By all indications, employee theft and embezzlement is thriving in today’s business economy. In order to protect themselves from rising rates of theft and embezzlement, employers need to use every tool at their disposal, including criminal background checks.

According to the 2012 Report on Embezzlement from analyst Marquet International Ltd., 2012 was a “blockbuster year” in terms of municipal and corporate embezzlement. The average loss in the 528 major embezzlement cases included in the study was $1.4 million dollars.

Other facts revealed by the study, which also compared data from a 5-year backlog of embezzlement cases, include some interesting points about gender. Women are more likely to embezzle than men, at least on a large scale. Yet when men do decide to embezzle large amounts, the amount they steal far outstrips that of women.

The study also found that fewer than 5 percent of embezzlers stealing over $100,000 had prior criminal convictions. This poses a problem for employers. If these individuals had no criminal convictions, presumably a background check would not have returned any red flags on 95 percent of these future criminals, and they would have been hired with no reservations whatsoever.

However, by digging deeper into the study, employees may find evidence to support the use of credit checks as a means of screening out job applicants who may eventually turn to theft or embezzlement. Credit reports, like those offered by backgroundchecks.com, can reveal potential sources of financial stress in a job applicant’s life. Since the Marquet study revealed that gambling debts come into play in many high-profile embezzlement cases, it stands to reason that detecting financial stressors can be useful in predicting potential embezzlement risks.

While some states restrict the use of credit checks, it is generally agreed that credit checks are permissible for any position where financial history has a direct bearing on the job responsibilities. For example, someone in the finance industry or someone who will hold the purse strings at a non-profit company both need to demonstrate an ability to manage money wisely.

The Marquet study found that financial institutions suffer the highest frequency of embezzlement, and the most common method of embezzlement is forged or unauthorized checks. In other words, most high-profile embezzlement cases involve employees in financial positions or with easy access to money. One has to wonder how many of the embezzlement crimes included in the Marquet study could have been prevented had credit checks been run on all of the employees involved.

Going forward, the Marquet study predicts that embezzlement trends will continue to rise as employees struggle to cope with continuing economic distress in the country. Employees over 40 are seen as a particular risk because they may be contemplating padding their retirement funds with ill-gotten gains. The states of Iowa, Hawaii, Nevada, Wyoming, and Illinois were identified as being at the highest risk for large-scale embezzlement.

Embezzlement isn’t just a concern for big businesses. Small businesses and non-profits should also keep a close eye out for employee theft, and use every tool at their disposal to try to hire the best, most honest employees they can find, particularly for positions of financial responsibility.

About backgroundchecks.com

Founded during the Internet boom in 1999 by an executive in both the staffing and information industry, backgroundchecks.com – a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) – has been able to create a service that provides a blend of flexible screening programs that included instant, cost effective and comprehensive solutions. Our experience in database modeling of public records information has led Backgroundchecks.com to become the leader in the acquisition and delivery of public records information by harnessing the power and technology of the Internet. To learn more visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130514-906536.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Author: Michael Klazema

Earlier this month, Georgia expanded its background check policy for childcare workers to include fingerprint-based multi-jurisdictional criminal background checks in addition to state and local background checks.

As parents and child care workers react to the new law, most of the feedback has been positive. For example, Nancy Isaacson, the director of Best Academy, reported that she believes the new requirements will help ease parents’ minds about leaving their children in the care of others. Isaacson said that the most common question she hears from parents who are considering enrolling their children in her Savannah, Georgia early learning center has to do with background checks. Parents want to know what Best Academy is doing to keep their kids safe from predators. Now Isaacson can answer this question with more confidence, because the extra layer of pre-employment screening will provide a more robust picture of each potential child care worker’s criminal background.

State and local background checks only reveal criminal activity that occurred in the area where the employee is currently living and working. National background checks, on the other hand, are by nature more comprehensive. They can reveal crimes committed in neighboring states or even all the way across the country. For example, the US OneSEARCH tool from backgroundchecks.com can reveal criminal convictions in every state, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam. US OneSEARCH also has the important benefit of combing through data from offender registries across the country, to ensure that where appropriate offenders are excluded from employment at child care facilities where they could potentially victimize the children they are meant to care for and protect.

What about the costs of this extra layer of background screening? Isaacson said she doesn’t mind footing the bill for the background checks, as the new law will require. She believes it is a small price to pay for the improved peace of mind that parents and workers alike will feel, knowing that kids are as safe as possible.

The law is expected to take effect for all new child care workers hired next year. Existing workers will have to pass the fingerprint-based national background check by 2017. This may leave some parents wondering about the interim. Why the delay? When national background check services from companies like backgroundchecks.com can be completed instantly, why is it necessary to budget so much time for the adoption and implementation of the new policy?

Parents may also wonder about the possibility of new workers passing the background check and then committing a crime later on down the line. How will these crimes be detected? With the use of a tool like Ongoing Criminal Monitoring from backgroundchecks.com, employers can be notified of publicly recorded criminal activity immediately. This allows employers to get ahead of the curve and deal with the situation before the media gets a hold of it. For example, an employer might choose to place an employee on suspension until the criminal charges are proven or disproven, especially if the crime in question involves violence or crimes against minors.

Ultimately, the government can legislate all it wants, but it is still up to individual child care facility directors to check up on employees regularly and assess their ongoing fitness to work with kids.

About backgroundchecks.com

Founded during the Internet boom in 1999 by an executive in both the staffing and information industry, backgroundchecks.com – a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) – has been able to create a service that provides a blend of flexible screening programs that included instant, cost effective and comprehensive solutions. Our experience in database modeling of public records information has led Backgroundchecks.com to become the leader in the acquisition and delivery of public records information by harnessing the power and technology of the Internet. To learn more visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: www.wsav.com/story/22198846/background-checks-strengthen-for-child-care-workers

Author: Michael Klazema

While mandatory background checks for school employees, coaches, child care personnel and other individuals who may have contact with minors as part of their job are certainly useful, sometimes determined offenders can find a way around them. This is particularly true when it comes to private activities where oversight may be lacking and background check requirements become difficult to enforce.

One example of this problem comes from the state of Virginia, where a convicted offender repeatedly gained access to minors by coaching in private youth basketball leagues.

The offender, Antwain Fletcher, has two worrisome convictions on his record. The first one is a sexual battery conviction from 2010. This conviction is related to an incident involving a 17-year-old player that Fletcher was coaching at the time. In 2012, Fletcher was again convicted of a crime against a minor, namely taking indecent liberties. This minor in this case was 15 years old. Following this conviction Fletcher spent four months in jail.

A background check should have revealed the first conviction and prevented Fletcher from coaching again and having the opportunity to commit the second crime. For example, a national criminal search across multiple jurisdictions using a product like US OneSEARCH from backgroundchecks.com could have returned the first conviction, even though the incident took place in the neighboring state of North Carolina and Fletcher was coaching in Virginia. US OneSEARCh includes offender registries from every state.

However, Fletcher was able to avoid background checks by starting his own basketball team after his first conviction. This meant that he did not have any oversight from a school or other sponsoring organization. The local Amateur Athletic Union didn’t require background checks on coaches until 2012, so Fletcher was able to register his team for AAU events without a problem.

Parents were aware that Fletcher had been denied certification from the NCAA after failing a background check. Yet, buoyed by Fletcher’s promises that he could get basketball scholarships for their kids by having them play in tournaments that college recruiters attend regularly, the parents ignored the problem. Some parents even helped Fletcher out by registering his team for certain events in their own names, to prevent Fletcher’s criminal background from interfering with their kids’ chance at a scholarship.

After the second incident and conviction, parents no doubt felt betrayed by Fletcher and chagrined by their own complicity in helping him to coach minors and participate in various events. This story just goes to show that just having a policy that requires background checks is not enough. All individuals involved in the process must be fully committed to it and unwilling to help people like Antwain Fletcher slip through the cracks.

In the end, a background check is only valuable if people consistently execute it, know how to interpret it correctly and actually use that information to keep kids safe. If Fletcher had only had arrests on his record, the parents’ actions could have been explained away. After all, arrests are not proof of guilt and can’t legally be used as a sole deciding factor in denying someone employment opportunities. However, Fletcher had convictions that solidly indicated guilt. These convictions would have been revealed by a background check and should have been taken more seriously.

About backgroundchecks.com

Founded during the Internet boom in 1999 by an executive in both the staffing and information industry, backgroundchecks.com – a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) – has been able to create a service that provides a blend of flexible screening programs that included instant, cost effective and comprehensive solutions. Our experience in database modeling of public records information has led Backgroundchecks.com to become the leader in the acquisition and delivery of public records information by harnessing the power and technology of the Internet. To learn more visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: http://www.nbc12.com/story/22176685/convicted-boys-coach-reportedly-skirted-background-checks

Author: Michael Klazema

While many adults remember the days when it was safe for kids to roam neighborhood streets unsupervised all summer long, today’s crop of youngsters often do not have that luxury. Numerous high-profile cases relating to child abductions and child abuse have made parents and lawmakers more likely to mistrust strangers and limit their opportunities to interact with children.

One such case occurred in Iowa in the summer of 2012. Two young children, who happened to be cousins, were abducted while out riding their bikes. Their bodies were found, but the case has not been solved.

This case was on some Iowa lawmaker’s minds recently as they sought to introduce new legislation to protect children from predators. In a bid to reduce the likelihood of an offender interacting with minors, a group of Iowa Republicans attempted to mandate background checks for ice cream truck drivers in their state.

Their reasoning for the proposed mandate was that ice cream truck drivers are like “pied pipers.” The familiar tune draws kids out to the ice cream truck, where they naturally must interact with the driver in order to buy their treats. Some parents and lawmakers fear this interaction could potentially provide a predator with an opportunity to choose his next victim.

As evidence, Iowa Senator Tim Kapucian cited an incident that he said took place in Florida recently, in which an ice cream truck driver allegedly abducted and molested a child.

By requiring a background check for all ice cream drivers, the state of Iowa could screen out predators and offenders before they had a chance to interact with minors as part of their job. Legislators no doubt envisioned that, if the law passed, employers would use a tool similar to US Offender OneSEARCH. This product, which is offered by backgroundchecks.com, is a thorough Offender Registry search that combs through records from every state, plus Washington DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

Democrats in the Iowa state legislature determined that the proposed background check measure was “flawed” and therefore did not pass it.

Of course, just because background checks are not required by law does not mean that employers should not carry them out. Performing a thorough background check on any individual that will have contact with minors as part of their job is always wise. Not only does screening out offenders with background checks protect kids, it also protects employers and companies from the backlash associated with crimes against children. No company wants their name associated with such an incident, as it can hurt their brand tremendously.

In the case of ice cream truck drivers, employers are probably already doing at least one type of background check, namely a Motor Vehicle Record Search. This type of background check is vital for any employee who will be driving as part of their job. It returns any instances of traffic violations, accidents, or driving while intoxicated.

In the end, companies should not rely on legislators to tell them how to protect their employees and customers from offenders. Instead, they should use every background check tool legally available to them to get an accurate picture of exactly who they’re hiring.

About backgroundchecks.com

Founded during the Internet boom in 1999 by an executive in both the staffing and information industry, backgroundchecks.com – a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) – has been able to create a service that provides a blend of flexible screening programs that included instant, cost effective and comprehensive solutions. Our experience in database modeling of public records information has led Backgroundchecks.com to become the leader in the acquisition and delivery of public records information by harnessing the power and technology of the Internet. To learn more visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: http://www.radioiowa.com/2013/04/30/background-check-requirement-for-ice-cream-truck-drivers-fails-to-pass-iowa-senate/

Author: Michael Klazema

On May 1, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed a bill into law which will require national background checks for all employees that will be working with kids in Georgia child care facilities.

The bill came about in response to a case involving Macon, GA’s Progressive Christian Academy. The former owner of the academy, Betty Tolbert, alleged that the company she had turned to for assistance with the school’s financial problems defrauded her and took over ownership of the school. When Georgia officials investigated, they discovered that one of the new owners, Christina Hawkins, had a criminal record.

Hawkins’ criminal record was not detected at the time she took over Progessive Christian Academy for two reasons. First, her conviction was in Florida, and Progressive Christian Academy only ran a Georgia background check on her. Secondly, her conviction was under an alias, Christina Perera.

By using more robust background check tools, Progressive Christian Academy could have uncovered Hawkins’ criminal past beyond the state borders. For example, they could have used a tool like US OneSEARCH from backgroundcheck.com, which enables employers to comb through a national database consisting of over 450 million records and instantly uncover criminal records related to the individual in question.

To uncover the alias, Progressive Christian Academy could have used US AliasSearch from backgroundchecks.com. This tool uses a social security trace to uncover all known aliases, including maiden names. Then, all these aliases are run through the robust US OneSearch database. This tool could have revealed the fact that Christina Hawkins, aka Christian Perera, had convictions under other names while living in Florida.

As it turned out, Hawkins was actually on parole at the time she was hired by Progressive Christian Academy. She violated her parole by lying about her new employment to her probation offices, and there was actually a warrant out for her arrest in December of 2012.

This incident made Georgia legislators realize that child care centers in the state were not performing thorough enough background checks on all employees. While Hawkins’ convictions didn’t indicate any predilection for harming or abusing children, as a felon she is still not exactly a desirable role model for or a good influence on the children at the school.

The bill, which was signed into law today, will result in better protection for children by requiring national background checks, including fingerprinting, for all child care workers. This will do a better job to detect individuals with criminal backgrounds, even if their crimes were committed in a different state or under a different name.

Georgia is just the latest in a series of states that have been passing laws mandating more rigorous background checks for employees working with children. The trend seems to be sweeping the nation, and other states may soon adopt similar legislation.

About backgroundchecks.com

Founded during the Internet boom in 1999 by an executive in both the staffing and information industry, backgroundchecks.com – a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) – has been able to create a service that provides a blend of flexible screening programs that included instant, cost effective and comprehensive solutions. Our experience in database modeling of public records information has led Backgroundchecks.com to become the leader in the acquisition and delivery of public records information by harnessing the power and technology of the Internet. To learn more visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: http://www.11alive.com/news/article/290895/40/National-background-checks-coming-for-child-care-workers

http://www.13wmaz.com/video/1902580704001/1/Lawsuit-Alleges-Fraud-at-Progressive-Christian-Academy

http://www.fugitive.com/2012/12/26/christina-hawkins-alias-christina-perera-wanted-by-florida-department-of-corrections-for-alleged-violation-of-probation/

Author: Michael Klazema

Colorado passed new legislation on April 19, 2013 which restricts an employer’s use of consumer credit information for employment purposes. The legislation is cited as the “Employment Opportunity Act.” The act takes effect on July 1, 2013.

Colorado’s new legislation prohibits an employer from using consumer credit information for employment purposes unless the information is substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job.  “Employment purposes” is defined in the Act as “evaluating a person for employment, hiring, promotion, demotion, reassignment, adjustment in compensation level, or retention as an employee.”

Additionally, an employer may not require an employee to consent to a request for a credit report that contains information about the employee’s credit score, credit account balances, payment history, savings or checking account balances, or savings or checking account numbers as a condition of employment. Consumer credit information includes a credit score but does not include the address, name, or date of birth of an employee associated with a social security number.

Exceptions to these restrictions include:

a.     The employer is a bank or financial institution;

b.     The report is required by law;

c.     (1) The report is substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job and (2) the employer has a bona fide purpose for requesting or using information in the credit report that (i) is substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job and (ii) is disclosed in writing to the employee.

A consumer credit report is considered “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job” if the information is related to the position because:

(a) the position is either

(1) an executive or management position or
(2) professional staff to executive or management personnel and

(b) the position involves one or more of the following:

(1) Setting the direction or control of a business, division, unit, or an agency of a business,
(2) A fiduciary responsibility to the employer,
(3) Access to customers’, employees, or the employer’s personal or financial information other than information customarily provided in a retail transaction, or
(4) The authority to issue payments, collect debts, or enter into contracts.

A consumer credit report is also considered “substantially related to the employee’s current or potential job” if the information is related to the position because the position involves contracts with defense, intelligence, national security, or space agencies of the federal government.

If an employer relies on consumer credit information when taking an adverse employment action, it must disclose that and disclose the particular information it relied upon. The disclosure must be made to an employee in writing or to an applicant in the same medium as the application (e.g., electronically for an electronic application).

Civil penalties may be awarded up to $2,500 for injuries as a result of a violation of the Act.

The Act may be accessed here: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/
5E2C07DC74DD73D687257AEE0057DC52?Open&file=018_enr.pdf

Heads are still reeling in Dallas, TX after city employees failed to detect multiple problems with a new hire’s resume. That new hire, Antoine Flowers, went on to allegedly steal iPads worth $10,000 from the city before resigning in late January.

Now, nearly four months later, the city of Dallas is still trying to explain the chain of events that allowed Flowers to be hired.

The first time Flowers was employed at City Hall, he came as a temp worker from a local agency called DFW Technology. City Hall apparently assumed DFW Technology had done a background check on Flowers, an assumption which proved to have disastrous consequences later on. This just goes to show that businesses should always conduct their own background checks and employment verifications on prospective employees, temp workers, and contractors. Doing so is quick and easy with the help of backgroundchecks.com, which offers instant results through comprehensive criminal background check tools like US OneSEARCH.

To their credit, Dallas City Hall did intend to follow up on their new temp worker by subjecting him to a deep background check. Flowers avoided this check by simply not showing up for his appointment with the Dallas Police Department. This just goes to show that having guidelines for employment background checks is not enough. Businesses must also have safeguards in place to ensure that the guidelines are actually followed.

The next event in this botched hiring debacle occurred when Flowers was hired on full time as an IT Manager. At this point, an HR employee did attempt to run a background check on Flowers. However, when the background check failed to associate the Social Security Number that Flowers had provided with any known name or address, this HR employee apparently ignored the problem. Flowers’ background check was not properly escalated to an HR supervisor, and the IT hiring manager never saw it.

Had Dallas City Hall run an employment verification check on Flowers, they would have quickly eliminated him as a job candidate for the IT position before he had a chance to steal the iPads. Flowers claimed to have worked for NASA and held a top secret security clearance in the Army. A simple employment verification check from backgroundchecks.com would have revealed that these claims were totally false.

An education verification check would have proven that Flowers had not attended either of the colleges he listed on his resume. He had not earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Houston, nor was he enrolled in a Master’s program at Southern Methodist University.

The hiring manager in charge of reviewing Flowers’ application, a relatively new hire himself, claims he did not know that checking employment and education references was part of his job. Had the hiring manager been a little more proactive, he could have easily checked Flowers’ resume through backgroundchecks.com. It would have taken just a few days to run the education and employment verification checks, and he could have saved the city from $10,000 in employee theft and a lot of embarrassment.

Members of the Dallas City Council have requested that the City Auditor investigate this matter further to see exactly why existing background check procedures were not followed and red flags created by Flowers’ fake SSN were ignored.

About backgroundchecks.com

Founded during the Internet boom in 1999 by an executive in both the staffing and information industry, backgroundchecks.com – a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) – has been able to create a service that provides a blend of flexible screening programs that included instant, cost effective and comprehensive solutions. Our experience in database modeling of public records information has led Backgroundchecks.com to become the leader in the acquisition and delivery of public records information by harnessing the power and technology of the Internet. To learn more visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20130405-series-of-failures-at-dallas-city-hall-led-to-it-manager-scandal.ece

Author: Michael Klazema

While it is a good thing that background checks for faculty members seem to have arrived, it is a good question to ask why they actually took as long as they did. In a move that should have arrived a long time ago, Duke University in North Carolina will soon require that people looking to become part of their faculty take mandatory criminal checks. It was reported recently that the administration department at the university is looking into getting security checks for current members of the faculty as well, which is the same type of test given to new hires ever since the year 1980.

Even members of the faculty and staff seem to agree that the background checks may be long overdue. Duke Academic Council’s chair Susan Lozier seems to agree. While speaking to the council, Lozier articulated that there really is no reason why the checks should not be applied to all members of the faculty. That could mean every faculty member the university would hire would get the same check into their background that the janitorial staff would get.

Of course, it has not been too long since universities around the country held faculty at a higher standard than everyone else in their staff. In fact, as recently as 2008, David Evans from the Oklahoma City University defended special treatment for the faculty staff. While writing for the Chronicle of Higher Education, he called the possibility of background checks “insulting” and “degrading” to those with advanced degrees.

Though background checks are becoming more common in the job market for most professions, there is still some resistance from the different universities throughout the country. In November of 2012 at the Florida Gulf Coast University, Win Everham, who is a professor of environmental studies, asked about the effectiveness of checks in an article written for the Eagle News. The question posed was whether the policy was smart or if it was a way to spend money “to make us think we are more safe?” In the article, another professor endorsed the fingerprinting of students as an alternative.

In Durham, North Carolina however, those asked seem to be fine with the idea (or at least resigned to it) and feel that a DWI in a background check should disqualify someone to work as a bus driver for the university. Likewise, it could be an embarrassment for the university to hire someone with a previous drug conviction to work at the university’s chemistry labs. This seems to make all the sense in the world, and even those who would otherwise oppose the new rules are inclined to agree.

Duke’s provost, Peter Lange, does not foresee the new policies for background checks scaring new people who want to join the faculty away. This is because he expects the number of cases in which someone would show up with a criminal past would be very close to zero. Kyle Cavanaugh, who is the VP for Duke’s administration, agrees that the number would be small, but also points out that “in today’s environment, how can we not do this?” The hope is that the checks will go forward as per the recommendation.

Like Duke, most universities will be interested in the criminal histories of applicants. By partnering with backgroundchecks.com, they can use a US OneSEARCH product, which has access to more than 450 million criminal records nationwide. They can also take a look at performing an Education Verification, to make sure potential faculty members have the qualifications they calim to teach their respective disciplines.

About backgroundchecks.com -

backgroundchecks.com - a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) and cofounder of the Expungement Clearinghouse - serves thousands of customers nationwide, from small businesses to Fortune 100 companies by providing comprehensive screening services. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an Eastern Operations Center in Chapin, S.C., backgroundchecks.com is home to one of the largest online criminal conviction databases in the industry. For more information about backgroundchecks’ offerings, please visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/x145784657/Editorial-It-s-about-time-for-faculty-background-checks

Author: Michael Klazema

A new piece of legislation was introduced by Congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee that would stop employers from basing decisions during the hiring process on bankruptcy filings and credit checks. Cohen said that the credit history of an applicant will not accurately predict their job performance, saying that in these hard economic times, economic background checks could make it even harder to find a job. The bill is called the Equal Employment for All Act and would prohibit using a background check with a credit report section as part of the application process except in some cases.

The Society for Human Resource Management says that pre-employment credit background checks done by employers has risen from 36% to 43%, but despite this, the credit score found in a background check has not had any impact on job performance except in cases of jobs which involve significant financial responsibility. In addition, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has pointed out multiple times in the past that credit checks will disproportionately impact minorities and women, showing a workplace bias. These economic checks also make it much more difficult to find a job and create a cycle in which Americans cannot pay their debt because they don’t have a job but cannot get a job because of their debt.

The Equal Employment for All Act introduced by Cohen would be an amended version of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in order to stop the usage of consumer credit checks to prevent hiring a potential applicant. The bill does recognize that for certain jobs a credit background check is necessary, so it provides exceptions to allow these checks in the following cases: (1) if the job requires FDIC clearance or national security clearance; (2) if the job is with a local or state government agency that usually requires consumer reports; (3) if the job is at a financial institution and the position is an executive, professional, managerial or supervisory position; (4) any time that the check must be done to adhere with the law.

In addition to the Equal Employment for All Act relating to background checks, Congressman Cohen also introduced another act called the Bankruptcy Nondiscrimination Enhancement Act that is designed to strengthen the nondiscrimination provision of the Bankruptcy Code relating to private employers and any financially-based background check they perform. The Bankruptcy Code currently prevents private employers from firing an employee (or discriminating) only because of a person’s debt or bankruptcy. It also prevents this in cases when the employee was insolvent before starting the bankruptcy or when they have not paid debt that was either discharged during bankruptcy or is dischargeable.

The way the Bankruptcy Code stands, employers can discriminate against and fire employees who have filed for bankruptcy as long as that was not the only basis for the decision. It also currently allows employers to refuse employment based on bankruptcy information that appears in a background check. Cohen’s amendment is designed to make it so that considering bankruptcy that appears in background checks as any part of the firing decision would be prohibited as would be using it as a basis for the decision not to hire someone.

Although the use of a credit check to uncover situations such as a bankruptcy may be against your pre-employment guidelines, there are still plenty of other screening tools you can use to vet potential employees. For example, at backgroundchecks.com, you can gain access to products like the US OneSEARCH , which searches more than 450 million criminal records nationwide. You can also use their Reference Verification tool, which gives you great insight into the character and work ethic of any potential employee.

About backgroundchecks.com -

backgroundchecks.com - a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) and cofounder of the Expungement Clearinghouse - serves thousands of customers nationwide, from small businesses to Fortune 100 companies by providing comprehensive screening services. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an Eastern Operations Center in Chapin, S.C., backgroundchecks.com is home to one of the largest online criminal conviction databases in the industry. For more information about backgroundchecks’ offerings, please visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: http://cohen.house.gov/press-release/cohen-introduces-bill-prevent-employers-using-credit-checks-hire-or-fire-employees-0

Author: Michael Klazema

With more talks concerning immigration reform happening across the aisles, immigrants may be facing long waits before obtaining US Citizenship. Right now, the Senate has announced a bipartisan immigration reform bill that will require undocumented immigrants to wait many years for green card eligibility. They might be allowed to work in the country in the meantime, but they will be held accountable for back taxes for their undocumented work. One other key hurdle in the path to citizenship is the passing of a background check. Immigrants with convictions for either a single felony, three or more misdemeanors, or a third category referred to as an “aggrevated felony” in the bill, will be barred from attaining the Registered Provisional Immigrant status.

Right now, laws already in place require undocumented immigrants to go back to their countries and wait ten years before even applying for a green card. Most are unwilling to follow through, citing their US finances, families, and businesses. Going back to their home countries would require starting over once again. In addition to this, some traveled to the United States to escape dangerous conditions or harsh rulers, and risking life in the US seems worth it compared to what they would have to face if they were to return home.

The new immigration bill will allow them to stay in the US, but requires their intent to become legal and a willingness to wait a long time. However, since they can continue working legal jobs, it may make their wait that much easier. The problem for many then becomes finding jobs that will take immigrants seeking their green cards. Because most businesses run background checks, they might discover sooner than the government whether or not an immigrant  has a criminal past.

The bill’s details are still being debated on the senate floor. Once passed there, it must go through the House, and finally to the desk of the President. This could take anywhere from weeks to months, and even if it is signed into law, immigrants will have to wait several more years before experiencing its effects.

Some of the most likely background checks immigrants could face include backgroundchecks.com's  US OneSEARCH, which allows a business to check a person’s name and date of birth against more than 450 million criminal records. They could also run a US OneTRACE which is meant to confirm the name and address of a particular social security number. Obviously, these checks would be impossible if an immigrant did not have a social. However, if for some reason that person was on an international crime list, companies could be notified if their name comes up in a National Security OneSEARCH. This searches 70 national and international security sources for criminals, offenders, dangerous and wanted people from around the world.

About backgroundchecks.com -

backgroundchecks.com - a founding member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS®) and cofounder of the Expungement Clearinghouse - serves thousands of customers nationwide, from small businesses to Fortune 100 companies by providing comprehensive screening services. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with an Eastern Operations Center in Chapin, S.C., backgroundchecks.com is home to one of the largest online criminal conviction databases in the industry. For more information about backgroundchecks’ offerings, please visit www.backgroundchecks.com.

Source: http://www.latinospost.com/articles/16679/20130415/immigration-reform-news-2013-wait-citizen.htm

Author: Michael Klazema