|
|
|
News Archive
|
| 7/11/2008 | Offices Closed for Vacation week | Our office will be closed the week of Monday, July 21and returning Monday August 4th.
Our ordering system will still be available.
|
| 3/1/2008 | Criminal Records check vs. internal Government sanction lists | BestHire Position Paper.
As an employer, the federal “Fair Credit Reporting Act” requires a procedure to be followed that allows an applicant to receive copies of all reports used when make a hiring decision. As well as the right to dispute an inaccurate report.
As a standard, our industry association, National Association of Professional Background Screeners recommends background checks whichinclude criminal records from were the applicant has lived. Therefore, our industry will process the applicant to determine where they have lived as an adult.
Internal government sanction lists do not allow for accuracy based on identifiers such as name changes and matches based on other physical descriptors.
An internal Governent sanction list may indicate a potential match nor does it indicate if a party was found guilty in a court of law. Therefore, a sanction maybe a department regulation but not necessarily a conviction in a court of law.
Our results deal with state and federal records of conviction. Also due diligence is processed as an private industry standard to ensure the applicant does not have a conviction under another name and or in another state as well.
US citizens are very transicient and therefore other state venues must be checked as well. The US National Sex Offender registry today shows 237 names found under “John Smith”. Better than 30% of those found have more than one alias as well. There is also 155 offenders found today using the alias name of “John Doe” when arrested. For these 2 main reasons, the private industry must be diligent to protect all parties involved.
An good example of harmony is the US Federal Office of Inspector General. The OIG requires any applicant applying for employment or contract work through a company that bills MediCare and or MediCaid shall process that applicant against the OIG sanction list. BUT does not stop their nor limit that to be the only or last check being made.
Carl Slicer, www.BestHire.com
|
| 2/1/2008 | Palm Beach County, Florida; Taxpayers money stolen | Palm Beach County, Fl, had a very bad expierence with an employee that stole over $1.5 million in taxpayers money. The controller allegedly forged over 200 checks over 3 years to cover a Internet gambling debt.
There are several items that could have prevented this problem from occuring. First, the annual verification of the trade license. Each state requires a Certified Public Accountant to be licensed. See www.aicpa.org.
Next, an annual personal credit report processed will indicate if the person is under financial stress. This is allowed under federal law, known as the "Fair Credit Reporting Act", or FCRA.
Third, a multi-state and Federal Criminal record check goes along way for behavior. Dont forget to check under former names, too. Possible other names are maiden, married, hyphenated, remarried as well as professional. If the applicant lives in Florida the applicant could have a criminal conviction in New York under a former name. If the employer runs the name thru the Florida State Police, FDLE, the search is limited to Florida only.
Lastly, make sure the school degree claimed is based on a school that is accredited. Today, the word "diploma mill" is becoming to common. Many scams are available for purchasing a BA or BS or PhD for $400- $750 dollars from a "Life Expierence" internet business. Most of these scams will list an address that is common with Mail-Box Etc OR Kinko's. The US Dept of Education will accredit a legitimate school. What is the cost of all this ? The cost runs less than the first days pay.
This person cost the bureau more than a million dollars worth of respect.
Since 1991, BestHire.com has been assisting employers find good applicants and verify the resume with creditabilty. BestHire.com is a member for the National Association of Professional Background screeners. NAPBS is recognized by www.RobertHalfFinance.com
|
| 1/5/2008 | Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism | U.S. Customs and Border Protection is pleased to announce the 2007 Supply Chain Security Training for C-TPAT certified partners. The training will be held on April 4th through April 6th in New Orleans, Louisiana. Registration will begin on January 15th for C-TPAT certified partners and there are a limited number of spaces.
|
| 3/1/2006 | Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) | Do you C-TPAT ? Minimum Security Criteria for Sea Carriers. March 1, 2006.
These minimum security criteria for sea carriers are effective March 1, 2006. Any new sea carrier applying to the C-TPAT program after this effective date must demonstrate in their security self-assessment profile that they are meeting or exceeding these baseline security criteria before the applicant will be accepted into the C-TPAT program.
All sea carriers currently enrolled into the C-TPAT program will be afforded 90 days from the effective date to meet or exceed these minimum security criteria. Existing members are not required to resubmit an updated security self assessment. Rather, after the 90-day implementation period, when a sea carrier member becomes subject to the C-TPAT validation process, the validation process will be used to determine if the sea carrier is meeting these minimum-security criteria.
US Customs
|
| 12/1/2005 | Routine drug testing is mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. | The proportion of drug-test positives for amphetamines increased among workers subject to federal testing regulations, while overall drug-test positives decreased among all U.S. workers in the first half of 2005, according to the semi-annual Drug Testing Index® released today by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (NYSE: DGX), the leading provider of employer drug testing services in the United States.
The Drug Testing Index summarizes the results of workplace drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics between January and June 2005. The Drug Testing Index examines positivity rates among three major testing populations: federally-mandated, safety-sensitive workers; the general workforce; and the combined U.S. workforce. Federally-mandated, safety-sensitive workers include pilots, bus and truck drivers and workers in nuclear power plants, for whom routine drug testing is mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Courtesy Quest Diagnostics.
|
| 8/27/2005 | FBI Criminal Database Search Ineffective for Employment Background ... | Posted by Laura Linderman on 2005/8/27 8:46:00 @ Lincoln Tribune.
Study Finds FBI Criminal Database Search Ineffective for Employment Background Checks...
DURHAM -- As US employers increasingly utilize criminal background checks in their hiring process, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), www.NAPBS.com, has identified one source of information that employers should avoid: the FBI Criminal Database.
In reaction to recent proposed federal legislation that would allow employers direct access to the FBI's database, NAPBS commissioned a study to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of this FBI criminal search.
The results were shocking.
The study found that in a significant percentage of searches, the FBI database returned erroneous or incomplete information.
The study, conducted by Craig N. Winston, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Sonoma State University, found that the FBI data lacks proper identifiers to credibly link a criminal hit with the subject of the investigation.
Another finding was the large number of missed records and false positives generated. For example, when analyzing a sampling of 93,274 background checks in the state of Florida, Winston's search revealed that the database missed 11.7 percent of the criminal records it should have identified. Even worse - of the more than 10,000 criminal records found, 5.5 percent of them were falsely attributed to those who were not convicted of a crime.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) compels employers to use the most up- to-date and accurate information when screening applicants for employment.
NAPBS co-chair Jason B. Morris says, "If employers are granted access to the FBI's data, they can easily be lulled into the false sense of security that they are availing themselves of the most accurate and comprehensive search available. As a result, they could be opening themselves to increased risk in the workplace and litigation from wronged job applicants."
The results from this comprehensive study can be found at www.Besthire.com/Forms/NcicReportJuly252005.pdf. ///
Founded as a non-profit trade association in 2003, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) was established to promote ethical business practices, promote compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and foster awareness of issues related to consumer protection and privacy rights within the background screening industry.
|
| 3/4/2008 | Employee Theft is still on the rise in 2007 | Google News is an excellent source of news regarding "Employee Theft".
In 2007, Google news had over 5500 news articles on employee theft.
Try searching it at: news.google.com & use the keywords "Employee Theft".
Carl Slicer, www.BestHire.com
|
| 11/1/2007 | Employers, who should be drug tested ? | The State of Conn, dept put out a list
October 2006 on employment positions that are considered "High Risk or Safety Sensitive" positions which is a guide for the DOL Commissionser.
Conn Employers can write to the Conn Dept of Labor & request to urinalysis drugtest employers.
See the entire December list at:
Conn Dept of Labor
|
| 4/28/2006 | Security at military bases: a job for private firms? | Security at military bases: a job for private firms?
Miscues frustrate her plan to help Katrina survivors - and show need for reforms.
By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
NEW YORK - Since 9/11, private security companies have been guarding some of America's most sensitive military installations, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, and the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
Now, concerns about accountability and the caliber of the private guards are leading some critics, both inside and outside government, to ask whether this is a job too vital for the military to outsource to civilians.
Concern has escalated since the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, reported this month that some private contractors had hired felons, had missing and incomplete records, and in one case, had falsified records on weapons and training. At two military bases, the GAO report found, a total of 89 private guards with criminal records were working.
The GAO's conclusion: The Army's screening procedures for the private guards are "inadequate and put the Army at risk," despite previous agency warnings about such problems during the past three years.
The Army, for its part, has pledged to improve management and oversight of private guards.
Those who see merit in contracting out military-base security say the problems are solvable and that, overall, private security guards are as professional and competent as the Army's own personnel. Private guards, they note, are supervised by the Army and trained according to Department of Defense specifications. With Army and National Guard personnel stretched thin by deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, the private companies provide an invaluable service, say supporters of the current system.
Critics, though, doubt the Army's beefed-up oversight will be sufficient, because some of the contract guards work for American subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies. In this age of terrorism and after the Dubai ports flap, they say, American military personnel should provide security at US military bases.
Some homeland security experts see a more fundamental problem. The need to outsource and the subsequent management problems, they say, are indications of the overall stresses the nation's military, security, and law-enforcement agencies face daily as they adapt to the increased demands of the post-9/11 world.
"Security resources are thin in the country right now. They're in demand, and those with advanced skill sets are drawn to the money, and they're going overseas where they can make 100 to 140 percent more," says Edward Clark, founder of Executive Interface, a homeland security risk-management company in Garden City, Mo. "The system is fairly stressed."
Beginning in the 1970s, the US government began to outsource some of its functions - from designing computer systems to selling food in federal buildings - to private contractors. The intent is to save taxpayers' money and make the government more efficient.
But Congress drew the line at military security. In 1982, it prohibited the Defense Department from hiring private security firms at military bases in the United States. Lawmakers were concerned about the "uncertain quality and reliability of private security guard services, base commanders' potential lack of control over contractor personnel, and the right of contractor personnel to strike," according to the GAO.
That changed in the wake of 9/11. Commanders ordered that entrances to all domestic bases, many of which were open to the public, had to be secured. At the same time, military engagement in Afghanistan and then Iraq strained military personnel resources.
In 2003, Congress temporarily lifted its restriction against private security guards. To hire new guards as quickly as possible, especially for the Army, the Defense Department did not put the contracts out to competitive bid, as is usually required to ensure that the government gets the lowest price.
Currently, 57 Army installations use private guards, and 46 of these hired the guards under such sole-source contracts. The GAO concluded these contracts cost 25 percent more than contracts later put out to bid.
Army officials defend sole-source contracts as the fastest way to meet a crucial need, but say that all future contracts will be put out to bid. They also suggest that the GAO report exaggerated the seriousness of the problems it found with screening and training.
"Their overall record has been outstanding," says Ned Christensen, a spokesman for the US Army Installation Management Agency.
Wackenhut Services Inc., a company working under a no-bid contract, insists that most problems the GAO cited were with firms that won the competitive bids, not those who received the sole-source contracts.
"The comments that are in that report - all of the misrepresentation, all of the failure to properly train - pertain almost specifically and uniquely to the competitively bid piece," says Wackenhut CEO James Long. "My guess is they hopelessly underbid it, couldn't run it without losing their tail, and had to start cutting corners."
But the GAO said it found problems with each company's work.
"The problems were across the board," says Michele Mackin of the GAO. "We found a lack of oversight. The Army really relied on what the contractors said they were doing and provided very little monitoring.
Reprint permission granted per Christian Science Monitor.
|
| 4/1/2006 | BestHire overview - Hire Right the First Time ! | County 7-year Criminal Record Search:
Reveals any felony or misdemeanor records on the applicant for the past seven years in the county of residence or for the former counties of residence. Helps employers avoid legal liability from negligent hiring suits.--------------
County Civil Record Search:
Reveals any lawsuits filed by or on the applicant and alerts potential employers to any wrongful termination, sexual harassment or discrimination lawsuits filed by the applicant against prior employers.
---------------------
Credit Reports:
Discloses the applicant's credit history for the past seven to 10 years. Shows applicant's debt load, payment history, and all public information (bankruptcies, liens, judgments, etc.). Reveals applicant's past and present employers and addresses. FICO score can be requested at an additional charge.
----------------------------
Driving Records (MVR):
An essential tool to help determine the applicant's level of responsibility. Because a business can be held liable for its employee's automobile accidents. MVR's are a necessity for those employees who drive company vehicles or who drive their own vehicles on company business.
---------------------
Drug Screen Testing:
Five Panel urine drug screen testing for Phencyclidine, Amphetamines, Cocaine, Opiates and Marijuana.
Licensed laboratories to test for the presence of illegal drugs.
--------------------------
Education Verification: (EDU)
Verifies education of applicant. Confirms attendance, years attended and degrees received.
--------------------------------
Employment Verification: (Emp)
Verifies employment dates, position(s) held, performance, eligibility for rehire, as well as any additional information the previous employer is willing to reveal.
--------------------------------
Federal Criminal Record Search:
This search encompasses 'white collar' crimes such as tax evasion, embezzlement, securities fraud, telemarketing fraud, drug trafficking and many others that are not commonly listed in city or county files.
---------------------------------
Pre & Post Employment Physicals:
This job-specific physical examination is for applicants as a condition of employment or newly hired employees to determine how their health affects their ability to do the job. Physicals can be customized to include musculoskeletal evaluation for positions requiring physical labor or repetitive motion screening for an administrative position requiring extensive use of computers or calculators.
----------------------------------
Professional License & Credentials Search:
Verifies current status of license, and disciplinary action taken, renewal date, date of issue and expiration date.
-----------------------------
Sanctions Searchs: (OIG)
Searches for sanctions that have been brought against an individual for crimes committed in association with state or government funded agencies such as the Medicaid Program.
------------------------
Sex Offenders Registry:
Verification of applicants registered in county on Sex Offenders list. By law Sex Offenders must register in the county in which they reside.
-----------------------------------
SSN Trace: (SSN)
Verifies that the applicant has provided a valid SSN. Confirms cardholder name, date and place issued and date of birth.
--------------------------------
Statewide Criminal Search: (Crim)
Reveals any felony or misdemeanor records on the applicant for the past seven years in the county of residence or for former counties of residence. Helps employers avoid legal liability from negligent hiring suits.
-------------------------------
Wants and Warrants Search:
Searches for outstanding warrants issued by state or federal authorities nation wide felony etraditon.
----------------------------------
Workers Compensation Claim Report:
Helps employers identify those applicants who are habitual claimants. Also assists in assigning work involving physical labor or other work related to duties that may cause injury to an employee.
|
| 4/1/2006 | C-TPAT Supply Chain Security Guidelines exist for the following C-TPAT participant categories: | C-TPAT Security Guidelines for Air Carriers - 04/24/2006
C-TPAT Security Guidelines for Air Freight Consolidators, Ocean Transportation Intermediaries and Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers (NVOCC)
- 04/24/2006
C-TPAT Security Guidelines for Licensed U.S. Customs Brokers - 04/24/2006
C-TPAT Security Guidelines for Manufacturers - 04/24/2006
C-TPAT Security Guidelines for Rail Carriers - 04/24/2006
C-TPAT Security Guidelines for U.S. Marine or Port Terminal Operators
- 04/24/2006
US Customs full article
|
| 3/1/2006 | New Report available for Healthcare Industry. | H.E.L.P. is here. Heathcare Exclusionary List Plus. Now organizations can make easier risk management decisions depending on the individual or entity, BestHire now offers three levels of screening. The three levels vary in the depth of the sanction search provided.
Level 1 conducts a search of the sanction information as taken by the OIG, the GSA and other federal agencies. The information reported in this level meets the government's minimum requirements for sanction screening as set forth in the OIG's Compliance Program Guidance.
Level 2 combines the Level 1 search of the federal agencies with disciplinary action information from multiple agencies and one state of choice.
Level 3 is the most robust search option, allowing you to conduct a search of disciplinary actions taken by federal agencies as well as those taken by licensing and certification agencies in all 50 states. This is the most comprehensive search method available.
Recommendations:
Level 1 - Low risk employees and contractors or those who are not involved with patient care.
Level 2 - Moderate risk employees and contractors such as administrators.
Level 3 - High Risk individuals and contractors or those who are directly involved in patient care such as physicians, nurses, physical therapists, pharmacists, etc.
|
| 1/25/2006 | Refusal to Comply With Background Check Grounds for Firing. | An accounting clerk's refusal to submit to a company background check amounted to insubordination, despite the fact that she had worked for her employer for several years without incident and had not been informed when hired of the possibility of a future background check, a Commonwealth Court panel has ruled in an apparent case of first impression. /
The judges' decision in ATM Corp. of America v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is in line with the holding of the matter's referee, who concluded that Rachel Petock's actions were grounds for her to be dismissed without the possibility of unemployment compensation. /
The UCBR reversed, arguing that Petock had been justified in refusing to sign an authorization form for a background check that would have needlessly intruded on her private life. /
President Judge James Gardner Colins and Judges Robert Simpson and Mary Hannah Leavitt disagreed. /
"To follow the board's conclusion that the authorization form was unreasonably intrusive would require this court to find that preparation of consumer or investigative reports on employees is unreasonable as a matter of law, even though they are expressly contemplated for employment situations," Leavitt wrote on behalf of the panel. "This we cannot do. [Petock] had access to confidential information and to large sums of money. If a background check of the type identified in [Pennsylvania's] Fair Credit Reporting Act was too intrusive on [Petock], it is difficult to imagine for what employment positions it would ever be appropriate." /
Kurt Miller of Thorp Reed & Armstrong in Pittsburgh, who represented ATM Corp. in the matter, said he believes the decision is one of first impression.
"I think it's a very favorable decision for employers and background investigation firms," Miller said, adding later, "Under the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review decision in this case, employers were in a bit of a quandary when seeking [background check] authorizations from existing employees." /
Department of Labor & Industry spokesman Barry Ciccocioppo said his office is reviewing the opinion, and has not made any decision about an appeal.
According to the opinion Petock had been working for ATM Corp. for four years when her employment ended in February 2005. The fall-out began early that month when ATM Corp.'s head of human resources informed workers that background checks were to be performed on certain employees, including all 25 members of the company's accounting team. /
ATM Corp. told the relevant employees to fill out forms authorizing the company to perform background checks on them and return the completed forms to human resources by mid-February. /
Petock later testified that she had never been told that a background check would be required as a condition of employment, according to the opinion. An ATM Corp. official acknowledged during testimony that the company's written work rules, though containing a reference to insubordination as grounds for dismissal, did not specifically mention background checks, and that employees were not given written notice that refusing to participate in the process might lead to a firing. /
Petock testified that she had a number of reservations when first told of the proposed background check, according to the opinion. She felt that her driving record and personal debts were not relevant to her ability to perform her job, and had heard a rumor circulating around the office that a bankruptcy filing would be grounds for dismissal. /
Petock further argued that though one of her duties was to process -- and sometimes sign -- checks worth large sums of money, ATM Corp. kept such close track of those checks that any embezzlement attempt would be futile.
A company official testified that ATM Corp. had financial controls in place to prevent misappropriation of funds, according to the opinion. /
When the deadline date for returning the completed background check authorization forms had come and gone, according to the opinion, Petock was contacted about her failure to do so by a company official, who gave Petock one last chance to fill them out, telling her that she had been a good employee and that the company did not want to lose her. /
Petock still refused and was fired.
"[ATM Corp.] asserts that its decision to do a background check on [Petock] was reasonable, first, because of her access to sensitive and confidential information, and second, because those checks were required by both [its] customers and its business partners," Leavitt wrote. /
Citing the Commonwealth Court's 1982 opinion in Simpson v. UCBR, in which an employer was permitted to search workers' lunch boxes before they left for the day, Leavitt noted that employment relationships sometimes lead to diminished individual rights, such as privacy. /
"It is beyond peradventure that [ATM Corp.] has a legitimate need to protect the confidential information of its customers to which accounting department employees, including [Petock], have daily access," Leavitt wrote. "A background check on those employees is a reasonable way to protect that confidential information, particularly where demanded by [a company's] financial partners and customers." /
In a footnote, she called attention to the fact that if an employee were to misuse an ATM Corp. customer's confidential information, the company could be held liable under the theory of negligent hiring.
ATM Corp. attorney Miller said the decision showed the Commonwealth Court has recognized the advent of a "new era of identity theft and security concerns."
But Miller said he would caution employers to put language about possible background checks in writing in employee handbooks in order to avoid a situation like that found in ATM Corp. /
He also suggested that upon hiring employees, companies have new hires sign background check authorization forms that are prospective in nature, even if companies are unsure they will need to have any performed.
[There is a License Agreement between Besthire, LLC and ALM Media, Inc. allowing reprint of this article.] BH.
|
|
|
