EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

I am a little late to the game with this one as I have been attending the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) Conference in San Antonio, Texas.  Workplace violence issues have been on the rise in 2009 and 2010.  In the last two months alone, we have had two involving college campuses in the United States.  Of course being from Ohio this one hits closer to home than any of them.  It appears Nathaniel Brown opened fire on some of his co-workers the other day at The Ohio State University.  Brown had a poor performance review which lead to him shoot two supervisors killing one, then himself.

Records also show Brown served about five years in prison on a charge of receiving stolen property. He lied about his criminal history on his job application, and it wasn’t clear whether Ohio State had completed a background check.

According to other reports he was a threat at his last job as well.  Background checks are important for 100% of your staff.  Not only does it create a workplace filled with qualified employees, it protects them!  There is no silver bullet that will prevent workplace violence (see our white paper from last month), but in this case I believe a quality background check would have prevented this!  If his past conviction didn’t disqualify him, his obvious recklessness at his past employer might have! A simple check of his past references could have saved lives!

Former Co-Worker Says OSU Gunman Threatened Him

COLUMBUS, Ohio — While Nathaniel Brown’s neighbors said they never imagined he was capable of opening fire on his co-workers, a man who used to work with him at a Columbus car dealership said otherwise on Tuesday.

The man, who asked not to be identified, said he feared Brown would do something violent years earlier, 10TV’s Kevin Landers reported.

“He was the type of person that everyone in our dealership tried to stay away from,” the man said.

He said Brown threatened to kill him and two others at the dealership before he was let go in 2004.

On Tuesday, after Brown was identified as the gunman who shot two employees at Ohio State, his former co-worker said he was not surprised.

“When I heard Nathaniel Brown, I looked over to my mother and said, ‘He’s finally killed someone,’” he said.

Records obtained by 10TV showed that Brown was sentenced to prison from 1979 to 1984 for receiving stolen property. He was hired as a custodian at Ohio State in October 2009.

It was not clear if Ohio State was required to conduct a criminal background check on Brown, but on his application for employment, Brown checked a box that said he had never been convicted of a felony, Landers reported.

More

Continue Reading

I think this chart helps to explain the explosion of and prevalence of diploma mills and other misrepresentations of academic credentials.  In 2010, those without a high school degree are nearly four times more likely to be unemployed than those with a bachelor’s degree or higher.  Those with a high school diploma, but no college experience are twice as likely to be unemployed than their counterparts with college degrees.  And even those with some college experience, but no degree are nearly 38% more likely to be unemployed.

Remember, the best way to determine the authenticity of ones’ claimed academic qualifications is to conduct an education verification as part of your employment background screening program.

Continue Reading

This story out of the Palm Beach Post caught my eye because it involves so many warning signs that an employer missed or failed to follow up on and ultimately resulted in disaster.  Erika Morales showed up for her first day of work at a medical supply company with an electronic monitoring device courtesy of Palm Beach county.  When asked, she said that she needed to resolve a domestic issue.  The employer never followed up.  Ms. Morales was given access to the personal information of hundreds of clients and in turn used that information to commit identity theft and steal from them.

She is now in jail and charged with 25 counts of identity theft.  See story.

Here’s what we learned in the wash.  The employer says that they conducted an employment background check.  Of course the first signal that perhaps the check was flawed would have been the lovely jewelry she wore around her ankle.  Here’s what they missed:

• If they would have conducted employment verifications or professional reference interviews they could have known this from her past employers:
  • • Walmart: stole two $500 gift cards.
    • Yellow Cab: stole more than $4,000 by logging phony trips and running customers’ credit cards more than once.
    • Kauff’s Towing: stole about $2,500. Prosecutors declined to prosecute.
• If the would have run a credit report, they would have seen that she had over $78,000 of liens and judgments against her.
• And then to 6 arrests for fraud and a two year stint in prison that might have been revealed if a proper criminal background check was completed

Who know how much this will cost her employer or how badly their reputation has been damaged.  It could have been avoided with an inexpensive, but thorough employment background check.

Continue Reading

Congrats to our good friends and strategic partners at iCIMS, an global leader in talent management software!  And true to form, they are celebrating this occasion in grand style.  See below.

P.S. I don’t know if this will encourage attendance or not, but I plan to be at the Chicago event.

iCIMS is kicking off 2010 with a celebration to shout about: Happy 10th Anniversary, iCIMS!

Incorporated in 2000, iCIMS marks its 10th year in business with a tour around the nation starting April 8th in New York City. The celebration will give all attendees the opportunity to meet the iCIMS family and network with other HR professionals to learn the latest in HR technology solutions. The company will visit 8 cities in total. Click on the city name to register for an event near you or check out the iCIMS 10th Anniversary site!

So, why the party?

First, let’s take a little trip back in time…

Built from the ground up, iCIMS offered the world a new way to approach the HR function. Fast, flexible, web-based talent management software to facilitate human resource departments worldwide. Within the first year, iCIMS was already experiencing rapid growth, but this was only a sliver of the success about to come. Throughout the next ten years, iCIMS became a major player and strong international presence in the Software-as-a-Service Industry. Its client base rose rapidly to over 800 clients and offices were opened throughout North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific.

So again, why the celebration?

This anniversary tour celebrates iCIMS’ rise to excellence, from its extraordinary 963% organic growth rate to its unwavering commitment to improve the HR technology world. Additionally, and maybe most importantly, iCIMS is celebrating those who have helped them achieve such phenomenal success: Clients and Partners! iCIMS’ 800 clients have contributed to the Company’s success with their year-after-year renewals. And, partners, such as EmployeeScreenIQ, have assisted iCIMS in their indirect growth initiatives allowing them to expand even further into areas never ventured before.  A big THANK YOU to all for your continued support of the iCIMS Talent Platform!

This has been a momentous decade for iCIMS, full of growth and expansion. The iCIMS team expects even greater success to come in 2010 and beyond. Join us in celebrating ten years of excellence and register for an event near you!

Continue Reading

I feel like I write the following statement (or similar sentiments) a lot when talking about about the prospect of hiring those with criminal records, particularly those with felony convictions, here I go again.

True, some convictions prevent individuals from working in certain positions.  True, some of the most heinous offenders are unemployable.  True, those who hide or lie about their past are of concern to prospective employers.  True, people can successfully rehabilitate.  True, it is not the job of background screeners to prevent people from getting jobs.  We simply report the information that we find and let employers make informed hiring decisions.

Why the soliloquy? CNN just reported about a job fair for convicted felons in Houston and I find myself applauding the efforts of the organizers and for the 3,000 people who attended in search of gainful employment.  People often question how we can get behind efforts like this and I go into the rationale I conveyed above.  Criminal recidivism rates are a serious societal problem.  They soar when those released from prison can’t find jobs.  Therefore, when those with criminal records are honest about their past, vow not to repeat their mistakes and decide to get a job, I’m all for it.  BTW, even employers that knowingly hire convicted felons should still conduct employment background checks.

People Line Up at Job Fair for Convicted Felons

(CNN) — More than 3,000 people turned out in downtown Houston, Texas, Wednesday for a job fair designed for convicted felons.

Organizers of the Road to Re-entry Employment Fair, created to help those with criminal records find work and reintegrate into society, had expected a few hundred job people. The line of job seekers, which ran for a few blocks and tied up traffic, as reported by CNN affiliate KHOU, took the planners by surprise.

“These were not individuals trying to get concert tickets or a free dinner,” said Jarvis Johnson, a Houston City Council member who helped sponsor the inaugural event. “They were individuals who were waiting in line because they want to be productive members of society.”

Lavell Byrd was just one of the people who came out in search of work. He told KHOU that he hadn’t had a full-time position since December.

“I’m an ex-con, and that’s the main thing that’s holding me back,” Byrd said to KHOU. “It’s a very, very, very hard thing that people still look at what you did in the past and not what you can do in the future.”

Giving people like Byrd a chance to succeed and be a productive part of the work force is in the interest of all of us, said council member Johnson. If ex-criminals can’t findjobs, they’re more likely to land back in prison, he said.

“They made a mistake, but they’ve paid their debt to society,” he said. “At the end of the day, we are all going to pay if we don’t open the doors of opportunity — whether we become the victims [of future crimes] or we have to use our tax dollars to imprison them.”

And according to the Road to Re-Entry Web site, there are incentives in place to make hiring ex-offenders more appealing to employers. For one, the Federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit gives tax credits to those who open their doors to those with criminal records.

More

Continue Reading

While we respect and admire Workforce Management, we were troubled by the article, “Burden of Proof,” which was part of a special report on Background Checking (February 2010 issue).  Having been quoted in this article, I was disappointed that my quotes, and those of one of my colleagues, were presented out of context.   The author attempts to make a correlation between the lack of empirical data on the ROI of background screening and the benefits of doing so for employers.   The fact is our industry trade group, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), has not conducted such studies.  However, the author fails to mention that such studies do exist outside of the trade group.

Additionally, some important points and studies on background screening were left out. For instance:

• One report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners found that the median loss for small firms with fewer than one hundred employees was $190,000. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704533204575047594152725262.html?mod=WSJ_Technology_RIGHTBottomSBHeadLines)
• The Society for Human Resource Management says that 70% of all job applications provide information that is not fully accurate. (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/11/13/just-say-no-employers-wisening-up-to-resume-padding/)
• The average jury award for negligent hiring against a company was $870,390 in 2000, according to Barry J. Nadell, former president of InfoLink Screening Services, in Chatsworth, California.

Probably more than anything, the ROI comes from bad press. Consider the following:

• The news that a Radio Shack chief executive falsified his diploma, causing their stock to tumble drastically.
• Last week’s revelation that at least 10 senior executives and directors at publicly-traded companies had corporate biographies claiming unearned academic credentials.

Background screening is one of the most important aspects of the hiring process; in fact, Workforce Management has published many articles over the years citing similar stats, studies and horror stories.

While I agree that the EEOC does have several initiatives to curb some background screening practices, it’s a far stretch to say the burden of proof will be on employers.  Admittedly, some companies are performing screening in a less than desirable manner.  However, NAPBS members have worked hard to separate themselves from these types of companies.  If background screening is done properly, it finds the right jobs for the right people.  If the selection of employees is done properly and no discriminatory hiring practices are utilized, the EEOC finds no cause for action.  Consider that fact that the largest user of background screening services in the world is the U.S. Government and their contractors!

Jason B Morris, President

EmployeeScreenIQ

Past Co-Chairman NAPBS

Continue Reading

We are intrigued by how quickly and stealthly (word? we’ll add that to the “Nicktionary”) the March 1st deadline for complying with the new Massachusetts Data Security Regulations came and went.  We also think that there isn’t a whole lot of information out there about exactly who this affects and how they can comply; not even from the state’s attorney general.  So we sought the expert advice of Massachusetts attorney Michael S. Kraft to help educate us.  Check out our podcast below which highlights what the regulations entail, who they affect and how companies can get in compliance.  While the regulations are fairly sweeping and apply to more than just human resource practices, we focused on the personal data employers receive from job applicants and their employment applications and background check releases.

Also, Michael offered the following compliance checklist for employers:

• Develop a written information security plan (WISP);
• Identify all foreseeable risks in your organization by examining every nook and cranny where data enters, leaves or is stored;
• Implement security policies and procedures and train your employees
• Secure all paper and electronic records; provide encryption
• Obtain written assurances from all vendors that they are compliant
• Regularly monitor and review to insure compliance

Continue Reading

Many states are considering legislation to restrict or ban employers’ use of employment credit reports in the hiring process.  Credit reports are a valuable tool in the employment screening process and we’ve been vocal in our opposition to such legislation.  I found a great editorial piece on this issue in the Herald-Review (a downstate Illinois publication) and I could have said it better myself.  See below.

There are two reasons why this sort of legislation is a bad idea.

First, it puts more government regulations between an employee and an employer. Except in cases to ensure fair hiring practices, government should not be involved in how companies hire employees. Employers need to maintain the ability to hire people the way they want to hire. One way of screening applicants is to find out about their background, and their credit history is a part of that background. That’s a tool that should not be taken away by government.

More importantly, the pre-employment credit checks actually protect consumers. Money stolen from companies eventually is paid by the consumers.

Plus, do consumers really want to show their credit card to a cashier who has a gambling or substance abuse problem? Do consumers want to give personal information to a professional who is facing a mountain of debt and looking for some quick income? Do employees want the new local store manager to be someone who has repeatedly declared bankruptcy?

Banning credit checks is a popular idea, but few people are considering its overall impact. Businesses need to run these sorts of checks to protect themselves and the consumer.

More

Continue Reading

There have been a few studies conducted in the United States covering recidivism rates of offenders and ex-convicts. Anything above .0001% is virtually why the employment screening industry even exists. We have written in the past about our own domestic recidivism rates but have yet to post anything outside the US. I found this article discussing these staggering rates in Canada. The Winnipeg Sun is reporting that the re-offending rate in some cases is as high as 100%. The article throws out some incredible, almost unbelievable numbers about recidivism. The author summarizes by saying if Manitoba’s corrections branch is to rehabilitate criminals, they’re not doing a very good job! Do you do background checks on your Canadian applicants? I hope so!!

Re-offending rates are staggering

If the main objective of Manitoba’s Corrections branch is to rehabilitate criminals, they’re not doing a very good job.

At least according to their own numbers released by the Opposition Tories Tuesday, which show the rate of re-offending in some cases is as high as 100% for young criminals.

The most recent data from the last three months of 2007 shows 75% of adult inmates released from provincial jails were charged with another offence within two years of completing their sentence.

The numbers include charges for new offences and for breaching conditions of release.

It’s an astonishingly high number and it confirms what many of us have observed anecdotally for years — our courts/corrections system has evolved into a revolving door of justice where criminals re-offend over and over again.

The 75% recidivism rate for the last quarter of 2007 is the highest in at least five years, according to the data. Which means the problem is getting worse, not better.

The recidivism rates for young offenders during the same period are even more staggering.

In the three-month period from April to June 2006, 100% of young offenders released from youth custody were charged with another offence within two years.

That means every young offender in Manitoba who completed a youth jail sentence between April 1 and June 30 that year was charged with another offence within the following two years.

That’s an incredible statistic and a glaring example of what a massive failure our justice system is.

What’s equally startling is not once has the recidivism rate for young offenders in custody dropped below 75% since 2002.

Most quarters it ranged between 80%-95%. It’s a horrible record.

The stated objective of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is to rehabilitate young criminals and help them transform their lives.

It’s obviously not working. Even in deferred custody cases — where young offenders serve their sentences in the community with conditions — the recidivism rate is as high as 85%-90%.

There are obviously no easy solutions to bring down recidivism rates for adults and young offenders. But whatever our courts and jails are doing now is not working.

More

Continue Reading

Jason Morris and I recently sat down with HRMarketer’s Elrond Lawrence for a podcast to discuss our white paper, Recruiting with Social Networking Sites: What You DO Know Can Hurt You.  Elrond asked some great questions that really shed light on the legalities involved, some horror stories and what employers need to know if they are considering the use of these site as part of the employment and background screening process.

Check out the podcast below and don’t forget to download this free white paper by clicking here.

Continue Reading