by Nick Fishman

You might recall a couple recent posts where I respectfully disagreed with Ohio State Senator Shirley Smith’s proposed legislation that would allow some serious felonies convictions to be expunged from individual’s records. This was Senator Smith’s way of addressing the issue of those with convictions being excluded from jobs and the increase in recidivism rates when employment cannot be found.

That is a serious issue and one that deserves proper consideration. However, as I said before, inhibiting potential employers’ ability to make an informed decision is no way to address this problem. If such a measure was adopted, an employer that conducts background checks wouldn’t see the expunged conviction.

I was scheduled to meet with Ohio State Senator Lance Mason last week to discuss our concerns about this bill last week and I was looking forward to blogging about some of the ideas I had already discussed with his staffers. Unfortunately, Senator Mason had to cancel the meeting (it was for a very good personal reason). We are going to reschedule, but rather than wait for the meeting, I thought it would be nice to share one of Senator Mason’s remedies to this problem as relayed through his staffers.

Senator Mason believes that one such way to remedy the issue of re-entry into the workforce is to introduce tax credits to those that hire former convicts. I happen to believe that this idea has merit and am impressed with his ability to introduce a solution that serves all interests. I don’t know how it would be paid for, but in concept it doesn’t punish employers by keeping them in the dark about the people it hires and creates a way to get those who wish to enter the workforce after a criminal conviction to do so without having to lie on job applications or be fearful that past transgressions will automatically eliminate them from all employment opportunities.

This effort by Senator Smith is one we commonly see duplicated throughout the country. And in most cases, the intention is to make sure former convicts have a fair chance at assimilating back into their communities and can become productive memebers of society. These are honorable intentions. However, the ideas that Senator Mason has seem to strike a delicate balance of serving all parties involved.

by Nick Fishman

So three of my esteemed colleagues emailed me this story which was published in Ohio State’s student newspaper which reveals that three graduate students were admitted to the school with even though they were registered sex offenders. At the time of admission the school did not ask those that applied to enroll at the university if they had been convicted of a felony “in the past several years” as it now does.

Each person who emailed me the story wondered whether I would fry my own Alma Mater for this lapse in security the way that I have other academic institutions (see previous blog posts)over the past several months. The answer is yes and no.

One of these grad students was a teaching assistant who worked directly with students. Therefore, I’m towing the line on this one. There is no excuse whatsoever for a university not to conduct a background check at least on those that are charged with the education of its students. Furthermore, the school doesn’t claim that the loop hole has been closed by now requiring background checks. It says that it closed the loophole by asking if they had been convicted of a felony. Are you joking me? How many of those with felonies are going to answer honestly? There is no excuse for not requiring a background check.

I don’t know what to make of the remaining grad students who were characterized as “research associates” and didn’t have any supervision over others. I guess that falls into my next opinion or lack thereof about the next topic that arises from this article: Should schools conduct background checks on students? This question is being contemplated in many circles now and could be an emerging trend in the near future.

I’m sure most would expect me to immediately say “yes” to that question since I am in the business of providing background checks. I can see how knowing of particular offenses would cause a university to question a prospective student’s suitibility for enrollment. Let’s look at a couple of things. Most undergrads that enroll are 18 or under. What would a background check reveal? I know juvenile records cannot be used for employment, so I would assume that couldn’t be used for this purpose either. Next, what type of offense would constitute being denied admission and how can it be applied consistently? Until I get a clearer understanding of how a background check would be executed, what sources would be utilized and how decisions are made, I’m staying on the fence.

Next question. Should grad students be treated differently than their undergraduate counterparts? Maybe. Certainly if they are teaching other students. Even if they are not, grad students are typically older than undergraduates and arguably have higher standards for admission. The older part helps as far as providing a bigger picture for potential criminal records.

Since I have copped out a bit on this issue by not taking a side, I would like to invite your opinion or expertise on this subject. What do you think? And by the way, no comments about our heartbreaking loss to the Illini last weekend. We’ll bounce back against the enemy to the North this Saturday.

by Kevin Bachman

by Nick Fishman

Well, it certainly took them long enough to catch up to the rest of the country, but we are finally seeing some positive trends when it come to higher education institutions and background checks. I found this great article, Checking Up on Your Past on insidehighered.com (I’m sure today’s college students get a kick out of the name of this on-line publication).

The article focuses on last week’s annual meeting of the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (who knew there was such a thing? but I bet you background screeners will be flocking to it from now on). Evidently, the topic of background checks was all the rage. Noteworthy in this article is a study conducted by Stephanie Hughes, an assistant professor of management at Northern Kentucky University on the use of background checks among universities. See a snapshot of results below.

- 13% of university’s polled never engage in criminal background checks
- 87% perform checks for some staff positions
- 40% screen for some faculty positions
- 26% conduct checks on some student workers

These are good stats, but a little misleading since “The way the survey was phrased, a “Yes” answer meant only that in some cases, a person in that category would be subject to a background check. That means that a college that would investigate a potential professor being hired in a field where security clearances are necessary or for work with young children would have answered Yes even if the vast majority of professorial hires are never subjected to a criminal background check.”

Good article and even better trend nonetheless.

by Nick Fishman

All U.S. Courts are closed today in observance of Veteran’s’ Day. This means that criminal court record searches will not be processed today. But fear not, the they will reopen tomorrow and court business will continue as usual.

Today would be a nice day to thank anyone you see who has served in our military, past or present. Regardless of how you feel about current events, these are the people who have and will continue to protect us and allow all of us to live in a free society.

by Nick Fishman

We’ve been following a case in the 9th Court of Appeals that is noteworthy for our industry and those that conduct background checks. The case, Dennis v. BEH-1 and Experian Information Solutions involves an individual who requested a copy of his credit report. The results indicated that there was a judgment against him in a civil case. In fact, Mr. Dennis was ordered to pay his landlord $1,959. However, at the time of judgment he entered into a stipulation that allowed for a “no judgment” so long as he made payments on the debt that triggered the litigation. Mr. Dennis did in fact make proper restitution so he disputed the results with Experian stating that that because he made the payments, the case shouldn’t be considered a judgment against him.

Experian sent a researcher into the court again to verify the results. The researcher came back and confirmed the original findings. Case ends here, right? Wrong!

Mr. Dennis filed suit against Experian for failing to correct the report and a court ruled in favor of Experian saying that Experian couldn’t be held accountable for the public record. Mr. Dennis then filed an appeal and here’s where things get interesting. Evidently, if the researcher would have looked at the case file, they would have seen the order about the stipulation. Taking this into account, the appellate court reversed field and ruled that Experian failed to “maintain reasonable procedures” to ensure the accuracy of its reports.

It wasn’t the initial findings of Experian that led to this decision. It was their failure to look deeper once the consumer disputed the findings and disclosed the stipulation.

What does this mean? This means that Consumer Reporting Agencies better take seriously their obligation to ensure the accuracy of the public information it reports. This has always been a hallmark of our service and we have always maintained procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information we provide to our clients. That doesn’t mean that information can’t be flawed when it is first reported. However, that’s why you have convictions reviewed for accuracy before you report them. But even that isn’t a guarantee 100% of the time. And when an applicant disputes the findings, you better make sure to follow up properly and responsibly.

by Nick Fishman

On Wednesday November 7th, US Citizen and Immigration Services released a revised Employment Eligibility I-9 form to be used by employers. All U.S. employers are mandated by Federal law to have all employees complete an I-9 form within the first three days of work. The use of the newly released form is not yet mandated, but soon will be. Feel free to download a copy of the new form below:

New I-9 Form

by Jason Morris

One of the newest trends in the employment screening industry is the rise in International Background Checks. For years U.S. employers have searched for ways to screen their foreign employees with little success. In fact, for many years employeescreenIQ was one of the few companies that was able to adequately offer this service on a consistent basis. employeescreenIQ has not only serviced our thousands of U.S. clients internationally but also helped many foreign companies as well. Our client base spans many different nations including a few that our supporting our troops in the middle east. We were one of the first firms to be Safe Harbor Certified and have maintained this certification since 2004.

The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) has formed a new committee to help screening companies expand their services in a legal compliant manner. As many of you know I have been very involved in NAPBS since the beginning and I applaud the association on this effort.

See Release:

New International Alliance Aims to Strengthen Background Screening and Security Worldwide

American Organization Takes Lead Role in Effort

Durham, NC (PRWEB) November 5, 2007 — As global terrorism and violence have become a strong reality in our current era, security has developed as a focal issue for companies and organizations that seek to hire talent from other countries and/or establish operations abroad. In response, the representatives of the global background investigation and screening community have formed an international alliance designed to facilitate collaboration and networking among screening firms on all continents, and in countries as diverse as Canada and India. More

by Nick Fishman

One of Fred Thompson’s 2008 campaign co-chair’s was convicted in 1979 for selling 11 pounds of marijuana and entered a no contest plea in 1983 for cocaine trafficking and conspiracy. Does this constitute as a reason not to hire him? Unfortunately, the republican presidential candidate didn’t have a chance to decide. His campaign committee neglected to perform a background check.

See full article here

by Nick Fishman

The FTC and the federal financial institution regulatory agencies have submitted their final rules and guidelines on how creditors and financial institutions must handle identity theft “red flags” and address discrepancies.

Highlights of the rules include the following measures that must be taken:

1. Identify relevant patterns, practices, and specific forms of activity that are “red flags” signaling possible identity theft and incorporate those red flags into the Program;
2. Detect red flags that have been incorporated into the Program;
3. Respond appropriately to any red flags that are detected to prevent and mitigate identity theft; and
4. Ensure the Program is updated periodically to reflect changes in risks from identity theft.

These guidelines seem like things you would think most creditors and financial institutions would already be doing. Hopefully, these measures can help protect consumers.

Click here to view the entire FTC Release