The Safe Hiring Blog

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."