Background Checks - Merchants Information Solutions, Inc.

Oil Spill Disaster

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:06:00 +0000

The Gulf Coast spill has been all over the news and will most likely affect the livelihoods of thousands of people in a negative way. As business owners in any venue, we must look out for the well-being of our employees. Twenty years ago, we heard a similar story with the Exxon oil disaster when people who earned their living off the land and sea had careers cut short.

The Gulf oil spill is a déjà vu of the Alaska disaster. Kent Bowen of Park City, Utah had an Alaskan fishing career when it ended with the Exxon oil disaster. His counsel for those recently affected by the oil spill is not to wait for the oil company to compensate. Brian O’Neill, an attorney with the firm Faegre & Benson, predicts 20 to 30 years of litigation for fishermen and small-business owners affected by the gulf spill as evidenced from the Alaska disaster (Read the full story here).

Today in Bayou La Batre, Alabama, there are many complaints from out-of-work fishermen. Some believe that they’re being ignored when it comes to finding other jobs. But rather it seems that those businesses in charge are attempting to hire the right people. They’re screening, doing background checks, assuring that those very fishermen are actually hired. In this case, background checks are a must for oil workers. Even though we can’t affect the litigation process and its timing, some businesses can at least offer jobs and they can be offered protecting both those who are doing the hiring and those hopeful candidates.

In a broader sense, there are many who may be out of work whether due to oil spills or the economy. As business owners, we have the ability to help by hiring correctly. And this isn’t merely an altruistic motive. A successful business is as successful as its employees. When screening employees and performing background checks, we’re ensuring as best as we can that we have ethical, committed and loyal employees who are working for the common good of the company and at the same time we have the potential of affecting the livelihood of those candidates. So the lesson that can be learned from this disaster -- as in any number of disasters in our world today -- is that there are always opportunities to help, even if it’s just awakening to what we can do to better our business by hiring those in need while also protecting our own livelihood.

Background Checks for Volunteers

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:30:00 +0000

When someone is a volunteer for an organization, should they have their background examined? This is an issue facing many organization heads -- whether they run schools, a landscaping business or a sports team. The bottom line is that just like part-time workers, the volunteers may essentially be performing the same tasks but minus the paycheck. These volunteers then intermingle with the customers or children, the elderly or the disabled -- whatever the form of business. They are therefore also representing the organization. Money for this may be a problem and should be examined prior to accepting volunteers whether the volunteers pay for this or the company does. Having volunteers can save money so funding for background checks is really a small price to pay for extra care and caution to protect our business and our customers/children etc. Almost anyone can be a volunteer, but we mustn’t just have anyone doing the job, especially if it involves work with the vulnerable.

The question can now become, how far should we really go? Should we check out every single volunteer, no matter what the duties? What about a board member? Take the case of Matthew Boyer, 35, who was a school board member in Newton County, Missouri and maybe we’ll rethink how far background checking should go. He was charged with statutory rape of a 16 year old and possession of child pornography. Criminal background checks are required for the teachers in Missouri, but not for school board members. Local school districts are now realizing how essential it is to have background checks even when you’re a volunteer working with children (Read the article here).

I volunteer at my children’s school all the time as do many other parents, but I admit it seems a grandiose and even idealistic notion to do a background check on every person that walks through the school doors. I do, however, recognize the necessity and of course want my children and all children to be protected from the predators and criminals. I wondered, has a large scale background check been done before on volunteers? In Hillsboro, Oregon, eight district schools will do exactly that. The process began just about two weeks ago where now thousands of classroom volunteers and event chaperones will be checked, requiring a date of birth and Social Security number or an identification card. If this background checking program works, it will be expanded to other schools beginning in the fall. This basic records check will also be performed from a district level to alleviate inconsistencies in the checking from one school to another. Of course, speeding tickets may not hinder a parent from volunteering, but certainly crimes related to sex, drugs and violence would. It will be interesting to see the results of this program. (Eight Hillsboro School District Schools Will Background Check All Volunteers Under Test Program)

Whether we have volunteers or paid employees in our organization, weeding out the criminals and harmful deviants is a necessity if we want to run a successful and safe organization.

Are Credit Checks Necessary?

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:19:00 +0000

I’m a believer in background checks, but as with many things -- it depends on the context. Am I going to run a background check on a neighbor who’s brought me some freshly baked cookies? Or a harmless professor who’s given me a bad grade? Probably not. But if I’m a manager of any business, including rental properties, it would be unwise to not perform some kind of background check. But then again -- depending on what business we’re in -- we need to consider the kind of background check we’re performing on our potential employees or renters. With renters, it’s smart to run a credit check and criminal background check. After all, we want our rent paid on time and who wants a criminal in our midst? But even so, understanding the details helps clarify the credit or criminal history. It’s not always black and white. In the work environment though, what’s necessary? Certainly some kind of pre-employment screening process which would include a psychological assessment and background check would be important for a safe environment. We need to know if we’ve hired criminals. However a controversial current topic is whether credit checks are important in the hiring market. Perhaps it’s more for the renters, but you weigh in and see what you think.

The argument is that with the difficulty of finding a job in this economy, some are being additionally penalized because of their credit histories. Credit checks have definitely increased over the last several years according to the Society of Human Resources Management although only 13% perform them on all their potential candidates. From an employer’s standpoint, it may give them a window into the honesty of the potential employee. If they’ve been desperate enough to steal in the past, what will prevent them from doing it again? From an employee’s standpoint, they’re trapped if they’re struggling financially with little hope to improve when noone will hire them. It’s the broad generalizations that seem to harm. But then again, who can fault an employer for watching their backs? As with everything in life, decisions are complex and all points need to be taken into account. But with controversy comes lawmakers fighting on both sides. At least sixteen states from South Carolina to Oregon have lawmakers wishing to ban credit checks for those seeking work. And why has this occurred? It all started with Terry Becker, an auto mechanic who couldn’t find work. He couldn’t find work because of the medical debt he found himself in due to a son who suffered from seizures. Obviously this financial history doesn’t reflect whatsoever on Terry Becker as a worker. If hiring employers are unable to distinguish the difference between bad choices and unfortunate circumstances, then they may be too dim-witted to be running the show successfully anyhow (Read full story here).

Background checks are necessary; they allow the employer to make good hiring decisions. Even so, the kind of checking should be considered -- what’s essential for the job -- as a ban of all credit checks may cause more problems in the end. And hand in hand with that is a more personal approach, an interview, where a deeper insight can be gained of the integrity and goals of the hopeful employee-to be.

Do your Homework: Perform a Background Check

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:08:00 +0000

Hiring an employee from an agency -- whether it be a nanny, home health care worker, etc. -- doesn’t guarantee anything. People are getting wiser though and most clients won’t go near an agency that doesn’t perform background checks on all employees. Unfortunately a blind Ohio attorney, Carl Rose, followed up on a recommendation for a personal assistant. His case worker, working for the Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation, recommended Nancy Haylor and she subsequently stole over $22,000 from Rose. Rose filed a lawsuit against the state agency and lost, but he’s now considering appealing. Haylor had a history of theft conviction from stealing from a previous employer. Yes, Rose should have been more cautious and should have even performed a background check on his own. But recommendations should be made with caution, especially if you’re representing an agency. Moral of the story -- do background checks (Read full story here).

So what are you looking for in a background check? Especially if you run an agency, focusing on senior home care or rehabilitation. Here are some questions you may want to ask when choosing the appropriate background check.

Is a sex offender check included?

Does the check include criminal court records in multiple states where the candidate has lived?

Do the addresses given by the potential employee match those provided by the background check?

Is there a driving record check?

There are different levels of background checks and the better ones do require a fee, although the higher the fee doesn’t necessarily mean the better. The free background checks are the ones that probably aren’t the most reliable or in depth, simply matching a name to an address. A good background check matches names to SSN’s to past addresses and to any criminal history across numerous states. All checks follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) which only enable information in the past 7 years to be reviewed. However, if employment requires working with children or seniors, some states allow the checks to go beyond the 7 years. But review the laws in your state for background checks, giving you a clear understanding of what information you can obtain on your candidate. You can still miss important information even when performing a background check so it’s always crucial that the right questions are asked during the interviewing phase. Ask if they’ve ever been convicted of a felony and see if it matches up with the background check. In addition, perform a psychological and behavioral assessment. Compassionate, patient and trustworthy individuals are needed in the caregiving field so use your own intuition if the potential employee is a good match. A stellar background check doesn’t always mean a perfect fit, but a convicted sex offender is not someone you want caring for your client’s grandmother or disabled child.

There are reputable companies out there who provide background checks. So do your homework, figure out what you need to know, and make it part of your company’s hiring process.

Background Checks on Home Service Workers?

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:51:00 +0000

We all remember the story of Elizabeth Smart. On June 5, 2002, this 14 year old girl from Salt Lake City Utah was abducted from her bedroom. Nine months later, she was found about 18 miles from her home in Sandy, Utah. She was with her kidnappers: Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Ileen Barzee. So who was this Brian Mitchell and what was the connection to the Smart family, if any? The Smarts were kind people, seeking out umemployed people in the community and paying them to do handyman jobs around the house. Mitchell, who went by Emmanuel, was a hired handyman who worked on the Smart's house for a day, raking leaves and doing roof work.

Let's look at another case that didn't have such a happy ending. In February of 2001, Sue Weaver had two men come and clean out her air ducts in her Orlando, Florida home. Six months later one of them returned, raping and murdering her. Jeffrey Hefling then set fire to her home and body, hoping to destroy any evidence. Jeffrey Hefling was a convicted sex offender and was on parole when he came to clean Weaver's air ducts. Out of this tragedy Weaver's sister, Lucia Bone of Flower Mound, Texas, began a nonprofit organization -- C.A.U.S.E. (Consumer Awareness of Unsafe Service Employment) -- who's mission is to educate consumers about the risks of home service workers and to make background checks mandatory for such workers. They strongly encourage businesses that hire home service workers to perform thorough background checks on their employees. They want the public to recognize their C.A.U.S.E. seal and feel safer if they've hired someone from a C.A.U.S.E. certified company.

A large reputable company doesn't always guarantee our safety. Hefling was a subcontractor to a major department store in Orlando that offered the duct cleaning services. Both men were actually ex-cons and Hefling had even admitted on his job application that he'd been in prison for 14 years. The victim's family settled a lawsuit against this major department store chain in 2004. Perhaps if a background check had been conducted on Hefling, Bone's sister would still be alive today (Read the full story here).

As business owners, performing background checks on every subcontractor and employee may seem far too expensive. And it can be, but it's nothing compared to an expensive lawsuit. There are more and more companies that don't perform checks on their employees that are now dealing with major lawsuits. Take Sears Roebuck and Co. who settled a lawsuit with a Maryland woman who was assaulted in her home by one of the carpet cleaner workers. He had a long criminal record under his belt when he started working for Sears as a carpet cleaner. As in the prior case he was a subcontractor, but the victim filed the lawsuit against Sears. Now Sears requires checks on all their home service workers. An expensive lesson learned (Read this story and similar reports here).

Let's be informed business owners. Whether we contract out in the home service field or are involved in any other form of business, we need to protect our consumers/clients/fellow employees as best as we can.

Preventing Workplace Violence

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:27:00 +0000

Business Management Daily has prepared a Workplace Violence Prevention Toolkit. This free toolkit for HR professionals provides some excellent advice. The toolkit leads with 5 steps to take in order to help prevent violence in the workplace.

First on the list of steps to take is employee screening. Dennis A. Davis, a former SWAT team liaison who now directs client training for the employment law firm Ogletree Deakins is quoted in the toolkit that "an effective workplace violence prevention program starts with employee screening". The reason is simple. The reason for using employee screening is to avoid hiring the type of person who has demonstrated their inability to hold their temper and manage their impulses and emotions.

It is truly rare that a job candidate will disclose to an interviewer that they have a problem managing their temper, are prone to outbursts, harbor grudges, and fantasize about elaborate schemes to get even with all the candidate perceives as threats. Because job candidates are engaged in selling a product (themself), they will tell you about their positive attributes but are unlikely to divulge any of the negative details. That is why it is up to the recruitment team to identify which candidates are susceptible to violence.

The first thing most HR professionals think of is a criminal background check for violent crime. This is an appropriate step to take and can help reduce the likelihood of hiring someone who is still struggling with "impulse control". There is more that can and should be done however. Many companies are not aware of tools that industrial/organizational psychologists have produced.

A favorite is the Tescor Survey which was produced a number of years ago by Dr. Peter Bullard of American Tescor, LLC. Dr. Bullard's work utilized the cognitive dissonance between actual standards of performance and behavior and the perceived standards in four key areas: Theft, Substance Abuse, Violence, and Integrity Deficiency. The four areas all seem to be inter-related (people with one problem, frequently have problems with the others as well) but it is the violence score that is relevant to this topic.

Dr. Bullard's work, the Tescor Survey, is, to my knowledge, unique in its ability to identify job candidates who show the greatest chance of exhibiting violence at work. Any one of the hundreds of background screening companies can run a criminal history check for you and discover who among the candidates has a record of violent crime. What distinguishes Merchants is the use of the Tescor Survey to identify the violent individuals before they are hired and most importantly before they offend.

That's right. This behavioral assessment tool can help you identify the violent candidates before they commit the crime. Violent individuals do not lead cool, calm lives and one day wake with murderous intent. There are, almost always, warning signs and indicators that if heeded, can identify the violent.

Read, for example the case of Jason Rodriguez of Orlando, Florida. In hindsight, many people were able to recognize the warning signs but apparently few did at the time. As a consequence, 5 coworkers are injured and 1 is dead.

Criminal background checks are good, important essential, and should be run to screen job candidates. However, they are only good at catching those who have been apprehended, charged, and convicted which is a small minority of those who are violent. To keep your business safe, you need to use the better tools that are now available. The warning signs are out there, you just need to be able to read them. The Tescor Survey can help you spot them before its too late.

Criminal Background Checks: A Necessity?

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:00:00 +0000

When running any kind of business, it's important to know who we're hiring. One of the steps within that process is getting criminal background checks on our potential employees. We may only be interested in abiding by the hiring laws in our state -- which do vary from state to state -- or we may want reassurance that are employees have an honest and seemingly ethical background. Whatever the case, criminal background checks are essential if running a successful business is important to us. Perhaps the employees won't be pleased, as in the case of cabbies working at the Pensacola Naval Air Station who may have to look elsewhere to gain a taxi fare. With new security rules, taxi drivers now have to submit criminal background checks. These cabbies will be denied access to the base if they have active arrest warrants or have had felony convictions, illegal drug involvement, sex offenses and any other security concerns. Sounds good to me as I'm sure it does to paying customers, but not so great-sounding to cabbies with a past (Read the full story here).

If cost is an issue for us and we also end up with potential candidates who are disgruntled because of the background check, but otherwise would have been great employees (with a record and now seemingly harmless) -- why bother? Here are some brief points to consider:

There are penalties for hiring illegal immigrants.

Fraud is one of the reasons why small businesses sometimes fail.

A company that performs background checks is seen as more trustworthy and professional.

Customers are protected.

Employees are protected.

In a nutshell, think about hiring a sales clerk who has a record of embezzling, a volunteer Sunday school teacher who's a pedophile, or a truck driver who has a number of D.U.I.'s. Ridiculous thought, isn't it? But unfortunately in these times, it does happen. There's no reason for us to skip the important step of background checks. The cost pays for itself in the form of a reputable business with upstanding employees.

A Bus Ride No Kid Should Take

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:58:00 +0000

Whether you own an office building or a bus company, performing background checks on potential employees is a crucial step in protecting yourself and your customers. It sometimes can take one bad seed or employee to taint the name of your business. Sometimes clients can be forgiving, but it can depend on what was put in harm's way -- their money, their trust or even their children.

My kids take the bus to school and I worry more about creeps lurking at the corner than a questionable bus driver. As a parent, I put my trust in the school who hired the bus company to transport my kids. Just recently in Skokie, Chicago a bus driver was suspended after he was charged with endangerment. So for the parents in Skokie, there weren't any crazy strangers lurking around, just a bus driver who was driving under the influence of drugs. These seventh graders expected a normal drive home after a day at middle school and instead experienced more of a horrendous carnival ride with a driver who drove erratically. He swerved lanes, sped up and slowed down, had his head on the steering wheel, drove over curbs and hit signs. Kids called their parents on cell phones, complaining of the driver and some parents, along with the police, got to then see first hand the erratic behavior of the driver and the terrified screams of the children. Brian Skoglund, 40 was ultimately charged with 41 counts of child endangerment (Read the full story here).

In this instance, the bus company apparently had performed background checks. But even so, some parents are now pushing for another bus company -- an example that sometimes clients may not be so forgiving. Perhaps the background check needed to be more extensive, including psychological assessments and such testing as drug-testing needs to be something performed on a regular on-going basis. I don't know the solution, no one has a crystal ball, but I do know as a parent that I expect vigilant checking on anyone who is responsible for my kids, even those who transport them home.

Jaycee Lee Dugard & the Background Check that found her

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:05:00 +0000

I think it's a parent's worse nightmare to imagine having their child being kidnapped. We've all heard the story of Jaycee Lee Dugard by now: The girl who was kidnapped at age 11 and now has been found at age 29. She was at a bus stop in front of her house in South Lake Tahoe, California when Phillip Garrido, a paroled sex offender, and his wife, Nancy, abducted Jaycee Lee Dugard. During her eighteen years of living in an isolated backyard in Antioch, California -- where her home was made up of tents and sheds -- she gave birth to two girls, now 15 and 11, who were fathered by her abductor.

Three years prior, there had been a call to the Contra Costa County sheriff's department about people living in the backyard of Phillip Garrido. A deputy did respond but didn't do a search or a background check. He's since apologized. So this investigation went years without any development until Garrido showed up at the Berkeley campus in California with his two daughters. He was handing out literature and two campus police officers noted suspicious behavior. So what did the two officers do? They ran a background check on him, revealing he was on parole for a 1971 conviction for rape and kidnapping and had spent time in a prison in Kansas. They reported his behavior to Garrido's parole officer who was surprised that Garrido had children. Garrido showed up with his wife, two daughters and Allissa -- who was Dugard. And that's when the mystery was solved -- both an incredible tragedy and miracle. If these campus officers hadn't performed a background check, this case would still be considered a cold case.

It's clear that background checks can solve crimes and are imperative for security in this day and age. This only cements the idea that background checks are necessary when hiring a new employee or seeking out residents for your rental properties. No one would ever imagine such evil lurking so close (Read the full story here).

Reality Background Checks

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:52:00 +0000

Background checks are a very important, useful tool for understanding the makeup of a prospective employee. The information they contain can greatly influence the hiring decision, and in some cases stop a candidate completely. For that reason, care should be taken to ensure that the background check contain information that is timely, accurate, and relevant. Let’s look at a couple of cases where there was either too little or too much (yes, too much) information in the report.

Reality shows are the new soaps of our day. When I was a kid, I had a friend who's mom was addicted to soaps. It was before the days of recording your favorite shows and when she missed it, she'd play it on tape recorder in her kitchen -- only the voices having an intense conversation over long-lost twins or a new-found love -- it was your imagination that would play out the visual scenes. Then it was the talk shows who'd broach topics that would make your grandmother roll in her grave. Now it's the reality shows where people are competing for love, money or whatever the top prize may be. They're put in situations where their worse traits are brought to the forefront through temptation, greed or the universal need for love. We observe some crazy characters, but surely they wouldn't put a truly psychologically ill wild man on a show where others could be harmed? Or would they?

Take the sad recent example of the grisly murder of a former swimsuit model Jasmine Fiore. She was strangled and her body mutilated and it's suspected that her ex-husband, Ryan Alexander Jenkins, is the murderer. And who is Ryan Alexander Jenkins? A reality TV star who was a contestant on Megan Wants a Millionaire. The producers apparently had no idea that he had been sentenced to 15 months probation after an assault charge in Canada -- his native home (read the full story). Maybe it's time, in these cases, for full criminal background checks to be performed. This is a prime example when the only background check appears to be good looks and charisma.

Occasionally a background check report can contain too much (non-relevant) information. In Minnesota, a 26-year-old college student was confident when he was offered a management internship with a construction company last winter. The only prerequisite at that point was to pass a background check. He failed the check. Why? A former boss of Matthew Baken included private information -- an on-the-job injury two years prior – in the details provided to the interviewer in the background check. Baken’s medical history is a private matter, not relevant to hiring, and should not have been disclosed (read full story).

The background check company, acting as an agent for the employer, forwarded the information to the new employer. The new job offer was withdrawn due to concerns raised in the background report. Baken was confused and couldn't understand how he could have failed the check. After Baken obtained a copy of the background check report, he was upset that his medical information had been disclosed by a former employer. Baken then learned that it was possible to dispute information in the background report, which he did. The company performing the background check (like all background check companies) is required to investigate and substantiate any information disputed. If it can’t be substantiated, it is removed from the report. Baken is now looking forward to reapplying for the internship position for which he is still hoping to get. The prior employer may have opened themselves to a civil legal action if Baken can show that they acted with malicious intent when they improperly disclosed information that should have remained private.

Probably the lesson learned in both of these cases is that background checks are indeed important, but make sure they're timely, accurate and relevant. Jenkins did not appear to have had a background check before being hired on to the show and consequently his violent past was not discovered by the producer or the then future wife. Baken’s case was the opposite where the information in the background check report may have been deliberately poisoned by his previous employer including non-relevant, but potentially damaging, information that was private and should not have been disclosed.

I'll Trade You My Hepatitis C For Your Painkillers

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:06:00 +0000

5,700 patients at the Rose Medical Center in Denver and the Audubon Surgery Center in nearby Colorado Springs have been contacted and made aware they may have received an unwelcome "gift" of the Hepatitis C virus (which causes incurable liver disease) as a result of their stay at the hospitals.

According to reports, Kristen Diane Parker, 26, had been employed at the two hospitals as a surgery technologist. A surgery technologist' responsibilities can include preparing a patient for surgery, setting up a surgery suite, checking medical equipment for proper operation, preparing sterile surgical instruments, passing instruments to and from the surgeon, and transporting the patient to a recovery room. Surgery technologists are well-trained in the use aseptic techniques in order to keep the patient safe from dangerous bacteria and virii.

Parker, in addition to her training, she reportedly had a powerful desire to inject herself with pain medication. So much so that she was willing to share needles with others who have the same desire. That's how she (Parker) thinks she contracted Hepatitis C in the first place. Strange that one so highly trained in maintaining aseptic conditions in the surgery suite and the consequences of infection would so casually choose to inject herself with a used needle from another intravenous drug abuser. It isn't as though she didn't understand the risk

As if that were not bad enough, Parker reportedly stole medications intended for patients and replaced the prepared syringes with her own dirty needles. She got the drugs she desired and the patients received her Hepatitis C.

If her allegations are substantiated, Parker showed reckless disregard not only for her own safety but was grossly negligent in the care she provided to the patients at the medical centers where she worked. So far, 19 cases of Hepatitis C have been linked to Parker through DNA testing. Parker faces a potential life sentence for her actions if convicted.

Bearing in mind that there is no cure for Hepatitis C, the likely outcome for those who have become infected face many drug treatments to manage their viral load (amount of Hep C virus in bloodstream). For those don't get positive responses to the drug treatments, cirrhosis or scarring of the liver becomes likely. Once cirrhosis develops, the patient faces many life threatening complications.

Let's assume, for the purpose of discussion, that Parker did the things of which she is accused. What then is the result of all this? Parker goes to prison for a very long time (potentially for the rest of her life). That is a very long time for one only 26 years old. That would be a life destroyed.

What of the patients infected with her Hep C? They face a diminished quality of life, potentially life threatening complications and premature death. That is several to several thousands of lives diminished or destroyed.

What of the future of the medical centers where she was employed? That's difficult to say. Certainly the insurors will take a nasty financial hit but the reputation of these two facilities are deeply tarnished. They may be terminally damaged.

Since Parker has worked at numerous facilities (Colorado, New York, and Texas), each facility has launched an investigation and is contacting their respective patients.

Since the purpose of the blog post is to identify and highlight some of the dangers of failing to do comprehensive and effective background screening, let's bring the focus back to background screening. Officials at both Audubon and Rose reported that they both did the requisite background and reference checks as well as physical and drug screens once hired. How then did Parker make it through the system?

Well, the surgical technologists aren't required to be licensed by the state (like doctors and nurses are). One is also left to wonder how rigorous the screening was if Parker was successful in negotiating the screening process while feeding a drug habit. Background is too often treated as merely a checkbox on the application that requires a check for the applicant to proceed. Not enough attention is paid to the efficacy of the background check. People seem more concerned whether or not it was performed and not concerned enough about how well it is performed.

This is an excellent example of why more attention needs to be paid to how effectively and thoroughly background screens are executed.

A School Scandal

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:18:00 +0000

It's back to school for my children in just a few days and recently there has been much talk of scandal -- mainly embezzling and escorting -- not the usual chatter between parents when kids are meeting their teachers and friends are re-acquainting.

Kyrene del Cielo is an A+ school, promoting strong character traits -- integrity, cooperation, kindness, responsibility, and respect -- among students and faculty. It still is an A+ school as far as I'm concerned, but unfortunately was tested this past year with the resignations of both the principal, Janet Thor, and the vice-principal, Annette Gray O'Leary. Both principal and vice-principal had only been at Kyrene del Cielo for a year, if that.

Janet Thor resigned back in April, just before the school year was out. Parents scratched their heads, students were confused and an interim principal was hired to oversee the end of the year. But soon there was talk of embezzlement and on August 7th an article -- Ex-Chandler principal focus of embezzlement investigation.

On August 6th, it was confirmed that the Tempe police had forwarded this case on to the criminal investigations department of the Arizona Office of the Auditor General. It's an ongoing investigation so no more information is known. However what is known is that money is missing. A few months later, Vice-principal Annette Gray O'Leary resigned rather hurriedly. I didn't think much of it -- perhaps a show of support for the former Principal -- but just this past Wednesday, August 5th, her story scurried rampantly through the neighborhood and even faster than the embezzlement accusations of her former co-worker. Apparently Annette Gray O'Leary is believed to be Taya Taylor. And who is Taya Taylor? An escort who promotes her services on her website, charging $450/hour. Read the full story here: Allegation Valley educator is an escort by night.

So as parents we analyze this situation. How could this have occurred? Perhaps a thorough background check wasn’t conducted? However a statement was released claiming that the district had performed background checks on both these women and that they hold all their employees to the highest moral and ethical standards.

I don't think there is a simple answer. Employers don't hold a crystal ball and people's past behavior doesn't always predict future actions. Psychological assessments can be used as part of the background checks, but beyond that we can only hope that educators/employees make wise choices. These are stressful times, people use desperate measures but they also must be held accountable.

I still believe in this school and have great hope for a new year. A school is made up of much more than merely the principal and vice-principal -- it's the incredible teachers, the students themselves and the family support.

Screening the Screeners

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:22:00 +0000

Who can you trust? When I meet someone for the first time, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt even if they've made an outlandish comment or have a large piece of asparagus nestled between their two front teeth. We all put our best face forward when meeting someone for the first time and many times I've muddled that up, thus the empathy to those who do the same with me. Just recently I handed a roofer $2000 in cash as he swore to me that he'd done the job. Why shouldn't I trust him? He was polite, explaining the reason why he'd upped the estimate by 50% due to more damage than he'd initially anticipated. He didn't have any veggies between his teeth, nor were his comments too crazy. The increase in price was said so calmly that my questioning would have been the outlandish of the scene. He claimed he'd used the best of materials -- top of the line -- and now, a little too late, with naivety painted on my forehead, I'm realizing some healthy skepticism may have been necessary to avoid being scammed.

In the business world, screening future employees is more involved than simply trusting what comes out of potential recruits' mouths. We may look upon that as being fortunate or instead sad that a handshake and smile isn't enough. And nowadays, if we're the boss, we have to go one step further and even be aware of who's doing the screening and how they're conducting the screening.

So who is doing the screening? Do they have a vested interest in a particular outcome of an employee screen? On July 14th, 2009 a Greece, NY cop was arrested and accused of falsifying a background check. In this suburb of Rochester, this police sergeant is now facing criminal charges. Sgt. Robert P. Trowbridge's story was that he was told to do so by the now-suspended police chief. Apparently he falsified statements from other law enforcement officials which he included in a 2002 pre-employment screening package for former Greece officer Gary Pignato. Pignato is now in prison, convicted of coercing a woman into sex. Read the full story here: Suspended Greece cop accused of falsifying background check.

The solution to such a dilemma may be a more automated background check. Even if we've screened our screeners and we turn our employment screening system into an automated system -- a kind of self-service system where efficiency is the key -- we must still be cautious. Human resource personnel must merely input the order and await the results. If we lived in an ideal world, this would be the perfect set-up for background checks with the probability of human error or vested interests decreasing. However, mistakes can be made even with such a flawless, automated system. If we're concerned about our bank books and our time, these are some things to look out for when we're the inputting screeners.

Don't do searches on potential employees who've already been eliminated.
Check that there are no overlapping search orders.
Checks spelling typos for names and relevant information.
Make sure you've specified the correct State for criminal checks.

Mistakes such as these can be costly to your business. Human error is inevitable, but being aware of where the pitfalls may be even with the most efficient system is crucial. And finally, choose a screening service where the customer service is top-notch. You may need clarification with results or just help setting up the screening process. So all in all, it's still good to use gut-feelings when hiring or meeting new people, but toss in some practical and healthy skepticism and we may save ourselves some future grief.

Background Checks: What, Why & When?

noreply@blogger.com (Jaycee Fox) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:47:00 +0000

"We're an employer and we have a pretty good judge of character so why the need for a background check?" Let's go over the three basic questions: What, Why, & When to have a background check?

WHAT IS A BACKGROUND CHECK?
It's the process of investigating and compiling criminal records, financial records, and even driving records of an individual. They're usually requested by employers who are hiring potential candidates into positions of trust or high security. These places of employment can range from schools, to hospitals, to airports. It also enables the employer to authenticate the information provided by the individuals seeking a job. Background checks will add information where candidates may have omitted vital pieces, mistakenly or otherwise. Perhaps there are other states where a criminal history may be hiding or certifications that need to be verified. The results of such a check usually include credit report, criminal background, and a past employment history. Education history (which college/university attended, degrees awarded, dates of attendance, major area of study, etc) and professional licenses (state boards of accounting, law, medicine, securities divisions and the like for professional licenses as well as state contractors registries for the trades) can be and are reviewed.

WHY A BACKGROUND CHECK?
Employers use such a service in order to objectively evaluate a potential employee's hiring risk and their qualifications. A candidate's history will often predict their future behavior, which is all the more reason for a thorough pre-employment screening, including a background check and behavioral assessment. Liabilities from neglectful hiring practices also decreases when a meticulous screening process is put into place. Perhaps you’ve been running a company that's never performed background checks and yet you've been successful. It's a small company and you keep a close eye so you've postponed it. But now you're growing. It's never a brash move to be safe, but it is naivety to close your eyes to this potential risk. Statistics don't lie. Here are some noteworthy stats:

According to the American Management Association and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 30% of all failures in business are caused by employee theft. Take the case of a former school plant facilities supervisor for the Somerville Board of Education -- this New Jersey employee, Aufiero, pleaded guilty to official misconduct, identity theft and insurance fraud. Imagine discovering funds that you'd assumed went towards bleachers for your schools actually paid for your employee's personal kitchen cabinets and sink. Read the full story here: Misconduct Trial Of Former Somerville School Aide Charged in Thefts
34% of all application forms contain lies about education and experience as stated by the Wall Street Journal. Which means that on average 1 in every 3 job candidates will have made a material misstatement or omission about their past, skills, experience, or education. Usually something that would have affected the decision to hire them as an employee.
The cost for violence on-the-job? A whopping $36 billion every year, according to the workplace violence research institute.

WHEN SHOULD YOU PERFORM A BACKGROUND CHECK?
Obviously these should be done in the pre-screening (prior to employment) phase, however it doesn't mean the same background checks have to be performed on each employee. Candidates could be seeking different jobs with different duties, but make sure similar job descriptions undergo the same checks to avoid discrimination.

Evaluate your business goals and where you want to be headed. Remember a business is only as successful as its employees so a background check is a rudimentary basic that will set you in the right direction.

Embezzlement -- a Large and Growing Threat

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Thu, 21 May 2009 17:36:00 +0000

Embezzlement is the largest of all financial crimes. So large is the crime that embezzlement, according to the Information Security Media Group, outweighs all other forms of financial crime combined!

Not only do the financial consequences of embezzlement give us pause, but the rate of growth in this very popular crime is astounding. Difficult economic times seem to bring out the worst in some.

In a brief podcast entitled "Embezzlement: Find the Liars, Cheaters and Thieves", noted security pracitioner Dana Turner highlights some of the dangers companies now face.

With companies cutting costs and shedding payroll in order to stay competitive in the current economic climate, companies and ill-afford to become a victim of this pervasive crime which affects all industries. Companies simply must safeguard themselves against this crime as the consequences are too great to be ignored. Even in difficult times, the time and effort invested in doing thorough and rigorous background checks of prospective employees pays off handsomely. The return-on-investment is best measured in the form of crimes not committed and losses not suffered.

Volunteers and Background Checks - Again

noreply@blogger.com (J. Crismon) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:17:00 +0000

Providing background checks on individuals who volunteer, whether for school activities, sports programs, and so on is a topic that has longed been discussed. For some, justifying the cost of an individual background check seems too daunting, especially if they have many volunteers to screen. But imagine if your neglect because of price caused others to be harmed.

Recently, a high school volunteer coach was arrested for paying two students to have sex with him. The incidents happened on two different occasions. The girls were 15 and 17 years old and were not on the swim team for which this man volunteered. The man, Joseph Verrier started coaching for the school shortly before the school implemented a background check policy on volunteers and teachers so his background was never investigated prior to the incidents. Criminal searches conducted after Verrier's arrest found no criminal history, so he probably would have been accepted anyway. You can read the full story here.

More and more school districts, sports programs, etc. are starting to implement a background check policy, regardless of costs. Such a policy can greatly reduce the chances of hiring a potential risk or even a negligent hiring suit against your organization. The more thorough the screening process, the greater the reduction in risk.

As this man's example shows, not everyone that gets in trouble comes from a troubled past. A person with a squeaky clean past can change habits and attitudes in the blink of an eye for any number of reasons. This is where a solid background check combined with behavioral screening becomes most effective.

Aside from checking for criminal histories and verifying education and employment, a behavioral assessment test allows a greater insight into a person's propensity towards adverse behavior, such as theft, workplace violence, abuse of workers' compensation, substance abuse and lying, activities that may not have yet occurred. It won't reveal past behavior, but it may indicate that some adverse problems may be forthcoming. Being able to foresee possible danger ahead will certainly allow one to make decisions that will avoid the risks altogether.

But at the very least, every organization should implement a screening policy of some sort, and that is especially true when the nature of the business or program involves people under the age of 18. Would you rather your children went to a school that screened its teachers and volunteers, or one that did not? I know my answer.

Ice Cream Trucks and Background Checks

noreply@blogger.com (J. Crismon) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:05:00 +0000

As the summer and the heat approach, many of us turn to familiar sources for a cool refreshing treat; ice cream trucks. But, who's driving that truck, and should we trust our children to interact with them?

In Nashville, one news station is reporting that they are finding several convicted criminals, many with sex offense charges at the helm of these child magnets. In some cases, drivers have been dealing drugs or even involved in other violent behavior, such as drive-by-shootings. It seems strange to me that such an industry needs to be told to screen their employees. Much like a daycare provider, anybody coming into contact and dealing with children on a professional or volunteer basis should be screened for criminal histories, especially for sexual criminal activities.

I believe people can change. I also believe that we should give people a second chance, in most cases. People make mistakes. But not with these types of jobs. Let a convicted sexual offender who is genuinely reformed work in some industry where they will not be in contact with children, and where they can be easily supervised, whether it be manufacturing, construction or whatever. There are places for them. Just not around children.

This story just goes to show that you cannot underestimate the importance of a thorough background check. You have to do your due diligence. Not conducting a proper background check has the potential to put one's self and company at risk for a negligent hiring suit. And all of that is really secondary to the damage, whether physical or psychological, that may occur to some innocent young victim and their families.

Read the full news article here.

E-Verify Legislative Update: HR111-19

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:55:00 +0000

The Basic Pilot Program (as it was introduced in Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) has grown significantly and has come to be known more commonly as the E-Verify program.

A number of states presently require its use as does the federal government for federal contractors. A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives to make the E-Verify program permanent (presently it requires re-authorization) and make its use required in all states. The bill introduces a 7-year phase-in process for the program with entities employing 10,000 or more required to participate in year one. The successive years drop the threshold from 10,000 employees to 5,000/1,000/500/250/100/1. By the conclusion of year seven, all employers would be covered by the program.

The bill is presently referred to committee.

February 2009 Employment Outlook--Significantly Worse

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:24:00 +0000

Companies are shedding employees faster and faster in an effort to stay above water. The Conference Board just published last week its most recent analysis of the job market as measured by the volume of online help wanted ads (monster.com, hotjobs.com, careerbuilder.com, etc.)

The outlook is dark and darkening.

The number of new help wanted ads has steadily declined since May 2008, but the downturn became precipitous in November. December 2008 and January 2009 have continued the downward trend and steepened the slope.

The good news: There are *still* jobs out there. Many positions are waiting to be filled by excellent candidates.

The bad news: For every open position, there are now many more job seekers applying making it all the more difficult to secure a job in a market where there are fewer positions available.

Last week I was skiing in Utah and after a day on the slopes, I was relaxing in front of a warm fire with the TV on. It caught my attention when the local news station began to illustrate the job picture in terms few could misunderstand. The news piece centered on a local Deli (Moochies) owned and operated by a woman in the Salt Lake area. In her interview, the owner compared her experiences in filling a position for a sandwich maker. In the past, when she had posted an ad for the position, she would get 2-3 responses. Today she gets more than 200 (and as you might imagine, the position is not especially well-paid).

Times are tough for a great many these days and the job forecast is not very heartening. But, something worth remembering in both good times and bad is that economic cycles are just that, cycles. As surely as bad times follow good, so do good times follow the bad. So, hang in there.

North Dakota Bill for Background Checks

noreply@blogger.com (R. Baldwin) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:02:00 +0000

ND legislators are considering passing a bill that would require background checks to be done on all daycare workers.

For more details, click the link below.
http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=26554

New I-9 Form Update

noreply@blogger.com (R. Baldwin) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:50:00 +0000

The effective date of the new I-9 form has been delayed for 60 days, until April 3, 2009. It was originally scheduled to take effect on February 2.
For more details, click the link below.
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem...

New Legislation in New York

noreply@blogger.com (R. Baldwin) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:14:00 +0000

As of February 1, 2009 the State of New York has amended section 380 of its General Business Law.

-New York employers must provide Article 23-A to their applicants that are subject to a criminal background check. Employers must give this document to applicants before they order the criminal search from a background screening company and when they receive a background screening report that reflects a criminal record.

-New York employers must also post a copy of Article 23-A in a conspicuous place.

Click here for a copy of Article 23-A New York Correction Law
http://www.labor.state.ny.us/agencyinfo/PDFs/CorrectionLaw%20Article%2023-A%20_4_.pdf

New Form I-9

noreply@blogger.com (R. Baldwin) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:10:00 +0000

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services recently published an Interim Final Rule in the Federal Register that revises the Form I-9. The revised Form I-9 will become available for download from www.uscis.gov starting February 2, 2009. As of that date, all employers must use the new version of the Form I-9 for new hires.

E-Verify: Is It Working?

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:52:00 +0000

There has been significant discussion surrounding the efficacy of the I-9 verification process in general and the E-Verify program in particular. This program, like virtually every other government program, has its detractors who think the time, effort, and money are not well spent.

Eligible Workers Confirmed
One of the central questions is whether or not the system is working. Does it correctly identify when a person is not eligible to work in the US, and more important is the converse (does it correctly identify when a person is eligible). Let's look at the data and see what we find.

In the 2008 fiscal year (Federal fiscal year is October through September) which ended in June 2008; E-Verify that reported that of all of the verifications it processed, only 3.9% came back with an initial mismatch. This means that 96.1% were confirmed eligible either instantly or within 24 hours. This speaks well of a program that must search through 425 million records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and 80 million records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Accuracy of Non-Confirmations
The 3.9% of searches resulting in initial mismatches does not mean the worker is ineligible. It only means that E-Verify could not confirm. A good question to ask is how many of those initial mismatches were later confirmed? The answer, only 0.37% of searches resulting in an initial mismatch or non-confirmation were later confirmed (0.19% from SSA and 0.18% from DHS).

Does E-Verify Work?
The answer is a resounding "Yes". The E-Verify program is very successful at correctly identifying eligible (and ineligible) workers based upon the information supplied on Form I-9.

Source: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Employment Outlook for Q1 2009 Down 6 Percent

noreply@blogger.com (MGM) — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:36:00 +0000

has released the Q1 2009 Employment Outlook. There has been a significant drop in the outlook for the first quarter of 2009 dropping from a Q4 2008 outlook of 9% to a Q1 2009 outlook of 3%.

There is some good news however. The number of organizations expecting to decrease the size of their staff remains constant at 13%. The reduction in the outlook stems primarily from the drop in the number of organizations expecting to increase the size of their staff.

The number of organizations expecting to hold their staffing level steady in the 1st quarter jumped up from 59% to 67%.

What does it mean? Well, for the folks still gainfully employed, it generally means good news. Reductions in force are not expected to increase. For those looking for their next job, the news isn't as positive as noticeably fewer companies are expecting to grow their employee population.

Interestingly, it would appear that a significant number of companies have already performed their thinning of the ranks and are now adopting a wait-and-see approach as we prepare to enter the new year. Apparently these companies have gotten their costs in line with the lower expected revenues associated with the current economic downturn. They'll work on improving employee productivity as they grapple with addressing customers needs and maintaining activity in the product lines or service processes.

Still, with 16% of the companies surveyed expecting to increase their employee populations, and incrementally the normal backfilling of vacated positions, there will still be plenty of work to be done in the pre-employment background screening market during the coming quarter.