Perspective: Why #1 Matters in Background Screening

In today’s society, a company’s reputation can make or break its business. Ethically minded consumers, anti-globalists, and informed investors are not just concerned with whether a product or service is good; they also want to know how any company they partner with is publicly perceived. It is for this reason that it is increasingly crucial to do business with a reputable background screening company.

There are perhaps hundreds of vendors that provide background screening services. Industry wide, there is significant volatility, with most producing less than $500,000 in revenue. Among larger vendors, ranks are shrinking through mergers and acquisitions. Massive global players easily process millions of transactions each year, while full-service vendors emphasize their broad spectrum of services and customized solutions. No matter what an employer’s needs, the right fit can be found.

From the Blooper Book

If Ban the Box legislation has not been implemented in your region, some of these answers may have you reconsidering using such questions on your application:

Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years, other than minor traffic violations?

(Checked yes) Forged a signature on a campaign contribution form.

Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years, other than minor traffic violations?

(Checked no) Do I have to answer this question? I don’t normally share that type of information until the second date.

Have you been convicted of a crime in the past seven years, other than minor traffic violations?

Things You Should Know About Federal Criminal Searches

Things You Should Know About Federal Criminal Searches

In this country, there is widespread agreement that occupational fraud (employee theft) is big business and that it has reached epidemic proportions. Trusted employees from all walks of life, from all income ranges, and in every business, discover creative ways to make their job more rewarding.

A majority of employers agree that the most prudent measure is to screen potential employees for characteristics associated with theft activity before hiring them and, to take preventive steps after the hire, by establishing and implementing sound internal controls.

“Recruiters and managers must be able to trust their new hire decisions,” says Laura Randazzo, Vice President of Compliance at Aurico Reports, Inc. “The reality is that our customers have no problem justifying the use of criminal background checks as part of their selection process in order to mitigate the risk of selecting the wrong person for the job.”

Equally important, but sometimes overlooked, is the federal criminal search. It is this kind of search that will reveal candidates with convictions for crimes typically identified by the FBI as “white collar” crime (embezzlement, fraud, crimes with monetary value greater than $75,000, interstate violations). Federal crimes do not show up in county, state, or national searches. Federal records are housed separately and the only way to find federal criminal activity is to do a federal search.

Columbia City, Missouri Enacts “Ban the Box”

Columbia City, Missouri, unanimously approved the “ban the box” ordinance, prohibiting employers from asking about applicants’ criminal histories or conducting background checks, before making a conditional job offer. This law went into effect after its passage on December 1, 2014

Columbia’s “ban the box” law will apply to both public and private employers.

The ordinance excludes positions where local, state, and federal regulations bar employees with certain types of criminal convictions. Enacting the ordinance was one of the Mayor’s Task Force on Community Violence’s 26 policy recommendations for curbing violent crime.

The ordinance amends Chapter 12 of the City Code to add a new Article V, pertaining to employment opportunities for qualified applicants. The summary provisions are as follows:

ARTICLE V. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR QUALIFIED APPLICANTS

Provisions

Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall be unlawful:

(1) For an employer to inquire, question or otherwise seek information on an employment application as to whether an individual has ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any crime.

(2) For an employer to inquire, question or otherwise seek information as to whether an applicant has ever been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any crime until after the applicant has received a conditional offer of employment.

Exclusions

(b) The requirements set forth in subsection (a) of this section do not apply for positions where:

(1) Employers are required to exclude applicants with certain criminal convictions from employment due to local, state or federal law or regulation;

(2) A standard fidelity bond or an equivalent bond is required and an applicant’s conviction of one or more specified criminal offenses would disqualify the applicant from obtaining such a bond; in which case, an employer may include a question or otherwise inquire whether the applicant has ever been

convicted of any of those offenses; or

(3) Employers employ individuals licensed under the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems Act.

(c) This section does not prohibit an employer from notifying applicants in writing of the specific offenses that will disqualify an applicant from employment in a particular position.

(d) Employers are encouraged to not automatically ban jobseekers with a criminal history. Employers may make final employment-related decisions based on all of the information available to them, including consideration of the frequency, recentness and severity of a criminal record as well as rehabilitation efforts against the duties and responsibilities of the position.

Complaints

(a) Any individual who claims to be aggrieved by a violation of this article may file with the commission a complaint in writing stating the name and address of the person alleged to have committed such practice, the particulars thereof, and such other information as may be required by the commission. If the alleged violation is that an employer is seeking criminal history information on an employment application, then any individual may file a complaint and that individual need not necessarily be aggrieved before filing a complaint.

(b) All such complaints shall be filed within one hundred eight (180) days of the date of the alleged violation.

Investigation, resolution

(a) The investigator shall promptly investigate the allegations of the complaint. After completing the investigation, the investigator shall report to the commission the results of the investigation and the investigator’s opinion on whether there is probable cause to credit the allegations of the complaint.

(b) After receiving the investigator’s report, the commission may direct further investigation. When the commission is satisfied that the complaint has been properly investigated, it shall determine whether there is probable cause to credit the allegations of the complaint. If the commission determines that there is no probable cause, it shall dismiss the complaint. If the commission determines that there is probable cause, the commission may forward the matter to the city prosecutor.

(c) At any stage in the process, the commission may close the case for good administrative reasons. Such reasons shall include but not be limited to the following:

(1) The complainant has failed to cooperate with the commission.

(2) The commission is unable to locate the complainant or respondent.

(3) The complainant wishes to withdraw the complaint.

Prosecutions; time limitations

(a) No prosecution for a violation of any provision of this article shall be commenced unless a complaint shall have first been filed with the commission.

(b) The period of limitation for any violation of this article shall not run during any time while a complaint involving the alleged violation is pending before the commission.

Penalty for violation of article

Any person who shall violate any provision of this article shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or imprisonment not exceeding thirty (30) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Aurico reminds employers that Illinois and New Jersey “Ban the Box” ordinances go into effect on January 1, 2015.

The State of Texas Appeals and Challenges the Court’s Decision Regarding Its Case Against the EEOC

On November 19, 2014, Texas filed its opening brief in support of its appeal. The State of Texas appealed the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissal. This high profile case, brought by the State of Texas against the EEOC regarding its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Under Title VII”.  In State of Texas v. EEOC, Case No. 5:13-CV-255 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2014), the District Court held that Texas lacked standing to maintain its suit because it did not allege that any enforcement action had been taken against it in relation to the EEOC’s guidance.

This is a case to watch because the State of Texas has many state policies against hiring anyone with a felony record, by state regulation for certain positions, and as the State of Texas alleges, “without federal court intervention, the [EEOC] will be able to continue to use its threat of enforcement to bully employers into abandoning their no-felons policies”.

Aurico Ranked #1 in HRO Today’s Baker’s Dozen

Aurico tops the list in the overall category, as well as in the Quality of Service category. The rankings are based directly on feedback from buyers of the the rated services.  Aurico previously ranked 6th in 2012 and 5th in 2013, but has shown what it means to place the right people in the right roles at the right time.  Ben Goldberg, President of Aurico, said, “When we rose in the ranking last year, I made a mental note to reinforce the foundation of our product and service levels with strategic innovations for our customers. It’s certain that those changes are making a difference to our customers and we’ll be back next year with even more to offer.”

Making a Connection: Correlation Between Recruitment Efficiency and Organizational Growth

It’s time to prepare for growth. We’re clearly seeing an uptick in employment. In October 2014, 214,000 jobs were created and unemployment edged down to 5.8%, reported the US Bureau of Labor Statistics,¹ while 69% of recruiters expect competition to increase in 2015. ²

“Demand for workers is increasing and we’re seeing HR professionals pivot from talent engagement to talent acquisition,” states Ben Goldberg, President of Aurico Reports, Inc. “Candidate engagement is burgeoning and recruiters want an incredibly positive candidate experience as part of their arsenal, so they don’t potentially risk losing great talent to the competition.”

The talent acquisition function now sits at the nexus of talent management, technology, and organizational success. Recruiters who place the right people in the right roles at the right time have a tremendous impact on overall business performance. HR personnel are looking to revamp their existing recruitment workflows to meet business objectives, because they know there is a direct correlation between recruitment efficiency and organizational expansion.