All posts by Les Rosen

Routine Background Check Uncovers Fake Doctor in Michigan

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President & Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

An article titled ‘Fake Michigan doctor had hospitals fooled’ by the Detroit Free Press shows why employers should run background checks that include education and credential verifications on medical professionals to ensure they are licensed after a 15-year charade in which a man passed himself off as a doctor ended with a routine background check.

A 58-year-old “doctor and PhD researcher” in Michigan who lined up millions of dollars in research grants and consulting fees directing simulated medical exercises to train hospital staffers resigned after being uncovered as a fraud when calls to the University of Wisconsin confirmed the man had simulated a few facts about himself, the Free Press reports.

The ruse had hospital administrators wondering how a person with no medical or doctoral degree could have fooled some of the best in medicine for so long. After billing himself as a doctor, researcher, and certified pilot – with only the latter being true – the falsifications were revealed during a routine background check on a federal grant application.

The Free Press reports that for some reason the phony doctor’s résumé with false references was not vetted by either medical administration or human resources departments at the hospital, and the embarrassing episode has prompted tighter scrutiny of applications. Fortunately, the fake doctor never treated patients and did not apply for physician admitting privileges.

A medical ethicist at Michigan State University quoted in the article said the case shows that medical and academic institutions should follow the rules that should in place to catch possible falsifications. “Always check credentials. There’s just no excuse for not checking credentials. It’s kind of a no-brainer.”

This story – and other such stories about phony professionals falsifying employment histories or education credentials – shows the need for employers to run background checks on all professionals since they cannot simply assume they are licensed.

As reported earlier on ESR News, education and credential falsification is a surprisingly common occurrence, and a rapidly growing problem, as evidenced by the following stories:

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a leading provider of background checks accredited by the National Association of Background Screeners (NAPBS) – offers background screening that include verifications of credentials and education. ESR has extensive procedures to ensure that any school is legitimate and not a so-called “diploma mill” (also known as a “degree mill”), an organization that awards academic degrees and diplomas with substandard or no academic study and without recognition by official educational accrediting bodies. The terms “diploma mill” and “degree mill” may apply to:

  • A “real” degree from a fake college.
  • A fake degree from a real college.

ESR also has a wealth of material on the subject of academic fraud including an article by ESR’s founder and President Lester Rosen, “The Basics of Educational Verifications” at http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1090/the-basics-of-education-verifications. In addition, the Additional Links page in the ESR Resource Center contains information on states with lists of fraudulent schools as well as how to find real accredited schools at: http://www.esrcheck.com/services/resources.php.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be ‘Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more about ESR’s Leadership, Resources, and Solutions, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Source:
http://www.freep.com/article/20101214/NEWS06/12140350/1318/-Fake-doc-had-hospitals-fooled

International Background Screening More Necessary Due to Mobility of Workers in Global Economy

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President & Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

In 2011, due to the mobility of workers across international borders in a global economy making it no longer adequate to conduct background screening checks just in the United States, a major trend will be the necessity of international background screening since an increasing number of workers will have spent part of their professional careers abroad.

Employers in the U.S. have long recognized that conducting due diligence on new hires with background screening is a mission critical task that can help them avoid being the subject of negligent hiring lawsuits if they hire someone that they should have known – through the exercise of due diligence – was dangerous, unfit or unqualified.

However, with the increased mobility of workers across international borders it is no longer adequate to conduct these background screening checks just in the United States. Background screening also must be done internationally since an increasing number of workers have spent part of their professional careers abroad. The number of foreign countries from which U.S. employers may seek information about applicants with international background screening is expansive, and includes Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, and the United Kingdom (U.K.).

This is Trend #5 of the Employment Screening Resources (ESR) Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011.

A need for international background screening can occur in several situations:

  • Job applicant from abroad: International background screening is necessary when an American company is considering a job applicant who was born abroad and is either coming directly to the U.S. from another country or has not been in the United States long enough to rely solely upon checking American references and criminal records.
  • Job applicant spent time abroad: International background screening is necessary when an American company is considering a job applicant who spent considerable time abroad in another country and the employer wants to obtain data for that time period.
  • Job applicant from other country will work in that country: International background screening is necessary when an American company is hiring an individual in another country to work in that country, such as an outside sales representative.

Recent U.S. government statistics show why international background screening is so necessary. Employers should understand that, statistically speaking, people in the United States who were born – or have spent significant time – abroad make up a surprisingly large amount of the current U.S. population:

What these figures tell employers is that only performing background screening within the U.S. is probably not enough. More and more, employers find they need to obtain information from outside of the United States on such matters as criminal records, past employment, and educational accomplishments with international background screening.

However, due to the perceived difficulty in performing international background screening, some employers do not attempt to verify international employment or education credentials, or perform foreign criminal checks. However, the mere fact that information may be more difficult to obtain from outside of the U.S. does not relieve an employer from their due diligence obligation, or “duty of care,” associated with hiring.

An employer cannot simply take a position that it is harder to exercise due diligence because the research is international. Nor can employers simply assume that the U.S. government has conducted background checks if the worker was issued a visa since government checks are generally not aimed at verifying credentials or checking for criminal records for employment purposes.

To exercise due diligence in hiring workers with backgrounds outside the U.S., employers should – at a minimum – consider international background screening for:

  • Criminal records
  • Employment
  • Education
  • Publicly available terrorist lists and international databases
  • Driver’s license, media searches, and – in some countries – credit reports

Employers should also be aware of special challengers when it comes to international background screening. Each and every country is completely different when it comes to international background screening. Techniques, information, and availability of public records that are taken for granted here in the United States are often times not available abroad. Outside of the U.S., there is generally very limited access to public records and the types of information needed for background screening. Each country has its own laws, customs, and procedures for background screenings.

When performing international background screening, there are a number of the special challenges and practical difficulties employers may face, including:

  • Differences in courts and legal systems
  • Language barriers
  • Name variations including transliteration into English and Phonetic transcription or “transcribing”
  • Time differences
  • Means and cost of communications
  • Differing calendars and holidays
  • Inherent risk of fraud
  • Costs more expensive compared to background screening in U.S.
  • Payments must be made in another country’s currency

Although international background screening can be challenging, it is not impossible. Employers can find themselves in hot water if they assume that international background screening is too difficult or expensive and simply bypass the process.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), both employers and background screening firms still have certain obligations regarding international background screening. If the task of international background screening is outsourced to a U.S. background screening firm, that firm has an FCRA obligation to take reasonable procedures to insure accuracy. If there is a negative public record, such as a criminal record “hit,” then the U.S. background screening firm must make certain the information is correct and up-to-date, and supplied in a way that does not violate any data or privacy protection rules.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a leading background check provider both nationally and internationally accredited by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) and the third U.S. background screening company to be “Safe Harbor” certified – recommends employers implement an international Background Screening program that best fits their needs. ESR recommendations include:

  • Employers not assume that just because a person has spent time outside of the U.S., that international background screening is not possible.
  • Employers not assume the U.S. government has performed a background check that relieves employers of their due diligence obligation to conduct their own screening.
  • Employers perform international background screening in a legally compliance manner.
  • Employers perform the broadest criminal search allowed in each country, the international ESR criminality search.
  • Employers perform verification of, at the very least, the highest education that the applicant attained, the last employment where the applicant worked.
  • Employers pay particular attention to international education verifications since the world is awash with phony schools, fake degrees, and worthless diplomas.
  • Employers never identify applicants as “applicants born abroad” but rather simply as “international screening” since it may be discriminatory under Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations.
  • Employers use proper consent forms for European Union (EU) “Safe Harbor” data privacy standards.
  • Employers perform international credit reports and driving records when available in some countries.

In January of 2011, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) will release a white paper ‘Introduction to International Background Screening’ that will provide information about what risks employers conducting such international background screenings should be aware of and the many ways background screening overseas differs from background screening in the United States. Some of the topics covered in the white paper include:

  • Two Types of International Background Checks:  Screening vs. Investigation
  • Why Employers Cannot Assume Government Screens Workers from Abroad
  • Challenges When Performing International Background Screenings
  • Tips on International Education & Employment Verifications
  • Terrorist Watch Search Lists, International Databases & International Sanctions Search
  • Legal Implications for Employers Doing International Background Checks
  • EU “Safe Harbor” Privacy and Data Protection in International Background Screening
  • Recommendations for International Background Screening Programs

To read more ESR News articles about International background screening, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/international-background-checks/.  To read the article ‘Introduction to International Screening’ by Employment Screening Resources (ESR) founder and President Lester Rosen, visit: http://www.esrcheck.com/articles/internationalscreening.php.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is releasing the ESR Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011 throughout December. This is the Fifth of the Top Ten Trends ESR will be tracking in 2011. To see an updated list of ESR’s ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011, visit: http://www.esrcheck.com/Top-Ten-Trends-In-Background-Screening-2011.php.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more about ESR’s Leadership, Resources, and Solutions, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Sources:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-15.pdf
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf 
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf
https://www.export.gov/safeharbor/

Identity Theft Reported by 11.7 Million Victims According to 2008 Government Survey

 By Thomas Ahearn, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) News Editor

According to a press release from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), an estimated 11.7 million people were victims of identity theft during the two years prior to being surveyed in 2008, and the financial losses due to the identity theft totaled more than $17 billion.

The findings are based on the 2008 Identity Theft Supplement (ITS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The ITS surveyed over 56,000 persons age 16 or older in the U.S. about the types of identity theft experienced in a two-year period.

In the survey, “identity theft” was defined as the attempted or successful misuse of an existing account, such as a debit or credit account, misuse of personal information to open a new account, or misuse of personal information for other fraudulent purposes.

Other key findings of the survey include (figures are estimates):

  • 6.2 million victims experienced the unauthorized use or attempted use of an existing credit card account, the most prevalent type of identity theft. 
  • 4.4 million victims reported the misuse or attempted misuse of a banking account, such as a debit, checking, or savings account.
  • 1.7 million victims experienced the fraudulent misuse of their information to open a new account, and
  • 618,900 victims reported the misuse of their information to commit other crimes, such as fraudulently obtaining medical care or government benefits or providing false information to law enforcement during a crime or traffic stop.
  • 16 percent of all victims experienced multiple types of identity theft during the two-year period.
  • 23 percent of all victims suffered an out-of-pocket financial loss due to the victimization, with the average out-of-pocket financial loss being $1,870.
  • 40 percent of victims had some idea about how their identifying information was obtained.

Following publication, the report – Victims of Identity Theft, 2008 (NCJ 231680) – can be found at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov.

The story serves as a reminder of why the Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of consumers used in background checks must be protected from threats like identity theft. As reported previously on ESR News, identity theft remains a threat not only to individual consumers but also employers and businesses as well since much identity theft occurs in the workplace as evidenced by the following stories:

Since much identity theft occurs at the workplace, employers should know what steps they can take to prevent identity theft. To help protect the personal information of consumers used in background checks from identity theft, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) created the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP) to be a widely recognized “seal” of approval representing a background screening organization’s commitment to excellence, accountability, and high professional standards. The Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) oversees the application process and ensures that background screening organizations seeking accreditation meet or exceed a measurable standard of competence, including protection of consumer information against identity theft.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a leading provider of background checks – has successfully proved compliance with the stringent standards of the BSAAP and is now formally recognized as NAPBS BSCC Accredited. To help prevent identity theft, background screening reports from ESR never carry a full Social Security number (SSN) or Date of Birth (DOB).  

To learn more about accreditation, read ‘Background Screening Credentialing Council Recognizes Accredited Companies’ at:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/background-screening-credentialing-council-recognizes-accredited-companies-2010-12-01?reflink=MW_news_stmp.

For more information on identity theft, visit the Employment Screening Resources (ESR) Resource Center Applicant Resources page at http://www.esrcheck.com/Applicant-Resources.php.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more about ESR’s Leadership, Resources, and Solutions, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Source:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2010/BJS11044.htm

ESR Background Screening Trend 6 for 2011: Using Social Network Sites Such as Facebook to Screen Job Candidates Increases Legal Risk for Employers

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President & Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011

Trend No. 6: Using Social Network Sites Such as Facebook to Screen Job Candidates Increases Legal Risk for Employers

A background screening trend that recently emerged where employers used social network sites such as Facebook – the most popular social networking site with over 500 million active users worldwide – to run ‘Social Network Background Checks’ on job candidates should become even more prevalent in 2011, and increase the legal risks for employers.

No discussion about background screening these days is complete without an analysis of how the Internet is used for hiring. From social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter to blogs, videos on YouTube, and business connection sites like LinkedIn, employers focus with laser-like intensity on how to use the Internet for background screening job candidates. What is sometimes overlooked in the rush to use the Internet for background screening is the one question employers need to ask: What are the legal risks in using the Internet for hiring?

The answer involves issues of discrimination, authenticity, and privacy. If employers insist on using social network sites for background screening, then they must realize that much of the ‘new media’ available to them for background screening is still covered by current employment regulations.

“Employers and recruiters have discovered a treasure trove of information on potential job applicants in social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and other online sources,” says Lester Rosen, founder of Employment Screening Resources (ESR) and author of The Safe Hiring Manual – The Complete Guide to Keeping Criminals, Imposters, and Terrorists Out of Your Workplace,’ the first comprehensive book on employment screening. “However, the use of these sites can present legal risks, including privacy and discrimination issues.”

Employers care about the content on social networking sites used by job candidates. A 2009 survey from leading job networking site CareerBuilder.com that found nearly half of employers use social networking sites to screen job candidates, more than double the amount from 2008. The survey of more than 2,600 hiring managers revealed that 45 percent of employers used social networking sites to research candidates and 35 percent of employers rejected applicants based on what was uncovered on social networking sites. Of these 35 percent:

  • 53 percent cited provocative/inappropriate photographs or information.
  • 44 percent cited content about drinking or using drugs.
  • 35 percent cited bad-mouthing of previous employers, co-workers or clients.
  • 29 percent cited poor communication skills.
  • 26 percent cited discriminatory comments.
  • 24 percent cited misrepresentation of qualifications.
  • 20 percent cited sharing confidential information from a previous employer. 

Allegations of discrimination are one critical area where employers can find themselves in hot water when utilizing social network sites for background screening. Employers may be accused of disregarding candidates who are members of protected classes by passing over the online profiles of people based on prohibited criteria such as race, creed, color, nationality, sex, religious affiliation, marital status, or medical condition. There may even be photos showing a physical condition protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or showing candidates wearing garb suggesting their religious affiliation or national origin. This issue is sometimes referred to as Too Much Information (TMI). Once employers are aware that an individual is a member of a protected group, it is difficult to claim that they can “un-ring the bell” and forget they saw such information.

Another issue facing employers using the Internet to source is authenticity. In other words, if negative information about a candidate is found on the Internet or a social networking site, how is the employer supposed to verify that the information is accurate, up-to-date, authentic, and if it even belongs to or applies to the candidate in question?

Another problem concerning Internet sourcing and screening yet to be fully explored by the courts is the issue of privacy. Contrary to popular opinion, everything online is not necessarily fair game. Certainly, people choosing not to adjust their privacy settings so that their social network sites are easily available on Internet searches may have a more difficult time arguing that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the terms of use for many social network sites prohibit commercial use and many users literally believe that their social network site is exactly that – a place to freely socialize. The argument would be that in their circles it is the community norm, and a generally accepted attitude, that their pages are off limits to unwelcome intruders, even if the door is left wide open. After all, burglars can hardly defend themselves on the basis that the front door to the house they stole from was unlocked so they felt they could just walk in.
 
Yet another issue is legal off-duty conduct.  A number of states protect workers engaged in legal off-duty conduct. If such a search reveals legal off duty conduct, a candidate can claim they were the victims of illegal discrimination 
 
All of these concerns are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to social network background checks.  Employers need to be very careful when it comes to harvesting information about job candidates from the internet.  Employers need to know how to protect themselves against allegations of discrimination and issues with authenticity and privacy if no further action is taken after the discovery on the Internet that a person is a member of a protected class or when finding negative information.  How and when an employer obtains such information is critical.

For employers wanting to use social network sites to screen a candidate, the safest path when using the Internet is to obtain consent from the candidate first and only search once there has been a conditional job offer to that candidate. This procedure helps ensure that impermissible information is not considered before the employer evaluates a candidate using permissible tools such as interviews, job-related employment tests, references from supervisors, and a background check.

At that point, after using permissible screening tools, the reason for employers to search social networking sites would be to ensure that there is nothing that would eliminate the person for employment, such as saying nasty things about the employer’s firm, or if the applicant engaged in behavior that would damage the company, hurt business interests, or be inconsistent with business needs.

In addition, employers in the sourcing stage may want to consider having a clear internal policy and documented training that Internet sourcing is not being used in violation of federal and state discrimination laws and that only factors that are valid predictors of job performance will be considered, taking into account the job description, and the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the position. It also helps to have objective and documented methods and metrics on how to source and screen on the Internet.

Another method employers may use is to have a person in-house not connected to any hiring decisions review social network sites, in order to ensure impermissible background screening information is not given to the decisions maker. The in-house background screening should also have training in the non-discriminatory use of background screening information, knowledge of the job desiccation and use objective methods that are the same for all candidates for each type of position.  That way, only permissible information is transmitted to the person that is making the decision.  Again, this is best done post-offer but pre-hire and with consent. An employer may be looking for online information concerning upon job suitability.  For example, did the potential employee say derogatory things about past employers or co-workers, or demonstrate that they are not the best candidate for the job. 

Although employers may request that background screening firms perform this function, there are a number of drawbacks. First, a background screening firm does not have the same in-depth knowledge the employer has of the details of the position.  In addition, if a social network background check is done by a background screening firm, the search falls under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) which requires a background screening firm to maintain reasonable procedures for maximum possible accuracy.  Because a background screening firm has no way of knowing if the online information is accurate, it is difficult for background screening firms to perform this service consistent with the FCRA.  In other words, due to the FCRA, background screening firms may not be best suited to perform these types of ‘social network background check’ searches.

On the other hand, failure to utilize these social networking sites when a search could have revealed relevant information could expose an employer to claims of negligent hiring. 

The bottom line is that employers must approach using social network background screening with caution before assuming everything is fair game in the pursuit of job candidates or otherwise face potential legal landmines that could destroy their business.

To read more ESR News articles about using social network sites for screening, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/social-networking-sites/.  Learn more about Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a leading provider of background checks accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) – is releasing the ESR Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011 throughout December. This is the Sixth of the Top Ten Trends ESR will be tracking in 2011. To see an updated list of ESR’s ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011, visit: http://www.esrcheck.com/Top-Ten-Trends-In-Background-Screening-2011.php.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Background Check Information Allegedly Stolen at Fingerprint Center for Identity Theft

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President & Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

According to a report by KXXV-TV ABC News Channel 25 in central Texas, four women in the Waco, TX area were arrested on accusations they stole background check information from fingerprint applications. The women were indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of conspiracy to commit identity theft. Some of the women were also charged with aggravated identity theft. If convicted, they face up to 15 years in federal prison.

KXXV-TV reports that one of the women worked at a fingerprint center in Waco from March 2008 to July 2008 and allegedly stole thousands of background check applications that contained personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates when she left the company. The four women then allegedly used the stolen background check information to commit identity theft by obtaining credit cards, opening accounts, and purchasing items.

The story serves as a reminder of why the Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of consumers used in background checks must be protected from not only outside intrusions such as hackers and ‘phishers’ but also from potential internal threats like employee theft.

To help protect the personal information of consumers used in background checks and ensure data privacy and security, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) created the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP) to be a widely recognized “seal” of approval representing a background screening organization’s commitment to excellence, accountability, and high professional standards. The NAPBS Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) oversees the application process and ensures that background screening organizations seeking accreditation meet or exceed a measurable standard of competence.

To become NAPBS accredited, a background screening organization must pass a rigorous onsite audit of its policies and procedures as they relate to six critical areas of the BSAAP: Consumer Protection; Legal Compliance; Client Education; Product Standards; Service Standards; and General Business Practices. The BSAAP includes individual standards for the protection of consumer information such as:

  • Written Information Security Policy (WISP)
  • Clean Desk Policy
  • Anti-Browsing Policy
  • Document Destruction
  • Intrusion, Detection & Response
  • Stored Data Security
  • Password Protocol
  • Electronic Access Control
  • Consumer Information Privacy Policy
  • Consumer Credentialing
  • Employee Certification
  • Worker Training
  • Visitor & Physical Security

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) – a leading provider of background checks – has successfully proved compliance with the stringent standards of the BSAAP and is now formally recognized as BSCC Accredited. To learn more about accreditation, read the press release ‘Background Screening Credentialing Council Recognizes Accredited Companies’ at:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/background-screening-credentialing-council-recognizes-accredited-companies-2010-12-01?reflink=MW_news_stmp.

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

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Source:
http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13688249

ESR Background Screening Trend 7 for 2011: More Workplace Violence Prevention Education Helps Protect Employers and Employees

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President & Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011

Trend No. 7:  More Workplace Violence Prevention Education Helps Protect Employers and Employees

A background screening trend that gained much attention in 2010 that will continue to do so in 2011 will be increased workplace violence prevention education to help protect both employers and employees.

While the term “workplace violence” is appropriate for a quick definition or diagnosis of a problem, fully defining all aspects of “workplace violence” can be nebulous at best. Many employers loosely define workplace violence as:

Assaults, other violent acts, or threats which occur in or are related to the workplace and entail a substantial risk of physical or emotional harm to individuals, or damage to company resources or capabilities.

The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA) defines “workplace violence” as “violence or the threat of violence against workers” that involves any physical assault, threatening behavior, or verbal abuse occurring in, or related to, the workplace, and includes behaviors ranging in aggressiveness from verbal harassment to murder. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there were 521 workplace killings in the United States in 2009, 420 of them committed by gunfire.

Workplace violence incidents seemed to make the news more regularly in this past year, with each tragic case serving to further educate employers, and the public, about workplace violence:

  • January 2010: A male employee at a manufacturing company in Missouri involved in a lawsuit filed against the company allegedly killed three people and then shot himself.
  • February 2010: A female professor was accused of killing three colleagues and wounding three others during a faculty meeting after being denied tenure at a university in Alabama. In an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America, two family members of one victim said they hoped the shooting would lead to more thorough background checks for the school’s faculty after learning about the accused killer’s allegedly violent past.
  • March 2010: A female supermarket worker in Florida fired for threatening to kill a coworker returned to work and made good on her threat.
  • August 2010: In the wake of the tragic shooting spree on November 5, 2009 in which an Army psychiatrist allegedly opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas and took the lives of 13 military personnel and wounded 32 others, the Department of Defense called for more education about workplace violence as part of its final review of the recommendations from the independent report ‘Protecting the Force: Lessons Learned from Fort Hood.’ Specifically, “Recommendation 2.6 a, b: Update Policies to Address Workplace Violence” states the Independent Review found “guidance concerning workplace violence” was insufficient and that these programs “may serve as useful resources for developing more comprehensive workplace violence prevention.”
  • August 2010: A truck driver in Connecticut who purportedly stole from his company and resigned reportedly killed eight people and then shot himself with a handgun.
  • September 2010: After being suspended from her job, a woman allegedly killed coworkers at a baking plant in Philadelphia.
  • September 2010: A survey by Emergency Nurses Association (ENA) revealed more than half of the emergency nurses surveyed – a mean of 54.8 percent – reported experiencing incidents of workplace violence in the past week. In addition, almost three out of four emergency nurses – 74.4 percent – who were victims of workplace violence reported that the hospital gave them no response regarding that workplace violence. As a result of the survey, ENA urged OHSA to make its guidelines for preventing workplace violence into mandatory standards that to which all hospital and health care centers must adhere.
  • September 2010: Part of the emerging trend of workplace violence is that women seem to be increasingly becoming involved in workplace violence incidents. Although women commit fewer than 5 percent of homicides and assaults in the workplace, several high-profile cases of women killing in the workplace occurred in the past year, and these cases could indicate a possible trend emerging of women committing more acts of workplace violence.

These recent incidents of workplace violence remind employers that they should have education and policies on how to help prevent workplace violence, including training on how to recognize, and deal with, the warning signs of workplace violence. 

While the definition of “workplace violence” covers a fair degree of actions, a better interpretation should be used in order to create an effective, defensible policy for employers. A better definition of workplace violence should account for the type of offense, circumstance — where and when an incident occurs, and whether it is considered to be “on-the-job” — and party or parties involved. Workplace violence can take place anywhere employees are required to carry out a business-related function.

While many acts of workplace violence are caused by external parties, such as robbery in the workplace by a stranger, recent concerns over workplace violence center on workplace violence carried out by existing employees. These internal incidents of workplace violence leave employers largely liable for any problems that occur in the workplace under the “Negligent Hiring Doctrine” dictating that employers can be held liable for damages if they knowingly employ persons known to pose a potential threat to co-workers or the public.

That said, the question arises — how can an employer identify a potentially problematic employee? The problem is that there is no magic formula that tells an employer in advance who will and will not be violent. Predicting future violence is a matter of considerable controversy. However, experts have found some factors that are present in many cases of workplace violence. One important factor is a history of past violence.  For that reason, pre-employment background checks are widely regarded as an effective screening procedure because the process serves three major functions:

  • First, screening job applicants can bring to light problems in a potential hire’s past such as a history of violence, harassment, or extremely inappropriate behavior.
  • Second, by making it standard policy to screen all job applicants on their way into the company, employers demonstrate due diligence, showing that all reasonable efforts have been made in determining whether or not the applicant poses a threat to the company or to the public.
  • Third, pro-actively communicated background screening practices cause applicants to opt-out by discouraging prospective jobseekers with criminal or problematic backgrounds from applying.

However, there is more to preventing workplace problems than background screening at the door. Lives of employees can change. A person who checked out in an initial background screening may over time develop the traits or behaviors indicative of a potentially violent employee. It is up to the employer to maintain a constant eye on conditions and events in the workplace — to stay aware of employee attitudes and concerns in order to ensure the safety and security of everyone involved. Some workplace violence is related to domestic violence that spills over in the workplace. Also, workplace violence can be threats that create a hostile workplace. Employers need to be prepared to assemble a team to deal with workplace violence incidents.

One way employers can deal with workplace violence is to use due diligence in hiring as an important tool to avoid “bad” – and potentially violent – hires. Pre-employment background screening plays a critical role of in the hiring process.  Setting up a pre-employment background screening program is quick, easy, and the cost is minimal compared to just one workplace violence incident.  An employer can provide a great deal of protection from workplace violence just by a well designed job application, interview, criminal background check, and past employment and education verification process. The bottom line is that employees also want protection from workplace violence and to work in a workplace with safe and qualified co-workers.

To read more articles about workplace violence on ESR News, visit http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/workplace-violence/.  For more information about background screening to help prevent workplace violence, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is releasing the ESR Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011 throughout December. This is the Seventh of the Top Ten Trends ESR will be tracking in 2011. To see an updated list of ESR’s ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011, visit: http://www.esrcheck.com/Top-Ten-Trends-In-Background-Screening-2011.php.  

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Inaccurate Criminal Background Check Information Leaves Innocent Man Jobless

By Thomas Ahearn, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) News Editor

A man from North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was stunned after he was fired from his job at a video-game store for ‘nondisclosure of information’ on his application caused by what turned out to be erroneous information on a background check, according to a story in the Philadelphia Daily News.

The 32-year-old man had admitted that he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of simple assault, harassment, and related offenses for fighting, and disclosed this on his job application at a video-game store in North Philadelphia, PA. However, after a month of employment, his manager asked about any criminal record that he had not disclosed before firing him.

After being fired, the man interviewed for an overnight-manager position at another company and gave them permission to do a background check. A week later, he received a denial letter from the company and a copy of his background check which claimed he had been convicted in 1996 of felony cocaine possession in Gloucester County, Virginia and sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The man – who had never even been to Gloucester County, VA and was still in high school at the time of the offense – called the background check company to dispute the information and the company cleared his criminal background check of the false felony cocaine charge. However, the video-game store did not re-hire him after the felony charge was cleared, the Philadelphia Daily News reports.

After not having steady work since April 2009, the man now wonders how many other jobs that he applied for but did not get were because of inaccurate information on his background check.

This story – about an employee losing a job because of inaccurate information on a background check – shows why hiring (and firing) decisions made by employers must be based on timely and accurate background check information. Erroneous and out of date background check information exposes employers not only to bad hiring decisions but also to potential litigation from those people harmed by such data.

A reputable and accredited background check company can help ensure that the information found on background checks is accurate and up to date and limit the occurrence of “bad” background checks. For more information on background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Source:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/personal_finance/20101213_Innocent__felon___Background_check_gave_false_info.html

ESR Background Screening Trend 8 for 2011: Increased Privacy Concerns Over Offshoring of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President & Thomas Ahearn, ESR News Editor

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011

Trend No. 8: Increased Privacy Concerns Over Offshoring of Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

A new background screening trend emerging in 2011 will be the increased concern over the “offshoring” of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of U.S. consumers.

A recently signed California law appears to be the first in the United States to regulate the “offshoring” of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of U.S. consumers collected for background checks, a controversial practice where private data of U.S. citizens – such as names, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security numbers (SSNs) – is sent overseas, outside the United States and its territories, and beyond the reach of U.S. privacy laws.

In September 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law California Senate Bill 909 (SB 909), which addresses the issue of personal information being sent offshore. SB 909 – which takes effect January 1, 2012 to allow time for background check firms to provide new releases to employers or modify online language – amends the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRA) that regulates background checks in California and requires that a consumer must be notified as part of a disclosure before the background check of the web address for “information about the investigative reporting agency’s privacy practices, including whether the consumer’s personal information will be sent outside the United States or its territories.” In addition:

  • If a background check company does not have a web site, then the background check company must provide the consumer with a phone number where the consumer can obtain the same information.
  • The background check company’s privacy policy must contain “information describing its privacy practices with respect to its preparation and processing of investigative consumer reports.”
  • Background check companies in California (and firms that do business in California) must have a statement in their privacy policy entitled “Personal Information Disclosure: United States or Overseas” that indicates whether the personal information will be transferred to third parties outside the United States or its territories through the process of offshoring.
  • “Third parties” are defined in SB-909 as including, “but not being limited to, a contractor, foreign affiliate, wholly owned entity, or an employee of the investigative consumer reporting agency” and also requires a “separate section that includes the name, mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the investigative consumer reporting agency representatives who can assist a consumer with additional information regarding the investigative consumer reporting agency’s privacy practices or policies in the event of a compromise of his or her information.”
  • In the event a consumer is harmed by virtue of a background check company negligently sending data offshore, SB-909 provides for damages to the consumer.

The practice of offshoring – whether personal information or jobs – can have a negative impact on network security since, for all intents and purposes, once Personally Identifiable Information (PII) is sent offshore outside the U.S. it is beyond the reach and protection of U.S. laws in cases involving identity theft or privacy issues. As reported earlier on ESR News, other states besides California have data privacy laws in effect, in legislation, or have voiced concerns over data privacy. For example:

As for the definition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), the following are often used for the express purpose of distinguishing individual identity, and thus are clearly PII under the definition used by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget:

  • Full name
  • Birthday
  • Birthplace
  • Social Security Number (SSN)
  • Vehicle registration plate
  • Driver’s license number
  • Credit card number
  • National identification number
  • IP ( Internet Protocol) address
  • Face, fingerprints, or handwriting
  • Digital identity
  • Genetic information

In addition, according to a 2009 security survey of 350 network administrators and IT executives executed by Amplitude Research and commissioned by VanDyke Software, offshoring of Information Technology (IT) jobs can lead to increases in data breaches. The survey more than two-thirds (69 percent) of respondents felt outsourcing technical jobs offshore had a negative impact on network security, and 61 percent of workers at companies outsourcing IT jobs said their company had experienced a data breach.

The security survey naturally raises questions as to the safety of offshoring Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of American job applicants in order to prepare background checks. ConcernedCRAs, a group of more than 120 Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs), opposes the practice of offshoring Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of U.S. citizens outside the country to be processed beyond U.S. privacy laws.

A member of ConcernedCRAs, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) does not offshore Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and all domestic background checks are performed exclusively in the United States. ESR does all processing and preparation in the U.S. in order to protect applicants and employers, the only exception being when performing an international verification using information residing outside the U.S. ESR was also the third U.S. background screening firm to become “Safe Harbor” Certified for data privacy protection. See: https://safeharbor.export.gov/companyinfo.aspx?id=9239.

Before selecting a U.S. background check firm, employers should determine if that firm is processing information outside of the country. The risk is significant, even if the offshore facility is wholly owned or a subsidiary of a U.S. firm. An employer needs to have a full understanding of how data and privacy is protected once it leaves the U.S., and what duty is owed to job applicants in terms of notice that their PII is being sent abroad.

To read more about ‘Offshoring’ and ‘Personally Identifiable Information’ on ESR News, visit articles tagged at http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/offshoring/ and http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/personally-identifiable-information/.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is releasing the ESR Fourth Annual ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011 throughout December. This is the Eighth of the Top Ten Trends ESR will be tracking in 2011. To see an updated list of ESR’s ‘Top Ten Trends in Pre-Employment Background Screening’ for 2011, visit: http://www.esrcheck.com/Top-Ten-Trends-In-Background-Screening-2011.php.  

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Bad Credit Found During Background Check Leads to Revoked Job Offer and Lawsuit against University

By Thomas Ahearn, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) News Editor

A woman is suing the University of Miami (UM) in federal court on after her job offer at the college’s medical school was revoked due to bad credit found on a background check, a case some hope will help ban employers from using credit histories in hiring decisions.

According to a report by the Miami Herald, the woman’s application to become a senior medical collector in the patient financial services department had already been accepted by the UM when she was notified that a car repossession and defaulted student loan found on her credit report during a background check disqualified her from the job, even after she had been through several interviews and apparently had the right experience for that job.

In addition, the woman filing the suit is African-American and some believe the use credit reports by employers discriminates against minority job applicants since more Latinos and blacks are unemployed than whites and unemployment is often the reason people cannot pay their bills, according to the report in the Miami Herald.  The lawsuit is pending in court.

With unemployment still high and the economy still low, many job seekers with bad credit histories are in a “Catch-22” situation where they cannot fix their credit without finding a job but cannot find a job because they are rejected due to their bad credit. Meanwhile, employers argue that credit checks can help a company protect its assets, its clients, and prevent liability from negligent hiring claims.

While many and job seekers would like credit checks eliminated altogether by employers, a recent survey by the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) found that 60 percent of employers performed credit checks on at least some job applicants during the background check process and more than 1 in 10 employers ran credit checks on every job applicant.

As reported earlier on ESR News, credit background checks for employment purposes are a controversial part of the background screening industry, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held a recent public meeting to discuss whether the use of credit checks during background checks violates the civil rights of job applicants.

To read more ESR News reports about the use of credit reports during employment background checks, visit: http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/credit-reports/.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was the third U.S. background check firm to be Safe Harbor’ Certified for data privacy protection. To learn more, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.

Source:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/06/1960665/woman-with-bad-credit-sues-um.html

Continual Employment Screening Background Checks on Current Employees Carries Risks

By Lester Rosen, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) President

In a recent blog on ‘Background Checks: Trends and Legal Issues’ on HR Toolbox by background check expert and Attorney at Law Lester Rosen, the verdict on whether or not the advantages of periodic background checks of current employees outweigh the disadvantages is: “the jury is still out.”

“To avoid bad hiring decisions, employers have increasingly turned to pre-employment background screening as a risk management tool,” writes Rosen, founder and President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a national background screening firm, and author of ‘The Safe Hiring Manual – The Complete Guide to Keeping Criminals, Terrorists, and Imposters Out of Your Workplace,’ the first comprehensive book on employee background checks. “No background screening program can be conducted, however, without a full understanding of a number of laws, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), discrimination and privacy law, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), and a host of state specific rules. In addition, for employers to be able to defend themselves from allegations of negligent hiring, they must demonstrate due diligence in their hiring process.”

A new issue Rosen tackles is whether employers should conduct periodic criminal background checks of their current workforce since – although a background check may show a clean record when an employee is hired – an employee may commit a crime while employed. These ongoing searches are a way to demonstrate due diligence and to protect the workplace. Although some may argue that an employer would likely be aware of a crime committed by a current worker because that employee would miss work, many serious offenses may end up with the employee being bailed out and serving a sentence with work furlough, weekend jail, volunteer hours, or some other alternative to actual incarceration.

Even though periodic criminal background checks of current employees may have some apparent advantages, Rosen feels that “the jury is still out” on whether it is a cost-effective tool or even if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. He offers these points to consider:

  • There is no empirical evidence that shows that periodic background checks have resulted in any advantage to employers. There are no studies to suggest on a cost-benefit basis, such checks produce results.
  • If such periodic background checks are done, the next issue is how. If databases are used, then there is the possibility of both false positives and false negative since databases available to private employers are not always complete or up to date.
  • If there is a periodic background check, it should be done ideally on the courthouse level in addition to any databases, which increases the cost.
  • There is also the consent issue with periodic background checks. Under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), periodic checks must be done with consent (unless there is a specific investigation for suspicion of misconduct or wrongdoing).
  • If an employee withdraws consent for periodic background checks, the question arises if the employee can be terminated for refusal to consent. It is clear that employers have much more discretion in requiring pre-employment background checks, based upon the fact that they do not have experience with the applicant.
  • The issue becomes more complicated if the employee refusing periodic background checks is a member of a protected class since that raises potential discrimination issues.
  • In addition, a firm needs a well laid out policy in an employee manual as to how they will deal to a new criminal record that may be uncovered during a periodic background check. At a minimum, any action must be based upon some business justification, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offense, the nature of the job and how long ago it occurred. In addition, the pre-adverse action notice requirements of the FCRA would come into play.
  • There are also the cultural considerations with periodic background checks. What type of message does it send the workplace if workers are constantly suspected of criminal activity? What type of workplace stress is created if an otherwise long time and loyal employees feel they are subject to dismissal at any time for a criminal offense that may or may not bear upon their suitably a an employee?

However, Rosen states that the case may well occur where an employer is sued for a failure to perform periodic background checks on current employees, if such a failure was the proximate cause of workplace violence or other harm that arguably could have been prevented.

“The bottom-line is that this is an issue that will be worked out in court decision in the coming years,” Rosen concludes. “In the meantime, employers contemplating such periodic checks should approach it with caution and seek the advice of their attorney.”

The mission of Rosen’s blog ‘Background Checks: Trends and Legal Issues’ is to assist HR professionals in keeping up with legal developments, trends, and best practices in the critical area employment screening background checks. To learn more about background checks, visit Employment Screening Resources (ESR) at http://www.ESRcheck.com.

Founded in 1996 in the San Francisco Bay area, Employment Screening Resources (ESR) is the company that wrote the book on background checks with ‘The Safe Hiring Manual’ by ESR founder and President Lester Rosen. Employment Screening Resources is accredited by The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) Background Screening Credentialing Council (BSCC) for proving compliance with the Background Screening Agency Accreditation Program (BSAAP). ESR was also the third background screening company to be ‘Safe Harbor’ certified. For more information, visit http://www.ESRcheck.com or contact Jared Callahan, ESR Director of Client Relations and Business Development, at 415.898.0044 or jcallahan@ESRcheck.com.