports-and-criminal-records-are-discriminatory

It is not uncommon for employers these days to use pre-employment background checks to help them hire new employees. Recent surveys from the Society of Creature Resource Management (SHRM) revealed approximately 75% of employers – three out of four – used background checks during their pre-employment screening of job applicants.

But what if the employer happens to be a professional franchise in the National Football League (NFL) and the job applicants are college football players? Along with statistics like touchdowns and tackles on the field, do NFL teams really care what football players do off the field?

Apparently they do – a lot – according to the New York Times NFL blog “Fifth Down,” which recently quoted a column from FootballOutsiders.com detailing the lack of privacy NFL draft prospects face, online and off, in today’s Internet-fueled, 24/7 sports world.

Every detail of a prospect’s background is researched by teams and publicized by the media. The scrutiny goes beyond touchdowns and dropped passes, it continues to arrests, scandals, and concise, long-ago suspensions for “undisclosed team violations.” If a player was involved in some non-noteworthy taproom scuffle, we know about it.

For NFL teams, selecting a player in the annual draft is the main process used to hire new employees. Like any prudent employer hoping to avoid wasting time and money on unfit staff, they look at the past experience qualifications or prospective employees, and perform background checks to ensure that they are making an informed hiring choice.

With millions of dollars on the line – the first overall selection in the 2010 draft, Sam Bradford of the St. Louis Rams, is projected to get $50 million in guaranteed money – NFL teams, like any prudent employer, use background checks before selecting future employees – in this case, college football players who hope to become professionals.

How prevalent have background checks become in helping NFL teams to choose what players to pick? Two sample ‘Draft Profiles’ on the NFL.com website show just how vital:

• (NFL Draft Prospect A) will need a pretty in-depth background check by any team considering drafting him. He has had off the field issues at both the University of Virginia as well as at Marshall…
• (NFL Draft Prospect B) is a transfer from Florida who has struggled on and off the field because of injuries and conduct. He will demand a strong background check by any team interested in gambling on his physical talent…

NFL teams conducting background checks on college football players is nothing new. A 2003 Los Angeles Times article reported that a former private investigator working for one team had done interviews and background checks on over 400 NFL draft prospects, while several other teams relied on former police officers and even a former director of the U.S. Secret Service to perform similar background checks. Other teams used background check reports that the NFL had compiled on prospects attending the league’s pre-draft bring together.

Whether the employer is a pro football team or a small business, or the employee is a future gridiron all-star or a potential C-level executive, background checks help to ensure a safe work environment and to avoid the expenditure – in both time and money – of “terrible hires.”

For extra in rank about background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a national pre-employment screening provider, at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/20/sports/sp-nfldraft20

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/n-f-l-prospects-have-no-privacy-on-internet-and-neither-may-you/

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/2010/walkthrough-click-your-own-risk

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2010/profiles/darius-marshall?id=497186

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2010/profiles/nyan-boateng?id=497272

Pledge:  For employers that do not perform background checks, one of the most regularly questioned questions is why do it?  The small pledge is that employee screening is one critical way to keep problem employees out of the workplace.  As any employer or creature resources professional know, a fantastic deal of time is spent dealing with employee problems. As Employment Screening Resources (ESR) advised  employers in the first edition of The Hiring Manual back in 2005, “problem employees usually cause employee problems.”  An employer is certainly ahead if they can try to minimize the problem employees in the first place. 

Of course, there is no perfect system to prevent terrible hires.   Background checks alone are not going to keep an employer from hiring people they later regret having in the workforce.  The hiring process has a number of moving parts, but the background check is the critical final step. 

In addition, the cost if a background check will typically be less than the cost of that new employee on his or her first day on the job. That is sack change compared to the hurt one terrible hire can cause. It is ironic that some firms will spend hours shopping for a computer bargain yet at the same time try to save money by not adequately read-through out a job applicant, even though all hire  represents an enormous investment and potential risk.   

Nor is it hard to set up a screening programming. Even for an overburdened HR, security, or risk management department already usage numerous tasks, outsourcing background screening can be done very quickly and effectively. ESR can set up the entire program, grant all the necessary forms in a small time and help with legal compliance.

The best defense is that the employer did in fact exercise due diligence and reasonable care, but despite those best efforts, a terrible hire fell through the cracks. An employer would have to show that they took a number of steps designed to avoid terrible hires. An employer can review the adequacy of their hiring efforts by taking the safe hiring check offered by ESR. See: http://www.backgroundchecktraining.com/Safe-Hiring-Check.asp

Another defense that had been successful is that the crime or injury was too remote or unconnected from the employer’s negligence, or was not foreseeable. An example is the California case ESR recently reviewed where a plumber with a criminal record was hired, meet a woman on the job that he started dating, was terminated by the employer and then murdered the girlfriend two years later. The victim’s family’s argued that but for the negligent hiring, the two would not have met in the first place and the murder would not have occurred. The court found that the murder two years later and long after termination was not sufficiently together to the hiring to hold employer with permission responsible. See: http://www.esrcheck.com/newsletter/archives/September_2009.php#T1

Another defense that a background checks would have not have revealed anything anyway so that the employer’s failure to conduct an adequate pre-screening was not the cause of the injury.  As the ancient adage goes, “every dog has its first bite.”  If there was nothing for a background check to locate that was a potential a “Red Standard,” that is also a defense.

Some defenses that do not work? Employers have not been very successful in defending lawsuits on the basis that due diligence and background checks cost too much, especially considering how inexpensive it is to screen. Another argument that may not go far with a jury is that the employer did what every other employer did in their industry. The fact that all employers in an industry engage in the same practice does not mean that the employer has meet the legal duty of due diligence, in view of the fact that a “standard practice” is not the same as a “standard of care.” The least successful defense is the argument that the employer is also the victim as well, or that they were victimized by an applicant lying.

The bottom-line: Exercising due diligence in hiring and conducting background checks is a small price to pay to avoid the “Parade of Horribles” that can befall an employer that makes terrible hiring decisions.

Employers cannot assume that the U.S. regime has conducted background checks on staff who hold visas. Regime checks appear to be aimed at reviewing watch lists rather than verifying past employment or culture or read-through criminal records for employment purposes.

Given these issues, employers should consider background screening internationally for criminal records, employment history, and culture credentials. Standard background checks conducted in the United States do not include global employment and criminal records. One caveat is that global checks typically pocket longer and are extra costly than domestic screening, but they can be worth it if they help a company limit its exposure to future liability. Another issue is data and  privacy protection issues. 

For extra in rank, see: http://www.esrcheck.com/global.php  ESR was the third U.S. background firm to be Safe Harbor certified for dealing with the European Union.  Extra in rank about global background checks is available in The Safe Hiring Manual.