Background Investigation Blogs

The article this week at the Sun-Sentinel of Florida does an excellent job of recognizing that background screening is most effective when it functions as an ongoing process.

Their topic is locksmiths, and the lack of oversight applied to the hiring of locksmiths in Florida.  "The last thing you want is to hand a criminal the keys to your home.  But when you call a locksmith in this state, you never know who's going to show up - a professional or a scofflaw trying to cheat unsuspecting customers."

As it's reported, locksmiths in Florida aren't screened carefully enough.  But even more so, that background screening they do have isn't part of an ongoing process.  "Unfortunately, the background check only happens once.  The process doesn't pick up criminal convictions after the initial license application."

What's at stake here is a very important factor in any screening process: first, quality background screening, not a cheap "background check," must be implemented to weed out dangerous employees, especially when they have access to customer's homes.  But just as important, key aspects of pre-hire screening, like criminal records checks and drug testing, should be randomly updated for each employee to ensure that only the very best employees are allowed to work in such a potentially vulnerable workplace.

If employers weren't convinced that they needed alcohol testing on the job before, the article at doubleviking.com should convince them.

The site suggests multiple means of smuggling alcohol into the workplace, including coffee cups, using a "fake cast" as a means of camouflage, and even goes so far as to advertise products designed to make drinking on the job easier.

Of course, drinking on the job costs American business owners billions a year in lost productivity, absenteeism, high turnover, accidents and injury, and workers comp claims.  And in 2005, 8.4% of those employed full-time reported heavy alcohol use at home and on the job.

This is why BAT, or Breath Alcohol Testing is such an important factor in quality employee background screening.  For maximum efficiency, alcohol testing can be applied before hiring, as well as randomly throughout the workplace.  It's the only way to minimize the costs of alcohol abuse on the job, especially when sites like doubleviking work as hard as they do to undermine workplace safety.

A recent New Hampshire article at WCAX-TV News reveals the growing certainty that background checks are failing to prevent dangerous individuals from entering the teaching force, and offers yet another reason why such checks pale in comparison to quality background screening.

According to the online article, "when it comes to keeping risky teachers out of New Hampshire classrooms, background checks and other screening tools can miss crucial warning signs." And when it comes to a cheap online check, they are absolutely correct.  The "instant" background check is infamous for offering nothing more than a quick glance at local and public records, ignoring everything from inter-state criminal records to drug testing (and everything in between).  

The results are grim - lists of dangerous teachers who managed to slip past a cheap background check occupy the news on a regular basis.

This is why background screening not only outpaces such cheap checks, but ought to be a requirement for any line of work that includes vulnerable populations.  Whether it's criminal records, drug abuse, or even a simple resume check, only background screening ensures that the person hired for the job is the most qualified, and safest individual, for the job.

The Centre Daily's recent piece on elder abuse in Florida drives home once again why it is that quality background screening is absolutely necessary in workplace environments that involve vulnerable populations.

The lists of abuses are heartrending, but the facts regarding caregivers are downright disturbing.  "Of the almost 27,000 Florida cases surrounding abuse, neglect and exploitation of people older than 60 reported to the Department of Children and Families in 2004, the majority of the cases dealt with caregivers."

The danger lies in hiring caregivers that haven't been through a thorough background screening process, or whose screening was superficial at best.  A cheap background check will usually scan public records on a local level, but what about statewide and nationwide records?  What about drug testing to make sure that important medications for older people won't be abused?  How about a credit check to make sure that financial information or valuables are less likely to be stolen?

All of this and more comes standard with quality background screening, and by implementing this kind of screening elder abuse could be drastically reduced.

In an article posted at Lawrence Journal-World & News, Kansas University discovered the hard way that many employees aren't honest on their resumes, and only background screening can single out who is and isn't telling the truth when they apply.

According to the article, "a registered sex offender and a convicted identity thief are among at least seven employees with felony convictions in Douglas County District Court working for Kansas University’s Facilities Operations department."

KU doesn't implement background screening, a move already garnering a lot of criticism by itself.  In response, KU spokeswoman Jill Jess said the university reviews the sex offender registry when hiring, and asks for "voluntary disclosure" of previous convictions before offering employment.

Too bad "voluntary disclosure" just doesn't work.  In truth, an estimated 34% of all employment verifications performed during background screening reveal exaggerations or fraudulent information.

That means that 34% of the time, potential employees aren't revealing the truth about themselves.  

And that's far too many potentially dangerous employees on the job.

The pain felt by the families of two Boston firefighters killed in a West Roxbury restaurant blaze in August took a new turn this week after publication of reports that one of the men was legally intoxicated at the time of the fire and another had cocaine in his system.  Here again is why employee drug testing is of such importance as a background screening procedure; it saves lives.

Boston.com reports that "judgment, agility, and the ability to put training into quick action can be the difference between life and death at a fire scene." It's easy to see how an impaired firefighter could be a danger to himself and others.  As the article goes on to say, the lack of employee drug testing for firefighters is a major factor in this tragedy.

But it isn't just pre-employment standard screening that's necessary; fire departments already do pre-hire testing.  It's random employee drug testing that's the real heart of the argument.  This is especially important in a field associated with high stress and trauma, both of which contribute to drug abuse on the job.  By incorporating random screenings fire departments can be sure that they've done everything possible to protect the health and well-being of employees who already work in a very dangerous field.

A judge ruled this week that the background screening procedures of JPL scientists will continue, and that the protesting scientists will not suffer "irreparable harm" from having their privacy invaded.

The JPL saga has been going on for several months - in today's post 9-11 world of tightened security and expansive screening, the scientists had been asked to allow their personal histories and documents to be examined.  

According to fcw.com, "HSPD-12, which calls for the issuance of smart identification cards to all government employees and contractors, requires that employees undergo National Agency Check and Inquiries background checks.  If the workers do not have HSPD-12 cards by Oct.  27, they may be terminated by their employers."

The background screening in question seemed to intrusive to JPL's employees, but in reality, it isn't that different from the screening that's become common practice among today's Fortune 500.  Employee drug testing, and even random drug testing, have become the staples of quality background screening.  And everything from educational history, to DMV records checks, to even credit checks have become the norm.

So while JPL's employees might feel that their privacy has been invaded, in the world of background screening and big business, that's not only par for the course, it's a requirement for a smooth running business staffed by a reliable employee base.

A Texas business group, who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars bashing plaintiffs' lawyers and winning restrictions on judgments against physicians and other defendants, learned the hard way last week that background screening is equally important outside of the workplace environment.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform, or TLR, hired a retired orthopedic surgeon as a volunteer speaker; according to the Houston Chronicle, he was "eager to bash plaintiffs' lawyers, particularly those who targeted doctors."

But TLR's failure to institute background screening on their new speaker came back to haunt them.  Their speaker, it has been reported, "left out some details of his professional life, including his reprimand and $7,500 fine by the Texas Medical Board in 2004 for misdiagnosing what turned out to be bone cancer in a 16-year-old girl's leg.  The leg later was amputated."

He is also accused of providing substandard care to six other patients, including an 81-year-old woman with a fractured hip.  That formal complaint was still pending when he let his medical license lapse and retired last December.

Quality background screening would most certainly have uncovered this person's professional infractions, saving TLR a lot of time, money, and embarrassment.