EmployeeScreenIQ Blog

The folks at Talent Management Magazine just published a position paper we wrote on the use of social networking sites to conduct employment background checks, entitled “Life is Not an Open (Face)book“.  I’ve posted an excerpt below.

Social networks and other online media offer a seemingly easy way to weed out poor candidates. But when brand image, legal liability and top talent are at stake, there is no substitute for solid employee screening practices.

It’s a hard reality every hiring manager these days knows well: More people are vying for fewer jobs. Applicants pad their resumes even during economic booms, so the temptation to embellish one’s experience, abilities and credentials — and downplay drug charges or other criminal history — is even greater now.

Background screening has never been more critical, but the methods used are particularly important in this digital age. Some screening methods could expose an organization to legal liability, lost business or brand damage.

Social Media: Screening Friend or Foe?

Back in the day, hiring managers checked applicant references, maybe even took the extra step to verify college degrees, and the rest was up to a background screening partner. But the advent of social media sites has opened the door to a whole new kind of applicant screening.

CareerBuilder publishes an annual study on social network use among recruiters. In 2008, 22 percent of hiring managers were looking on social media sites — including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter and blogs — as part of their research and screening efforts. In 2009, that number jumped to 45 percent. An additional 11 percent intended to start using social media sites for screening.

There are three challenges that arise from this trend.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Wall Street Journal Online had a nice piece this morning on how to hire qualified candidates.  In it, they talk specifically about the power of employment background investigations and how background checks can help when hiring.

Perform a background check. Preemployment checks can screen out applicants who may be unfit (or dangerous) for your workplace because of a criminal record. Some states may require that employers in certain industries— say, child care or health care— conduct background checks. A background check also can confirm the accuracy of information that the candidate provided on the application. While a background check isn’t necessary for all employees, it’s smart to conduct one on a job candidate who will have access to sensitive data or your company’s finances. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, which sets standards for employment screening, requires that you get consent from a potential employee before conducting a background check. Check the FTC’s website to make sure you are in compliance. Also, you don’t want to run afoul of state or federal laws concerning the kinds of information an employer uses to make employment decisions. If you do perform a background check, ask a business owner or your attorney for a referral to a reputable firm.

How to Avoid Hiring a Bad Egg

By COLLEEN DEBAISE

Adapted from THE WALL STREET JOURNAL COMPLETE SMALL BUSINESS GUIDEBOOK (Three Rivers Press).

As you begin recruiting and interviewing employees, you’ll obviously be drawn to certain candidates because of their experience, educational background and personality. While it’s easy to make a decision based on what you see in front of you, it’s wise to consider what may be hidden from view, too.

Small businesses, unfortunately, are particularly vulnerable to embezzlement and other kinds of employee theft because they lack the checks and balances of big corporations. 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. The most common schemes? Employees fraudulently writing company checks, skimming revenues and processing phony invoices.

More

Continue Reading

Well it’s been six months in the making and we’ve finally officially launched our redesigned EmployeeScreen University.

Because I’m lazy (hey it’s Friday), I’ll give you the high point of the improvements as told through our press release.

Originally launched in March, 2008, EmployeeScreen University is the first online educational resource for HR, security and risk-management professionals, featuring regularly updated, free background screening information aimed to help organizations make better hiring decisions.

“The site was already rich with our expert and guest articles, the EmployeeScreenIQ Blog, legislative updates and notifications of current court delays,” says Nick Fishman, EmployeeScreenIQ’s chief marketing officer and executive vice president. “Now we’ve added new features to the site that make it far more valuable to visitors, including user polls, Social Networking plug-ins, videos and podcasts. The end result is an enhanced user experience for our clients and the overall marketplace.”

The company has produced a new video that speaks to the exciting changes, which can be viewed at http://university.employeescreen.com.

“We introduced this concept to the screening industry in 2008 and it has been rewarding to see it grow,” said EmployeeScreenIQ president and chief operating officer, Jason B. Morris. “There is nothing out there like this, so this re-launch has been cool because we were competing with ourselves to see just how much we could innovate.”

Continue Reading

While not really news to us at this point, we’re seeing an emerging trend of job applicants with fake job references.  We highlighted this issue a few months ago, referring to organizations that will sell fake references as “Employment Mills“, the evil twin to Diploma Mills.  To review, an applicant can pay these fake references providers to confirm employment, salary, dates of employment, etc.

I found a great Q&A highlighting this problem in the Anchorage Daily News and not to be glib, but you know this problem is spreading when it is hitting all corners of the country.  A local management trainer was asked by a company who was taken to the cleaners by an employee what more they could have done to prevent the bad hire, particularly after they checked her stellar references.  See response below.

A. I’ve learned never to trust reference letters.

Some employers write honest recommendations. Others write falsely positive letters out of guilt or to stem potential problems from laid-off or terminated employees. Some conflict-averse employers take the easy road out when departing employees press for a glowing recommendation. Further, an astonishing number of applicants “borrow” company stationary and write their own letters.

If you want to hire a solid employee, you need to personally call each reference listed and then call references not provided you by the applicant. In this Internet-accessible age, you can search for a former supervisor by name even when the company has dissolved or the supervisor has left the company. While we urge our clients to conduct background checks to uncover criminal and civil legal problems and phony educational histories, background checks don’t replace personal reference calls.

After hearing your story, I did an Internet search for phony references and foundCareerExcuse.com, one of several newly birthed Internet sites offering fake work histories and references. These services provide job applicants hard-to-see-through fake references from live receptionists.

Those using CareerExcuse.com can develop a completely fake yet validated resume with prompts such as “choose your career history”; “pick your start and end date”; “get rid of” a 3-year resume gap” and “choose your salary.” According to the site, it provides “a real company with a real address and a real 800 number” with “operators standing by” to field prospective employer calls. The site’s home page claims “bankrupt companies make a great previous employer” and offers that their “management company” has “dozens of bankrupt companies …ready to provide any inquirer your desired reference information.”

How can employers defend against resume and reference fraud? — by making extensive reference checking calls and exploring all danger signals before and after hire.

For example, your applicant badmouthed her most recent employer and then asked you not to contact him. By complying, you missed the other side of the story. Was it only bad luck that your applicant worked for three companies that bankrupted? Did she potentially speed these companies on their downward spiral with costs from a business manager who used antiquated work methods and piled up a fat overtime expense? And if you make a mistake — admit it.

Continue Reading

It is indeed a rare day when I will applaud legislation that aims to restrict those who provide employment background checks. We’ve just learned that the California legislature has introducedSenate Bill 909 which would mandate that a background screener “that prepares or processes in any manner an investigative consumer report, or portion thereof, outside of the United States or its territories to make specified disclosures to the potential user of this information, including, but not limited to, the country or countries where the report, or portion thereof, will be prepared or processed. The bill would also prohibit an investigative consumer reporting agency from transmitting a consumer’s social security number, except for the last 4 digits, outside of the United States or its territories.”

I support this bill because as an industry, we have an obligation to protect both our clients and their employees, and or prospective employees.  Identity theft is rampant in our society today and we all strive to ensure that the personal information that is provided to us in order to conduct a background check is held in the strictest of confidence.

There are some in our industry that choose to off-shore this information because let’s face it, it’s cheaper than paying someone to do it stateside.  Of course, once the information leaves the direct control of the screening company, what could happen next is anyone’s guess.

This law would obligate companies that off-shore this information to disclose that fact.  According to the bill, it would also, ”prohibit an investigative consumer reporting agency from transmitting a consumer’s social security number, except for the last 4 digits, outside of the United States or its territories. The bill would require these agencies to adopt and publish a privacy policy relating to information contained in reports that are prepared or processed outside of the United States, as specified. The bill would provide that an investigative consumer reporting agency is liable to a consumer who is harmed by any act or omission that occurs outside the United States or its territories, as specified.

Lastly, it is important to note that this bill exempts these requirements for those conducting background checks on individuals that live outside of the United States.

This bill is a win/win for employers and consumers.  We know that this effort will not be popular with those in our industry engaged in this practice, but it is efforts like these that will ultimately benefit the industry at-large.  We hope that it passes and would like to see similar legislation on a federal level.

Read the California SB909

Continue Reading

It’s no secret to anyone that knows me that I am a huge (understatement) classic rock fan.  Its also no secret that I also happen to be a huge football fan.  So this week my excitement is doubled because not only do we have the Super Bowl XLIV on Sunday but the classic rock band, The Who will be performing at half time.

We have written some ‘cute’ stories in the past linking well known celebrities and athletes to background checks.  NFL players make a writers job so easy because the criminal charges are endless.  I need something new…….new inspiration for a great story about background screening and the Super Bowl. Bam, it hits me, Pete Townsend is a sex offender.

Classic rock is not without its indiscretions.  From Janis Joplin, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Grateful Dead, Phish, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix.  (Note: If you have not heard of the aforementioned bands I don’t even want to know you) You would be hard pressed to find a classic rock band that didn’t have a run in or two with the law.  However, most of these arrests were due to drug use and/or possession.  Some would argue that their drug use made their music what it was.  Few of these come close to Guitarist Pete Townshend’s 2003 arrest for accessing child pornography.   Child abuse advocacy groups are up in arms about the NFL allowing Townshend and The Who to perform at this year’s game.  The NFL is well known for their background checks and tolerance of certain offenses. Did they think about this when asking The Who to perform?

Pete Townshend’s Sex Offender Past Threatens Super Bowl Gig

The Who are scheduled to play during the half-time show at the Super Bowl in Miami, but child abuse advocacy groups are urging the NFL to drop the act because of an incident in guitarist Pete Townshend’s past.

Townshend was arrested in 2003 for accessing child pornography online several years before. He pled guilty, claiming he was doing research for his autobiography and revisiting memories of childhood sex abuse, and was not charged. Still his name remained in the UK’s sex offender registry for five years.

Now 1500 of these fliers have been distributed to homes and schools in the Miami area.

More

Continue Reading

I’ve recently realized that over the past several years we’ve spent a lot of time discussing and analyzing the latest background screening trends and stories of the day.  We’ve kind of gotten away from the basics and so I thought we could dedicate some time to freshening up some of the old issues in a way that applies to today’s human resource environment.

We just published an article entitled “Applicant Release Form (Consumer Authorization): Back to Basics Series” on EmployeeScreen University and encourage you to read it.  See excerpt below.

It might seem like a no-brainer these days that employers are mandated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to obtain an applicant’s written consent to conduct an employment background check.  And by and large we find that most employers are aware of this.  But have you taken a look at your release lately and wondered if the form that was created for you 10 years ago is still working for your organization?

Defining the Scope

The applicant release is designed to notify your candidate that you and, or your background screening provider will be performing a background check to determine if they are eligible for hire.  The release should include the scope of the search.  Most companies opt for a more generic scope, while others will specifically detail exactly what will be searched.  An example of a generic scope would be the following:

You may be the subject of a “consumer report” and/or an “investigative consumer report” which may include information about your character, general reputation, personal characteristics, driving record, and/or mode of living, and which can involve personal interviews with sources such as your current and past employers, friends, or associates.

Now, upon consent you as the employer may not choose to exercise your right to request all of the information detailed above, but the fact that you have included it allows you to do so if you deem it appropriate or germane to the candidate.

Other companies choose to include specific language about what will be checked which is fine, however unless they modify the language, the scope of their search should never include other information.

What if I want to Re-Screen the Candidate or Conduct Another Check Throughout Their Employment?

If you want to avail yourself of this option, and most companies do, you must include it in the applicant release.  Otherwise, you’ll have to get a new consent form each time you want to run a background check.  This can be pretty awkward with existing employees, particularly if you want to conduct the check because you have reason to believe there might be some adverse information out there.  An example of language that allows for this is below.  Once you have the authorization signed, just rinse, lather and repeat.

These reports may be obtained at any time after receipt of your authorization and, if you are hired, throughout your employment.

Notifying Applicants of Their Rights

Of course protecting ourselves by protecting our applicants is in everyone’s best interest.  A good release will ask the candidate to acknowledge that they have received a notice that a background check will be conducted (aka the release you are asking them to sign).  And if you plan to utilize employment and, or education verifications and, or reference interviews (these services are part of what is referred to as an “Investigative Consumer Report”), you should also provide them with a copy of a document called “A Summary of Your Rights Under the FCRA” and have them acknowledge receipt as part of your release.  Even if you do not choose to conduct an Investigative Consumer Report, it might make sense to include the language and give them the notice, just in case your policies ever change.  Again, this will save you from having to obtain a new release if you choose to utilize these services at a later date and time.

Read More

Continue Reading

Bankrate.com has published a great article entitled “3 Dangers of Social Networking” where they highlight three key areas that the information you post on sites such as Facebook and Twitter can cause problems.

• Employment
• Debt Collection
• Scams

Since we most frequently focus on employment, I’ve included that section below.  But, check out the article when you get a chance.  There’s a lot of good advice in here.

Employment

Andy Beal, CEO of the social media monitoring platform Trackur.com, says jobseekers should assume potential employers will do a Google search of candidates’ names. Social media profiles typically appear near the top of the search page.

If you have questionable pictures or posts on a public profile, take them down or make the profile private to avoid trouble.

Also, steer clear of negative talk about a prospective employer on any social media platform, Beal says. Many companies monitor mentions of their brand throughout the Web, he says.

He cites the case of a Twitter user who posted about a new job offer from Cisco, but expressed doubt about “the daily commute” and “hating the work.” A Cisco employee noticed the tweet and demanded to know the name of the user’s hiring manager.

Even employees who think their jobs are safe can sabotage themselves by being too honest online about their personal lives, or by posting feelings regarding a boss, client, co-worker or company for whom they work.

“We’ve seen a lot of cases of people publishing status updates that have gotten them in trouble,” says Justin Smith, founder and editor in chief of Inside Facebook. ”People have said things that have caused problems with their boss because of what they said about their work or because they’ve shared some other kind of private information about work online.”

Caroline McCarthy, a staff writer at CNET News, says the best defense against such mistakes is to use plain old common sense. Remember, anything that appears on the Web is just a screenshot away from spreading quickly, despite the best efforts of social media users to keep it private.

Continue Reading

Will they even run background checks? No comment on this story, discuss amongst yourselves!

Ex-Convicts in District Flock to Apply for Census Jobs

The word had spread, in churches and parole offices and halfway houses. The federal government is hiring for the 2010 Census, and tests for applicants were being given in a District neighborhood where unemployment is rampant.

Hundreds of men and women began lining up on the sidewalks outside Allen Chapel AME Church in Southeast Washington two hours before the doors opened one day last week. Most have criminal records involving drugs, stolen cars, burglary and the like. But they’d been told that the census would consider hiring them anyway, if not as census takers then as clerks.

Most of those bundled against the chill of a January morning were in their 40s and 50s. They said they just want to find work and get on with their lives. Some have been out of prison and job-hunting for years, some for months. All are familiar with the change in an interviewer’s eyes when they acknowledge that they have a record, and they leave knowing a follow-up call will never come.

“Imagine being 51 years old, with no marketable skills, an ex-felon and you’re black, and trying to get a job,” John Murphy said as he waited to take a census test. A barber before his 1999 burglary conviction, Murphy has secured only menial jobs since getting out of prison in 2006.

More

Continue Reading

I really didn’t mean for this title to rhyme, sorry!   Two great articles caught my attention this morning on resume lies!  One will really make job seekers sweat because in the end the employee had to pay wages back to his employer.  The other captures the essence of one of my favorite books; Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt.  The themes in both are the same, a lot of people lie on their resumes, many get caught and the penalty could be huge.  Here is a wake-up call folks, a thorough background check is going to be done and your misdeeds will be uncovered!

First we have a “Doctor” who misrepresented himself to have not only a PhD but also a BSc and MSc. Are you kidding me? Didn’t he read our white paper on diploma mills and resume lies? Insead of lying at least he could have done a better job and bought a fake degree on the internet!!

“Doctor” Richard Clark applied to join Coopers Lybrand’s consulting practice in Ottawa to head its management section. Coopers required professionals to have university degrees. In a resume provided to the firm and later sent out to potential clients, Clark purported to hold a BSc, MSc and PhD.

Two years later, Coopers Lybrand learned he held none of these degrees and immediately fired him. He sued for wrongful dismissal. Not only did he lose the case, which proceeded to the Ontario Court of Appeal, but he had to reimburse the firm $47,000 for lost work when clients discovered Clark was not who he said he was.

More

The second story kicks off with another war story.  Again, her employer began to do a bit of due-diligence and found out she had lied on her resume.

When a woman we’ll call Mary was offered a high-level student-services position at a prestigious college, she was thrilled to accept. But two years later, Mary was fired despite strong performance reviews and a reputation as a rising star at the college. The reason? She lied on her resume – and got caught.

An HR initiative requiring employees to furnish college transcripts revealed Mary lied about having a master’s degree. It wasn’t the lack of a degree that cost Mary her job; it was her dishonesty. Unemployed and with a blown reference to boot, Mary demonstrates what can happen when you lie on your resume.

In this article they use a lot of refernces to the book Freakonomics.  In it Levitt talks about how widespread resume lies are.  Levitt also refers to the W.C. Fields quote “Anything worth winning is worth cheating for.”

His examples and correlations couldn’t be more accurate.  In fact, as you will see below, his hypothesis on how many people lie is pretty accurate.  Maybe Steven Levitt has read our various studies on how many people lie on their resumes!

“The best lies will be those that mirror reality,” Levitt says. “My hunch is that the reputed 50 percent of resume cheaters are mostly making little cheats here and there, for instance, to cover up times when they were out of the labor force for six months.”

And what about the damage cheaters do to themselves? “Even if you are never caught, you will have to live in constant fear that someday you will be caught and punished and with the guilt of knowing what you did was wrong,” Levitt warns.

More

Continue Reading