CUSTOMER RESOURCES

Could Background Checks Become a Nationwide Requirement for College Sports Recruits?

Could young athletes being recruited for college sports programs be required to undergo in-depth background checks before being allowed to play? In the past decade, background checks for student athletes have been a near-constant topic of conversation between everyone from university athletic directors to politicians. However, while such screenings have become more common over the years, they are still far from being the norm. In 2011, Sports Illustrated and CBS News partnered with one another to research background check policies at the top 25 college football programs in the country. They found that only two of the top 25 teams at the time (the University of Oklahoma and Texas Christian University) had policies requiring criminal background screenings for incoming recruits. The investigation also discovered that seven percent of the players involved in those 25 programs had been in trouble with the law before or after entering college. At the time, NCAA President Mark Emerett called the seven percent finding unacceptable and vowed to look into methods for requiring different athletic programs to screen their players. However, Emerett did note that he wanted more information on the situation. We don't know what that [seven percent figure] looks like relative to the regular student body, he reasoned.) He also said that even if the NCAA were to require schools to screen their players, he would still want those schools to ultimately have the freedom to accept the athletes they wanted to accept. Now, college football player background checks are back in the national spotlight. The USA Today recently published an article titled "As domestic violence clouds college football, coaches work to root it out." and featured quotes from various coaches sharing their thoughts on how to solve the problem. Many of the coaches interviewed stressed the importance of setting a good example for their players, having family nights where players can see how coaches respect their wives, or educational sessions where coaches talk to their players about being good and honorable men both on and off the field. Certainly, education is an important part of the equation. While college football players look like grown men out there on the field, they are ultimately just college students. They are young, and young people make mistakes. As a result, it's becoming an important part of the job description for coaches to stop domestic violence situations and other criminal charges before they happen. But can coaches do enough to teach their players how to avoid life-altering mistakes off the field? Or do college athletic departments need to watch for warning signs in the players they recruit, to help prevent the growing domestic violence problem? One coach interviewed for the USA Today piece did mention that background checks and character references are a growing part of the process for recruiting young players. Players who have a history of violence against women, or a history of violence, period, before they even reach college are often risks that college coaches and their programs can't afford to take. Still, background checks are far from universal in college sports, and the question is, should they be? As Emerett noted four years ago, it would be difficult for the NCAA, or anyone else, for that matter, to impose any concrete guidelines about the kinds of players that schools can and cannot recruit. Ultimately, the choice of whether or not to bring a player aboard rests with the college or university making the call. With that said, an across-the-board background check requirement for college football recruits could at least go a long way toward making coaches even more cognizant of how important it is to recruit players that will uphold their school's reputation. Sources: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6173593 http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/09/01/college-football-coaches-player-domestic-violence-sexual-assault/71480118/

TV Station That Hired Virginia Shooter Failed to Check His References Using His Birth Name

The shooter in the Roanoke, Virginia tragedy that took place on Wednesday, August 26th went by Bryce Williams when he was an anchor at the TV news station, WDBJ. But like many TV anchors, Williams used an on-air moniker meant to be easily read and remembered by television viewers, not his birth name. His real name was Vester Flanagan, and according to a recent report from the USA Today, WDBJ neglected to run a reference and employment history check using Flanagan's birth name back when he was hired. Flanagan died shortly after the August 26th incident of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. That morning, he had shot and killed two former co-workers from WDBJ on-air reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward. The tragic incident has sparked conversations about gun control and firearm background checks around the nation, but there may also be a discussion to be had about how TV stations go about background checking reporters who go by multiple different aliases. According to the USA Today report, WDBJ did run a criminal background check on Bryce Williams using his true name. (The criminal checks, WDBJ's General Manager said, did not reveal any red flags that would have prevented Williams from working at the station.) However, when it came to verifying employment history and checking references, the station only looked at the Bryce Williams name. In other words, WDBJ did not look back to see where Vester Flanagan worked, and what his employers had to say about him, before he adopted the Bryce Williams moniker. Several experts interviewed for the USA Today report admitted that it's not uncommon for television journalists to use a different name on air. However, most of them said that the practice is becoming less and less common in modern times, and that it's definitely rare for a person to insist on using an alias that is completely different from their birth name. Usually, TV journalists that use different names on air use derivatives or variations on their real name, they don't invent a completely new identity. The experts interviewed theorized that Flanagan's insistence on using the Bryce Williams identity could have been motivated by anything from a desire to hide his past to a sign of a psychological issue. In any case, it is certainly recommended that television stations and other workplaces where aliases are used run even more in-depth background checks than other employers. In this case, a full alias and address history check may have helped to shed some light on Vester Flanagan's past. WDBJ then could have gone back and run separate background, reference, and employment/education background checks on each different name. Obviously, there is no guarantee that these steps would have predicted the tragic events of August 26th, but they would have showcased further due diligence on the part of the TV station, and may have given the station pause over hiring Flanagan. After all, as at least one expert quoted in the USA Today article noted, Flanagan's insistence on using an identity completely different than his birth name should have been a red flag by itself. Source: www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/28/questions-broadcasters-name-changes-arise-after-roanoke-shooting/71282472/

New Mexico's Largest School District Under Investigation for Hiring a Sex Offender

Typically, school district employees need to go through numerous levels of background checks before being allowed to work with children. The goal, of course, is to prevent violent criminals, sexual predators, child abusers, and other dangerous individuals from having the opportunity to prey on kids and teens, some of the most vulnerable populations out there. Unsurprisingly, then, New Mexico's Attorney General is leaping into action to investigate why his state's single largest school district hired a convicted sex offender, and who might be to blame for the incident. According to a report from the Associated Press, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas is launching an investigation into Albuquerque Public Schools, the district where the problematic hiring took place. Balderas has pledged to take a look at the district's "safety protocols," as well as at why those protocols weren't followed in the recent hiring of a new deputy superintendent. The (now-former) deputy superintendent was hired in June, reportedly "to head the district's instruction and technology division." Without warning, the man hired to fill the position resigned in mid-August, shortly before schools in the district went back into session for the fall. Further investigation revealed that the man is currently facing six felony charges for sexually assaulting a child, as well as a domestic violence charge for a scuffle in a nightclub earlier this year. The pending charges were filed by the Denver District Attorney's Office, and the first six involve two different victims in the suspect's previous state of residence, Colorado. A thorough background check would have flagged the pending felony charges and made it at least temporarily impossible for the suspect to get a new job in a different school district. Evidently, however, the suspect refused to complete his background check with Albuquerque Public Schools. And while the current superintendent of the district, and the man in charge of making final hiring decisions, was informed multiple times" about his applicant's unwillingness to comply with district protocols, he ultimately chose to hire the man as deputy superintendent anyway. Many Albuquerque community members have called for the district superintendent to resign for the blunder, and Hector Balderas even called his failure to follow protocol "a horrific breach of trust for parents of APS." The Attorney General's office will now look at all recent hires at the district to make sure that the superintendent didn't willfully allow other applicants to also skip their required background checks. The scenario is a no-win situation for Albuquerque Public Schools, who hired their superintendent (as well as the now-dismissed deputy superintendent) in June. The superintendent, a former administrator at a San Francisco school district, was selected after a national search, processes that are normally quite costly and time-consuming for districts. To keep the community happy, the district will almost have to fire the superintendent or force him to step down, and in doing so, they'll send themselves back to square one with filling the top district job. The most pressing issue here, though, is the skipped background checks and the question of why a recently hired superintendent was willing to risk his job to skip those checks in the first place. Luckily, this all happened in the summer, and the deputy superintendent wasn't around long enough to have any contact with children. But something about this case doesn't add up: you always run background checks on employees, particularly for school-related jobs, and absolutely for applicants who make it clear they have something to hide. Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/apnewsbreak-mexico-official-plans-school-district-probe-33282273

Pennsylvania College Professors Fight Back against New Background Check Requirement

Pennsylvania's 14 state universities are currently in the process of implementing a new policy that would require background checks of all professors, according to a new report from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The new policy was handed down by the State System of Higher Education, which is looking to add criminal checks and child abuse clearances not just for professors, but for all workers at public state universities. Between faculty, student employees, and volunteers, that would mean 43,000 people would be affected by "the initial round of checks," according to a spokesman for the State System for Higher Education. In essence, the State System's new policy is in line with a broader Child Protective Services Law, which has gone into effect around Pennsylvania this year. The Child Protective Services Law mandates criminal background screenings and child abuse clearances for all employees and volunteers that work with children in the course of their jobs. The law has impacted everyone from public school teachers to youth sports volunteers and beyond. However, unlike most professionals involved in the education sector, college professors are actually exempt from the law, simply because most of them have students who are no longer minors. Still, the State System of Higher Education have gone ahead and made background checks and child abuse clearances mandatory for professors at their member colleges, and those professors aren't happy with the change. In fact, the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, the professors union for public state universities, is taking the case to Commonwealth Court, looking for an injunction to stop the background check requirement in its tracks. At the moment, it's tough to tell whether the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties is more upset about the background checks themselves or about the fact that the State System of Higher Education implemented the new policy without negotiating with them first. The State System is supposed to run any background check policy proposals by the union before implementing them, so long as those background checks are not directly required by the Child Protective Services Law. The Child Protective Services Law exempts professors from background checks, so long as their only contact with minors is with prospective students on college visits, or enrolled students who just happen to still be under the age of 18. The State System of Higher Education argues that professors could encounter minors in many other parts of their work as well, from leading on-campus summer camps to teaching courses that include dual-enrolled high school students. The professors union has countered this argument by essentially saying that such instances, while possible, are exceedingly rare and would still only apply to a small handful of professors. It would therefore be a waste of money, the APSCU says, to run these background checks on every single worker at all 14 state universities, especially considering the fact that the system is low on fund anyway. So who's right and who's wrong? Ultimately, both sides have good arguments, and the point of contention here may be that the checks are being framed completely as a way to protect children from abuse or violation. But just because many college students aren't minors doesn't mean they aren't vulnerable, nor does it mean that professors don't have a position of authority and power that could feasibly be abused if wielded in the wrong hands. In short, while these checks and clearances might align with the Child Protective Services Law, they would ultimately just help to provide a safe place for all students, minor or not, to learn and grow, something that all colleges and universities should be ready and willing to provide. Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2015/08/20/State-System-schools-begin-criminal-checks-on-faculty/stories/201508200089

Delaware Governor Signs New Background Check Legislation into Law to Help Protect Children

Add Delaware to the list of states that are using background checks to take a stance against child abusers and predators. On Tuesday, August 11th, Delaware Governor Jack Markell affixed his signature to a new law that will require more stringent background checks for a range of youth-serving programs. The bill, dubbed the Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III Child Protection Act, calls for background checks of all employees or volunteers working for "Child-Serving Entities." Per the legislation, the mandated checks "shall consist of a fingerprinted Delaware and national background check completed by the State Bureau of Identification (SBI) and the FBI as well as a Child Protection Registry Completed by the Department of Services for Children, Youth and Their Families (DSCYF)." Because the law uses the term "Child-Serving Entities" as an umbrella description, this new law will require background check policy changes for a rather broad array of different business types. Specifically, the legislation stated that the new background checks will apply to: the DSCYF; any "residential child care facilities in Delaware which are under contract with or operated directly by the DSCYF"; all public and private schools; the Delaware Department of Education; any daycare businesses or other child care providers; any youth camps or summer schools; and any "facilities and individuals registered and eligible for Federal Child Care Development Block Grant funds through the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services." The sweeping nature of the law is, in part, a tribute to the man who is its namesake. The bill was named after Joseph R. Biden III, more commonly known as Beau Biden, Delaware's former Attorney General. Biden, who was elected to the Attorney General position in 2007, left office in January and died of brain cancer in May, at the age of 46. During his two terms as Attorney General, Biden made it a personal mission to go after the perpetrators of child sex crimes. He created the state's Child Predator Task Force very early in his first term, which helped state prosecutors convict more than 200 child sexual predators during his eight years in office. Biden was the eldest son of sitting United States Vice President, Joe Biden. This law will certainly help to further the mission that Biden made a priority during his time in office. With better background checks, both through the Delaware state criminal repository and the FBI multi-jurisdictional criminal database, youth-serving organizations and businesses will be better equipped to spot predators and abusers before they commit crimes. Hopefully, the legislation will help to reduce the number of cases involving the sexual or physical abuse of kids at school, at daycare, in camps, or in other similar environments. The Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III Child Protection Act will officially go into effect 240 days after its signing, which will be early April next year. That length of time should give youth-serving organizations in Delaware plenty of time to design and implement new background check policies. Sources: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/firststatepolitics/2015/08/11/markell-beau-biden-law/31465953/ http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis148.nsf/EngrossmentsforLookup/SB+144/%24file/Engross.html?open

Delaware Restricts Employer Access to Social Media

Delaware is the newest state to restrict employer’s access to and use of social media accounts of employees and applicants. Delaware House Bill 109 became effective when the Governor approved it on August 7, 2015.

West Virginia Adds New Criminal Background Check Program for Caregivers of the Elderly

According to a recent announcement from the West Virginia Health and Human Services Department, the state will soon begin implementing a new criminal background check program meant to protect the elderly and other vulnerable adults from dishonest and unsavory caregivers. The program will be called the West Virginia Clearance for Access: Registry and Employment Screening, or WV CARES. Since taking office as West Virginia's Governor in November of 2011, Earl Ray Tomblin has made the protection and welfare of the elderly, the mentally handicapped, and other vulnerable populations a major focus of his administration. Earlier this year, Governor Tomblin affixed his signature to the WV CARES legislation, which, according to a report from the Bluefield Daily Telegraph, a local West Virginia publication, will be slowly "phased in" over the course of a six-month period. Under the WV CARES system, applicants seeking to work with vulnerable adults through long-term care services or facilities will be required to undergo fingerprint-based criminal checks at both state and FBI database levels. Under the legislation, a number of different services are considered as "long-term care facilities," including nursing homes, home health caregiving companies, and hospice home care services. The goal is to cut down on the amount of neglect, abuse, theft, fraud, embezzlement, and exploitation of seniors and other vulnerable adults. It's not difficult to see why the WV CARES legislation passed both the State Senate and House of Representatives with unanimous approval. Headlines about vulnerable adults being abused or exploited are all too common. Seniors especially often become the target of thieves and embezzlers, who will devise different methods of emptying savings accounts, forging checks, and stealing social security payments. While many long-term caregivers are honest, compassionate, and caring, there is no denying that professionals in these jobs are in the perfect position to take advantage of their patients in a covert fashion. In-depth criminal background checks will hopefully help long-term care facilities spot red flags and disqualify applicants with sinister ulterior motives. Laws mandating background checks for the caregivers of vulnerable groups, not just seniors and other vulnerable adults, but also child daycare providers, are becoming more and more common nationwide. Still, such requirements are still not observed nationwide, despite the fact that professions closely related to long-term, healthcare, education, etc., demand background checks almost across the board. As such, West Virginia's new program for running background checks on all long-term care providers is a big victory in the fight for senior safety. Hopefully, the next few years will see laws like this becoming the standard from coast to coast. Source: http://www.bdtonline.com/opinion/protecting-the-elderly-background-check-program-welcomed/article_6dd53a88-3d49-11e5-abf0-63e235c86fc5.html

Illinois Gaming Board Revokes Restaurant's License after Discovering the Owner's Criminal Past

After a unanimous vote, the Illinois Gaming Board will revoke the video gambling licensed held by Rockford-based establishment, Mr. C's Family Restaurant. The decision was made in light of a recent report, which found that the proprietor of Mr. C's is a convicted felon. Evidently, the business owner has a conviction on his record for embezzling $146,000 from a hotel in South Carolina. The problem is, the Illinois Gaming Board didn't know about the conviction, not because the proprietor of Mr. C's lied about his criminal history or because the board didn't run background checks, but because the conviction didn't show up on the background checks that the board did run. So how come the conviction didn't show up? If the owner of Mr. C's Family Restaurant is to be believed, it shouldn't have shown up: the man told reporters that he thought his conviction had been expunged, which is why he left the felony fraud charge off his 2013 application for a video gambling machine license. If the conviction was expunged, which, judging by the fact that it didn't turn up on the national criminal database fingerprint checks that the Illinois Gaming Board requires, seems likely, then the board cannot legally use that conviction as a reason to deny Mr. C and his business a gambling machine license. Not that the damage hasn't already been done. While the owner of Mr. C's Family Restaurant has 21 days until his gambling machine license is officially taken away, in which time he could appeal the board's decision, his name has already been dragged through the dirt in association with a criminal conviction that may or may not have been expunged. Indeed, according to a report published by the Rockford Register Star, officials with Winnebago County, the county in which Mr. C's is located, have launched an investigation into the liquor license held by the establishment. Just as the Illinois Gaming Board can deny video gambling machine licenses for criminal history, the Winnebago County Liquor Commission has a history of not issuing liquor licenses to businesses run by convicted felons. Interestingly, the background check run by Winnebago County on Mr. C also didn't turn up his felony fraud conviction from South Carolina. The county runs state police and FBI registry checks on liquor license applicants. The bottom line here is that someone from the Illinois Gaming Board should have looked into whether or not Mr. C's felony conviction was indeed expunged before making any decisions or public statements regarding his case. Losing his video gambling machines, which the Rockford Register Star says have grossed a little more than $200,000 since 2013—could itself impact the Mr. C's Family Restaurant. The loss of a liquor license could be potentially even more damaging, not to mention the way this news, which has been published in newspapers as large as the Chicago Tribune, will impact the public image of the proprietor and the restaurant. On the other hand, if Mr. C's conviction actually wasn't expunged, then this story poses a completely different question: why did the background checks for two major state licensing boards fail to uncover a major felony conviction? Source: http://www.rrstar.com/article/20150723/NEWS/150729724

Audit Reveals Shortcomings in the Washington State Criminal History Database

The Washington State Auditor's Office recently took a look at the state's repository for criminal history information, and the findings were not positive. The audit found that thousands of dispositions were missing from the system, a fact that may have led employers throughout the state to hire people they otherwise would have disqualified from consideration. The core findings of the audit came from comparing the Washington State Identification Systems (WASIS) with the state's Judicial Information System. WASIS is the state criminal history repository, a database operated by the State Patrol. The Judicial Information System, meanwhile, is a database where outcomes of court cases, including convictions are entered. The Auditor's Office found that roughly a third of dispositions from the sample year 2012 were missing from WASIS. The court decisions were entered into the Judicial Information System, but were not ultimately entered into the WASIS database. Therefore, since WASIS is what some employers use to run background checks of applicants, many convictions could have gone overlooked as a result of the oversight. So what went wrong? For cases that don't go to court, the responsibility for sending criminal conviction information to WASIS falls on the shoulders of prosecutors or law enforcement agencies. When cases do go court, though, outcomes are entered into the Judicial Information System, which is supposed to automatically send convictions and other information to WASIS. However, due to a flaw in the system, the Judicial Information System will only forward dispositions to WASIS if a unique Process Control Number is assigned to the case. If a court forgets the number, then it's like they never handed down a conviction, at least in the eyes of WASIS. Just looking at 2012 as a sample year, the impact of this system flaw is overwhelming. In that year alone, some 54,500 dispositions never made it to WASIS. 28,000 of those involved convictions "for harassment, child molestation,and domestic violence", all convictions that can potentially disqualify applicants for jobs. WASIS was also missing information on an additional 4,611 individuals convicted of felonies. Of those 4,611, 462 had been charged with "murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and rape." This situation highlights one of the pitfalls of solely relying on state repositories for purposes of criminal background checks. Sure, state criminal databases can be a great way to widen the safety net provided by background checks. In a perfect world, these databases would include every criminal conviction from every county in the state. Unfortunately, these repositories are not always up-to-date, and relying on them exclusively can lead to gaps in background checks. Since most criminal charges and convictions are handled on the local level, county criminal history checks remain the most thorough types of criminal background checks available. Sources: http://www.sao.wa.gov/state/Documents/PA_Criminal_History_Records_ar1013675.pdf http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/state-database-missing-some-criminal-information-used-in-background-checks/

Does Seattle's "Ban the Box" Ordinance Go Too Far?

As the Fair Chance employment movement continues to gather speed, Seattle is recognized as being one of the few cities nationwide to ban the box for both public and private employers. But does Seattle's "ban the box" ordinance go too far? That's the question being raised by some local businesses that have been charged with violating the ordinance since it first went into effect into 2013. According to a report from KING 5 News, an NBC affiliate based in the Seattle area, the city's Job Assistance Ordinance has caused problems for a number of local companies. In addition to implementing the types of policies that are common for "ban the box" legislation, such as requiring employers to remove questions pertaining to criminal history from their job applications, the Job Assistance Ordinance goes one step further. In job postings, advertisements, and descriptions, Seattle employers are not allowed to say that applicants will be required to pass a criminal background check prior to hiring. The intent of this particular policy is clear: Seattle officials want to give ex-offenders a chance at equal employment. So when businesses advertise a criminal background check requirement for a job, that can be seen as a means of discriminating against those with criminal history, simply because it scares those individuals off. In other words, through the lens of the Job Assistance Ordinance, an employer advertising that their jobs require background checks essentially equates to "convicted criminals need not apply." For Seattle employers, removing questions about criminal history from job applications hasn't been a problem. Not referencing background checks in job descriptions and postings, though, has been something of a sticking point. KING 5 News pulled records from the city's Office of Civil Rights and found that 40 local businesses have been charged with discriminating for violating the latter stipulation of the Job Assistance Ordinance. One example was a company called B&Z Moving, which listed the background check requirement in their job posting, simply because state law requires all moving companies to run employee background checks. In fact, in addition to requiring criminal screenings, state law bars moving companies from hiring anyone who has been convicted of violent crimes, theft, or sexual misconduct. In other words, individuals with those types of convictions on their records need not apply to B&Z Moving, because the company would have to break the law to offer those people jobs. The city councilman who sponsored the Job Assistance Ordinance noted that the legislation doesn't bar employers from running background checks. On the contrary, a company such as B&Z Moving is fully at liberty to obey state law and put their applicants through background checks before issuing a job offer. Those checks just have to wait until after the initial interview, and cannot be advertised as part of the official job posting. But is it wrong for an employer to practice full disclosure in warning applicants of the steps necessary to secure a job? Or is it better for ex-offenders to know when to expect background checks, or better yet, to know which types of offenses legally bar them from holding a certain type of position? After all, a convicted burglar could feasibly land an interview and impress the hiring managers at B&Z Moving, but he still would not be able to get a job with the company. The applicant would be better off investing his time applying for jobs without the same stipulations or limitations. It's clear that the Seattle City Council was trying to do right by ex-offenders and Fair Chance employment proponents in authoring this particular ordinance. However, by not allowing employers to advertise that their jobs require background checks, they are 1) concealing key information that could help offenders to focus their job searches better, and 2) creating a confusing, convoluted web of local and state background check rules for employers to navigate. Source: http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/investigations/2015/07/30/seattle-background-checks-ordinance-businesses/30914613/

School Bus Company Experiencing a Driver Shortage in Parts of Minnesota: Are Background Checks the Reason?

Extremely in-depth background checks and pre-employment screening processes can sometimes be a double-edged sword. On one hand, employers want to make sure they are hiring someone who is safe, experienced, and trustworthy, and in-depth background checks are one of the best ways to do that. On the other hand, extensive checks or screening policies can also scare away potential applicants, especially when the job or opportunity at hand is not highly desirable in terms of work duties, pay, or benefits. In Pennsylvania, this topic has been a popular one for discussion since the passing of the Child Protective Services Act stipulated extensive background checks for all school volunteers, a move that many school districts worried would keep parents and community members from volunteering at school. Now, in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, in-depth screening policies could be a contributing factor in an increasingly concerning school bus driver shortage. With just about a month left until most schools will be back in session, First Student, Inc. is having difficulty finding bus drivers to work in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. It's not that First Student is a small company with limited reach or resources either. On the contrary, First Student, Inc. is the largest provider of school bus transportation services in North America, and has presences all throughout the country, including 10 locations throughout the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area, and 15 throughout Minnesota. First Student does have fairly strict regulations in place when it comes to screening new school bus drivers. All applicants must pass an in-depth background check, which includes criminal history checks, employment history checks, residency information checks, and driving record checks. The company calls its background screening policy "the most extensive background check process in the [school bus transportation] industry." In addition to criminal, employment, driving, and residency background checks, the First Student pre-employment screening process also includes physical performance and dexterity requirements and drug/alcohol testing. Drug and alcohol tests are also conducted on a random screening basis after bus drivers are hired. All of these requirements are absolutely necessary to ensure that students are kept safe while traveling to and from school. Still, the extensive nature of these checks could be discouraging certain individuals from applying for open positions with First Student. According to a report from KARE 11, a Minneapolis NBC affiliate, the school bus company is looking to fill about 75 open positions throughout the metro area. Some of the employee shortage has to do with new routes that the company is covering for the upcoming school year. Another contributing factor is that numerous drivers with First Student recently retired. But extensive background screenings, zero-tolerance drug and alcohol policies, and demanding physical requirements are almost undoubtedly limiting the size of the potential applicant pool. The question is, what can companies like First Student do to entice people into applying for open positions? Since school bus drivers have close contact with kids every day, dialing back on background checks and other pre-employment policies is really not an option. So what's the solution? Higher salaries? Better benefits? Signing bonuses, which First Student is reportedly already offering? Unfortunately, this is a dilemma without an easy answer, but it's one that many school bus transportation companies around the country might have to deal with soon, as bus driver background checks become more prevalent and more in-depth. Source: http://www.kare11.com/story/news/2015/08/01/school-bus-driver-shortage/31004287/

HomeAdvisor.com Background Checks Not As Comprehensive As Customers Are Led to Believe

Thinking about renovating your home and hiring a contractor to handle the work? You should use caution when hiring contractors through HomeAdvisor.com, according to a recent report from KVUE News. KVUE, an ABC affiliate based in Austin, Texas, recently launched an investigation into the website, which presents itself as a place to "Find a trusted home improvement pro." What KVUE investigators discovered were a number of loopholes or shortcomings in the company's background check policies, as well as customers who felt misled after hiring contractors who hadn't been properly background checked. Right on the homepage of their website, HomeAdvisor.com boast about their background checks, writing, "With more than two million verified pro reviews and one of the industry's most comprehensive screening processes, HomeAdvisor gives you the peace of mind that comes from knowing you hired a pro you can trust." Based on KVUE's report, though, HomeAdvisor may not be digging quite as deep into their contractors' backgrounds as they should be. The KVUE report revolved mostly around a single contractor in the Austin area. A few years ago, a woman in Austin hired the contractor in question to build her home. She ended up with a house "riddled with problems," such as visibly shoddy paint jobs and blatantly unfinished bathrooms. Another client claimed that the same contractor gave her a 50-year-old propane tank after promising a new one. A true "comprehensive" background check of this particular contractor would have spotted troubling red flags that likely would have steered HomeAdvisor customers from securing his services. Since 2002, he's been sued 17 times in civil court, usually for claims from customers that he didn't complete work on their homes or from subcontractors who said he didn't pay them as promised. He was also cited by Hays County, Texas after some of his building materials sparked a wildfire in 2006. HomeAdvisor didn't know about their contractor's legal troubles because their civil background checks don't dig deep. According to KVUE, the site only checks for civil lawsuits and judgments dating back a year from when a contractor signs up to be a part of the service's network. Once the background check has been done, that's it: HomeAdvisor never does repeat background checks on its contractors. KVUE did note that the site's background check policy for criminal history screenings is a bit more in depth, going back three years prior to the date of application, instead of just one. Still, it's unclear why the background checks for civil judgments are only going back a year, especially since contractors with a history of doing poor work are more likely to have been taken to civil court by a customer than to have been found guilty of a crime. So what are the options for homeowners who want to use HomeAdvisor to find a contractor? Such individuals might consider digging a little deeper themselves and at least checking the local court records for the contractor if they operate in the same county as the homeowner. Source: http://www.kvue.com/story/news/investigations/defenders/2015/07/28/loopholes-uncovered-in-homeadvisorcoms-contractor-screening/30803159/

Miami-Area Youth Sports Coach is Accused of Molestation for the Third Time

Parents in the Miami area are wondering why a youth baseball coach recently arrested for molesting a child was ever allowed to work with kids, especially since he's been accused of similar offenses in the past. According to a report from the Miami Herald, the 47-year-old coach was charged for two instances of inappropriate contact with children all the way back in 2000. However, neither charge ever resulted in conviction, reducing the chance that they would show up on background checks. Most recently, the suspect has been serving as a longtime coach for the Cooper City Optimist Club. He's been an integral part of the local youth baseball league, and the club did indeed run "comprehensive background checks" before letting him work with kids. In fact, the Cooper City Optimist Club's youth sports league has a fairly no-tolerance background check policy, automatically barring any employees or volunteers found guilty of a crime in the past. It doesn't matter whether the offense is sexually related or something more minor, like petty theft, nor does it matter how long ago the offense took place: the Optimist Club's policy was to not take any chances when it comes to hiring people for youth sports leagues. But arrests and dropped charges don't typically show up on background check reports, meaning that the suspect's two previous charges for criminal sexual conduct remained hidden when the Cooper City Optimist Club ran their background checks. Both charges date back to 2000: in May of that year, the suspect was arrested by the Miami Dade police and charged with "lewd and lascivious behavior with a child under 16"; a few months later, in November, he was arrested again and charged with fondling a child, in connection to a different case. Both of those cases were eventually dropped for reasons that are unclear. One of the incidents, however, did lead to a lawsuit. The family of one of the boys who had allegedly been molested sued the suspect, his employer, and Miami Shores, the village where the suspect worked as a youth sports league coach. The family wanted the defendants to pay a minimum of $15,000 in damages, the suspect for his direct actions, and the employer and Miami Shores for negligent hiring. That case was ultimately dismissed as well, but may have shown up on a background check if the Cooper City Optimist Club had looked into the suspect's civil history. This time around, the suspect is being charged with "two counts of sexual assault on a victim under 12." Police documents say that the suspect used his position as a coach to repeatedly assault the victim, touching the victim's private parts "when he was alone with the child, driving the victim home, or while [the victim was] at [the suspect's] home for a sleepover." In addition, a second player has come forward claiming to have been sexually assaulted by the suspect, and new charges are expected to be filed in the case. The situation here is an upsetting one, because it seems like parents and sports league officials should have known about the suspect's questionable past. But without convictions, arrests and charges mean very little, and since the suspect was never actually found guilty of a crime, Cooper City Optimist Club had no valid legal reason to bar him from becoming a coach. As mentioned previously, a civil history search may have uncovered his court case, but most youth sports leagues focus their background screenings on criminal history, sex offender registries, and child abuse clearances. Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article28579894.html

Michigan Un-Bans the Box

The new law protects any person or entity engaging in or intending to engage in a commercial activity, enterprise, or business in the state, except for local governmental bodies or educational institutions. This includes private employers.

Pennsylvania Amends Background Certification Requirements

Pennsylvania House Bill 1276 amends and clarifies the state’s law that deals with background clearances for employees and volunteers who have direct and routine contact with children. The bill amends several sections of Title 23 (Domestic Relations) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes that relate to child protection services. We will focus on the amendments affecting certifications for employment and volunteer positions that involve direct contact with children.