Blog

 
     

Care.com Comes Under Fire for Background Check Policies

By Michael Klazema on 3/19/2019

Care.com, a website intended to help parents and families find nannies, babysitters, daycare providers, or caregivers, has come under fire after a Wall Street Journal expose detailed the company’s struggles with lawsuits and bad press. The article highlighted Care.com’s vetting policies, with the headline stating that Care.com puts the “onus on families to check caregivers’ backgrounds—sometimes with tragic outcomes.”

The article began with a story about young twins who drowned in a pool while they were in the care of an in-home daycare provider near Knoxville, Tennessee. The daycare provider’s Care.com profile had claimed that her business with state-licensed. Not only was this claim untrue, but the state had filed an injunction against the home daycare months earlier after learning that the homeowner was caring for up to 11 children at once. In Tennessee, the law requires in-home daycares to have a license if they will be looking after more than five children “not related to the caregiver.”

The WSJ article indicated that these types of situations—in which caregivers claim to be state-licensed even though they aren’t—are common. The newspaper also found “about nine instances” from the past few years of caregivers listed on Care.com with criminal records later accused of committing crimes while caring for children or the elderly. These crimes—which ranged from theft to child abuse to sexual assault to murder—may have been prevented through the use of thorough background checks.

Care.com states on its website that it does “monitor site interactions and do some preliminary screening on members to promote a safe community.” However, Care.com also cautions users that it does not conduct background checks on caregivers or verify state licensing and other credentials. Instead, Care.com sells caregiver background checks as an add-on option. The WSJ article notes that these screening packages range in cost from $59 to $300 on top of the $39-per-month fee that the site charges all users.

Sheila Marcelo, the chairwoman for the company, says Care.com is like LinkedIn in that it helps facilitate connections and hiring. Just as LinkedIn does not verify the information listed on user profiles or run background checks on every user, Care.com does not vet caregivers who choose to list themselves on the site. If families wish to conduct background checks on their caregivers, they must pay for that service separately.

A federal law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, at least partially protects Care.com’s ability to take this stance by holding that technology companies cannot be held liable for the content posted by their users.

The WSJ article noted that Care.com has been slow about removing caregivers from its site after allegations about them have surfaced. In at least one case, a caregiver reported for molesting a child remained on the site for weeks after the incident—long enough to find several new victims. Parents have complained about Care.com not notifying them regarding issues with registered caregivers.

This story highlights the uncertainty that exists around background checks and vetting in the gig economy. Users of gig-based services like Care.com cannot assume that the freelancers they hire have passed background checks. Instead, it is essential to read about the policies and practices of the apps and services you use—and plan your own vetting safeguards accordingly.

 

Sources: https://www.care.com/background-checks

http://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Articles/Tennessee_childcare.pdf

https://www.wsj.com/articles/care-com-puts-onus-on-families-to-check-caregivers-backgroundswith-sometimes-tragic-outcomes-11552088138



Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • April 23 A property management company hired a maintenance worker last fall because her background check came back clean. In reality, she had convictions for identity theft, drug possession, forgery, and more.
  • April 18 Riding the wave of ban the box rules passed in many states and cities, the Senate and House of Representatives will consider permanent rules for federal employment. 
  • April 16 A recent audit of Ottawa’s leasing office found that the department isn’t properly managing the leasing process. Among the issues was a lack of background checks for new lessees.
  • April 16 Uber is redefining the way we get around, especially in urban areas. What are the company’s policies for driver background checks?
  • April 12 Staffing agencies need a dependable way to vet their candidates, find red flags, and weed out hires who might pose a threat to the businesses that the agency serves. Many staffing companies rely on backgroundchecks.com to fill this critical employee screening need. Here are just a few that have discovered the quality and reliability of backgroundchecks.com screening services.
  • April 11

    The employment world is a constantly-evolving organism driven by everything from technological leaps forward to shifts in culture. Read our ten enterprise-focused trends that SMBs should expect to encounter and contend with in 2019.

  • April 11 Seeking to expand housing availability in a region characterized by shortages, Portland’s City Council will consider new rules concerning how landlords screen and reject potential tenants.
  • April 09 San Joaquin County in California has recorded four sexual misconduct cases involving local youth sports programs in the past month alone. The cases highlight the importance of background checks in youth sporting organizations.
  • April 09 Which background checks are required for teachers? There are differing state and school policies for teacher background checks.
  • April 04 Seeking a way to hold the Catholic Church responsible for alleged abuse, West Virginia has taken a unique approach: suing using a law meant for consumer protection.