by Jason Morris

John McCain and Barack Obama squared off again last night in round two of the Presidential Debate Series.  Like round one, there were some great questions about the future of our great country.  This particular debate was more of a “Town Hall” format than debate.  In fact, the candidates didn’t even debate each other, they just answered questions.  Yesterday’s questions were heavily focused on the downturn in the economy, the war in Iraq and healthcare.  The candidates did a better job on answering the questions and not attacking each other directly.  It was pretty tame (nice way of saying lame). 

I was surprised that there were no questions regarding domestic security and immigration reform.  There are several bills pending today that address both issues.  First is the E-Verify program allowing organizations to instantly verify an employee’s right to work.  This program is set to expire in November and has overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives by a huge margin.  Under this extension the program would be extended for five years. This program also allows employers to centralize their I-9 process and allow for electronic I-9 forms. Currently this renewal bill is sitting in the Senate.

Secondly, questions on domestic security were passed over.  September 11th, 2001 was not all that long ago.  There have not been too many significant bills regarding domestic terrorism since the Patriot Act was renewed.  One bill that has caught my eye is HR 7033.  This bill would provide safeguards with respect to the FBI criminal background checks prepared for employment purposes.  The act is officially titled “Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background checks Act of 2008.”  Several reports prior to this act has the FBI admitting how inaccurate their databases are in regard to criminal records.  This bill does NOT expand the industries that are allowed access to the system but strives to make the process better.  Would FBI background checks stop terrorism? No, but checking your employees and people is a pillar of a strong security program. According to the Attorney General’s Report on Criminal History Background Checks:

Contrary to common perception, the FBI’s III system is not a complete national database of all criminal history records in the United States. Many state records, whether from law enforcement agencies or courts, are not included or have not been updated. For example, not all the state criminal history records or associated fingerprints meet the standards for inclusion in the III. Because of inconsistent state reporting requirements, some criminal history records involve offenses that are not submitted to the FBI. Other records that were submitted to the FBI do not have fingerprints of sufficient quality to be entered into the system. Moreover, many criminal history records may contain information regarding an arrest, but are missing the disposition of that arrest. Currently, only 50 percent of III arrest records have final dispositions. The records of more recent arrests, however, have a higher rate of completeness. Nevertheless, the III, while far from complete, is the most comprehensive single source of criminal history information in the United States, and provides users, at a minimum, with a pointer system that assists in discovering more complete information on a person’s involvement with the criminal justice system.

What does this have to do with the Presidential Debate?  In today’s age security and terrorism remain fresh in everyone’s minds.  Immigration Reform and Security go hand-in-hand and need to be addressed.

by Jason Morris

We have written about the Texas DPS (Department of Public Safety) database before, things have not improved.  Long considered “one of the best…of the worst”, the Texas Statewide Criminal Database is full of holes.  These holes are critical because many industries are required by Texas law to use this system.  What does this mean to residents in Texas?  Teachers, Politicians, Nurses, Doctors etc. are checked through an inadequate system of obtaining criminal records. You have to see the percentages in this article, it will blow your mind.

the Department of Public Safety says counties in the most recent assessment submitted outcomes on just 69 percent of criminal charges

69 Percent, are you kidding me? I realize that in Baseball, failing seven out of ten times means you are an All-Star.  In the world of criminal records even 99 Percent is not good enough.  Fortunately there are some companies in Texas that utilize best practices and do more than just a DPS search.  We have hundreds of clients in Texas and most use a countywide criminal search in addition to the DPS.  If you are relying solely on this system, you must read on!

Counties Fail to Update Cases in Texas’ Crime Database

11:28 PM CDT on Thursday, August 21, 2008

By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN – The state’s criminal database, riddled with holes four years ago, has just as many gaps today.

Although officials in Dallas and other poorly reporting counties promised in 2004 to do better, the Department of Public Safety says counties in the most recent assessment submitted outcomes on just 69 percent of criminal charges – the same percentage as before.

“That’s astonishing. That’s leaving a substantial total number of criminals unreported in the system,” said John Bradley, Williamson County district attorney. “That’s the biggest threat to public safety that you can imagine, particularly in a post-9/11 time when we rely on databases to protect the public.”

Angie Klein, manager of the DPS criminal history records bureau, attributed the counties’ lack of progress to slow resolution of many felony cases, and glitches in big urban counties, which can bring down statewide compliance rates.

More

by Jason Morris

Gun control articles always spark a nice debate on our blog.  This Newsweek article lends to the stance our industry has had for years.  A quality criminal background check must be conducted at the county level.  Criminal records get diluted the further you get away from the source.  Relying on a Statewide or FBI record check sets your system up for failure.

NICS databases are “very complete” when it comes to tracking fugitives from justice, felony indictments and convictions, dishonorable discharges and some other factors that disqualify a person from purchasing a firearm. However, it appears that a lot of critical data gathered at the local level, involving things like restraining orders and commitments to mental institutions, are not filtering up to the federal level.

The Science of Gun Control
Local background checks are more effective at reducing suicides and homicides than federal checks.

There’s nothing simple about gun control, a tangle of legal, political and public-health issues complicated by cultural preferences and regional biases. Passions run high on all sides. Lifelong hunters who grew up with firearms, urban victims of gun violence, Second Amendment scholars, NRA lobbyists, chiefs of police—they’ve all got cases to make and they make them well, often contentiously.

For the past 15 years, much of the debate has centered on the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the federal gun-control bill that was passed in 1993. Critics say the focus on law-abiding gun buyers doesn’t address the real issue—bad guys who acquire their weapons illegally. Supporters say that the bill stops thousands of illegal gun purchases and deters crime and violence. Now medical research has come to the rescue, sifting through the data to figure out which legal measures work best to reduce firearm suicides and homicides.

More

by Jason Morris

Job Applicants With Jail Time Served Not Barred from County Employment

By ROY MAYNARD
Staff Writer

Although two Smith County Road and Bridge workers now accused of stealing road materials and fixing private driveways on the county clock both had criminal records, officials say county policy is that jail time is no bar to employment.

On Monday, Roderick Kentrell Edwards, 32, and Ronald Gene Williams, 38, both of Tyler, were arrested on charges of theft of property and abuse of official capacity.

Monday was not the first time the two workers were in trouble with law enforcement. Records show Edwards has been arrested four times since 2000 on charges including aggravated assault and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Williams has also served time in jail, according to Smith County records, for filing false reports to police officers and driving while intoxicated.

Smith County Commissioner JoAnn Fleming said she went to Personnel Director Denise Rebolini and asked how the two were hired.

More

by Jason Morris

Historically educators saw their profession as a “gentleman’s profession” held to a higher standard than others.  Above suspicion, they felt background checks were below them and insulted by the gesture.  We have seen similar stories as recent as last month.  This article shows tremendous support for the practice and an acknowledgment of previous fears.  We know there is a requirement of accuracy under the FCRA, apparently one experience in their forum was less than stellar.

An article from the Chronicle of Higher Education

Criminal-Background Checks: An article from the Chronicle of Higher Education

Criminal-background and credit checks are becoming a common element of faculty and administrative searches. Many states, and an increasing number of private colleges, are requiring background checks prior to or as part of job offers. My university added them this year, and thus we have been navigating in new waters as we deal with candidates during the offer process.

A certain amount of griping has ensued. One of the clearest vestiges of academe’s history as a “gentleman’s profession” is the idea that we, as academics and holders of advanced degrees, are somehow above suspicion, and thus requiring a background check is insulting and degrades us as professionals. That sentiment is certainly understandable, as the presence of a background check is prima facie evidence that candidates are not being taken at their word.

The paradox, of course, is that only those whose word is not good get caught by a background check. I have been around long enough to know about cases where an impostor has gotten an academic job (easily avoided by the now almost-universal requirement for official transcripts sent directly to the employing institution) or where someone with a criminal record has been hired.

In today’s litigious atmosphere — and, more important, as part of our obligation to students, parents, and other constituencies — transcripts and background checks are a fair way to avoid potential hiring disasters.

However, there is another side of this issue. When an institution has a policy requiring background checks, that policy entails that whoever performs those checks be held to absolute standards of accuracy. A recent case discussed in The Chronicle’s Forums described a candidate’s experiences being offered a position contingent on a background check which later came back with negative information that led to the withdrawal of the offer. The information turned out to be wrong, and it fell to the candidate to correct the record, supplying numerous documents and affidavits certifying the candidate’s innocence. The offer was then reinstated only to be withdrawn again, apparently by the institution’s human-resources office. Why? Because the candidate had protested the negative finding.

More

by Jason Morris

This is another example of a law that could hamper an employers ability to run a thorough background check. Read our other postings on this subject you may be surprised to see our position on the subject.

Don’t sanction secrets

By Boston Herald editorial staff
Saturday, May 24, 2008 - Updated 2d 23h ago

When it comes to reforming the state’s criminal records law, Gov. Deval Patrick can’t win for losing.

His bill aimed at smoothing the path to employment for ex-offenders is bogged down in a Legislature that can’t seem to find agreement on just what those reforms should look like - or whether they should make any changes at all. The co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee told the State House News Service last week that the proposal is hitting “a lot of roadblocks.”

Advocates for ex-offenders, meanwhile, continue to criticize Patrick for backing a measure they say doesn’t go nearly far enough. They staged a four-day march and a State House rally on Thursday where they called on Patrick to do more on behalf of ex-cons who have moved beyond their checkered pasts.

When both sides are kvetching it can be a sign of a good compromise. On this rare occasion we hope that’s not the case.

That’s because the criminal offender record information law, known as CORI, is an important tool for employers who have a right to information about the criminal backgrounds of their prospective employees. Tinkering with it to curtail access to that information is simply the wrong way to go.

Patrick’s bill would shorten the length of time before a felon can petition to have a criminal record sealed from public view - from 15 years to 10. For a misdemeanor, it would go from 10 years to five. In both cases the individual must have maintained a clean record in the intervening years.

A competing bill pushed by advocates would shorten the waiting periods to seven years for a felony and three years for a misdemeanor. But no matter how you slice it the “reforms” call for keeping secrets from those who have a legitimate right to know who is keeping their books or caring for a vulnerable senior citizen in their charge.

More

by Jason Morris

A Verifier article written by our own Andrew Cashman.

By Andrew Cashman

When working with criminal records every day it’s easy to forget that what we know, understand, and analyze isn’t always as easy for employers to understand. With so many different terms used in the judicial process we know why. Here at employeescreenIQ we like to make our criminal reports simple to read by following a strict formatting process. We also use side-notes to try and explain abnormal terms or phrases. We hope that this article further assists you in understanding some of the scenarios surrounding a non-conviction.

I do have to explain and disclaim that the use of “usually,” “almost always,” and “most of the time” will be frequently used in this writing since most of the time there is almost always an exception to a rule, usually! We’ll now dive a little deeper into the confusion.

There are multiple terms that tell us a criminal charge is a non-conviction. The terms used in any given court jurisdiction around the country can vary while essentially meaning the same thing. The following terms are examples of commonly used court rulings that mean a case is a straight non-conviction, or a non-conviction without stipulations:

• Not Guilty
• Dismissed
• Nolle Prosequi (Nolle Prosse)
• No Bill
• No True Bill
• No Action
• Acquitted

More