0

This great search was powered by Search Unleashed.
Help to remove this message by getting the site owner to support this software.

… 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 …

Continue Reading

New SHRM Video Now Posted

Published on 02 December 2009 by Jason Morris in Articles, Identity Theft, SHRM

0

SHRM Video CaptureAs many of you know we have done quite a bit over the years with the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).  Not only have we exhibited at many of their conferences but we have also had their Chief Operating Officer China Gorman participate in podcasts.  In addition we have been invited to speak at several of their chapter conferences and even the Staffing Management Conference last April.

I was honored when they asked me to participate in a video series they were conducting.  In the interview they asked many great questions including topics relating to Background Screening, Identity Theft, E-Verify and Post Employment Screening.

You must be a member to view the video’s and I encourage you to do so!  This particular clip focuses on Identity Theft and Employment Screening.

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

The FTC’s “Red Flag” mandate to curb identity theft is set to take effect on November 1, 2009, one full year after the original policy was to be enforced. It appears that after many delays, the government is finally ready to take action.
Creditors and Financial Institutions must develop and implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program.

Further, all employers that conduct background checks are supposed to have a policy in place to handle “Red Flag” Address Discrepancy Notifications from the National Consumer Reporting Agencies (mainly credit bureaus). This rule has been in effect since last November and we are still unclear what such notifications will look like when and if they occur.

For more information on these guidelines and how to comply check out:

Users of Consumer Reports Have New Responsibilities as of November 1
EmployeeScreenIQ Offers Free Webinar on New FTC Guidelines

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

1

In October, 2008 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed Assembly Bill 2918, a law aimed to ban the employers from using employment credit reports when conducting background checks. At the time, he said, “This bill would significantly increase businesses’ exposure to civil actions over the use of credit checks. Further, the bill would increase administrative costs to those employers who must legitimately use credit reports as a screening tool by requiring that the employer first abide by its onerous requirements. California employers and businesses have inherent needs to obtain information about applicants for employment. The bill would become a new employer obstacle to the use of available information needed to make hiring decisions.”

Well, here’s hoping that the Governor hasn’t changed his mind. It looks like the House Assembly is at it again with AB943, a bill which is the mirror image of its predecessor.

According to the Consumer Federation of California, “This bill would prohibit an employer, with the exception of certain financial institutions, from obtaining a consumer credit report for employment purposes unless the information is (1) substantially job-related, meaning that the position of the person for whom the report is sought has access to money, other assets, or confidential information, and (2) the position of the person for which the person is sought is a managerial position, a position in a city, county, or both city and county, that of a sworn peace officer or other law enforcement position, or a position for which the information contained in the report is required to be disclosed by law or to be obtained by the employer. ”

The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) has drafted the following letter and asked its members to send it to the Governator. Check out the letter and feel free to send one of your own. Feel free to take whatever language you’d like. We’ll continue to keep you posted.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor:

We strongly oppose California AB 943, and we urge a veto.

We are a member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) which represents over 600 member companies and seeks to foster awareness of issues related to consumer protection within the background screening industry. The background screening industry is governed by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) under the scrutiny of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). Background screeners are classified as Consumer Reporting Agencies (“CRAs”) by the FCRA and differ from private investigators who may conduct investigations covertly.

Background screening companies receive personal data provided by the applicant with that person’s written consent to utilize it and CRAs follow the FCRA regulated process for verifying and reporting results. This includes the right of the applicant to review and dispute adverse information reported in the background check. In addition, applicants applying for jobs in California have additional protections granted under California state law.

NAPBS has numerous member companies in California that provide employment and tenant background screening services to both California employers and property management companies; these services may include providing a consumer credit report. Additionally, NAPBS membership spans each state in the nation and members based outside of the state of California also provide such services to California employers and property management companies.

AB 943 would enact an unreasonable prohibition against the use of information that is critical in many business situations. In fact, this bill may have the unintended consequences of increasing identity theft and embezzlement. This is due to the fact that AB 943 eliminates a business’s ability to reasonably access critical information that may indicate the prospective employee’s level of responsibility with respect to financial management over time.

NAPBS and its members are aware that in these trying times, many Californians may be experiencing financial hardship, which might result in negative information in a credit report; however, credit reports generally cover information for a 7 year period and, as such, problems that are not endemic to this current situation but represent a longstanding pattern of behavior on the part of the applicant should be apparent to an employer. Moreover, in the employment context, prior to taking an adverse action based on information in a consumer report, an employer must under federal law provide the applicant an opportunity to explain or dispute information.

Conclusion: The continued use of credit reports is important to our business and those of our clients. We obtain a consumer credit report only after the consumer has provided written authorization. We believe that many of the concerns raised with respect to the current financial crisis are misplaced given the process provided to applicants to dispute and explain as well as the length of time for reported information. We strongly urge a veto on California AB 943.

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

All-NCAA Football Background Check Team

Published on 03 September 2009 by Nick Fishman in Humor

1

Here’s my NCAA Football Top 10 Background Check Team.  What would we find if we conducted background checks on these football powerhouses?

  1. University of Miami- (Ok, this one is like shooting fish in a barrel) Guilty of Felonious Assault.  Who can forget the program’s most recent black eye when they went at it with Florida International University in the middle of a game?
  2. University of California- Guilty of Hit and Run.  Remember the end of game kick-off return that ended with Stanford’s tuba player on his backside?
  3. Notre Dame University- Failing to conduct an Education Verification on our good friend Coach George O’Leary.  This story has done more for raising awareness of academic falsification than anything I can remember.
  4. University of Michigan- Guilty of hiring a slave driver turned-crybaby in coach Rich Rodriguez who has done nothing but make the school look bad since his hiring in 2007.  One need only look at what he did to his previous employer when he stole university files before leaving. (A good Buckeye never needs an excuse to take a shot at the team up North)
  5. Southern Methodist University- Guilty of Everything.  The football program was so dirty that they received the “death penalty” from the NCAA in 1987.
  6. University of Georgia- Guilty of Biting Opposing Players?  An Auburn player is bit by his own school’s security police dog.  Many speculate that the canine in question was planted by the Bulldogs.
  7. University of Alabama- Coach Nick Saban is always guilty of . . . something.
  8. University of Hawaii- Guilty of retaining their head coach, Greg McMackin after slurring the gay community at a press conference this summer.  Rather interesting twist from a team nicknamed the “Rainbow Warriors”
  9. The Ohio State University (my Alma Mater)-  Clearly guilty of Identity Theft for pretending to be a national championship contender for the last 3 years.
  10. The NCAA- Guilty of robbing all of us of a playoff system that would give us a true national champion.

Can you think of any other “guilty” programs?

Go Bucks!

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

In a development that should surprise absolutely no one, the Federal Trade Commission has announced another delay in their enforcement of the “Red Flag” guidelines aimed to curb identity theft until November 1, 2009.

They have done so, “To assist small businesses and other entities, the Federal Trade Commission staff will redouble its efforts to educate them about compliance with the “Red Flags” Rule and ease compliance by providing additional resources and guidance to clarify whether businesses are covered by the Rule and what they must do to comply. To give creditors and financial institutions more time to review this guidance and develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs, the FTC will further delay enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009.”

Important for Employers Engaged in Employment Screening and Background Checks!
We been in contact with the FTC and learned that this delay does not apply to employers who still need to be in compliance by the original November 1, 2008 deadline. Employers must still have a policy in place to handle “Red Flag” Address Discrepancy Notifications from National Consumer Reporting Agencies (mainly the credit bureaus).

For information for how employers can comply with the “Red Flags” Guidelines, feel free to download our webcast with Seyfarth Shaw’s Pam Devata.

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

0

Stop me if you’ve heard this before.  In a move that should surprise no one, the FTC has announced that are delaying enforcement of the “Red Flags” Guidelines for Identity Theft Prevention until August 1, 2009 for all Creditors and Financial Institutions. For those of you playing at home, this is the second such delay. These guidelines were originally supposed to take effect on November 1, 2009. They were then delayed until May 1, 2009.

“Given the ongoing debate about whether Congress wrote this provision too broadly, delaying enforcement of the Red Flags Rule will allow industries and associations to share guidance with their members, provide low-risk entities an opportunity to use the template in developing their programs, and give Congress time to consider the issue further,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said.

It is important to note that this delay does not apply to employers who still need to be in compliance by the original November 1, 2008 deadline. Employers must still have a policy in place to handle “Red Flag” Address Discrepancy Notifications from National Consumer Reporting Agencies (mainly the credit bureaus).

If you are interested in learning more about your obligations under these guideline, check out our free webinar entitled “Users Responsibilities Under the FACT Act Red Flag Regulations”.

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

2009 NAPBS Annual Conference Re-Cap

Published on 23 April 2009 by Jason Morris in NAPBS

0

foundersealThis week I had the pleasure of attending the 2009 National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) annual conference.  The conference was held in St. Louis and ended yesterday April 22nd.  Despite the economy, this years’s conference was a huge success.  NAPBS is getting ready to launch it’s new Accreditation Program titled, Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program!  Many of this years meetings focused on this revolutionary new program which is centered around raising the bar of the background screening industry!

I personally attended many great seminars including; Best Practices in International Screening, What CRA’s need to know about Title VII – The Road From GRIGGS to SEPTA, International Compliance Featuring Safe Harbor, Managing Client Expectations for International Background and Many more.  I had to opportunity once again to speak at this years conference.  I co-presented at the History of NAPBS seminar and sat on a few panels regarding the upcoming accreditation program.

The conference ended with an exciting Key Note address from Joel Winston, Associate Director of the Division of Privacy and Identity Protection of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Joel gave us insight into Red Flag Rules, Social Security Numbers, Identity Theft, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and more!

It was great to hear some exciting feedback on employeescreen University and our Blog.  The intent of these two vehicles was to educate the marketplace but it seems to have become quite the educational portal for our industry.  Many competitors complimented us on a job well done with the University.

I look foward to the mid-year meeting in Atlanta, GA!

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

1

We have seen this before and we will see it again.  Worried about identity theft, Texas legislators are attempting to remove dates of birth (DOB’s) from public records.  The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) is aware of the issue and will be in contact with Texas officials.  NAPBS has been successful in several states when these issues have surfaced in the past.  Whereas this bill does not directly remove DOB’s from all public records, its sends the wrong message.  Any type of redaction could open a pandora’s box of legislation. DOB’s are a critical piece of information when conducting a background check.  If the public record does not include the Social Security Number, a DOB is the only way to identify the subject as the one a search is being conducted on.  Using an individuals DOB to commit identity theft without the Social Security Number is virtually impossible, therefore NAPBS has taken a strict position against redaction of this critical information. NAPBS and employeescreenIQ will be releasing more information on how you can contact Texas lawmakers in the coming days.  We will be updating employeescreen University regularly as information becomes available.

Bill Seeks to Pull Birth Dates from Public Records

By JACKIE STONE Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas lawmakers worried about identity theft are trying to remove state employees’ birth dates from public records — a move journalists and open records advocates say is unnecessary and will hamper government oversight.

A proposal by Rep. Helen Giddings, D-DeSoto, that would make the information private is scheduled for a public hearing Tuesday. A Senate version of the bill had a hearing earlier this month.

Those and at least two other bills filed in the Legislature this session could supersede a pending Texas Supreme Court case between The Dallas Morning News and the state comptroller’s office.

In 2006 the comptroller’s office filed a lawsuit asking that birth dates be ruled as personal information exempt from open records requests. That was after then-Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn refused to include birth dates with employee payroll records requested by the Morning News. Past records have included the dates.

Current Comptroller Susan Combs has backed Strayhorn’s decision as the case moved through the lower courts.

“The main date-of-birth problem we have is identity theft, and identity theft is one of the nation’s fastest growing, most expensive criminal enterprises,” said Allen Spelce, a spokesman for Combs.

More

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

4

I had the honor of representing the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) along with 20 other colleagues from the screening industry on their annual Washington DC lobbying event.  We had a busy schedule of meetings over a two day time period highlighted by sessions with the EEOC, FTC and officers of our nation’s senators and congressmen.

We met with staffers from the following legislators: Senator Chuck Grassley (Republican-Iowa), Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (Republican-Texas), Senator Mark Warren (Democrat- Virginia), Congressman Sam Johnson (Republican-Texas), Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen (Republican- New Jersey), Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat- New York), Sentor Orrin Hatch (Republican- Utah), Senator Kay Hagan, Democrat, North Carolina, Senator Arlen Specter (Republican- Pennsylvania), Congressman Lamar Smith (Republican- Texas), Senator Byron Dorgan (Democrat- North Dakota), Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat- Vermont), Congressman James Moran (Democrat- Virginia), Senator John Kerry (Democrat- Massachusetts), Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat- California), Senator Benjamin Cardin (Democrat- Maryland), Senator John Ensign (Republican- Nevada) and Senator Johnny Isakson (Republican- Georgia).  Our meetings primarily focused on three core issues which are being addressed in upcoming legislation:

Senate  Bill 163 (Child Protection Improvements Act of 2009)- Calls for the development of a mandatory background screening process for child care givers (day care, teachers, camps, etc.).  As an industry, we fully support this legislation.  However, we have concerns about the type of background check that the bill calls for, particularly its reliance on the FBI Criminal Database and state criminal record repositories.  It is a commonly held misconception that these two resources are the most accurate and reliable resources for conducting background checks.  In reality, there are far more effective methods for determining whether someone has been convicted of criminal activity.  The most thorough, accurate and reliable method being a county criminal record search in all counties where the subject has resided under all names used complemented by a National Criminal Record Search which includes a multi-jurisdictional Sex Offender Registry Search.

Senate Bill 141 and House Resolution 122 (Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act of 2009)- This bill is aimed at curbing identity theft and calls for a limitation on how Social Security Numbers can be used in commercial situations.  Such measures include restricting access to public records which contain this information.  There is a provision to protect the continued permissible use of personal identifiers for legitimate purposes such as background screening and our efforts focused around reinforcing the need for this language and educating staffers on the importance for these identifiers.

Extension of E-Verify Program- This internet-based system is operated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration and allows employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their employees.  House Resolution 1105 reauthorized the program through 9/30/09 and we support further extension of this important government program.

Meeting with the EEOC

This was a truly enlightening experience.  We met with Carol R. Miaskoff who is an Assistant Legal Counsel for the agency.  Carol shared with us the role of the EEOC and its stance on background checks.  She was very clear that the EEOC did not have a problem with background checks as anexercise proper due diligence.  Where they do take exception is with bright line policies such as “do not hire anyone with a criminal record”.  They believe that such policies would have a disparate impact on minorities.  We spent a great deal of time discussing El v. Septa as it will continue to be an important force in future guidelines on background screening.  At the end of the day, the EEOC wants employers to demonstrate job relatedness, the nature of the offense, whether the candidate was a repeat offender and how long ago the crime was committed.

Meeting with the FTC

I was not there for this meeting but I understand that much of the meeting focused on the privacy issues previously mentioned on SB 141 and HR 122.

I was a truly an enlightening experience which provided much insight into our legislative process.  I am confident that the work we accomplished in just two days will have a positive impact on our industry and on employers that rely on the use of employment background checks.

  • Print
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Live
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • Ping.fm
  • Reddit
  • Scoopeo
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
Share This Post

Continue Reading

All information contained on this website is provided by employeescreenIQ solely for the convenience of the site viewers. employeescreenIQ is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this website or otherwise by employeescreenIQ should be deemed as legal guidance or advice. Users are solely responsible for complying with all local, state, and federal laws relating to the use of any information provided on this website and any information products provided by employeescreenIQ. Users should consult with their own legal counsel if they have questions regarding their legal responsibilities or any information provided by employeescreenIQ.