Pre-Employment Screening Background Check Blog for Employers, Human Resources and Security by ESR

Your candidate’s background check is done. An offer of employment has been made and accepted. But there is one last step you can take to keep your workplace safe.

I-9 Verification.

The I-9 process itself has been required by the U.S. government for years. New procedures have been created by the federal Department of Homeland Security since September 11, 2001, that offer additional checks to actually verify the identity of the person who has applied for work.

The voluntary I-9 verification process is one of these new safety features. This matches up the Social Security Number with the name provided by your candidate and updates the Dept. of Homeland Security on the documents presented by the candidate for verification.

Last month, our newsletter talked about the Social Security Trace, which is an “Address Locator Tool.” The Social Trace can tell you whether the Social Security Number is valid, but federal law prohibits matching up the name and the number until after the candidate has been “hired.”

One advantage: the definition of “hired” is that you have made an offer of employment and it has been accepted. Thus you can do the I-9 verification with the Dept. of Homeland Security before the “new hire” reports for his or her first day of work.

E-Verify – formerly known as the Basic Pilot/Employment Eligibility Verification Program – is an internet based system operated by the Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration that allows participating employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their newly hired employees.

E-Verify is free and voluntary and is the best means available for determining employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security Numbers. And beginning this month, the E-Verify system includes citizenship status of naturalized U.S. citizens.

If you don’t wish to perform the I-9 Verification yourself, you can designate an authorized Background Screening Firm to act as your agent with the federal government for the verification process. Setup takes about three weeks (because you’re dealing with the federal government) and then once you have authorized an agent for the I-9 verification, the verification with the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration takes just one day.

I-9 Verification is separate from Pre-Employment Background Screening because it can only occur post-hire.

ESR is an authorized agent in the I-9 Verification process and offers this service for clients at a nominal fee. ESR Customer Service can explain the various steps required to set up and complete the I-9 agent verification.

Another aspect of background screening that can confuse employers is the fact that there is no standardization as to what background firms are offering. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to compare offerings from different background firms without an insider’s knowledge of how screening works.

For example, some screening firms offer a “package” where they will do an “unlimited” amount of criminal searches for a fixed fee. To an employer who does not understand how this works, there may be a temptation to simply choose the firm offering the cheapest price or the best package.

However, that can be a big mistake because as the old saying goes, “you get what you pay for.” Without knowing exactly how it works, an employer can find they are on the receiving end of a bad deal that profits the screening firm and exposes them to allegations of negligent hiring.

Here is why employers need to ask questions before blindly assuming that a cheap “package” price is a good deal:

First, are the counties being searched “derived” or “developed?” A “derived” search means that the screening firm is simply looking at addresses and jurisdictions that come up in some sort of social security trace report. A “developed” search means a screening firm also adds in those counties where a person has worked. Obviously, firms that do a “developed” search are likely doing more searches and giving more protection. Firms trying to save money at an employer’s expense will do a “derived” search only, and the employer will be none the wiser.

Secondly, an employer needs to understand what databases the screening firm is using to establish past addresses. If the screening firm is utilizing a credit bureau’s social trace, that is likely to produce less address information. That works to the advantage of a screening firm because they do fewer searches and therefore make more money. On the other hand, the employer has less protection. An employer is better off using a screening firm that utilizes an address information manager that may have many more jurisdictions to search.

A third consideration is how the records are checked. If the screening firm is using a database in order to save money, there is a real possibility that relevant information will be missed or incorrect information reported. Although databases can be valuable because they can lead to the discovery of information and additional places to search, databases are inherently not as accurate as court searches. Databases do not cover all jurisdictions, do not always contain identifiers, such as date of birth, and are not always updated with the latest information. Court searches are based upon the actual information at the courthouse and are the most accurate.

As with anything else, if a deal is too good to be true, it may not be the real thing. Employers may get baited into an “unlimited” seven year search, and switched into a search that does not protect them. For more information, contact ESR to find out about real background checks that do not take short cuts.

(Next month, another Trap for the Unwary will be reviewed—the use of home operators for verification calls. Employers should very carefully consider the dangers of using a screening firm that utilizes at-home operators for domestic verifications.)

Despite significant attention in the U.S. on data and privacy protection, there is a major hole that most American consumers are not aware of: that a great deal of Personal and Identifiable Information (PII) is sent offshore for processing where there is no real protection. As a practical matter, once data on a U.S. resident is sent abroad, it is beyond the protection of U.S. privacy laws, and there is very little, if any, protection for the consumer.

A couple of years ago, there was a news story about a California hospital that outsourced its medical transcribing, and the work ended up in Pakistan. A medical transcriber in Pakistan got into a dispute with her employer about wages and threatened to publish the medical records of thousands of Americans on the Internet. Needless to say, the hospital suffered through a great deal of negative publicity and the privacy and confidentially of medical records for numerous Americans was endangered because their personal information was sent offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. privacy laws. Of course, even after the matter was settled with appropriate payments, no one knows for sure what information the offshore worker may have decided to keep or for what reason.

Some background firms, in order to make more money, send information offshore for data processing, or use foreign operators to contact past employers or schools in the U.S. The offshore agent is completely beyond U.S. privacy rules and there is little control over what they do with the information. As the California hospital found out, sending private data abroad for processing is risky business. Recent news articles have revealed that call center workers in foreign countries are actively engaged in the theft of consumer information from call centers in order to commit identity theft. When data is stolen, a U.S. resident has no practical means of contacting a foreign police department or obtaining the services of a foreign attorney to file a lawsuit.

In order to protect consumers and employers, ESR has a very simple policy—information is not sent offshore for processing. Although it is substantially cheaper to utilize offshore workers, that is inconsistent with a basic duty to protect confidential data. When there is an international verification of employment or education and the information being obtained is outside of the U.S., ESR still does not send out personal information unless it is impossible to obtain information otherwise. Even then, strict controls are maintained.

The bottom-line: protection of PII is mission critical for any screening firm. Routinely sending PII offshore creates a substantial and entirely unnecessary risk with no justification other than a desire to make more money. By using ESR, employers can rest assured that their applicants’ data is safe. Any employer that is concerned about the privacy of their applicants’ personal information should ask their background firm if data is being sent outside of the U.S. for processing, and if so, what information is being sent, what country is involved and what protections are in place.