This is a excellent demonstration on an regularly use quote about statistic:  “Do not place your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say.”  

The article overlooks a critical fact that the use of screening keeps would be embezzlers out of a positions of trust where they handle finances in the first place.  Fraud professionals certainly recommend background checks because it is the first line of defense that keeps former embezzlers out of positions of trust in the first place. As professional screeners, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) has saved many organizations from hiring former embezzlers and thieves for positions of trust  involving finances. But, there is no way to measure the numbers of frauds that are averted due to background checks.  The argument in Workforce is  like arguing flu shots are worthless because people who get the flu shots may still gat a flu.  An accurate assessment of the viability of a tool needs to include what would have happened if the tool was not used.  

The article goes on to suggest that screening for criminal convictions may also be ineffective in reducing workplace violence. That is because, according to the article, contrary to well loved belief, the majority of workplace violence incidents are not committed by new hires with criminal convictions. Instead, they result from robberies committed by perpetrators from outside the firm, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The suggestion that because most workplace violence is external shows screening of applicants is ineffective is equally illogical.   Screening is used to screen the workforce.  Even if employee violence is not the foremost cause of workplace violence, it is still a  significant cause.   Experts agree that a common denominator behind many acts of workplace violence by employees is a prior history of violence. That is certainly not right 100% of the time, but it is significant factor. 

Suggesting screening is not effective because outsiders cause the majority crimes is like arguing that healthy habits are a waste of time because sometimes a healthy person comes down sick anyway. When there is an act of workplace violence that could have been prevented by screening that results in a lawsuit against an employer, it is doubtful that any jury will buy that argument suggested in the Workforce article.    To the injured worker, or the to the family of someone killed by an act of preventable workplace violence by an employee, the suggestion that screening is a waste of time will certain ring hallow. 

This argument brings to mind another quote about statistics: “Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches.” 

Once again, statistics can lead down a very incorrect road.

The  Workplace article is at: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/26/21/11/index.php (may demand sign-up and log-in)

For extra in rank on why background checks are mission critical tool for employers, see www.ESRcheck.com

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 SECOND of the ten trends ESR will be tracking in 2010.  The ten trends will be released over the next three weeks:

2.  Extra lawsuits including class action litigation over accuracy, privacy, and consumer civil Civil rights: 

News tales in 2009 blasted the screening industry for inaccurate reports, and it appears that lawsuits are on the rise and will pocket up again in 2010.  It is not surprising, in view of the fact that screening has become a large industry, and enough people have been the subject of screening reports that the whole vicinity has come to the attention of plaintiff’s lawyers.  In addition, 2009 saw class action lawsuits for violation of the procedures under the FCRA, and there is every reason to believe that screening firms and employers can expect extra of the same.  The bottom line is that a Background Check is a highly with permission regulated professional service, and it is vital to ensure that a supplier of this service understands the legal framework and, further, approaches the screening process as a professional service, and not just as a data provider.

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.