Background Investigation Blogs

The article at beantown web is designed to shock would-be employees who could fail pre-employment background screenings.

But in this case, what was most disturbing to us are the statistics regarding how today's managers and employers perform that background screening.

Apparently, 10% of them search social networking sites like myspace and facebook when they hire someone.

And, a whopping 25% rely on Internet search engines for their background screening needs.

The potentially destructive nature of this practice is staggering.  What about verifying education and references to make sure that a would-be hire hasn't lied on their resume (up to 73% do just that)?

How about pre-employment drug testing to reduce costs, liability, and to protect other employees?  An estimated 20% of the workplace would fail these tests.

And then there's a credit check to avoid potential fraud, DMV records for employees who drive, and a social security check to better facilitate criminal background screening.

All of this (and more) is lost when employers rely on cheap or easy background check services.  Over 30% of all businesses fail due to negligent hiring, meaning that these kinds of practices should never serve as a substitute for thorough and effective background screening processes.

The story of methamphetamine addiction, and the role that meth plays in the workplace, was well documented this week by theledger.com.

Meth use, while having been slightly curtailed in the last year, is still a cause for concern on the job.  According to the article, while meth use has appeared to grow steady or even to lower across the nation, the addiction rate among meth users has doubled since 2002.  What this means, is that those who do use methamphetamine are less and less able to control themselves, and will pose a greater threat to themselves or to others at work.

Methamphetamine users, alongside the usual blurred judgment, are prone to paranoid delusions, mood swings, and violent behavior.  They also contribute to rising workers comp claims, lowered productivity, and lower morale.

Only one thing has been proven to reduce the risk of meth use in the workplace: drug testing.  Pre-employment drug testing, random drug testing, and post-accident drug testing not only keep meth users out of the workplace, but have been credited with the drop in meth use on-the-job over the last year.

Clearly, competitive background screening companies must continue to maintain a fast and efficient drug testing program for a variety of hiring and post-hire situations.  This will further limit the use of this drug in the workplace, as well as the negative repercussions that come along with it.

In South Bend Indiana, a writer at the southbendtribune.com details the hiring of a High School teacher with a past history of inappropriate and sexual conduct with minors.  The man was hired because he was never charged criminally in the previous cases of misconduct, so his criminal background check came back clean.

Today, he's been charged with sexual misconduct with a minor at his High School, and is accused of having sexual contact with a 14-year-old student.

The writer of the article is correct in assuming that there should be some record of misconduct in a person's past, particularly when their workplace environment brings them in contact with vulnerable populations.

But, such information isn't provided in public records, which is why a standard criminal background check is simply too limited to stand alone in hiring procedures.

This is why legitimate background screening always includes employment verification and reference checks.  Had the school relied upon this more thorough form of background screening, the long history of misconduct on the part of the accused would have been revealed to school officials, providing them the information needed to keep such an individual out of their workplace, and away from their students.

NJ.com recently posted an article regarding the embarrassment of the Plainfield police chief when it was discovered that one of his officers was not really an officer at all.

Despite a "comprehensive background check," this individual was allowed to carry a gun and badge, and make arrests, even though he had never really graduated from the police academy and did not have the authority to make those arrests.

"Embarrassment" seems, in a case such as this, to be quite the understatement.

The local authorities are scrambling for legal grounds upon which to base all of the arrests made by the imposter, and should they fail, many criminals could potentially find themselves back on the streets.

And then there's the issue of liability, considering that the impersonator is also suspended right now for having repeated sexual contact with a 14-year-old girl.

Again and again the superiority of background screening in comparison with cheap background checks reveals that there isn't much of a comparison at all.  Quality background screening includes educational verification and reference checks, both of which would have revealed to the police department that their new hire was a fake.

At miami.com, the story of a suspected serial rapist reveals how cheap background checks are no substitute for real background screening.

The suspect, wanted in connection with up to 18 rapes in the North Miami-Dade area, was hired to be a coach by the Northwest Boys & Girls Club because he passed a background check.  How'd he do it?  He simply invented a false name and social security number.

And, the background check company hired by the Boys & Girls Club (who hasn't been named) never looked into it.

This is why a social security trace is a crucial first step in any background screening process.  A social security trace, followed by a search against the deceased records of the Social Security Administration, would offer the kind of protection against social security fraud that keeps criminals like this out of the workplace, and most important, away from vulnerable populations.

In today's world of identity theft and information fraud, failing to incorporate a SSN trace is simply asking to be deceived.

At the baltimoresun.com, sad stories of contractor fraud reveal that in times of need, this is yet another crime that enjoys a boost.

All over New Orleans, construction contractors are taking advantage of homeowners and companies anxious to rebuild the city.  According to Charles Marceaux, executive director of the Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors, most of the grievances his agency has fielded involve charges of incomplete or poor work by out-of-state and unlicensed contractors.  So, as victims of the hurricane begin to get their lives together, they are preyed upon by unqualified employees, and become the victims of fraud.

Sadly, this doesn't just happen in places recovering from disaster like New Orleans.  Fraud, especially against the elderly, is one of the fastest growing crimes in America.  And American businesses lost over $600 billion to fraud in 2005.

In fact, according to the Department of Commerce, 1/3 of all workers steal from their employers, making fraud one of the most financially destructive crimes to affect the American workplace.

The best way to prevent this kind of crime is to institute thorough background screening procedures.  Background screening that includes a criminal background check, reference checks, and credit checks can save employers and homeowners alike thousands of dollars, and protect them from potential hires that could potentially devastate their financial security.

The Bethel College Collegian makes a point of reminding college grads that their "personal" information isn't so personal when it's presented at Myspace or Facebook, or any social networking site.  Myspace in particular has over 95 million users, making it's information anything but personal.

But what the article also does is reveal a dangerous trend in background screening.  More and more, employers and managers are googling names or browsing social networking sites to get information on potential hires.

The ramifications of relying on such poorly regulated materials instead of reliable background screening are chilling to say the least.

Real background screening should involve pursuing the kind of information that isn't easily available to the public, since it's this information that often comes back to haunt the employer.

Drug testing should be implemented to keep unsafe or unstable employees out of the work force.  A social security check should be followed in order to make sure that there aren't any hidden criminal records or identity theft issues in the applicant's history.

Then there's resume checks, DMV records, credit checks, and more.

Hiring any employee without in-depth background screening is taking a gamble on your workplace environment, regardless of what it says in the applicant's Myspace page.

In North Dakota, the murder of a 22-year-old woman could possibly have been avoided if the state had put one of their employees through background screening and a social security trace.

Moe Maurice Gibbs, the man accused of murdering the young woman, had changed his name after serving 51/2 years in prison for attempted premeditated murder.  He then moved to North Dakota, and was hired first to work at a local college, and later as a county jailer after a quick (and ineffective) background check.

The young woman who he is accused of murdering was a student at that college.

Had this man been subject to thorough background screening, a social security trace could have revealed his criminal history, regardless of the name and location change.

Here is another sad reason why a cheap background check could never replace good background screening, and one more reason why a social security trace is an integral part of that screening process.