Quest Diagnostics has recently released a new report on work-related drug testing and the associated trends. The comprehensive report details comparisons between 2011 and the first half of 2012 (January to June) and reveals some striking facts about the state of drug use in a sample of job seekers. The data they collected comes from more than 3.4 million drug tests handled in 2012. Below are the three most significant trends gleaned from the report.

1. Rise in Workplace Substance Abuse

Quest Diagnostics has found that in the first six months of 2012 alone, positive results on drug testing has increased by 5.7% compared to all tests conducted in the previous year. Dr. Barry Sample, Director of Science and Technology at Quest Diagnostic Employer Solutions says “The uptick in U.S. general workforce pre-employment data suggests that employers should be mindful of illicit drug use among prospective employees,” adding, “These findings align with recent news reports citing some employers facing increasing drug positives when recruiting new workers.”

2. Higher Detection Rates When Using Oral Fluid Testing

There is an increasing gap between urine and oral fluid positivity rates. While looking at cannabis detection specifically – the oral fluid test shows 70% more positive test results. The reasoning behind the widening gap between the two tests isn’t necessarily accuracy (although oral tests have improved over time) but that it is much more difficult to “cheat” on the oral test than it is on the urine test because it is done in the presence of the drug test administer. Another reason is that oral fluid tests have the tendency to detect more drug occurrences. Online, there is a wealth of “cheating how-to’s” to help applicants deceive the urine test. Some believe the private time a donor is given to deliver the urine sample is enough time for the donor to alter or substitute their sample.

3. Marijuana and Amphetamines Among Highest Abused Substances

Amphetamines and cannabis continue along an upward trend in detection rates. Cannabis has seen a 15.7% increase in detection from 2011 to 2012 in pre-employment screens and up 12.1% for random drug testing in companies. Similarly, amphetamine usage has increased by 11.7% in the US general workforce.

The increase in positive results is not an ideal situation for most businesses in need of new hires, but the recognition of the trends is something to keep an eye on. This latest report from Quest Diagnostics helps to show just how important pre-employment drug screening can be in this day and age. Employers who do not perform any type of drug test on applicants increase their liability of unfortunate workplace circumstances.  Employers can keep current employees and the business safe by appropriately vetting all potential job candidates.

Employers today know all too well the importance of conducting a background check on new hires. Their reasons however may vary as to why they perform background checks. In our recent infographic on “Why You Need to Background Check,” we graphically illustrated some of the reasons for background screening.

Other reasons for employers to perform background checks include:

• Employment screening can improve the overall quality of the workforce, ensuring that workers have the skills, experience and educational background stated during the interview process.
• Recent news articles on child abuse have prompted most states to pass new laws and regulations requiring background checks on workers and volunteers who interact with children, the disabled or elderly persons.
• Corporate scandals have given rise to greater scrutiny on corporate executives, officers, directors and business partners.
• Resume fraud by job applicants has been on the rise, causing many employers to verify the information provided by job candidates during the interview.
• Employers can be liable for negligent hiring lawsuits when an employee’s action brings harm to a co-worker, and it’s evident that the situation could have been reasonably prevented had a background check been performed.

Now that we know why background checks are important, how can we be assured that they are performed correctly?

Employment background checks can vary from a simple verification of the applicant’s Social Security number to a detailed account of the potential employee’s history, professional relationships and business interests.

The following infographic graphic illustrates the core components of a basic employment background check as compared to a more comprehensive check. Consistent with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance, employers should vary the level of background check based on the demands of the job.

For example, a bank teller position might require a basic check to include an identity verification, criminal history research, education and work history verifications, and a credit report. A bank executive screen might be more comprehensive to include the basic check in addition to a driving history search, news and media research, a civil records search and government database research, e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission records.

View infographic on website

A recent ordinance has been passed that will change the way most employers in Newark, New Jersey are allowed to use and conduct criminal background searches on applicants. Effective November 18^th 2012, the ordinance will have a significant impact on the process of hiring new employees for all employers of five or more people that do business in, employ in, or take applications from, the city of Newark.

For starters, employers can only consider looking into an applicant’s criminal past after determining that the applicant is qualified and a conditional offer of employment has been made. The result should be a decrease in the number of skilled applicants dismissed from the applicant pool early on in the hiring process simply due to a criminal record. Furthermore, after obtaining the applicant’s written consent for a background check, the employer can only use certain information. A summary of the restrictions are as follows:

1. Employer’s may look into –
   • Indictable offense convictions going back eight years including the termination of any incarceration.
   • Disorderly person’s convictions going back five years, including the termination of any incarceration.
   • Pending criminal charges, including cases that have been continued without findings.
2. Employer’s may not look into –
   • Any arrest or accusations against the individual that are not pending or did not result in a conviction.
   • Any records that have been erased, expunged, pardoned or nullified legally.
   • Juvenile adjudications of delinquency.
   • Records that have been sealed.
3. Exceptions include –
   • Convictions for murder, voluntary manslaughter, and sex offenses that resulted in state imprisonment. These convictions are not bound to the eight year restriction.

Should an employer conduct a background check on a potential applicant or employee covered by the ordinance, the following six factors that must be considered when evaluating the criminal history information:

1. The nature of the crime and its relationship to the duties of the position sought or held
2. Any information pertaining to the degree of rehabilitation and good conduct, including any information produced by the applicant or employee or produced on his or her behalf
3. Does the prospective job provide an opportunity for a repeat offense, or the commission of similar offenses from the applicant
4. Whether the circumstances leading up to the offense(s) are likely to reoccur
5. The amount of time that has elapsed since the offense(s)
6. Any certificate of rehabilitation issued by an state or federal agency
7. How does the nature of the crime relate to the responsibilities of the position

All factors are required to be documented on the new Applicant Criminal Record Consideration form and should explain the employer’s choice to revoke the conditional hire should that decision come to pass. Also, if the conditional hire is revoked after the background check – the applicant must be given a copy of the Applicant Criminal Record Consideration form.

Additionally, the applicant must be given a written notice of rejection and the opportunity for review – a ten day grace period in which the applicant can contact the employer to speak to the accuracy or job relevance of the results. The employer must then take the additional information into consideration, and provide the application with a written document of the addition information, how it weighed into the hiring decision, and the employer’s final decision.

Newark’s new rules are in fact not new, but are the suggestions of the EEOC to help fight against discrimination in the hiring process. Big companies like PepsiCo have recently had to pay large settlements for having hiring procedures that, based on the (inconsequential) criminal record data of applicants, have been adversely impacting certain protected groups such as minorities and specifically African Americans and Hispanics.

Certainly these are steps forward in the right direction to not only providing an even playing field for all job applicants in tough economic times, but also to help boost the economy and help get more Americans back to work.

Your new potential hire has just left your office following a final interview. You feel great about their attitude and they appear to have the pedigree of a top candidate. They have all the signs for success: a resume full of great experience, stories about converting tough clients, and the charisma/charm and character you’ve only ever read about in hiring books.

He/she is a perfect fit for your company. You wonder how a candidate like this falls into your lap and you feel ecstatic! But have you ever sat down and asked why other companies did not hire this candidate?

The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) released 5 tips for conducting effective employee background checks in 2013.

The Association’s guidance is targeted to all employers that utilize employment background checks to vet employees for job opportunities. Company roles in human resources, legal compliance, risk management, finance and general management should review the full press release.

The NAPBS and its members are committed to ensuring the highest degree of accuracy and professionalism when it comes to background checks. To that end, NAPBS offers the following best practices intended to benefit employers and job seekers who are planning for 2013:

1. Be Complete: Conduct a comprehensive background search to avoid negligent hiring. Relying on partial information or information that may be out of date can be as risky as not conducting a thorough background check at all.

2. Be Efficient: Time is a precious commodity especially for recruiters. Look for ways to utilize technology to help create efficiencies. Talk with your background screening provider about ways to improve your process to save you money and time.

3. Be Thorough: As an employer, you have certain responsibilities under the law. Make sure that all background screening practices meet federal and state regulations as well as industry requirements. Be mindful of the new Equal Employment Opportunity Commission criminal guidelines and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

4. Be Analytical: Consider job responsibilities when screening candidates. Go beyond basic background information and assess job relatedness and business necessity.

5. Be Consistent: Develop a method for a targeted level of screening for each open job position to align with business needs and job relatedness.

Accuracy in background screening is the number one priority of NAPBS members who continually strive to maintain their high accuracy rates. A recent informal poll of NAPBS member companies, including both large and small companies, reaffirmed this commitment. The poll showed accuracy rates of more than 99 percent with a small fraction requiring changes as a result of consumers disputing their reports.

Click here to review full press release

For more information or assistance on setting up a comprehensive and legally-compliant background screening program, visit First Contact HR at www.firstcontacthr.com, call Toll Free at 866-406-2142, or email info@firstcontacthr.com.

First Contact HR is an award-winning, nationwide background screening firm and a member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS).

In this day and age, companies are becoming increasingly concerned with their financial well-being and corporate responsibility. For most of them, this means ensuring employee safety and candor in the work place.

Background screening companies like First Contact HR are here to keep company work environments safe by mitigating risky hires, while also remaining legally compliant. Providing background checks means background screening companies must have a high standard for legal integrity to help their clients make the best hiring decisions.

In recent new headlines, organizations with the most stringent background screening processes – ones who are not following EEOC guidelines – are using their background screen reports for the wrong reasons. Hiring managers can be lead askew by either faulty measures put in place by their human resource department or poor decision making.

PepsiCo became a poster-child for poor hiring practices when it denied employment to more than 300 African Americans and Hispanic job applicants who had arrest records. According to the EEOC, this practice was deemed discriminatory and resulted in a fine. Under EEOC guidelines, a company cannot bar applicants from employment for having an arrest record with no associated conviction.

Major lawsuits are not the only reason people are buzzing over questionable HR decisions. Wells Fargo received public backlash after its decision to try and purge itself of anyone who had been convicted of certain crimes. Over the summer, Wells Fargo instituted a practice of running criminal background checks on all of its employees and firing those who had records they deemed to show instances of dishonesty or a breach of trust. While they had good intentions – believing they were complying with federal guidelines and practicing corporate responsibility in times of economic hardship – they began firing people who had minor offences from their past.

Wells Fargo fired employees like Yolanda Quesada, and Richard Eggers. Quesada was a telephone operator at Wells Fargo for five years who achieved awards and certificates commending her success within the company. When background checked, she lost her job due to an arrest record for shoplifting forty years prior. She explained that she was one of twelve children and when she was young, she needed to steal clothes for her struggling family on a few occasions. Nevertheless, for these minor offenses that happened four decades ago, Quesada lost her job.

Richard Eggers, a Vietnam veteran was employed for seven years by Wells Fargo and was also fired from his position due to what came to light in his background check. When he was 18 years old Eggers was arrested for putting a cardboard dime into a washing machine’s coin receptor. Eggers, who is now 68, admitted that he put the fake dime into the machine because he was bored while waiting for his friend to do laundry. Again, a very minor “criminal offense” landed him in jail for two days back in 1963. Still, Wells Fargo relieved him of his position, but later reinstated him.

As rules and regulations continue to change, it becomes increasingly difficult for companies to adhere to all federally mandated hiring guidelines. That’s why it is important for companies to partner with a background screening company they trust; one that will take the guesswork out of the hiring process and make sure their clients are legally compliant. Doing so will benefit the company in the long run, save the company money and help protect the company’s image from embarrassing employee termination snafus.

HR Expert Opinion:

A 2010 survey conducted by Society of Human Resource Management revealed that 92 percent of employers are conducting employment background checks. Unfortunately, many of these employers lack the proper guidance to conduct these checks in a manner consistent with Federal , state and local laws. As a result, a backlash has been created from potentially qualified applicants or employees, who have been denied employment for the wrong reason.

Employers should become knowledgeable about the Federal laws and guidelines pertaining to background checks, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the new guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They should also review and know their state and local laws.

Had the employers cited above considered carefully the EEOC’s position on the use of arrest and conviction records before making termination decisions, the cost and negative PR they experienced could have been avoided.

For more information or assistance on setting up a comprehensive and legally compliant background screening program, visit First Contact HR at www.firstcontacthr.com, call Toll Free at 866-406-2142, or email info@firstcontacthr.com. First Contact HR is an award-winning, nationwide background screening firm. and member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS).

They’re being called the “perversion files” – a record of previously confidential files listing the names of 1,200 Boy Scout of America officials and scoutmasters who are accused of abusing young boys over a period of two decades.

The files released Thursday, October 19 contain more than 15,000 pages detailing accusations of the sexual abuse against scout leaders and officials between 1965 and 1985. The list of names in the documents were deemed “ineligible volunteers” and include those who are accused of sexual abuse towards the minors they came into contact with during boy scout meetings and functions.

Police are now responding to 523 of the alleged cases. The files were kept confidential – until now – and represent all that the Boy Scouts of America could have done to protect their young members, but didn’t.

While The Boy Scouts of America did remove individuals who molested children, they could have done much more to shed light on an issue that is now rocking the entire nation. Law enforcement was never involved with the alleged cases that the perversion files reference – which is the issue at hand.

The Boy Scouts of America have made some recent changes to abide by the rules and weed out pedophiles. Locally, Boy Scout officials say that they abided by the national guidelines and have nothing to hide. However, the Cradle of Liberty Council headquartered in Wayne, PA has taken it a step further and conducted background checks. CEO of the council, Tom Harrington says that more than 6,000 adult scoutmasters in the region have gone through background checks, and as a result are now on the “ineligible” list.

The “perversion files” are now available to the public online. To see if any of the Boy Scout of America staffers and volunteers in your area made the list, visit www.kellyclarkattorney.com/files

HR Expert Opinion:

In a scandal that’s making national headlines, organizations are taking action by conducting due diligence to include comprehensive background checks on employees, volunteers and contractors.  When in the case of minors, background check measures should always be put into place to ensure the quality of staff and the safety of the children.

Under the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Act, know as Act 73, employers are required to conduct background checks on all employees with “a significant likelihood of regular contact with children, in the form of care, guidance, supervision or training.”

The required checks include:

• · Pennsylvania statewide criminal background check
• · Child abuse history clearance from the Department of Public Welfare (DPW)
• · Cogent FBI fingerprint check

For more information or assistance on setting up a comprehensive background screening program,  visit First Contact HR at www.firstcontacthr.com, call Toll Free at 866-406-2142, or email info@firstcontacthr.com.  First Contact HR is an award-winning, nationwide background screening firm. and member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS)

.

In recent years identity protection has become an increasingly big deal. Specifically, the handling of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) by companies has been reworked in a number of states in order to better safeguard their employees against identity theft. The sudden concern arose primarily due to companies putting employee’s financial information at risk for years by asking for SSNs in places they really do not need to be. Identification cards, employment applications, pay stubs, mail, or even the electronic transmission of SSNs via the internet all unnecessarily heighten the risk for identity theft. With today’s criminals consistently finding new ways to exploit inadequate security systems, it’s important that companies and employers strive to cut down on excessive exposure of sensitive information.

In most states across the U.S. it is illegal to do the following:

• · Publicly display or post more than the last four digits of SSNs.
• · Print SSNs on employees’ badges, parking permits or timecards.
• · Require people to use their SSN to access a website unless encrypted or over a secure connection.
• · Use more than the last four digits to access a website unless a password or other unique identifier is also required.
• · Use more than the last four digits of an SSN as an employee number.
• · Send SSNs through the mail, unless the documents are applications or other such forms; and then SSNs must not be visible through a windowed envelope.
• · Keep unsecured files containing SSNs and allow non authorized personnel access to such files.

The California Office of Privacy Protection has put together a set of recommendations, click here, for any entities who wish to tighten up their SSN practices.

The use of credit reports  in background checks have been around for decades starting with  banks and financial service institutions  as a means to vet candidates who would be handling cash and have access to  sensitive information, such as social security numbers, account numbers and balances, as well as other bank assets.  The rationale was simple: if a candidate was experiencing difficulty managing their personal finances, then how effective could they be on the job in making leading or other financial decisions that might affect the company’s bottom line. Further, if the candidate was experiencing severe personal financial stress such as payment delinquencies, liens and collection activities, would it be prudent for the financial institution to hire and place such candidates in positions with access to cash and assets that might prompt dishonest behavior like theft or embezzlement?

Today, nearly half of employers include credit reports as a component of their background screening process for certain positions, according to a 2010 SHRM survey. Employers insist that credit reports help them sort out bad hires by predicting job performance, assess trustworthiness, and limit theft or embezzlement, therefore saving their companies time, money, and possible negligent hiring lawsuits. However, in recent years following the recession in 2007-2009 and the housing crisis, a higher number of applicants have poor credit.  As a result, many local and state law makers have implemented regulations restricting use of credit reports during the hiring process. Even the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has weighed in on the use of credit reports. The core issue is that the use of credit reports in background screening has had an adverse impact on the hiring of both African American and female applicants.  The EEOC’s position is clear that Title VII does not bar employers from using credit reports in hiring decisions. Nevertheless, reckless use of such information during the hiring process can expose an employer to significant liability. Employers can be exposed to disparate impact claims from applicants when the results of their hiring process has a statistically significant negative impact on members of a protected class, even if the process on the surface is non-discriminatory.

The EEOC and local/state regulators support the use of credit reports in the hiring process when the employer can demonstrate business necessity. The problem has been that some employers have run credits reports on all applicants regardless of the position being sought, and based on the credit history, denied employment opportunities.

Typical positions that many employers run credit reports based on having a reasonable business need, include:

• Finance, accounting  and budgeting positions that involve access to company or client funds, handling large sums of cash or sensitive personal information (e.g., credit card numbers, social security numbers, banking information, account numbers,etc.).
  
• Managerial and professional positions with access to financially sensitive employee or customer information, such as attorneys, real estate professionals / property managers, IT professionals, pharmacists, Human Resources, finance employees,  etc.
  
• Executive roles such as CEO, COO or heads of functions that are responsible for large budgets, entity profit and loss, sensitive data and company assets.

For these jobs and others like them, it is often a good and reassuring sign that the individuals whose responsibility it is to handle sensitive personal / financial information are as responsible in their private lives as they are expected to be in their professional career. For those companies that do wish to proceed with using credit reports as a part of the background screening and hiring process, it’s still legal – but be cautious.

Given the regulatory scrutiny over the proper use of credit reports, make sure there is a business necessity for including a credit report in the background check and that the report relates to the job in question.

Prior to the NCAA and Big Ten Conference sanctions, board of trustee decisions following the Freeh Report and the release of chilling voicemails left by Jerry Sandusky on a victim’s phone, the looming question of Penn State’s next steps still remain. The image of the university is undoubtedly tarnished after the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse trial revealed university officials sat idle as children were victimized by the former assistant coach to the prestigious football team.

The university is still the subject of a number of investigations and the current president, Rodney Erickson says the university is cooperating fully. [Read more] Following the sanctions levied by the NCAA and Big Ten, credit ratings provider, Moody’s Corporation announced that it may cut the university’s current “Aa1” credit rating. A downgrade from Moody’s could make it more expensive for Penn State to borrow money – the school is already $1 billion in debt. [Read more]

Financial woes aside, the university has already begun taking steps to make a dent in replenishing the image it once had; removing the Joe Paterno statue from campus may not be enough.

Erickson announced earlier this month that the university would adopt a new background check procedure. On July 5, all current and future job candidates (including third-party candidates) must undergo a criminal background check prior to working for the university. HR99 as it’s called incorporates a “more comprehensive procedure that also ensures compliance with recently issued new guidance by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on background checks.”

Associate vice president of Human Resources, Susan Basso, says that “to provide the safest possible environment for our students, faculty, staff and visitors it is imperative that Penn State implements consistent and thorough background check procedures.”

First Contact HR has always recommended that higher education adhere to EEOC guidelines and adopt a comprehensive background check policy that meets their specific needs. No college or university is the same, yet identity verification, criminal records research, sex offender registry checks, employment and education verification and motor vehicle records review are all recommended services for any potential staff member of an educational institution.

Regarding the effectiveness of background checks, Jerry Sandusky had a criminal background and was even denied a volunteer coaching job in 2010 after Juniata College conducted a background check.

HR Professional Opinion:

Higher education institutions should audit their current practices and conduct an objective risk assessment. Student safety and security should be high priority and never subordinate to other objectives of the institution. Conducting comprehensive background checks that are in compliance with federal, state and local laws are key in protecting the institution’s reputation, hiring and retaining the right talent, while creating a culture that matches the institution’s goals, objectives and vision.

Higher education should evaluate all new hires, volunteers and contractors, considering the following factors against the work to be performed or held, the work performance location, and the degree of risk to the organization:

1. Any loyalty or terrorism issue;
2. Patterns of conduct (e.g., alcoholism/drug addiction, financial irresponsibility/major liabilities, dishonesty, un-employability for Negligence or misconduct, criminal conduct);
3. Felony and misdemeanor offenses;
4. Drug manufacturing/trafficking/sale;
5. Significant honesty issue (e.g., extortion, armed robbery, embezzlement, perjury);
6. Criminal sexual misconduct;
7. Serious violent behavior (e.g., rape, aggravated assault, arson, child abuse, manslaughter);
8. Illegal use of firearms/explosives; and
9. Employment related misconduct involving dishonesty, policy violations, criminal or violent behavior.

Further, prior to taking any adverse action against any subject, First Contact HR recommends consideration of the following:

1. The nature, extent and seriousness of the conduct;
2. The circumstances surrounding the conduct;
3. The frequency of the conduct;
4. How recently the conduct occurred;
5. The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
6. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes;
7. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress;
8. The likelihood of continuation of the conduct;
9. How, and if, the conduct bears upon potential job responsibilities; and
10. The individual’s employment history before and after the conduct.