ESR NEWS: Employment Screening Information for Employers

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

A recent New York Times editorial – Check It Again – focused on a new bill in the House of Representatives that would require the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to verify and correct criminal data before issuing background checks for employment purposes, thus fixing the problem of many Americans missing a chance to get hired (as if it wasn’t hard enough to find a job these days) because the FBI background checks employers use to screen job applicants contain incomplete or inaccurate information.

A common problem with FBI background checks, according to the NY Times editorial, is that the criminal records included in those FBI background checks fail to include the final disposition of a case, meaning that the records may only show that a job applicant was arrested but not that the charges were dismissed or that there was no conviction.

The editorial also cites a 2009 report from the National Employment Law Project that revealed the government had mistakenly denied credentials to tens of thousands of workers – partly because of flawed background reports – after Congress required new FBI background checks for about 1.5 million people working at the nation’s ports. The editorial concludes that no one – including the nearly 50 million Americans with arrest or conviction records – should be denied a job because the government’s information contained in an FBI employment background check is wrong.

An earlier story on ESR News explained the bill – called the Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background Checks Act of 2010 (H.R.5300) – would provide safeguards with respect to FBI criminal background checks prepared for employment purposes and require the Attorney General to find out the outcome of arrests from court offices when an employer requests a background check. The attorney general would update the record in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, a computerized index of criminal information available to Federal, state, and local law enforcement 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

In addition, to help avoid inaccurate or incomplete employment background checks, the legislation would give job applicants the opportunity to challenge the accuracy and completeness of background check reports done through the FBI records database.

A 2005 report – “The National Crime Information Center: A Review and Evaluation” – sponsored by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) reviewed the FBI’s NCIC to evaluate its effectiveness in maintaining accurate and complete criminal history records. Among the findings of the NAPBS report were:

• Many states did not report information concerning dispositions, declinations to prosecute, failure to charge after fingerprinting, and expungements.
• Inconsistency in the reporting requirements and criminal codes in various states impacted the completeness and accuracy of the records.
• There were significant time lapses between when information was transmitted to the state repository and actual entry into the criminal history records.  

For more information on FBI background checks and the FBI’s NCIC criminal records database – and the reasons why the information contained in that database is sometimes not always entirely accurate – visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27thu3.html

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5300/text

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm  

http://www.napbs.com/files/members/Resources/NCIC_Report.pdf

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

Following two recent incidents concerning census workers endangering U.S. citizens – including an attack of a disabled young woman allegedly by a census taker in Indiana and a registered sex offender using an alias to get a job as a census taker in New Jersey – the U.S. Census Bureau is adopting stricter rules for the background screening of census workers for the once-in-a-decade 2010 U.S. Census.

According to a story in the Washington Post, the bureau’s director said that the stricter rules for background screening means applicants for the job of census takers whose name, age, gender and Social Security number do not match background screening records will undergo more inquiries instead of being sent for FBI fingerprint checks. As part of the background screening process, all census workers are fingerprinted on their first day of training and the fingerprint card(s) are submitted to FBI for processing.

Other changes in background screening will include not hiring applicants whose fingerprints are not legible until their identities and backgrounds can be confirmed and swifter intervention when there is “evidence of criminality” by a census worker, according to the Post.

The changes in background screening for census takers come after a New Jersey woman she was visited by a census worker who asked for the names and birth dates of everyone in the family. She later recognized the man’s photograph under a different name than the one he had given her on a sex-offender registry site. The Post reported that Census officials said the man passed a name check during background screening but failed a fingerprint check and was fired after he visited the woman’s home. In Indiana, a census worker who passed the background screening process was charged in the attack of a disabled woman after allegedly returning to her house after making a visit as a census taker.

According to the ‘Background Check FAQ’ page of the U.S. Census website, the Census Bureau takes public trust seriously and works to ensure that temporary workers undergo the most thorough and accurate background screening possible. The Census Hiring and Employment Check (CHEC) Branch of the Administrative and Management Systems Division (AMSD) performs background screening for all applicants and employees.

Background screening of the approximately 635,000 census takers includes a name check against the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Name Index and a search of the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database of individuals that have been arrested and fingerprinted to see if it contains a criminal history record file that matches an applicant’s name, date of birth, and social security number.

For more information on background screening, including new legislature that would strengthen the accuracy of background screening using FBI criminal databases and how these databases can sometimes have inaccurate or incomplete information, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052605266.html

http://www.census.gov/hrd/www/jobs/background.html

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff

Noting that polling shows Americans think immigration laws need reform but Congress has yet to translate national sentiment into action, the leading voice of the American Meat Industry (AMI) – the nation’s oldest and largest meat and poultry trade association – believes the reauthorization and improvement of the online employment verification system E-Verify could be a big step forward for comprehensive immigration reform.

In a guest editorial in the Austin (TX) American-Statesman – “The Importance of Employment Verification” – AMI President and CEO J. Patrick Boyle notes “E-Verify is the only electronic data-based system available to ensure that employers hire only those authorized to work in the United States” and that “like a merchant can swipe a credit card when a purchase is made – and that purchase is either authorized or not – E-Verify allows employers to verify the social security numbers of new employees after they are hired.”

Among the key points that Boyle makes in the commentary concerning the importance of employment verification and E-Verify – an Internet-based system run by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) using government databases – are:

• E-Verify can be the cornerstone of border control since the system helps prevent undocumented workers from obtaining U.S. jobs, thus lowering the enticement for those workers to sneak into the county or overstay their expired visas.
• E-Verify can curb possible discrimination against workers by putting the onus on the federal government to either grant or withhold permission for new employees to work after employers send data to E-Verify for employment verification.
• E-Verify can prevent the “Catch-22” situation U.S. employers face daily under current law – they can be fined if they hire an undocumented worker but also can be subjected to civil rights charges if they investigate an employee too much without cause – by taking the guesswork out of the hiring and offering employers a “safe harbor” from such prosecutions when E-Verify becomes mandatory.
• E-Verify can help the tens of millions of unemployed Americans and legal residents by ensuring their jobs are not taken by undocumented workers or that certain employers don’t undercut their wages by hiring undocumented workers.

According to Boyle, the AMI recently asked Congress to mandate E-Verify use after urging industry-wide use for a decade. However, E-Verify needs changes including enhancing its capacity to eliminate border fraud, addressing a growing number of state and local laws, and phasing in any mandatory E-Verify system use over several years to allow smaller companies time to adapt.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a national background screening provider and authorized E-Verify Designated Agent – can help employers virtually eliminate errors, improve the accuracy of their reporting, protect jobs for authorized workers, and help maintain a legal workforce. For more information about the E-Verify employment verification system, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/formi9.php.

Source:

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/boyle-the-importance-of-employment-verification-703919.html

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

With identity theft on the rise – a recent survey found the number of identity theft and fraud victims in the U.S. increased 12 percent to affect over 11 million adults in 2009 – the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is requiring businesses that extend credit to customers to develop plans to detect and prevent identity theft beginning June 1, 2010.

The FTC delayed enforcement of this “Red Flags” Rule until June 1, 2010 at the request of Congress after the Rule was published under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) in which Congress directed the FTC to develop regulations for “financial institutions” and “creditors” that have “covered accounts” to develop and implement written identity theft prevention programs to help identify, detect, and respond to patterns, practices, or specific activities – or “red flags” – that may indicate identity theft.

According to a “Facts For Businesses” page on the FTC website, the Red Flags Rule for implementing a written identity theft prevention program applies to “financial institutions” and “creditors” with “covered accounts,” and the FTC warns that these terms may apply to groups that might not typically use those words to describe themselves.

• The Red Flags Rule defines a “financial institution” as banks, savings and loan associations, mutual savings banks, credit unions, or any person, directly or indirectly, holding a transaction account belonging to a consumer.
• The Red Flags Rule definition of “creditor” is broad and includes businesses or organizations that regularly defer payment for goods or services or provide goods or services and bill customers later. Utility companies, health care providers, and telecommunications companies may fall within this definition. Creditors also include those who regularly grant loans, arrange for loans, or extend credit.
• The Red Flags Rule defines that term “covered accounts” as 1.) A consumer account primarily designed to permit multiple payments or transactions such as credit card accounts, mortgage/auto loans, and cell phone, utility, and checking and savings accounts; and 2.) Any account for which there is a foreseeable risk to customers or to the financial institution or creditor from identity theft.

Beginning June 1, the Red Flags Rule requires “financial institutions” and “creditors” with “covered accounts” described above to develop, implement, and administer Identity Theft Prevention Programs that include four basic elements to address the threat of identity theft: Indentify, Detect, Prevent, and Update.

• An Identity Theft Prevention Program must include reasonable policies and procedures to identify the “red flags” of identity theft, the suspicious patterns and practices, or specific activities, that may indicate the possibility of identity theft.
• An Identity Theft Prevention Program must be designed to detect the red flags identified, and have procedures in place to help in the detection of red flags.
• An Identity Theft Prevention Program must spell out the appropriate response to take when red flags are detected to prevent and mitigate identity theft.
• An Identity Theft Prevention Program should go through a periodic update to reflect new risks from identity theft since this crime is an ever-changing threat.

In addition, the Red Flags Rule written Identity Theft Prevention Program designed to prevent, detect, and mitigate identity theft in connection with the opening of new accounts and the operation of existing ones must be appropriate to the size and complexity of the business or organization and the scope of its activities. A company with a higher risk of identity theft or a variety of covered accounts may need a more comprehensive Identity Theft Prevention Program.

For information about identity theft and the Red Flags Rule, visit http://www.ftc.gov/ or Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.ftc.gov./bcp/edu/pubs/business/idtheft/bus23.shtm

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/redflags.shtm

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091030redflagsrule.pdf

By Les Rosen, President of ESR & Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

Employers that rely on criminal records databases to conduct background checks on potential employees also rely on the accuracy of the information in those databases. Now a federal bill introduced in the House would help to strengthen the accuracy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) criminal records database by requiring the U.S. Attorney General’s Office to verify that crime data contained in the FBI’s database is up to date.

As reported on NextGov.com, the Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background Checks Act of 2010 (H.R.5300) – which would provide safeguards with respect to the FBI criminal background checks prepared for employment purposes – would require the attorney general to find out from court offices, even those in state and local jurisdictions, the outcome of arrests when an employer requests a background check.

In addition, the attorney general would update that record in the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, and would have 10 days to update the record after discovering an arrest was dismissed in court before responding to the employer’s request.

According to NextGov.com, employers consult the FBI’s NCIC database – which is a computerized index of criminal justice information available to Federal, state, and local law enforcement and other criminal justice agencies 24 hours a day, 365 days a year – to conduct background checks on individuals applying for jobs in law enforcement and security, and for jobs working with vulnerable people such as children and the elderly.

The bill H.R.5300 was introduced in response to “The Attorney General’s Report on Criminal History Background Checks” in 2006 that showed nearly 50 percent of criminal records maintained in the NCIC database failed to note court decisions to dismiss arrests, NextGov.com reported. To help avoid inaccurate or incomplete employment background checks, the legislation would give job applicants the opportunity to challenge the accuracy and completeness of background check reports done through the FBI records database. If criminal records are challenged, the attorney general would have 30 days to investigate, make changes, and report those changes to the applicant and the employer.

Some background check experts agree the Fairness and Accuracy in Employment Background Checks Act of 2010 may help fill the gaps in the FBI’s criminal database.

“Although the NCIC data is the closet thing that exists to a national criminal database, it is not nearly as complete as portrayed in the movies,” stated Les Rosen, President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a nationwide employment screening company. “Many records of crime do not make it into the system because of the chain of events that must happen in multiple jurisdictions in order for a crime to appear in NCIC.” 

According to Rosen, author of The Safe Hiring Manual: How To Keep Criminals, Terrorists, and Imposters Out of Your Workplace, employers cannot even access the NCIC unless they are specifically authorized to by law. “There is simply no national computer database of all criminal records available to private employers,” says Rosen.

A 2005 report – “The National Crime Information Center: A Review and Evaluation” – sponsored by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), of which Rosen is a past co-chair, reviewed the NCIC to evaluate its effectiveness in maintaining accurate and complete criminal history records. Among the findings of the NAPBS report were:

• Many states did not report information concerning dispositions, declinations to prosecute, failure to charge after fingerprinting, and expungements.
• Inconsistency in the reporting requirements and criminal codes in various states impacted the completeness and accuracy of the records.
• There were significant time lapses between when information was transmitted to the state repository and actual entry into the criminal history records.
• The format and terminology used by the various states created problems of interpretation for individuals in other states using the information.

For more information on the FBI’s NCIC criminal records database – and the reasons why the information contained in that database is sometimes not always entirely accurate – visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100518_2029.php?oref=topnews

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5300/text

http://www.justice.gov/olp/ag_bgchecks_report.pdf

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm

http://www.napbs.com/files/members/Resources/NCIC_Report.pdf

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

Any employers, including prestigious universities, doubting the need for education verifications as a part of effective background screening programs may reconsider after hearing the story of a former Harvard student who allegedly faked academic credentials and references – even transcripts with perfect SAT grades – to win prizes, scholarships, and receive grants and financial aid.

According to a report in The Harvard Crimson and a news release from the Middlesex County (MA) District Attorney, the 23-year-old former Harvard student from Delaware has been indicted on 20 counts of larceny, identity fraud, falsifying an endorsement or approval, and pretending to hold a degree.  The accused was allegedly “untruthful” in his applications to Harvard University and for scholarships, and in falsifying transcripts that detailed an impressive academic career at some of the top educational institutions in Massachusetts.

The accused student was exposed after submitting applications and references for the Rhodes and Fulbright scholarships while at Harvard University in 2009, according to the report from the Crimson. A Harvard professor noticed similarities between the student’s work and that of another professor and determined that the application packet was mostly plagiarized.

According to the District Attorney’s news release, after Harvard University launched an internal investigation looking into defendant’s academic file, among the discrepancies and inaccuracies allegedly found during the education verification were that the defendant:

• Had never attended MIT or Phillips Academy in Andover, as his file claimed.
• Had SAT scores that were not perfect, as they were conveyed in a College Board document in his file.
• Had recommendations – allegedly signed by professors at Bowdoin College, which the defendant attended before transferring to Harvard – that were falsely attributed to individuals who said that they did not know the accused and had not written the letters.
• Allegedly submitted fraudulent applications for the Harvard endorsement for both the United States Rhodes Scholarship and the Fulbright Scholarship.
• Allegedly submitted an application packet that included fabricated recommendations from Harvard professors and a college transcript detailing perfect grades over three years.
• Had a resume allegedly listing numerous books he had co-authored, lectures he had given, and courses he had taught, according to authorities.
• Allegedly stole over $45,000 in grants, scholarship, and financial aid money awarded to him on applications and submissions of documents that were based on lies and reproductions of other people’s work.

According to the news release, this is not the first time the accused had been under scrutiny for offenses in an academic setting, as he was suspended from Bowdoin due to academic dishonesty. In addition, he did not receive a Harvard degree, according to a spokesperson for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

For more information on employment screening and background checks – including educational verifications – visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Sources:

http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2010/5/17/wheeler-harvard-wheelers-applications/

http://www.middlesexda.com/pact-press-release/former-harvard-student-charged-with-larceny-and-falsifying-documents-from-harvard-university-mit-philips-andover-academy-and-several-other-area-institutions/

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

After the University of Virginia’s president recently announced that the school would perform background checks on students in the wake of the tragic murder of a female student – allegedly at the hands of a fellow student – lawmakers in neighboring Maryland may soon require that universities in that state conduct background checks on students.

According to a report on WJLA ABC 7 News in Arlington, Virginia, the suspect in the University of Virginia killing – a male lacrosse player the same age as the victim, 22, who was also a lacrosse player – was arrested in 2008 after a drunken altercation with a police officer. But the accused killer failed to tell university officials about the arrest.

Presently, according to the WJLA report, many universities – like the University of Maryland – merely ask students if they have a criminal history. If students admit to a crime, school officials say that they are screened further. Otherwise, officials at the university may not know if students have previous convictions.

Upon hearing that Maryland’s state lawmakers may require state universities to conduct background checks on students, some interviewed in the article agreed that background checks for college students are a good idea. “If they have a history you can say maybe there’s a pattern…” one person said, “and they won’t do it again.”

WJLA reports officials at Frostburg State University in Glen Burnie, Maryland were considering whether the school should seek criminal information from applicants before a recent off-campus shooting during which one student at the school died and another was injured. However, the alleged shooter in that case did not have a criminal history.

WJLA also reports that it has not heard of any current plans at the University of Maryland to require background checks on students.

For more information on background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com.

Source: http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0510/736153.html

By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

Citing safety as its highest priority, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has launched a Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) which allows commercial motor carrier companies to electronically access driver inspection and crash records as a part of the hiring process.

According to a DOT news release, the Pre-Employment Screening Program “sends a strong message to commercial carriers and drivers” that the government agency “is serious about having the safest drivers behind the wheel of large trucks and buses.” Commercial carriers now have “an essential tool for making informed hiring decisions that will lead to safer drivers on our roads,” FMCSA officials say, and the PSP “raises the safety bar for the motor carrier industry and helps to make our roads safer for everyone.”

To better assess the potential safety risks of prospective driver-employees, each Driver Information Resource (DIR) record contains the most recent five years of crash data and three years of roadside inspection data – regardless of the state or jurisdiction. Drivers also have opportunities to verify their driving history data and correct any discrepancies. In addition, a driver’s records will be protected in accordance with federal privacy laws.

According to the Pre-Employment Screening Program page on the DOT website, the PSP helps motor carriers make more informed hiring decisions by providing electronic access to a driver’s crash and inspection history from the FMCSA Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) which is comprised of driver performance data including:

• Inspection and compliance review results;
• Enforcement data;
• State-reported crashes, and;
• Motor carrier census data.

For more details on the PSP, visit http://www.psp.fmcsa.dot.gov or the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section at http://www.psp.fmcsa.dot.gov/Pages/FAQ.aspx.

For more information about pre-employment screening and background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.esrcheck.com. 

Sources:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2010/Pre-Employment-Screening-Program.aspx

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/redirect.aspx?page=http://www.psp.fmcsa.dot.gov/

http://www.psp.fmcsa.dot.gov/Pages/FAQ.aspx