The Safe Hiring Blog

BRB Publications Launches New Web Page www.verifyprolicense.com Providing Access to State Licensing Boards

BRB Publications annouced today a new website that enables the public to verify individuals and businesses required to be licensed or have a certification or registration.

This free, new resource enables a researcher to check the representations people make to the public in day-to-day personal or business life. Users of www.verifyprolicense.com can choose an occupation or business category, by state, to find the direct address, phone number, and web page of the licensing or certification board. The resulting screen also provides a hot link to a License Validator to verify the license, permit, and registration information for individuals and or businesses. Another valuable feature of the search is that it often indicates when disciplinary action has been taken against an individual or business. This site is updated weekly and includes over 8,000 occupations with over 4,500 "name searchable" links providing immediate results.

According to BRB Publication’s CEO Michael Sankey, "Professional occupational licensing and non-voluntary certifications and registrations are generally a matter of public record, intended to protect the public from fraud and the misrepresentations of qualifications. It is simply a smart business practice to check on those with whom you deal, particularly if strangers come into a home, or if money and property are involved."

Also, the new website is dedicated to educating the public about The Sue Weaver C.A.U.S.E. (Consumer Awareness of Unsafe Service Employment).

About the Sue Weaver C.A.U.S.E.
On August 27, 2001, Sue Weaver was brutally raped and beaten to death by a twice convicted sex-offender. Ms. Weaver’s attacker was hired through a major department store to do service work in her home. In memory of Sue Weaver, C.A.U.S.E. was founded in 2004 as a non-profit organization that brings awareness and education to consumers and employers regarding the necessity of criminal background checks on all service employees, contractors and subcontractors hired to work in or near clients’ homes. For more information about C.A.U.S.E. visit www.sueweavercause.org.

7 Common Employer Concerns

Even with all of the advantages of a screening program, many employers still have questions and concerns about implementing background checks. Described below are seven common concerns that employers express.

Is screening legal?
Yes. Employers have an absolute right to conduct lawful pre-employment screening in order to hire the bestqualified candidates. A federal law called the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) balances the right of employers to know who is being hired with an applicant’s right of disclosure and privacy. Under this law, the employer first obtains the applicant’s written consent to be screened. In the event negative information is found, the applicant must be given the opportunity to correct the record. Employers should set up a consistent policy so similarly situated applicants are treated equally. A qualified screening company will assist an employer with legal compliance issues.

Does screening invade privacy?
No. Employers can find out about only those things that an applicant has done in his or her “public” life. For example, checking court records for criminal convictions or calling past employers or schools does not invade a zone of personal privacy. Employers are looking only at information that can be seen as valid, non-discriminatory predictors of future job performance. Employers should also take steps to maintain confidentiality within an organization, such as keeping background check reports in a separate file from the personnel files.

Is screening cost-effective?
Yes. A pre-employment screening will typically cost less than the expense of a new employee on his or her first day on the job. That’s pocket change compared to the damage one bad hire or one incident of workplace violence can cause. In addition, employers typically only screen an applicant if a decision has been made to extend an offer, so not all applicants are screened. It is ironic that some firms will spend hours shopping for a computer bargain and at the same time try to save money by not adequately checking out a job applicant, which represents an enormous investment. The bottom line is that problem employees usually cause employee problems, so any money spent in an effort to avoid problems in the first place is money well spent.

Does screening discourage good applicants?
No. Employers who engage in screening do not find that good applicants are deterred. Good job applicants have a desire to work with qualified and safe coworkers in a profitable environment. A good candidate understands that background screening is a sound business practice that helps a firm’s bottom line and is not an invasion of privacy or an intrusion.

Does screening delay hiring?
No. Background screening is normally performed in just 48 to 72 hours. Keep in mind that most of the information needed is not stored in databases, but must be obtained by going to courthouses or calling up past employers or schools. Occasionally there can be delays, such as previous employers who will not return calls, schools that are closed for vacation or a court clerk who needs to retrieve a record from storage.

Furthermore, an organization that is careful in its hiring practices should find a lower rate of “hits” during background checks. There are a number of steps a firm should take to ensure safe hiring well before a name is submitted to a background company. These techniques include making it clear your firm does background checks in order to weed out bad applicants, knowing the “red flags” to look for in an application and asking questions in interviews that will filter out problem candidates.

Is screening difficult to implement?
Not at all. For an overburdened HR, security or risk-management department already handling numerous tasks, outsourcing background screening can be done very quickly and effectively. In a short period of time, a qualified preemployment screening firm can set up the entire program and provide all the necessary forms. Many firms have secured Internet-based systems that speed up the flow of information and allow an employer to track the progress of each applicant in real time.

How do you select a service provider?
First and foremost, an employer should look for a professional partner, not just an information vendor who is selling data at the lowest price. An employer should apply the same criteria that it would use in selecting any other provider of critical professional services. For example, if an employer were choosing a law firm for legal representation, it would not select the cheapest—it would clearly want to know the selected firm is competent, experienced and knowledgeable, as well as reputable and reasonably priced. The same criteria should also apply to critical HR services. A screening firm should have an understanding of the legal implications of background checks, particularly the federal FCRA and applicable state laws. An employer should only utilize firms that have committed to professional standards, as evidenced by membership in the professional organization for background screening firms, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (www.NAPBS.com).

Both employers and applicants need to accept that pre-employment screening is an absolute necessity in today’s business world. Pre-employment screening is a key element in any program designed to prevent workplace violence.

Lester S. Rosen is an attorney at law and president of Employment Screening Resources, a national background screening company (www.ESRcheck.com). He is a consultant, writer and frequent presenter on safe hiring, pre-employment screening and legal compliance. He is also an experienced criminal attorney and has and testified in court as an expert in safe hiring. He is the author of The Safe Hiring Manual–the Complete Guide to keeping Criminals, Terrorist and Imposters out of Your Workplace (512 pages/Facts on Demand Press).

ESR Releases Its Second Annual Top Ten Trends in the Screening Industry (2009 Edition)

ESR has identified the following trends for 2009 in its second annual report on trends in the screening industry and safe hiring.  The full report is online at:  http://www.esrcheck.com/2009-trends-backgroundscreening-industry.php     

1.      Increased Governmental Mandates: The federal and state governments for 2009 are likely to require more background checks, especially in sensitive industries.  In addition, right-to-work verification under the E-verify program will be a hot topic for 2009.

2.      Privacy and Accuracy:  Privacy advocates in 2009 will be focused on resolving instances of noncompliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s requirements for accuracy and dispute investigations.  A leading cause of inaccuracies comes from matching innocent job applicants to criminal records based upon the same, or a similar, name in a database, without re-verification of the record at the courthouse.  A new organization called Concerned CRA’s (www.concernedcras.com) has taken a stance against utilizing such databases without taking proper measures to ensure accuracy of criminal records.

3.      Second Chance for Ex-Offenders: Unless as a society we want to build more prisons than schools or hospitals, something must be done to reduce recidivism and find employment for applicants with criminal records.  The State of New York, for example, to deal with this issue directly, has passed new “second chance” laws that became effective this year.  The laws place a greater emphasis on employers analyzing a past criminal record to determine whether there is a business justification to not hire a person, including providing job applicants with notice of these various new rights.

4.      Consumer Protection Litigation:  As the screening industry matures, and applicants and their lawyers become much more informed about their consumer rights, it is likely that there will be an increase in litigation in 2009.  These lawsuits, including class action lawsuits, will be filed against screening firms, particularly when it comes to various notices required under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and accuracy requirements for the Background Screening Report results.

5.      Impact of the Recession: As a result of the recession and higher unemployment, it is likely that employers will need to scrutinize applications even more carefully, to be on the watch for fraudulent credentials, such as inflated or fictional employment or education history.

6.      Data Security, Data Breaches, and Offshoring Data: Since identity theft continues to be a national and international problem, expect even more emphasis in 2009 on data security and protection.  Closely related is the continuing issue of employers and screening firms sending confidential consumer data offshore for processing to places such as India for cost savings.  Once data leaves the United States, it is beyond U.S. privacy protections.  Concerned CRA’s (www.concernedcras.com) has also taken a stance against offshoring such data without notification to consumers.  The use of home-operator networks also presents an unnecessary risk to privacy as well.  There is no justification for personal information to be spread across kitchen tables and dorm rooms across America.

7.      Accreditation by the NAPBS: The non-profit trade organization for the Screening Industry, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (www.napbs.com) has announced the introduction of an accreditation program.  NAPBS has gone through an exhaustive process to develop “Best Practices” for the industry, and it is anticipated that firms will start going through the accreditation process this year. 

8.      Social Network Sites:  The use of social networking sites as a pre-employment screening device will continue to be a hot topic in 2009, as more recruiters and HR professionals go online to satisfy their curiosity about candidates.  The problem: contrary to popular belief, just because it is online does not mean that it’s a good idea to utilize it without developing policies and procedures.  Online material can be inaccurate, discriminatory, and under certain circumstances, its use can be an invasion of privacy.  Stay tuned as more courts give their opinions on this issue. 

9.      Integration of Services:  With the advent of “Web 2.0,” it is likely that technology will play an even bigger role in the coming year.  Seamless integrations with Applicant Tracking Systems allow paperless background screening systems at the click of a mouse.

10.  International Background Checks: With mobility of workers across international borders, Due Diligence is no longer limited to just what an applicant has done in the United States and there will be stronger demand in 2009 for International Criminal, Education, and past Employment checks.

The Story Behind the Story - Why States and Cities are Concerned about Second Chances for Ex-Offenders

There is an increasing awareness in the United States that ex-offenders are having difficulty obtaining jobs due to their criminal records.  Although employers have a duty to exercise due diligence to promote a safe workplace, civil rights laws also do not permit employers to automatically disqualify someone with a criminal record before considering if there is a business justification based upon the nature and gravity of the crime, the nature of the job and how long ago the job occurred.  As noted above, New York has added additional factors that can be considered.

As reported in past ESR newsletters, there have been efforts made to help ex-offenders obtain jobs. In its January, 2007 newsletter, ESR reported that a number of municipalities were not asking about past criminal records on the initial application. The short-hand name is “ban the box,” referring to the box on an application asking about past criminal conduct. The logic behind theses law is to ensure that applicants are considered for jobs based upon their qualifications and experience before the employer searches for criminal records. In addition, such protection also encourages ex-offenders to apply in the first place. Cities are concerned about the burden placed on them by large numbers of un-employed ex-offenders.  See:  http://www.esrcheck.com/newsletter/archives/January_2007.php#T1

In March, 2008, the ESR newsletter discussed a meeting of the Conference of Mayors in New York City on the same topic. According to a press release from the Conference;

“With 1 in 31 American adults in prison, jail, on parole or probation, the US prison system is in crisis. Hundreds of prisons nationwide are overcrowded to the breaking point, and high recidivism rates are largely to blame: 39 percent of prisoners have served three or more sentences. This cycling in and out of prisons is taking a devastating economic toll on already-vulnerable urban communities. At this critical moment, policymakers and experts are determined to come together and develop concrete solutions to making sure that people who leave prison do not reoffend and go back.”

See:  http://www.esrcheck.com/newsletter/archives/March_2008.php#T1

In the September, 2006, edition, ESR reported on lawsuits for discrimination based upon ex-offenders denied employment.   http://www.esrcheck.com/newsletter/archives/September_2006.php#T1

In passing the new laws in New York, the New York legislature gave as a justification that up to 60% of ex-offenders are unemployed one year after release and there is a strong correlation between unemployment and recidivism.  The legislature cites statistics that, in New York State, eighty-three (83%) of individuals who are in violation of the terms of their probation are unemployed.  See (legislative justification contained in New York A07847)

The bottom-line: As a society, we do not want to risk the lives and property of people by bad hiring decisions. Employers who fail to exercise due diligence can be sued, and innocent consumers, co-workers and members of the public can be the victims of workplace violence, theft or other wrongdoing.    

On the other hand, our society does not want to create a permanent class of unemployable ex-offenders who can never re-enter society and be productive. Automatic rejection of any applicant with a criminal record makes it very difficult for an ex-offender to get back into the workforce. Given that, on the average, it costs over $30,000 a year to incarcerate a prisoner in the United States, and that without a job it is very difficult for an ex-offender to become a law abiding tax paying citizen, it is critical that society gives everyone an opportunity to work. Unless ex-offenders can get a second chance, our society will spend more time and resources building prisons instead of schools, hospitals and roads.

The key is to understand that there is a job for everyone, although not everyone is qualified for every job. Employers should not overreact or react automatically because an otherwise qualified applicant has had difficulty in the past unless there is a business justification to reject the applicant. However, this pre-supposes that employers are doing proper screening and practice due diligence in their hiring.

It is also important for our society to help with the re-entry of ex-offenders by supporting programs and opportunities. In fact, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (www.napbs.com) has donated money to such programs.

Background screening firms are often caught in the middle of this debate.  Although a screening firm does not make the hiring decision, screening firms are retained by employers to research potential criminal records.  A background screening firm should clearly advise employers that there are limitations on the use of criminal records.

New York Passes Four New Rules Affecting Background Checks to Help Ex-Offenders Have a Second Chance

Effective February 1, 2009, three (3) new rules go into effect in the State of New York designed to give ex-offenders a second chance of entering the workforce.  These rules affect both employers and background firms.  A fourth law, effective September, 2008, gives employers some additional protections against lawsuits for negligent hiring if they can show that an applicant with a criminal record was hired after good faith consideration of the rules affecting the use of criminal convictions.

Under existing New York law (Correctional Law Article 23-A), an employer is required to consider and balance various factors where an applicant has a criminal record (unless, of course, there is a statute that prohibits the employment of a person with certain convictions).   The factors are set out in New York Corrections law section 753 found at

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/agencyinfo/PDFs/CorrectionLaw%20Article%2023-A%20_4_.pdf

The factors enumerated in section 753 of Article 23-A include such things as:

The duties of the job
The relationship between the criminal offense and the job
How long ago the conviction occurred
 The applicant’s age at time of the crime
How serious the offense was
Information produced regarding the applicant’s rehabilitation and good conduct.
In passing some of these laws, the New York legislature cited a 2007 study that found that New York employees were largely not familiar with New York laws on utilizing past convictions, or that a criminal record poses a significant barrier to employment.

In response, the three new laws require the following effective February 1, 2009:

1.      Provide a copy of Article 23-A:  An employer must provide a copy of Article 23-A to all job applicants undergoing a background check.  An employer may want to provide that notice at the same time the applicant signs a consent form and receives a disclosure form.  A technical reading of the statute may suggest such a requirement is limited only to a situation where an employer is requesting a special type of background report called an “Investigative Consumer Report,”  where information is obtained through interviews.  However, the legislature in New York, based upon the legislative history, clearly intended this to apply to all consumer reports.  As a best practice, employers should consider providing this notice regardless of the type of background report being conducted. 

2.      Posting a copy of Article 23-A:  An employer must also post a copy of Article 23-A in “a place accessible to his or her employees and in a visually conspicuous manner.”  Employers can simply download the copy of 23-A linked in this article.  The required notice will likely be included in commercial labor posters that come out in 2009 for the state of New York.

3.      Provide additional copy of Article 23-A if a criminal record is found:  Where a background report on an applicant contains information on a criminal conviction, the employer must again provide a copy of Article 23-A to the applicant.  

As part of the legislative approach, New York employers that follow Article 23-A now have increased protection from lawsuits for negligent hiring. This protection applies where an employer hires someone that has a conviction history but the employer has made a reasonable and good faith determination that, due to the factors in Article 23-A, the applicant should still be hired. In that situation, there is a “rebuttable presumption” that evidence of the employee’s past criminal record cannot be admitted into evidence and be used against the employer. 

A “rebuttable presumption” is an assumption of fact accepted by the court until disproved by the other side.  For example, evidence of the employee’s past criminal record can only be used in a negligent hiring case if the plaintiff can overcome the presumption by showing that there was not a reasonable and good faith determination by the employer under article 23-A.  This new protection can potentially provide employers that do hire applicants with a criminal record protection from a lawsuit as long as the employer can document  that the employer discovered the criminal record and then applied the criteria in Article 23-A in a reasonable and good faith manner. 

ESR clients will receive a detailed memorandum and training in January on the details of these new laws in New York as well as some other “only in New York” rules. This also raises issues on how employers that are not in New York need to deal with New York applicants or applicants that formerly lived in New York.   For employers that would like the online links to the actual legislation as well as the legislative memos that outline the purpose and justifications for these laws, please contact Jared Callahan at 415-898-0044 or jcallahan@esrcheck.com   

The Good News and the Bad News About the FCRA

There is bad news and good news about the FCRA. The bad news is that the FCRA is a very complex and convoluted law that makes little sense if an employer sits down and tries to read it. Anyone wanting to read the law can go to the website for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the federal agency charged with administering the law.

The good news is that there are only four basic steps an employer needs to know about the FCRA in order to begin an Safe Hiring Program while using an employment screening firm. These steps are explained in detail in Complying with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in Four Easy Steps©.
Here is an important fact: the FCRA kicks in when a pre-employment background pre-screening is conducted by the CRA. Therefore, if an employer works with a professional pre-employment background firm, the employer should select the firm based in part upon the background firm’s knowledge of the FCRA. A competent background firm should know how to fully comply with legal requirements of the FCRA, including preparation of all documents and forms needed for a fully compliant screening program.

Employers risk legal liability if the procedures utilized to check on applicants infringe on legally protected areas of privacy. By following the FCRA, an applicant's privacy rights are protected. For this reason, many legal experts advise employers to engage the services of an outside screening firm.

When engaging the services of a CRA, both the employer and the CRA must understand how critical it is to follow the FCRA. Failure to do so can result in substantial legal exposures, including fines, damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. Below is a brief summary of the substantial penalties involved for NOT following the FCRA.

© excerpt from The Safe Hiring Audit book.

Basic Explaination of the FCRA

When an employer uses a third party to help conduct a background check, there is a critical federal law the employer must be familiar with and follow. The law is called the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Even though the name of the law uses the term “Credit,” the FCRA goes far beyond credit reports. The FCRA establishes specific requirements and rules for a pre-employment background report, called a Consumer Report, which is usually much broader in scope than just a credit report.
A Consumer Report can include a wide variety of obtained information concerning job applicants, such as criminal and civil records, driving records, civil lawsuits, reference checks, and any other information obtained by a Consumer Reporting Agency. Therefore, the FCRA fundamentally controls the information on applicants that is assembled, evaluated, or disseminated by certain third parties and used for employment purposes.

When first passed in 1970, the FCRA was primarily meant to promote confidentiality, privacy, accuracy, and relevancy regarding information gathered about consumers. The law was extensively amended in 1996, 1998, and 2003.  The amendments substantially overhauled the use of Consumer Reports for employment purposes by providing greater protection to consumers.

Additional Resource - Complying with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in Four Easy Steps©

© excerpt from The Safe Hiring Audit book. 

Why Pre-screen Potential Employees?

Employers have become painfully aware of the tremendous consequences of bad hiring decisions. Pre-screening promotes a safe and profitable workplace. Pre-employment screening is an effective risk management tool that has been proven to significantly reduce the risk of a bad hire. Employers typically engage in pre-employment screening for four reasons:

To discourage applicants with something to hide.  Simply having a pre-screening program discourages job applicants with a criminal background or falsified credentials.  To eliminate uncertainty in the hiring process.  Many employers have discovered the hard way that relying on instinct alone is not enough. Hard information is also an important part of the hiring process.

To demonstrate Due Diligence.  All employers have a reasonable duty of care in the hiring process. This means an employer must take reasonable steps to determine whether an employee is fit for a particular job. For example, if an employer who hires a bus driver and does not take reasonable efforts to determine if the bus driver has a criminal record, it could be found liable if that driver assaults a passenger and a reasonable background check would have discovered the prior assaults.
To encourage honesty in the application and interview process.  Employers find that just having a background program will encourage applicants to be more forthcoming about their history.

Performing background screenings is certainly not a guarantee that every bad applicant will be discovered. For the prices charged by pre-screening firms, employers cannot expect an in-depth and exhaustive FBI-type investigation. However, just engaging in screening program demonstrates due diligence and provides an employer with a great deal of legal protection.

It is also important to understand that a pre-screening program is aimed at how a person has performed in the public aspect of their lives. Items such as a criminal records or previous job performance reflect how a person behaved towards others or discharged his/her obligations or responsibilities.  Screening is NOT an invasion of privacy, a sign of mistrust, or an act of "Big Brother."

What employers can - and can't - find out about applicants

By Les Rosen

Attorney at Law and President,
Employment Screening Resources

Violence, theft and criminal activity have become greater risks in the workplace, so more employers are performing criminal background checks in addition to asking about criminal records on job applications. In fact, employers who fail to take reasonable precautions about whom they hire can be sued if an employee with a criminal background harms someone.

Do criminal record searches, however, mean that applicants who had a brush with the law will never find a good job, or that employers are assured that they will never hire a criminal? The answer to both is no.

When private employers check criminal records, they normally do not have access to governmental criminal databases (unless the position qualifies for a fingerprint check, such as teachers or child-care workers). Private employers can check criminal records only by going to individual courthouses and looking through the records that are kept by each court. Since there are more than 10,000 courthouses in America, a nationwide criminal check is not practical.

To determine where to search, employers will examine the resume or job application. They can also review records kept by credit bureaus that list addresses associated with Social Security numbers, and they need to verify past jobs to confirm where a person has been and to make sure there are no unexplained gaps in employment. Even with these precautions, however, records can be missed.

When a company hires a service to perform the search, it is regulated by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Searches can be conducted only if an applicant provides written consent. If a criminal record is found, applicants must be given an opportunity to question its accuracy and must receive a copy of their legal rights before the decision to deny the job is made final.

Because of the way public records are maintained, errors are always possible, and cases of mistaken identification have occurred. There are also legal limits on how far back court researchers can go in reporting convictions.

Despite these limitations, employers still find criminal record searches valuable. A search for criminal records discourages applicants with something to hide and limits uncertainty in the hiring process. It also shows that an employer exercised due diligence.

Even if there is a criminal record, there are legal limitations on what information can be used by an employer.

First, an employer may not ask about or consider information about arrests or detentions that did not result in convictions. Only convictions and pending cases can be considered.

Second, an employer may not consider crimes that have been sealed or expunged, or where the applicant participated in a special pretrial alternative program.

Third, there are limits concerning misdemeanors. Most employers will ask about both felonies and misdemeanors on applications, but a misdemeanor cannot be considered if probation was completed and the case dismissed, or for minor marijuana offenses more than two years old.

If a criminal conviction or pending case is located, does that necessarily mean that an applicant is eliminated? The answer again is no.

Courts have found that a policy of automatically denying employment can result in discrimination against certain groups. Instead, employers must examine whether there is a sound business reason to not hire an individual with a criminal record, taking into account the nature of the offense, whether it is job-related, when it occurred and what the person has done since.

What should applicants do if they are concerned about a criminal matter?

First, ask an attorney if the criminal record can be expunged or set aside by going back to court, or whether it is the type of offense that an employer may legally ask about or consider.

Second, applicants can seek to rebuild their resumes by finding employment with people they know, or with employers in a tight job market willing to give them an opportunity.

Finally, honesty is always the best policy. A criminal matter honestly explained during an interview may have much less of a negative impact than hiding it and having an employer discover it later. If an employer discovers an applicant was dishonest, the denial of a job could be based upon a lack of honesty, regardless of the nature of the offense.

© Copyright 2008, Employment Screening Resources, Inc.  All Rights Reserved

Protecting Yourself When Inviting Workers Into Your Home — Five Easy Steps

By Les Rosen

Attorney at Law and President,
Employment Screening Resources

The news has been full lately of horror stories about innocent and unsuspecting people who opened their doors to home service providers or workers, and became the victims of serious crimes, including murder, right in their own homes. Many people routinely allow workers in their homes to perform a multitude of tasks. Workers come into homes to deliver appliances or furniture, act as nannies or caregivers, clean carpets, make home improvements, perform household repairs such as plumbing or electrical, and a multitude of other tasks.

Unfortunately, people can be particularly vulnerable in their own home. Help is harder to get, and if there are children, senior citizens or a disabled person at home, the risks can be even greater. Yet no state currently requires most workers who enter homes to have background checks. The results have been tragic.

Until there is a better solution, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) recommends the following five easy steps for people to protect themselves in their homes:

1. Deal only with reputable local businesses that do background checks. Before letting a stranger into your home, insist upon knowing the hiring polices of the company you are dealing with. A business should be able to tell you what precautions they take in hiring someone they plan to send inside your house. If the company you are talking to does not know the specifics, make them find out before you let their workers into your home. The important point is to determine if they check all past employers for AT LEAST 5 years (and 7-10 is better). Also, do they check for criminal records where a person has lived or worked for the past seven years. If the carpet cleaning firm, plumbing company or other service business will not give you the answers you need, then call someone else. It's just a matter of time before businesses get the message that safety is critical. In addition, being "bonded" is not always the same thing as being safe. The fact that a person has a bond does not mean that any firm has run a background check.

Also, don't let a small business tell you that it is too expense or difficult to practice safe hiring to make sure they are not sending a dangerous person into your home. That is simply not true. There are a number of steps any small business can take to make sure they are hiring safe and qualified people that cost next to nothing. It's just a matter of having a commitment to customer safety, as opposed to just hiring anyone they can find to do the job. See ESR article: "Five easy steps every small business can take TODAY to protect themselves and the public."

2. If you are hiring an individual and not a firm, what do you know about them? The best protection is to do past employment checks or reference checks on people who dealt with them in a business capacity. If you know that a person has been gainfully employed for the past few years, it lessens the possibility they have been incarcerated for a serious offense. Make sure they check out. If it does not seem right, then find someone else. A professional screening firm or private investigator can also be contacted to perform a criminal check.

3. For a sensitive position such as a nanny or caregiver, spend the money it takes to do it right. Contact a pre-employment screening firm or private investigator to check out the person. The most critical checks are past employment to verify where the person has been as well as a criminal check. When the well being of loved ones are on the line, the extra investment in security is well worth the small costs involved.

4. Use common sense. You may not check out everyone that comes to your home. A business for example, may come to your home just once to briefly drop something off or make a home repair. BUT use common sense. Have other people around if possible. Do not leave confidential information (such as checkbooks or credit card bills) or valuables lying around. In addition, do not tell store clerks or a person making a one-time visit anything confidential about your personal life, habits or customs that could make you a target in the future. For example, you don't need to tell a stranger if you are leaving town, or give information about your usual schedule, or if people you live with are away. And if you are uncomfortable for any reason, or something does not seem right, do not let the person in.

5. False sense of security--Be careful about do it yourself Internet solutions. There are some Internet sites that seem to suggest that they offer a national criminal record search. Unfortunately, a person may be lulled into a completely false sense of security if the name they are searching does not appear on one of these databases. In fact, the appearance of a person's name on a database is not an indication the person is criminal any more then the absence of a name shows they are not a criminal. Why? Because these Internet services are based upon databases that are best used by professional investigators or screening firms in conjunction with a number of other tools. The databases by themselves are not an authoritative source. Many of the Internet databases are names assembled from correctional or law enforcement databases, or from court repositories that are only as accurate as the individual counties that report records. There is no way to know if the records are complete, accurate or up to date, or if the record is even about the person you are looking for. Actual court files normally must be obtained to locate identifiers. In addition, there are large holes in the geographic coverage.

A consumer is much better off contacting a professional who knows how to utilize such databases, as well as numerous other tools in order to do a legal background check.

ESR is currently working on proposing legislation that would requires business to either engage in a background check of workers who go into homes or to provide consumers a notice that no checks been done. Until there is a better solution, consumers need to empower themselves by not hesitating to insist upon safety.

© Copyright 2008, Employment Screening Resources, Inc.  All Rights Reserved