Six Questions You Should Ask To Ensure a Well-Informed Hiring Decision
Employers should scrutinize their background screening partner as closely as they do their candidates.
When it comes to background checks, some employers just want “a piece of paper in the file.”
They’re comfortable taking their chances, not worrying about quality. They just want an inexpensive background check so that they can check the box.
Smart employers want to make well-informed hiring decisions.
However, they don’t know what to ask a potential screening partner, apart from turnaround time and price.
We’ve identified six ways most background check firms cut corners that impact the quality and depth of information they provide to employers. And their clients aren’t even aware of these issues… until something goes wrong
Following are six questions that an employer should ask prospective background screening partners to understand their concern for quality and compliance.
When records are found in the “national” criminal records database, do you verify them with the originating court before reporting them to the employer? Are there extra charges for any verifications?
Many screening companies report information directly from criminal databases, which often report incorrect information. They sometimes connect a criminal record to the wrong person. Other times, they report old information that has subsequently been updated.
Imperative always verifies records identified in our multijurisdictional criminal records database before reporting them to our clients to ensure that the information is accurate and up to date. This means our clients can always rely on the information we provide them to make well-informed hiring decisions.
There are no research fees for these verifications beyond our quoted package price.
When selecting counties in which to conduct criminal searches, how many years of previous addresses do you include?
Five to seven years is the normal lookback period used by other background check companies.
While an employer might not care that a candidate was prosecuted for a “hot check” eight years ago, they might be seriously interested in an embezzlement case from eight years ago.
Imperative’s standard lookback period is 10 years at a minimum but clients can ask for a longer lookback period. This produces 20% or more criminal records than shorter lookback periods.
Do you include all aliases and spelling variations strongly associated with the individual by the identity research/SSN verification in research for the quoted package price?
Court records are indexed by defendants’ names. Searching only the names the applicant provided can lead to missing a potentially-relevant criminal record.
If your candidate’s provided name is “Jane Smith” but identity research reveals that she has previously used the name “Jane Brown,” she may also have criminal records under the latter name.
Likewise, if the applicant lists his last name as Gonzalez (with a z) but the court’s record is under the last name Gonzales (with an s), many courts’ computer systems will not produce the case if Gonzalez is searched.
Some screening companies only search the provided names or surprise their clients with additional research fees to search aliases developed during identity research.
Imperative includes all strongly-associated aliases and spelling variations in the each of our packages without any additional research fees.
What limitations do you place on reporting convictions?
California, Montana, and New Mexico limit screening companies from telling employers about criminal convictions older than seven years. This includes offenses such as murder, embezzlement, sexual assault, and other significant offenses that may be relevant to evaluating the risk the applicant may pose in a specific job.
Six other states apply that restriction only to positions earning less that $25,000 annually.
Many background screening companies have set these states’ limitations as their standard nationwide, unnecessarily limiting the information that employers receive and risking the security of the organization.
Imperative’s policy is to report all convictions to our clients, subject to state-specific laws. We believe this is necessary to ensure that our clients make educated risk assessments of employment candidates.
Imperative will sometimes come across records that we can legally report but the employer may not legally use under state laws or local ordinances. We pay attention to those limitations and don’t report prohibited information to our clients.
What limitations do you place on reporting deferred adjudication cases?
In the US, between 25% and 30% of all criminal cases end in deferred adjudication.
“Deferred adjudication” means that the individual pleaded guilty or “no contest” to the offense and was given probation. If they fail to successfully complete the probation (i.e., they get in some other sort of trouble), their plea can be entered and they can be found guilty without a trial. But if they successfully complete probation, the case can be dismissed by the court.
The important thing to remember is that the individual accepted responsibility for the offense and that the court was ready to find them guilty of the conduct based on that acceptance of responsibility.
Indeed, in its own hiring process, the federal government considers deferred adjudication in the same manner as a conviction.
California, New Mexico, and New York prohibit screening companies from reporting deferred adjudication cases to employers, even if the person is currently on probation!
All other states allow deferred adjudication cases to be reported within the same restrictions applied to criminal convictions.
Many background screening companies have set these states’ limitations as their standard nationwide, unnecessarily limiting the potentially-relevant information that employers receive and risking the security of the organization.
Imperative reports all deferred adjudication cases in accordance with applicable federal and state law.
Imperative will sometimes come across records that we can legally report but the employer may not legally use under state laws or local ordinances. We pay attention to those limitations and don’t report prohibited information to our clients.
What limitations do you place on reporting dismissed cases?
Criminal cases are dismissed for a variety of reasons, including:
- The defendant cooperated with the prosecution in case against someone else.
- The defendant pleaded guilty in another case.
- A key witness refused to cooperate with the prosecution (often seen in domestic violence cases).
- The prosecution believed that there was not enough evidence to meet all of the elements necessary to convict the individual of the offense.
- The defendant agreed to enter into a deferred adjudication agreement and successfully completed probation, at which point the case was dismissed.
- Another person was found to be responsible for the offense.
Sometimes the circumstances and conduct that lead to a criminal case being filed against the defendant may be relevant to an employer. Other times, it may not be relevant.
The only way for an employer to explore whether the information is relevant is if they are made aware of it.
The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act limits the reporting of dismissed cases, apart from deferred adjudications, to seven years if the individual is expected to earn less than $75,000 annually. If the candidate is expected to earn more than $75,000 annually, the FCRA allows cases ending in deferred adjudication to be reported forever.
California, New Mexico, and New York prohibit screening companies from reporting dismissed cases to employers, regardless of the circumstances behind the case.
All other states allow deferred adjudication cases to be reported within the same restrictions applied to criminal convictions in those states or the FCRA.
Imperative reports all deferred adjudication cases in accordance with applicable federal and state law.
Imperative will sometimes come across records that we can legally report but the employer may not legally use under state laws or local ordinances. We pay attention to those limitations and don’t report prohibited information to our clients.
