By Thomas Ahearn, ESR Staff Writer

According to popular TV crime dramas, today’s investigators, along with old fashioned gut instincts,  use all technology at their disposal when it comes to tracking down and arresting the bad guys. One such technological advantage is a centrally located national computer database containing all past criminal records of anyone who ever killed, stole, drove drunk, or even jaywalked. Best of all, these super crime databases are never, ever wrong.

However, the reality is quite different say experts in employment screening, and also recent headlines. The potential for errors in crime databases was evident in the case of a Maryland woman who lost her job after a background check performed through the FBI National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) indicated that she was unsuitable to work on the contract her company had won to handle mail for the Social Security Administration (SSA).

According to the Baltimore Sun, when the SSA performed a routine background check on the woman in July 2009 for low-level security clearance, the results showed she was “unsuitable” to work on the contract. The subsequent SSA letter to her employer did not specify what the background check had uncovered. The employer fired the woman rather than keep her off the contract.

The woman maintained that she had no criminal history, a claim backed by the Baltimore Sun, which only uncovered a civil case possibly involving a suit against her late father’s estate, and also by the SSA itself, which sent a letter to her employer saying as much. The SSA letter said the woman had passed a pre-screening check and could work on the SSA contract pending a final determination. Instead of reinstating her, the woman’s former company told her to re-apply for her job, then that the department was reorganizing, and later that it had no intention of restoring her old position.

The Baltimore Sun reported that the woman has since learned that an unspecified error in the FBI NCIC database,  a repository for criminal records and information on fugitives, stolen property and missing persons fed to the database from local, state. and federal law-enforcement agencies around the country, was the cause for the SSA’s initial determination that she was unsuitabol.

“lthough 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,” ated Les Rosen, Founder and President of Employment Screening Resources (ESR), a nationwide pre-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 are over 10,000 state and federal courthouses in the United States spread out over some 3,300 jurisdictions, each with its own records file.

“Contrary to popular belief, there is actually no central location for all U.S. criminal records,” says Rosen. “There is simply no national computer database of all criminal records available to private employers.”

A 2005 report sponsored by  the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), of which Rosen is a past co-chair, reviewed the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification System in order to evaluate its effectiveness in maintaining accurate and complete criminal history records.

Some conclusions from the NAPBS sponsored study were:

• Many states do not report information concerning dispositions, declinations to prosecute, failure to charge after fingerprints have been submitted, and expungements.
• Inconsistency in the various state’s reporting requirements and criminal codes impacts the completeness and accuracy of the records.
• The timeliness of transmission by the local jurisdictions to the state criminal history repositories remains problematic.
• There are still significant time lags between the time information is transmitted to the state repository and entry into the criminal history records.
• The process used to linking data to the proper individual and case is still ineffective.
• Serious problems remain in the process to link dispositional information to the proper case and charge.
• The format and terminology used by the various states creates problems of interpretation for individuals in other states who are using the information.
• Even when a criminal record is searched based fingerprints instead of name matches, many of the same issues still exist.

 As the case of the Maryland woman fired from her job  due to an “unspecified error” in the NCIC shows, the FBI database, while still the gold standard for those limited employers authorized by state or federal law to access it, is still more of an arrest databases that is not as accurate or complete as people think.

Sources:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/ncic#ixzz0kRkIWEnd

http://www.justice.gov/olp/pdf/ncicreportaugust32005.pdf (Contains letter to the Department of Justice by Employment Screening Resources  on FBI records as well as report sponosred by NAPBS)

http://www.justice.gov/olp/ag_bgchecks_report.pdf (DOJ report on FBI criminal records database and criminal background checks)

By Jim Crockett, Employment Screening Resources

A big positive development for employers, and human resources and security professionals is that the national nonprofit trade organization for the screening industry has firmly established itself as the voice of the screening industry, and is fostering higher levels of professionalism. The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (www.NAPBS.com), was established in 2003 to promote ethical business practices, promote compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and foster awareness of issues related to consumer protection and privacy rights within the background screening industry.

One of the big frustrations for employers is how to choose a Background Screening firm. After exhaustive efforts on the part of a great many dedicated screening professionals, NAPBS  is conisdering an accreditation program that would give employers much more confidence in selecting a background screening firm. An accreditation program provides a baseline of professional competency that employers can rely upon. Assuming accreditation comes into being, employers will still need to find a screening firm that fits their needs, but at least such a program will help an employer determine whether a firm meets a certain level of professionalism.

Employment Screening Resources was a founding member of NAPBS, and its president, Lester Rosen, was the chairperson of the steering committee that founded NAPBS and served as its first co-chair.

A frequently asked question is how the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) got started.  Here is an excellent expert from a blog dated Jun-4-2008 that recounts that history at http://www.zimbio.com/member/brettcarlson/articles/1544647/Great+Association+Background+Screeners

Background investigations are one of the most in-demand services provided by private investigators. From pre-employment screening, to tenant checks, to corporate due diligence investigations, the need for comprehensive background screening grows every day. This field can be a very lucrative opportunity for private detectives to build their businesses. However, unfamiliarity with the many laws and regulations in this area can also lead to catastrophy. It is essential for the PI interested in this line of work to fully understand these issues and hold himself to a high professional standard. 

Luckily, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners is here to help. This organization is at the forefront of the screening industry, providing its members with the information and resources needed to succeed in this growing field. I asked Larry Lambeth, Chairman of the NAPBS, to discuss how the organization was formed:

“NAPBS began through the efforts of many people. Steve Brownstein, the editor of The Background Investigator  (a newspaper devoted to the screening industry), held the nation’s first screening industry conferences. At a conference in Long Beach, CA in April, 2002, Brownstein encouraged the attendees to think in terms of a national association in order to promote and protect the screening industry. In November, 2002, Brownstein and The Background Investigator sponsored a large national conference in Tampa, Florida, attended by over 175 screening professionals. At this meeting there was widespread support for the formation of an association. A steering committee was formed to act as an interim board to start a background screening association   The members of the interim board were:

Les Rosen, Chairperson
Sandra Burns
Michael Sankey
Bill Brudenell
Charlotte O’Neill
Mike Cool
Jack Wallace

The interim board, along with other interested members of the screening industry, met in Arizona in January, 2003 and again in Washington D.C. in April, 2003 to form the association. The interim Membership and Ethics committee met in Dallas, Texas in the Spring of 2003. In order to provide seed money for the group, in early 2003 a number of screening firms stepped forward and generously donated the necessary funds to launch the association and to retain the services of a professional management firm, IMI Association Executives. A membership drive was held in the last half of 2003, resulting in over 200 members.  Firms that joined before the first election were entitled to use the phrase “Founding Members” with the NAPBS logo.

NAPBS began its first full year of operations with an elected Board of Directors in 2004. On March 29-30, 2004, more than 225 individuals representing over 175 companies converged on Scottsdale, AZ for the inaugural Annual Conference of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners. We have close to 700 members in 16 countries now. ”

ESR was pleased that its president, Les Rosen, was voted to be on the first board of directors and selected as the first co-chair of NAPBS.

Although statistics vary widely, there is widespread agreement that a substantial number of resumes belong in the “fiction” section of the bookstore. The rate of fraud can be as high as 40% and higher according to different sources. Applicants certainly have the right to put their best foot forward, and puffing their qualifications is an American tradition. But when puffing crosses the line into fabrication, an employer needs to be concerned. When you hire an applicant who uses lies and fabrication to get hired, the issue is that the same type of dishonesty will continue once they have the job.

What are the six most common fabrications from job applicants? According to a nationally recognized background checking firm, Employment Screening Resources (ESRcheck.com), they are: 

1. Claiming a degree not earned: Yes, believe it or not, applicants will make up a degree. Sometimes, they actually went to the school but never graduated. Some applicants may have had just a few credits to go, and decided to award themselves the degree anyway. On some occasions, an applicant will claim a degree from a school they did not even attend. The best practice for an employer is to state clearly on the application form that the applicant should list any school they want the employer to consider. In that way, if an applicant lies, the employer can act on the lack of truthfulness regardless of whether the educational requirement is part of the job requirements.
    
2. Diploma Mills or Fake Degree: A related issue is diploma mills or fake degrees that can be purchased online. For those that actually attended classes, read books, wrote papers and took tests to earn a diploma, you apparently did it the old fashioned way. Now, getting a “degree” is as easy as going online and using your credit card. There are even websites that will print out very convincing, fake degrees from nearly any school in America. In fact, the author obtained a degree for his dog in Business Administration from the University of Arizona-and the dog had been dead for ten years. A transcript was even obtained and the dog got a “B” in English! Some sites will even provide a phone number so an employer can call and verify the fake degree. Some of the degree mills even have fake accreditation agencies with names similar to real accreditation bodies, in order to give a fake accreditation for a fake school.
    
3. Job Title: Another area of faking is the job description or job title. Applicants can easily give their career an artificial boost by “promoting” themselves to a supervisor position, even if they never managed anyone.
    
4. Dates of Employment: Another concern for employers is applicants that cover up dates of employment in order to hide “employment gaps.” For some applicants, it may be a seemingly innocent attempt to hide the fact that it has taken awhile to get a new job. In other cases, the date fabrication can be more sinister, such as a person that spent time in custody for a crime who may be trying to hide that fact.
    
5. Compensation: A related issue is pay – applicants have been known to exaggerate compensation in order to have a better negotiating position in the new job.
    
6. Lack of Criminal Record: Nearly every application will have a question about past criminal conduct. Although employers may not “automatically” eliminate a job applicant without a showing of a “business necessity,” if the person lies, then the employer would have grounds to deny employment based upon dishonesty.

The common denominator in all of these: they can be all be discovered by a program of pre-employment screening. To quote a phrase popular in the 1980s. “Trust, but verify.”

ABOUT THE WRITER

Lester Rosen has authored two books: The Safe Hiring Manual: The complete guide to keeping criminals, terrorists, and imposters out of your workplace,” and The Safe Hiring Audit: The employer’s guide to implementing a safe hiring program.”    He is a frequent presenter nationwide at human resources, fraud and security conferences om employment screening background checks, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  He was the chair of the steering committee that founded the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) and served as its first co-chair. He has testified as an expert in negligent hiring cases in California, Florida and Arkansas.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) will be attending the annual meeting of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) in St. Louis in April, 2009.  ESR is proud to be a Founding Member of NAPBS.  ESR President Lester Rosen was the chairperson of the Steering committee that founded NAPBS and served as its first co-chair.  He also served as a chair of the NAPBS Education committee.  The first general meeting was in the spring of 2004, and 175 people attended.  NAPBS currently has 622 members.  ESR strongly recommends that employers only deal with screening firms that are members of NAPBS and have therefore shown a willingness to be part of a professional organization.