No organization can afford to cut corners when it comes to background screening. The people you hire are the future of your organization. The right ones can take it to new heights; however, the wrong ones can bring it to new lows in today’s litigious landscape. You can’t risk the safety of your employees, customers and products with a bad hire who brings liability risks. However, there is lots of misinformation in the area of background screening, so we set out to debunk the top myths we hear every day.
MYTH 1
We are 100% covered!
REALITY
Nope. Sorry. No screening is 100% foolproof.
MYTH 2
We ordered a multi-state search, so you know, we’re good.
REALITY
A multi-state search is a great enhancement to a solid screening program, which starts with a county criminal search in the county where the candidate resides. The multi-state search is NOT designed to be the sole basis of a responsible background search. The multi-state database of convictions is a patchwork of data from multiple jurisdictions, and the quality of the data can vary from state to state, and even county by county. In some jurisdictions, actual court records may be fed into the database providing a very comprehensive criminal search, while in other jurisdictions there may be no records or only a small subset of the possible criminal records that may be available in a more traditional county criminal search. Another point: to reveal a hit in the multi-state database, you need the exact name and date of birth match. Any deviation from that name won’t turn up records.
Fingerprinting is foolproof.
REALITY
See Myth #1. While many people think fingerprinting is the gold standard, it has several limitations. First, all fingerprints go through the FBI lab, which can sometimes see backlogs as long as 6 months. If your candidate commits a crime and applies for a job before those prints are processed, they will get a clean report. Second, the FBI will not accept fingerprints on all criminal charges. For example, solicitation of a prostitute is a charge for which the FBI will not accept fingerprints. You have to
decide if this is relevant to your business. Third, and this one usually comes as a surprise, not every person that gets convicted of a crime gets arrested by the police. Police officers are not the only people that can charge an individual with a crime. In many jurisdictions, if the police officer did not actually witness the crime then the ordinary citizen that witnessed the crime can go before a judge or a magistrate and swear out criminal charges. In these cases, the defendant may not ever be arrested, but rather they may simply get a notice to appear in the mail. The defendant may go to court and be convicted without ever having interfaced with a law enforcement officer. Thus, there is a conviction without fingerprints.
MYTH 4
We ran a total nationwide search, so we are covered.
REALITY
There is no such thing. Screeners are just piecing together the best data available from discrete jurisdictions. There is no “magic bullet” screen that covers the whole country.
MYTH 5
Corrections department data is sufficient for a search.
REALITY
Many multi-state database type searches will contain records from various state departments of correction. Corrections department records are another good tool to use in your screening program, but not a comprehensive one. A potential new hire can commit hundreds of crimes that will never show up in corrections data. In order to show up in a department of corrections database, a defendant would normally need to be sentenced to a prison term. It is possible to have many convictions without ever receiving a prison term– but that doesn’t mean you don’t want to know about them.
MYTH 6
We don’t need to check for different names. One should be plenty!
REALITY
There are lots of reasons people go by different names during their lives, and that’s why it’s important to run checks on “AKAs” or “Also Known As” names. From name changes resulting from marriage to nicknames to data entry or “Fat finger” errors, it’s important to run a thorough search. For example, records for “Jonathan” might be filed under “John” and Suzy Smith could have
been Suzy Jones before she was married. Find out if other names hold the key to previous criminal convictions.
MYTH 7
We’ve consolidated paperwork and included our Disclosure and Authorization for screening in our offer letter to our candidates. Only one form to be signed by the candidate accepts the job offer and meets our FCRA requirements!
REALITY
Actually, you’re in violation of one of the clearest sections of FCRA. The Disclosure for background screening MUST be a document that consists solely of the Disclosure. It should only communicate a single message – that the candidate is being asked to consent to a background screen. Under the FCRA, the Authorization by the candidate to the background screen may be made on the Disclosure document.
MYTH 8
We don’t need to run a separate sex offender search, as a county or multi-state search will catch any sex offenses.
REALITY
A sex offender search is a very inexpensive way to get a little peace of mind. Sex offenders can be a very transient population. They commit a crime in one state and get convicted, then move to another state. Sex offender data is also the easiest data for the general public to pull for themselves. No business owner wants to find out from their clients that they hired a sex offender. Protect your employees, protect your clients and protect your business by ensuring that you are running a sex offender search on each and every applicant.
MYTH 9
We want our screening history to go back in time as far as possible to be extra careful!
REALITY
The EEOC is tasked with making sure that employers are using fair practices when it comes to hiring, and that screening data is relevant to the hiring decision. We all know that a driving under the influence conviction is relevant to your delivery driver but maybe not for your accountant. So how relevant is that 30 year old shoplifting conviction your candidate had when she was 18? Maybe not so much. We don’t recommend making a hiring decision based on data that old. That’s why we cut it off at 10 years. Increasing litigation in this area indicates this is a smart call.
TRUE STORY:
A global distribution and delivery company hired an employee in their distribution center. They ordered a minimal background screening, which checked state databases for any relevant convictions. It returned no flags, and the employee started work, having access to the company distribution channels. Less than a month into his employment, officers came to arrest the employee for a parole violation, place him in handcuffs and escorted him out.
The employer went back to the screening company to see why the conviction never appeared on the report. The answer: the employee had been convicted of a federal crime – sending explosive devices through the mail. This very serious conviction would not appear in a search of state courts. The employer was extremely lucky – the cost of a federal search is pretty slim next to the potential liability associated with this employee committing a similar crime through his employer’s distribution channels.
