When a hired worker enters your home to perform a service that you requested, do you know to whom you are opening your door?

So questions an article on HuffingtonPost.com – “Could You or a Loved One End Up Like Elizabeth Smart?” – that shows why background checks are needed to uncover unsafe employees working in and around homes of other people, and how background checks can help people avoid tragedies like the one experienced by Lucia Bone, the founder of “Sue Weaver CAUSE – Consumer Awareness of Unsafe Service Employment.”

The article title references the case of Elizabeth Smart, whose father hired a contract day-worker who then later returned to the house to kidnap Elizabeth. The girl survived the ordeal, but Sue Weaver, Lucia Bone’s sister, was not so fortunate even though the worker who entered her home was hired by a large company.

In 2001, according to the article, Weaver was raped and beaten to fatality in her Florida home. Six months before her fatality, Weaver had contracted with a foremost department store to clean the air ducts in her home. Both staff sent to her house had criminal records. One was a twice-convicted sex offender on parole who – like the worker in the Smart case – returned to a home where he had worked to commit a crime.

Sadly, and surprisingly, the article reports Weaver’s murder is not an isolated case, in view of the fact that many consumers are robbed, assaulted, and murdered all year by staff with jobs that allow them access into homes. Because of this, Bone started Sue Weaver CAUSE to both honor her sister and to fight for standardized background checks of all in-home service employees. Through consumer awareness and legislation, Bone wants to ensure that huge, reputable retail companies like Sears, Best Buy, Home Railroad station, Lowes, and others perform thorough criminal background checks on the contractors and sub-contractors they send into homes.

In view of the fact that there are currently no federal or disorder laws requiring companies to do criminal background checks on contractors or sub-contract staff sent into homes, Sue Weaver CAUSE is demanding legislation for CAUSE Official recognition compliance. When interviewed for the article, Bone says the CAUSE Official recognition would demand annual background checks following CAUSE minimum screening standards on all employees, contractors, and subcontractors. Bone adds that these standards were single-minded from survey results from questions asking background screening professionals what minimum screening should be conducted on staff going into homes of elderly mothers, pregnant wives, and people with special needs.

According to Bone, the minimum requirements for CAUSE Official recognition are:

• Social Security Number (SSN) Pocket up Trail;
• County-Level Criminal Check (Search records for past seven years in counties where applicant lived, worked, or attended school);
• Multi-jurisdictional/”National” Criminal Database, and;
• National/Disorder Sex Offender Registry.

In addition, Bone says consumers “never reckon about (criminal background checks for in-home service staff)” and automatically assume the company they hire would not send criminals into their homes. She advises consumers to be proactive and not assume companies properly screen staff sent to homes. “Bonded and insured is not a background check.”

The Sue Weaver CAUSE website is located at: http://www.sueweavercause.org/.

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

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-kinosian/could-you-or-a-loved-one_b_559526.html

The recent headlines dealing with background checks demonstrate that to some boundary, Americans are conflicted about the whole topic of background checks.

On one hand, as reported in past blogs by Employment Screening Resources (ESR), discrimination and privacy advocates believe that background checks are too forward and unfair. The EEOC has filed a test case alleging that a large national employer used credit report and criminal records to unfairly discriminate against members of protected groups. The disorder of Oregon and others are considering limitations on credit reports. Scientists from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California have succeeded in taking their complaints all the way to the United States Supreme Court that regime mandated security checks revolving around background checks and entry into facilities are overly forward and an invasion of privacy. A recent study conducted at a foremost university suggested that after a relatively small period of time, criminal records are not a predictor of future misconduct.

Conversely, the recent tragic shootings at University of Alabama-Huntsville and Ohio Disorder University have lead to many to question if background checks should be even extra in-depth. Those shootings had horrific impacts on the victim’s families and the communities involved and questions have been raised if even extra background checks should have been done. 

In  the case of the Ohio Disorder University workplace violence, a top notch and highly respected background screening firm performed what appeared to be a standard entry level criminal record search and found what any screening firm would likely have found, which was no record. But, critics note that a 30 year ancient conviction for receiving stolen material goods should have been unearthed, even though ancient records have been ruined, and there was some confusion about the date of birth that should have been used.

Of course, to find a thirty year ancient prison record under those circumstances would naturally demand an employer to retain private investigators at the cost of many hundreds of dollars for all and every potential new hire, as opposed to public record background screenings. And ironically, even if the screening firm had located the 30 year ancient criminal record for a non-violent offense and was able to establish the record belonged to the shooter, any use of it would have been soundly criticized as unfair and discriminatory. It seems that employers cannot win either way. 

As it turns out, in the Ohio Disorder University case a past employment verifications may have raised the red flags that would have alerted the employer to pocket a closer look at the hiring choice.  It underscores that employers need to use a number of overlapping tools to evaluate a potential hire, and that no one tool, such as a criminal background check, can be used to make hiring decisions.  In addition, background checks are just one component of an overall workplace violence prevention approach.

The bottom-line is that background screening occurs at the intersection of competing and compelling societal interests. On one hand, no one wants to see workplace violence, or to have unqualified people get jobs with fake credentials. Safety, security and honesty are core values. On the other hand, society is also rightly concerned with fairness and privacy and as well as efforts to combat discrimination. The issue is reaching the right balance.

It is fascinating that nearly every time there is an objection because there is too much screening, there is regularly a call for even extra screening after it is revealed that some crime or offenses occurred or where an inappropriate applicant was hired without a sufficient background check. With all due excellent wishes to the JPL scientists, one would assume their position may be different if it always twisted out that a failure to perform background checks resulted in a terrorist hurting the U.S., someone with fake credentials being paid hired and obtaining access, or workplace violence occurring that could have been prevented.

In an interview on ABC’s “Excellent Morning America,” two step-daughters of one victim questioned how the woman arrested and charged in the shooting deaths – Biology professor Amy Bishop, 42 – could get a job working at the school after reports surfaced about violent incidents in Bishop’s past. 

ABC News reported that investigators may re-inspect the 1986 shooting fatality of Bishop’s brother at the hands of Bishop, which was ruled accidental at the time, and also revealed that Bishop was a suspect in a mail bombing attempt on a Harvard Medical School professor in 1993. Investigators told ABC that while investigating the bombing they found a novel on Bishop’s computer unfolding a scientist who had shot her brother. 

After learning about Bishop’s alleged violent past, the step-daughters of one victim told “Excellent Morning America” that they hoped the shooting would lead to extra thorough background checks for the school’s faculty and staff. They also believed Bishop obtained a list of professors who did not vote in favor of her tenure before the shootings, which left three people injured in addition to the three fatalities. 

“Workplace violence” is loosely defined as threats, assaults, and violent acts – including murder – which occur in, or are related to, the workplace. While there is no one nurse back to affect-all treatment to eliminate the threat of workplace violence, employers should remain vigilant and closely watch all conditions and events in the workplace in order to ensure the safety and security of employees and customers. 

To help prevent workplace violence, employers may choose to initiate a Safe Hiring Program (SHP) that includes a wide range of tools, techniques, and air force to help mitigate the risk of hiring or retaining a potentially perilous employee. Background checks are considered the grounding of an effective SHP.

Protecting staff from workplace violence is an essential reason why employers should conduct pre-employment screening – including wide and far-reaching background checks – on prospective employees. The goal of a Safe Hiring Program is to ensure that employers follow proper procedures during background checks and pay attention while hiring and retaining staff in order to minimize the potential for workplace violence. 

For extra in rank about workplace violence, background checks, and Safe Hiring Programs, please visit  Employment Screening Resources at:  http://www.esrcheck.com.  

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/alabama-university-shooting-suspect-amy-bishop-violent-past/tale?id=9839348