The Wall Street Journal published an interesting article on do-it-yourself  online background check sites that allow people to do their own background checks online. S ee: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286773775841705.html

In order to make sure that employers reading the article had an understanding of the impact of using these sites for employment screening purposes, ESR posted the followng brief comment on the WSJ site:

“Excellent article.  However, it underscores the dangers of “do-it-yourself” background checks for employment.  Employers need to realize that since job and livelihoods are at stake, background checks are legally regulated.  A federal law called the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as well as similar state laws regulates what background screening firms can do.  Even if an employer attempts this in-house, there are numerous ways for an unsuspecting employer to violate applicant’s rights and get sued.  For example, New York recently implemented a series of new law that affect how a criminal conviction can be used, and requires certain rights be given to applicants.  Discrimination laws in general impact the use of background data.  The use of bankruptcy information is potentially discriminatory and in violation of federal law.  There are also issues as to privacy and accuracy. This is one of those efforts that most employers leave in the hands of professionals.  Our firm’s website at www.ESRcheck.com  does contain a great deal of information on how to perform checks properly in the articles section. as well as the problems with employers trying to use Facebook or MySpace to make employment decisions.” 

Of course, the longer and more accurate story is that “do-it-yourself” background checks opens up a potential Pandora’s box of nightmares for employers.  The amount of legal difficulties an employer can get into is enormous.  Doing your own background checks is somewhat like trying to install your own electrical system in your house-it is possible, but fraught with danger.

Questions have been sent in by employers  who receive Credit Reports as to what to do with the “RED FLAG ADDRESS MISMATCH” alerts.  This all came about from new Federal regulations that took effect late last year to curb ID Theft.

The resolution for your company is as Easy as 1, 2, 3.

First, have a written policy in place at your office on how you will deal with this issue.   Specifically the issue is that the address the applicant listed differs from the address that the Credit Bureau has on record. 

Second, contact the applicant and ask him/her to send you or show you some documents that indicate the new address.   Any “official” document will do – driver’s license, apartment lease, utility bill, etc.  (The attached sample policy includes the full list of the items that will adequately prove the new address.)  Once you review the evidence of the new address and you’re satisfied with it, that’s all you need to do.

Third, if the applicant is concerned that the Credit Bureau doesn’t have the new address, you can give him/her a document that ESR will provide that explains how to make the change with them. 

TO RECAP – You’ll want to create a written policy for your company as soon as you can.  You’ll want to watch your Background Reports to note whether the Credit Report is Red Flagged.  And you’ll want to take the easy address verification steps with your applicant if there is a different address on the Credit Report and the Background Report.  As simple as 1, 2, 3.

A sample policy that ESR has written is available to ESR clients.  ESR also provides a link to a page with information an employer can give an applicant if they are concerned about an address mismatch with useful information.

The Federal Trade Commission did announce that it was suspending the rules until August 1, 2009 to provide creditors and financial firms more time to comply.  However, since it is not clear whether the suspension applies to employers, and since this is a best practice to avoid identity theft, ESR suggests that employers begin to implement these rules as soon as possible.

Employment Screening Resources,  announces that its president, Lester Rosen, will be presenting at the HR Star  human resources conference in San Francisco on July 15, 2009. 

The conference is held annually in San Francisco and other cities, for the benefit of Human Resources professionals.  See: http://www.hrstarconference.com/sf/ 

“I am delighted to be associated with the HR Star conferences, given the tremendous value it brings to the Human Resources community,” commented Rosen. “In this economy, it is more critical then ever to avoid unqualified, unsafe or dishonest employees, and we are pleased to have the opportunity to share information with Bay Area employers.” 

Mr. Rosen will be addressing the practical aspects of employment background checks, including the pitfalls of utilizing the internet and social network such as Facebook or MySpace to screen candidates.   

Mr. Rosen, who is also an attorney, is a nationally recognized, writer and speaker on the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), pre-employment screening, and safe hiring issues. In addition, Mr. Rosen is the author of the first comprehensive book on employment screening, The Safe Hiring Manual Complete Guide to Keeping Criminals, Imposters and Terrorists Out of Your Workplace.”  He also wrote, “The Safe Hiring Audit.” 

Mr. Rosen’s speaking appearances have included numerous national and statewide conferences.   He has testified in the California, Florida  and Arkansas Superior Court as an expert witness on issues surrounding safe hiring and due diligence. Mr. Rosen was the chairperson of the steering committee that founded the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), the professional trade organization for the screening industry, and served as the first co-chairman in 2004.

On this Memorial Day, 2009, the entire team at Employment Screening Resources salutes our veterans, the men and woman currently in uniform and their families for their sacrifices and service to America. 

In the words of our President, “..this is not only a time for celebration. It is also a time to reflect on what this holiday is all about; to pay tribute to our fallen heroes; and to remember the servicemen and women who cannot be with us this year because they are standing post far from home –- in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.”

There have been web articles recently about dating sits offering so-called “national criminal database” searches on potential matches to weed out criminals, cheats  and predators.

Unfortunately, offering background checks on dating sites may end up doing more harm then good,  Although it may on occasion turn up some useful data, they are like fake medical  cures because people are lulled into believing they provide protection.  By letting people develop a false sense of security, it can put users at even greater risk because they may let their guard down.  As outlined in the recent article ESR wrote for ASIS magazine, these databases are full of holes.  In some states, such as New York or California they are nearly worthless.  For details see:  http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/how-avoid-hiring-mishaps-005529 

Background checks on dating sites are one of those situations where it needs to be done right. Even if daters are told about the limitations of such searches, it is such a technical area that is it is hard to see how a consumer can really digest the information in a meaningful way.   The irony is that to substantially increase the value of a background check by taking greter measures is not very expensive, especially considering the dangers of dating someone who is dishonest or unsafe.

 ESR’s recommendation is for dating sites to offer real background checks. Either a user can pay for it, or a person that wants to register on a quality site can pay for it.   If a user of the dating site does not want to a utilize the service, that is their decision.  However, ESR questions if it is really good idea to offer cheap and oftentimes meaningless background checks that may well create a false sense of security.