Showing posts with label Ban the Box. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ban the Box. Show all posts

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Don’t Roll the Dice! Why You Need to “Ban the Box” Now!

#SmallBiz #BantheBox #Hiring

Despite the continuing wave of states and cities adopting “Ban the Box” legislation, there are still companies who have not taken action. They continue to use applications that contain “the box” or ask whether their applicants have a criminal record early in the hiring process.
Are You One of Them?

Small Businesses Take Note ~ Ignoring “Ban the Box” is like Rolling the Dice!  “Tweet This”

Now is the time to take action. Assess your applications, both physical and online, to see if they include any questions about prior criminal records. You also need to make sure they comply with any state and local laws where you do business.

You are not Compliant if You:
  • Ask Your Applicants if they have ever Been Convicted of a Crime 
  • Require them to Check a “Yes” or “No” Box concerning their Criminal Past
  • Include in Your Application a Warning that if they Lie in answer to either of these questions they will be eliminated from your list of potential hires.
According to a recent EmployeeScreenIQ survey* of managers and HR professionals; “more than half (53%) of respondents indicated that their companies continue to ask candidates to self-disclose criminal histories on employment applications despite EEOC guidance that recommends its removal as well as a number of state and municipal laws that “ban the box.”

As a business owner, it is completely understandable that you want to have as much information as possible on your potential hires ~ and that includes whether or not they have a criminal history.

What is important to remember is that these “ban the box” laws only apply early on in the hiring process. They do not prevent you from asking about your applicant’s criminal history after the interview or a conditional offer of employment has been made.

You can find out more about “Ban the Box” and how it impacts your hiring process in my article “Background Checks & “Ban the Box” - The Pendulum Swings”!

Despite some states that are “Taking ‘Ban the Box’ to Far” (find out more here), removing the “box” from your applications and not asking about a criminal history too early in the process still makes sense!

Even the EEOC has weighed in on “Ban the Box”. They recommend that you not ask about criminal history on your applications as “Best Practice”. The EEOC even goes further in advising that when you do ask, it is only when that criminal history is relevant to the job you are filling.

You also need to realize that by not banning the box, you are opening yourself up to legal risks.  

In Minnesota, for example, their recent “ban the box” law lists these penalties for companies that fail to comply;
  • Employers with 10 or fewer employees ~ penalties up to $100/violation, not to exceed $100/month.
  • Employers with 11-20 employees ~ penalties up to $500/violation, not to exceed $500/month.
  • Employers with 20+ employees ~ penalties up to $500/violation, not to exceed $2,000/month.
The city of Baltimore has taken it even further. Their law allows for misdemeanor criminal charges and a fine to be filed against employers who are guilty of violations. The fine cannot exceed $500 or include imprisonment for more than 90 days, or both, for each offense.

However, the real risk to you, the employer, is a discrimination suit claiming you are using your applicant’s criminal history as a way to discriminate. And that can start with continuing to use “the box” on your applications!

Our advice? Why take the gamble and put yourself in the danger of being noticed by the EEOC? Ban the Box now!

As a best practice, you should act now and remove any question involving criminal history from your applications. Being proactive and voluntarily complying before any allegations are made is good for you and your company.

Remember, any time you can take measures to stay below the radar of the EEOC, it makes good business sense! You can find out more about Flying Under the EEOC Radar here.

What can You Do to Comply? Here are some Do’s and Don’ts:

#SmallBiz #BantheBox #EEOC

DON’T: Include questions about criminal history on your job application.

DO: Review and Revise your employment applications. Remove any questions you find concerning criminal history and make sure only the new version is used both on paper and online.

DON’T: Ask Your Applicants to Self-Disclose their Criminal History early in the hiring process.

DO: Take a look at Your Hiring Policies. Make sure you are delaying any questions concerning prior criminal convictions or any criminal background check until after the interview or a conditional offer of employment has been made.

DO:  Train everyone involved in your hiring process in following your new guidelines.

Keeping up with these ever changing laws can be challenging. A good background check company can help! Contact API and we will help you navigate the world of hiring and background checks! In the meantime, it makes sense to do what you can now ~ and eliminating the “box” from your applications is an easy first step!

Don’t continue to Roll the Dice and put your business in Danger!

Authored by    




For more tips on Hiring and how to make sure your Small Business is compliant, visit our Website! API can guide you in creating the right hiring policies for your needs.


And to learn more about What We Do and Why, check out our Services and About pages! Let’s Connect!  Contact Us to find links to our Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter profiles and more! 


*Source:  Employee Screen IQ 2015 Survey


Friday, June 5, 2015

Are Employment Credit Checks the New “Ban the Box”? What You Need to Know!

Created by Kimberly Kline, API



In February 2017, the District of Columbia was the latest jurisdiction to restrict the use of Credit Checks in Employment Decisions.  Titled the “Fair Credit in Employment Amendment Act”, it  amends the Human Rights Act of 1977 to make it illegal for an employer to “directly or indirectly require, request, suggest, or cause any employee to submit credit information, or use, accept, refer to, or inquire into an employee’s credit information.” 

Even if your state has not yet enacted a similar law, it is wise to do what you can now to be ready. Read on for what you need to know......  



The debate on the use of Credit checks 
during the employment process 
continues to make the news.


A growing number of states have passed laws to curb or eliminate the use of credit checks in employment decisions.  California, Chicago, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and New York, have all joined in the latest wave of states to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination in hiring based on a person’s consumer credit history.


The use of employment credit checks has also been addressed on a national level.  The Equal Employment for All Act (introduced in the House in early 2013) seeks to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prohibit or limit the use of credit reports to determine employment.



Using Credit Checks in employment decisions has come under fire because many believe that it to be discriminatory.  The checks are deemed an unfair measure of a person’s future job performance. 


People with damaged or problem credit due to student loans, a lost job or layoff, divorce, identity theft or even credit report errors can be denied jobs.  


"A bad credit rating is far more often the result of unexpected medical costs, unemployment, economic downturns, or other bad breaks than it is a reflection on an individual's character or abilities," Elizabeth Warren  
(originally cited in my previous article on Credit Checks ~ Employment Credit Checks ~ Will They Soon to Become a Thing of the Past?)



Whether at the State or National level, credit checks would still be allowed for certain positions that, by law, require them. 
Government jobs that need security clearances, executive and managerial positions in the banking industry, certain jobs within the state or local government, to name a few.



Many job seekers are unsure of exactly when an employer will check their credit.  In reality, it is probably not as often as they may think.  Most likely it is for positions where there are specific financial or security concerns.



When an Employment Credit Check is required, it will include:


  • Details About You and Your Finances including name, address, previous addresses, and your social security number.

  • Debt You Have Incurred including mortgage(s), credit cards, student loans, and car loans. 

  • Your Payment History



Another area of confusion is what an employer is really looking for when they run a credit check.  In most cases it is for patterns. For example, if the report shows evidence of ongoing money mismanagement, they may be seen as unqualified for a position in managing company funds.  In addition, it could also lead to the perception that the applicant is susceptible to coercion




What seems to have been forgotten is that 
Credit Checks were never intended to be used 
to decide employment 
or as an indicator of a person’s 
potential job performance or of their character. Their original purpose was as a way to determine whether a person was a good risk for getting a loan.  And that is where it ended.



Since then, it has morphed into something else completely.  
Employers have been the subject of a marketing effort to push the use of Credit Reports as part of their hiring process.  


Preying on fears of company security, these reports are being touted as an additional way to protect your company from theft or fraud. The problem is that there is no proven link between the information found in a credit report and any criminal behavior.



And, as with any “online” based report, there is the possibility of errors.  Mistakes concerning late payments, foreclosures, and accounts in collection do occur. 


accessprofilesblog.com


My take on this....


Employment Credit Checks are the New “Ban the Box”.  “Tweet This”




Much like with that movement, the issue is whether a credit check is really necessary for most positions.  It is also believed that by their nature, a credit check can lead to discrimination against certain groups that have been more effected than others by the economy and other circumstances.




Treating credit checks 
in the same way the EEOC recommends employers treat criminal record checks 
can help.





The first step should always be to make sure running a credit check is necessary for the position you want to fill.  If it is not, then there is no need to proceed.  


However, if you determine a credit check is warranted, then you will have to consider the following....


Anytime an Employer conducts a background check using a third party (a background or credit check company), it is covered under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and is governed by a set list of guidelines.  




These Guidelines Include:



  • Notification Up Front that a Background / Credit Check will be Done  This includes obtaining a stand alone signed release authorizing the check that includes the name of the reporting agency.  



  • Clear Notification of the Applicant’s Rights  Including the right to deny permission for the check (although this usually results in termination of the hiring process) and the applicant’s rights in the event negative information is listed in the report.



  • Written Notification if Adverse Information is Found  This should include all details of any information uncovered.



  • Chance to Explain/Mitigate any Findings  This should also include the applicant’s rights to contact the reporting agency to correct any errors in their findings.



  • Written Notification of the Final Determination




From the employer’s perspective, the key is to remember to Document Everything!



On the job seeker’s end, the best course of action is to check your credit histories yourself before applying.  Knowing what is listed and correcting any misinformation beforehand makes sense.


“While there will be continued debate on the issue, curbing the use of credit checks in making employment decisions seems wise.  The economy and job picture has put many in our country in precarious situations.  Further penalizing them by limiting their job prospects is counter-productive.

Filling and creating more jobs to help people get their lives back in order will do more for our country than putting more obstacles in their way.  I believe that every employer has the right and obligation to hire wisely, but relying on credit checks to make those decisions is not the answer.”
excerpt from my article “Employment Checks ~ Will They Soon Become a Thing of the Past?”.


  


You can find more about getting ready for an Employment Background Check in my articles on “Tips to Help Get Your Resume Background Check Ready” and “Why You Should Run a Background Check on Yourself”! 



Both will help you put your best foot forward when the time comes to apply for the job you want!




Pass It On!  
Please Pay it Forward and Share this Article ~ and we would love to hear what you think!  Just leave a comment below. Thanks!



#backgroundchecks


Authored by   






Do You have Questions on When, How, and Why You can Use Background Checks in Your Business?  
and visit our 

You can also learn more about Why We Do What We Do on our “About” page and find a list of our Hiring, Business Mentoring, and Security Consulting Services too!

Friday, April 3, 2015

“Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal” ~ Why We Need to Believe in Second Chances


At API, we sometimes find ourselves at odds 
with our own Industry.

We put great weight in the validity of pre-employment background checks. Knowing the past of a person before you hire them makes sense. 

But we also choose to believe in second chances and the idea of fair play. For us, the mistakes someone made in the past should not define them for the rest of their lives. However, this is not always a popular opinion.
There are very real barriers 
that keep ex-offenders from finding work.

Many employers are hesitant to hire people with criminal records, and some, rightfully so, are prohibited by law from hiring them ~ the security, health care, and child care industries come to mind. Employers are concerned about the trustworthiness of those with prior criminal records. And if a position requires a worker to be unsupervised or come in contact with customers, those employers are even more cautious.

There is also the very real fear of the legal ramifications of hiring an ex-offender. Businesses are often held liable for the actions of their employees. Negligent hiring lawsuits are not uncommon.

However, we believe a blanket decision to never hire anyone with a criminal past is unnecessary, and recent suggested guidelines are looking to make it unlawful.

Once a Criminal does NOT mean Always a Criminal.  "Tweet This"

Instead, at API we remember that “to err is human”. Free will often results in us making the wrong choices.

Many in the background check industry are not always on board with this line of thinking. By its very nature, our jobs result in us often seeing the worst in people. Whether that be a past criminal record or a resume lie.

But people cannot only be defined by their pasts. Our greatest ability as human beings is being able to learn from our mistakes.  
We need to recognize this.

We, as employers and Background Check professionals, need to see beyond the notion that “Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal”. People can and do change. Giving them another chance can actually help make that change more permanent.

We propose a happy medium.
There are concrete ways to balance cautiousness with fairness.  

When doing a criminal background check, an employer’s goal should be to look for a pattern of behavior, not one mistake. A single or long ago offense should not be the sole reason to raise a red flag. However, repetitive or recent criminal behavior should.  

It is our job as employers and background check professionals to consider our findings and determine whether the subjects would really pose a danger to the company or our other employees and customers.

We can best address these concerns by making sure that the information we are checking truly has a bearing on the job. You can find out more about this in “One Size Does Not Fit All ~ Why You Need to Fit the Background Check to the Job”!

The “ban the box” movement also originally stems from this premise of second chances. Giving ex-offenders the opportunity to get past a “knee jerk” rejection is key. And when “ban the box” is utilized for this purpose, it works.

You can see more of my views on “Ban the Box” in these 2 articles; “Background Checks & Ban the Box - The Pendulum Swings” and “What New Ban the Box Legislation Means to You”.

Being very clear on the crime(s) committed by your applicant, and even the reasons why, is not a bad thing. Universally screening all your applicants still needs to be a part of your hiring practices.  

A pre-employment background check is the single best way for you to have the clearest picture possible of your potential employee. 

Even if you know your applicant has a criminal record, verifying the details and making sure there is nothing additional you should know is smart business.

When it comes to Hiring, Knowledge is Power!
You should know what your potential hires bring to the table, warts and all.

Employers still have a legal duty to exercise "due diligence" when hiring. This means that you are responsible for finding out if potential employees might be dangerous or unfit for a job.

However, it is one thing to conduct background checks on your new hires, but it is quite another to screen your applicants and to then consciously consider hiring an ex-offender. This is a true example of a second chance!

Those that have made mistakes, learned from them, and moved on can bring value to your business. It starts with believing that they should not be solely defined by the mistakes they made.

We need to recognize that ex-offenders often bring with them a feeling of redemption when they finally land a job. They understand the need to prove themselves ~ with their actions, not just their words.

Saying they have moved on from their past is not enough. Ex-offenders know that they may be judged differently and watched more closely than their co-workers.  

In fact, you may find that they turn out to be some of the best hires you have ever made. You may even find them more loyal. They have gone through an often discouraging job search and appreciate the “second chance” you have given them. 

Hiring ex-offenders can also be a great way to “pay it forward”. Helping people better their lives can be very rewarding.

There are even some more tangible benefits to taking a chance on hiring ex-offenders:

Work Opportunity Tax Credit
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a federal tax credit available to all private sector businesses as an incentive to employers to hire workers in certain groups who consistently experience high rates of unemployment.

The credit ranges from $1,200 t0 $9,600 credit on any new hires, including part-time, temporary and seasonal workers.

Federal Bonding Program
The Federal Bonding Program to provide Fidelity Bonds that guarantee honesty for “at-risk”, hard-to-place job seekers.” The program covers the first 6 months of employment and is free to both the job applicant and you as the employer.

Low-Cost Training Programs
Many local and county programs exist that are designed to help ex-offenders reenter the workforce.  Their goal is to give them the life skills, job training, and workplace readiness to successfully land and keep a job.  

They focus on personal counseling (the importance of taking responsibility for your actions) and interviewing techniques.  

These programs also include career counseling, skill development, on the job training, and other things necessary to help the ex-offender ready themselves for employment.

Your hiring practices will still require diligence and common sense when it comes to hiring 
people with criminal recordsBut it doesn’t have to be a deal breaker.

Making a decision with fairness and humanity in mind can still result in you making the best hire for your company.  

Just remember ~ Knowledge is PowerGoing into the hiring process with all the facts is Good for You and Your Company!


Authored by  

API can help You Make the Quality Hires You Need. Contact Us to learn more!


Please Visit our Resources & Frequently Asked Questions page for answers to your Small Business and Hiring questions!


Friday, October 24, 2014

Discover How Many States are Taking "Ban the Box" Too Far!

www.accessprofiles.com

The Original premise of “Ban the Box” is being lost amidst a cloud of confusion.  

The movement set out to give applicants that had a prior criminal record a fair chance of gaining employment.

By simply removing the “box” asking whether the applicant had a criminal record from the application, it afforded them a chance during the interview of proving they could do the job.

While we were on board with what “ban the box” was initially trying to accomplish, and you can see this in our post on the subject, “What New Ban the Box Legislation Means to You”, it has morphed into something completely different.

We still believe in:
  •  the need to obtain a signed release from the applicant
  • the need to inform them of their right to know if any adverse action will be taken based on their background check
  • the need to give them the opportunity to explain or mitigate any of the findings.
And a good company should be willing to determine whether any criminal offenses really keep the applicant from performing the job safely.

This seems fair to all parties. 

Now many states and cities have muddied the waters. They have expanded the original intention and made it much harder for employers to comply or to have any control over who and how they hire.  

Even states like Illinois, that already had such legislation in place, have opted to increase its reach.

One example of the expanded scope of new “ban the box” legislation is in San Francisco.  In August, 2014, the “Fair Chance” ordinance was passed. The San Francisco law includes private companies of 20 or more employees, while many other states have limited their legislation to only include government employers.   “Fair Chance” even covers temp, seasonal, and part-time workers.

As in most cases, no screening for a criminal record can be made until a conditional offer of employment has been made. In San Francisco, however, employers are also never permitted to consider the following:
  • any arrests not leading to conviction (except for active or pending cases), any case where the subject entered into a deferral of judgment program
  • any conviction that has been expunged
  • any juvenile convictions or other adjudications in the juvenile court
  • any convictions older than 7 years from the date of sentencing
  • any offense other than felonies or misdemeanors
Under these limitations, even if a background check company discovers any of the types of cases listed, they cannot report them to the employer without opening up their client to possible litigation.

In addition, any employer within the San Francisco limits must alter all their job postings. These now must include a statement that they will consider all qualified applicants, despite a prior criminal history.  They also must place notices in any of their locations advising applicants of the “Fair Chance” Ordinance (in English, Spanish, Chinese, and any other language spoken by at least 5% of the area’s population).
 
Washington, D.C. can also be added to the growing list of  expanded “ban the box” proponents. Once again, obtaining a background check is not outright prohibited, but there are multiple restrictions in play.

As in San Francisco, there are limitations to what records an employer can consider in making their hiring decisions. Those include convictions only, although an employer can ask about a pending charge discovered during their investigation.  

It is also necessary that any withdrawal of a job offer must be based solely on records directly relating to the job duties of the position in question and take into consideration the time since the offense, the age of the subject when the crime occurred, the frequency and seriousness of the offense, and any mitigating circumstances supplied by the applicant.

Many of these requirements are above and beyond those in other “ban the box” legislation. It is more about telling companies "How to Hire" than ever.

And the “Ban the Box” movement continues to grow and expand its reach.

For now, the majority of ban-the-box laws apply only to public employers, but, as can be seen in San Francisco, it is beginning to impact private companies as well, with Illinois and New Jersey soon to join the pack.  

Hawaii, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts already have such laws in place. Advocates of “ban the box” see this as a logical step forward.

In fact, larger private companies such as Target and Walmart have taken a proactive approach. They have already set policies into place that comply with some of the more stringent “ban the box” inclusions.  

And while many “ban the box” policies exclude small companies with 10 or fewer employees, some states are even eliminating that.  

Critics of “ban the box” see the current trend as excessive intrusion on a company’s hiring decisions. Giving extra protection to those with criminal records subjects employers to complicated hiring procedures and to possible litigation for making unsafe hires.

Making any decisions, even the decision to interview, will now be made without having all the facts. And limiting what kinds of criminal offenses can be considered creates risk.

Opponents to the current and, most likely, future reach of “ban the box” believe having that information early in the process allows employers to make a much more informed decision.

They also believe these laws are a burden, especially to Small Business. The additional time and money it takes interviewing those who an employer later learns has a criminal record can be damaging.

This debate will not end any time soon. As more and more states are enacting or expanding their own “ban the box” laws, both sides will continue to disagree.  

A happy medium that is fair to both employers and applicants seems a long time away.

The key for all employers is to know the laws concerning hiring and background checks for any area in which you do business as they may vary. Your background check company will keep you informed of any changes and help you stay compliant.

Then Document, Document, Document. Make sure that all your compliance efforts are recorded and saved. This includes a subject’s application/resume, interview notes, notice of conditional offer of employment, background check reports, adverse action notices, etc.

It is still important, and highly recommended, to use Background Checks as part of your hiring practices.  The alternative can be costly to both you and your company.  Just be sure to Follow the Rules!


Authored by   





Need to Hire? API can help you hire the best candidate while making sure you are compliant. Contact Us to find out more! 
And for more articles designed to help you with your small business, please Follow our blog, accessprofilesblog.com . 

Monday, June 23, 2014

What New "Ban the Box" Legislation Means to You

#BantheBox










There is no doubt that having a criminal record can be an obstacle to getting hired. 



Many states, cities and counties are trying to combat this by passing or considering laws to remove the question of whether an applicant has prior criminal convictions from government job applications.  Some are even requiring private employers to ban the question, too. 

(See the latest cities and states to “ban the box” here).


And despite years of rejection, a “ban the box” bill is now poised for passage in Washington D.C.


The crux of current “Ban the Box” legislation is that by delaying Background Checks on potential employees, those with criminal convictions are not automatically excluded from consideration for employment. 


While this legislation does not prevent employers from rejecting applicants with criminal records, they would not be able to ask the question until after the first or second interview, or an offer of employment has been made.


Supporters say that “Ban the Box” is all about giving people a second chance.  The goal is to prevent employers from immediately rejecting applicants based solely on their criminal past.  By delaying the question, the prospective employee is given the chance to mitigate the circumstances of their crime and show any efforts that have been made to move forward and rehabilitate themselves.  
www.accessprofiles.com

Opponents, however, many of which are business owners, believe they should be able to ask about an applicant’s criminal past earlier in the hiring process.  


Many think that the delay is a hardship.  This is especially true for small businesses.  The added hours spent on applicants that are later proven unsuitable is both time and money.  This hits smaller companies especially hard as their resources are more limited.


While I tend to fall more on the side of “second chances” (you can see my views in “Background Checks & ‘Ban the Box’ ~ The Pendulum Swings”), the reality is that no matter whether you support or oppose this trend, “Ban the Box” is not going away any time soon.


Putting sound hiring practices in place now that take into consideration “Ban the Box” makes sense.


Companies would do well to be proactive and constantly vigilant on what the laws are in your state.  Hiring a good background check company can help!


Authored by   



I can help You navigate the ever-changing world of employment screening. Contact me at or you can reach me through my website, www.accessprofiles.com.  My motto, “Trust but Verify”!

You will also find me on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn & Google+.  I hope to hear from you!

Monday, November 4, 2013

Background Checks & “Ban the Box” - The Pendulum Swings



accessprofilesblog.com

Do You Understand “Ban the Box”? Do You Know what it means to both Employers and Employees?

We recently read an article summarizing the EEOC’s guidelines regarding background checks during the hiring process; “EEOC’s Guidance on Criminal Background Checks Questioned”.

In it, author Jim Evans takes a look at what the EEOC is trying to accomplish with its quest to “ban the box” and lessen instances of “disparate impact” that using background checks can create. The EEOC believes that automatically eliminating candidates that have prior criminal records disqualifies many unfairly.

A Criminal Record Shouldn't Automatically Mean You Won't Get the Job  "Tweet This"

This is the crux of the movement to “ban the box”.

While we have written on the subject before, the continued confusion surrounding this issue prompts us to revisit it.

At its most basic, “ban the box” is the removal of the question or “box” on an application that asks whether the applicant has a criminal history.  

The belief is that by disclosing that early in the application process, many are being automatically rejected.

The EEOC believes that by waiting until after a conditional offer of employment to check criminal history, the process is more fair and unbiased. EEOC guidelines also require that employers only consider criminal acts that have a direct impact on the open position and have been committed in the past 7 years.

Many states have enacted legislation to “ban the box”. Some have limited it to state employers, while others are expanding it to the private sector. Either way, many private companies are being proactive and creating policies that follow EEOC guidelines on this issue.

It seems to many that the pendulum now swings in favor of the employees over that of the employer. We don’t believe it needs to be viewed that wayIn fact, “ban the box” can be as good for the company as it is for the applicant.

Here are 2 Ways Opting to “Ban the Box” May be Good for Your Business:

“Ban the Box” Can Save You Money - By only running a criminal background check on the applicants given a conditional offer of employment, companies will be reducing the amount of time and money spent on these investigations.


Since “ban the box” only covers criminal records, applicants that are given conditional offers would have already been determined to meet all other requirements of the job.  Their education, past employment, references, and skills should have been verified prior to that conditional offer.

“Ban the Box” can Protect You from Litigation - Companies that employ “ban the box” are more likely to have a sound policy in place concerning criminal background checks.

They would have determined what prior criminal activity is detrimental to the safe performance of the job’s duties, written guidelines to adhere to the “7 year” rule, and made sure all applicant’s sign a release prior to running the criminal background check. Such companies also would be careful to notify the applicants of any adverse findings and give them the opportunity to disprove or mitigate them.

Employing these practices can lessen the likelihood of EEOC investigations into your hiring practices. It can also help avoid lawsuits based on employment discrimination from rejected applicants.

This is why “Ban the Box” does not have to be seen as a negativeOver time, most things in life and in business run on an undulating path - much like the swing of a pendulum. While right now many business owners may think that the pendulum is fixed on the rights of the applicant, the reality is that "Ban the Box" can benefit both.



Authored by




To learn more about how you can use Background Checks to help your Small Business, be sure to check out our Website


You can also find out more About Us and our Hiring, Business Mentoring, and Security Consulting services tooMessage us through our Contact Page to find out what API can do for You and Your Business!

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Background Checks – What’s Going On, What It Means to You, and our “Common Sense” Take on it All!



There is no doubt that Background Checks have been in the news ~ error filled reports and falsified records that claim a background check was done top the list. It can be confusing. Here we will try to clear up some of this confusion and share our "common sense" take on it all........

Concerns about Background Checks boil down to these 3 issues; the “Ban the Box” movement, concerns of accuracy, and the battle between Employee and Employer Rights.
We will to attempt to break down these issues, discuss what they mean to you, and give you “our take” on it all.

Issue 1:  “Ban the Box”
“Ban the Box” is the movement to omit the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor” (or a question similar to this) from the employment application. The premise  is that when asked early in the hiring process, those with past records are being unduly eliminated from contention.
In order to address this issue, it is recommended that a background check should only be done after a “conditional offer of employment” has been made. At that point, the applicant has been interviewed and the employer is already interested. 
There are states, cities, and municipalities that have already passed laws to “Ban the Box”, and it is important to know if yours is one of them. However, it is likely that others will also do so in the near future.
Our Take:  We agree with the premise of “Ban the Box”. 
Until a company has determined, using other factors such as skills, personality, and education, that the applicant may be a good fit, there is no need to check for criminal history. At that point, you as an employer then have the opportunity to run an employment background check and rescind or move forward with the offer of employment based on the results.
It is important to note that guidelines on how a company can use a criminal background check and remain in compliance have also changed. In order to rescind an offer of employment, it needs to be determined in advance what type of criminal record would prohibit an employee from performing the job safely. If the criminal record discovered does not fall into that pre-determined category, it should not be used against the applicant.
We believe that a criminal record should not automatically exclude anyone from an opportunity of employment and a “second chance”. In banning the box, those with a record are given the chance to enter the application pool on equal footing.
However, there are exceptions to this. There are industries where any type of criminal record, by law, prohibits someone from employment. In those instances, “Ban the Box” cannot be applied.

Read more about "Ban the Box" and Second Chances Here!

Issue 2:  Accuracy
Take a look at this story:  
Darlene T. Martinez was offered a housekeeping job at a local hospital. The final step was a criminal background check, standard procedure in the hiring process. Martinez, 57, doesn’t have a criminal record, so she was not concerned and felt certain the job would soon be hers.
Martinez now believes a faulty background check cost her that job.
During the background check process, Darlene T. Martinez was mistaken for Darlene Foster Ramirez. Foster Ramirez had been found guilty in 2009 of a dangerous-drug possession charge in Navajo County.
The hospital rescinded its job offer. Martinez was left without a job and the task of trying to make sure this record did not follow her. Martinez has since filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the company that performed the background search citing that the company did not follow correct procedure and for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Source1
This case illustrates ongoing questions about the accuracy of background checks. Errors, like in the Martinez case, can keep innocent individuals from obtaining employment and cause great problems for the wronged party.
Under current guidelines, applicants are required to be notified in writing when a positive criminal background check has been reported. The applicant is then given the opportunity to dispute the report. The reporting background check company is then given 30 days to investigate and ensure that the information is correct or to report that an error has occurred (according to Martinez this did not happen in her case, although eventually her record was corrected).
Our Take: The background check report is only as good as the source used to obtain it.
The proliferation of “online, instant” background checks has been a major contributor to the rash of accuracy complaints. Many of these online databases are incomplete or outdated.
These online records can be used as a starting point, but a good background check company will go farther. Any record discovered online, also needs to be confirmed directly through court records. The initial information can then be cross-checked for matches to name, date of birth, and other identifying information. Performing this additional step goes a long way towards providing more accurate criminal record reports.

Discover more about the difference between a Real Background Check and an Online Search Here!

Issue 3:  Employer vs Employee “Rights”
It seems that the pendulum has swung in the favor of the employee or applicants over the employer on the issue of background checks. Applicants with past criminal records are now afforded a more equal playing field than ever before.
Employers feel their right to hire “the best candidate” is being impaired.
Where does the reality fall? It most likely falls somewhere in between.
Applicants can now be hopeful that their “past” will not haunt them for life. Even those with a prior criminal record are afforded the opportunity to apply for a job and at least get their foot in the door.
Employers are concerned about safety and liability, and these concerns are not unfounded. The current guidelines for hiring do not take into account any possible litigation that may occur due to the hire of an “unsafe” candidate.
Our Take: Employer and Employee “Rights” need to be a part of the same equation. 
Guidelines should prevail in the areas of “ban the box”, accuracy, and the recourse given to dispute a record. These are “common sense” procedures that really protect everyone, employee and employer alike.
However, there needs to be some consideration given to the rights of an employer. The current heavy-handed approach cannot work. Employers need to have rights protecting them from undue litigation when hiring according to the guidelines.
Employers also need to have more latitude in deciding what criminal offenses are prohibitive to doing the job safely within their own company. Existing laws governing discrimination in hiring practices will still ensure applicants are not dismissed or not hired due to things like race, sex, physical handicap, or being a member of any other “protected class”.

Best Practice ~ Approach Background Checks with Common Sense!  "Tweet This"
The bottom line is this ~ when it comes to Background Checks, at API we believe a little “common sense” can go a long way. It does not need to be employers vs employees. The guidelines can be utilized to protect all and ensure a safe and equitable workplace. All it takes is a willingness to work together to achieve what should be our common goal!


Authored by     

To learn more about how you can use Background Checks in your business, visit our WebsiteAPI can help!

You can find out more About Us  and Connect with Access Profiles on our social sites! Thanks!

Source1: Background Checks Prone to Mistakes, can shut out Jobs