Employers, more than ever before, need to protect themselves against accidents and crimes committed by their employees. With negligent hiring, lawsuits, training costs, workplace violence and theft on the rise, pre-employment screening as well as taking the correct pre-employment screening steps are no longer an option, but rather a necessity for businesses.

Washoe County recently began a speciality court called “Veterans Court” which allows veterans who find themselves in trouble with the law to complete a diversion program similar to drug court. While the court is considered too new to release solid statistics, Judge Peter Breen, who oversees the court is optimistic and believes as it continues it will average an 80% success rate. 53 veterans have participated in the program so far. Fifteen successfully completed it and 33 are still in it.

Many veterans find their lives changed when they come back from active duty and conditions like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and drug dependence can lead to criminal activity. For example, one vet in the program returned from Iraq with PTSD and a brain injury. He became addicted to pain killers due to his injury and ended up stealing items from his family in order to buy drugs, resulting in being charged with a felony.

Veterans can enter the program one of two ways. First, if they are charged with a crime and have no criminal history, they can enter as part of a diversion program. Diversion means that if they successfully complete the program and do everything instructed of them, the criminal charge will be removed completely from their record. Alternatively, they can enter the program as a result of criminal charges where the court feels rehabilitation would be necessary. In this case their charge wouldn’t be dismissed, but they’d be in the program as part a condition of probation.

Rick Norris, a pretrial services officer for the Veterans Court, is a veteran himself and suffered from PTSD. He has an ability to connect with the veterans and said “he enjoys a special relationship with the people in the programs.”

“I know what PTSD can do,” Norris said. “Treatment is key.”

Everyone involved seems optimistic about Veterans Court, stopping recidivism and helping our veterans get the help they may need.

Do a news search for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and you’re sure to find numerous articles about the EEOC going after private companies and employers who they believe are using employment background checks incorrectly.  Kaplan University is feeling it.  The EEOC filed a lawsuit against them in December of 2010 alledging that Kaplan’s use of credit reports is discriminating against minorities.  (Kaplan is not backing down.)

But here’s a newsworthy item that somehow got very little attention.  On May 29th, 2008, the EEOC sued Peoplemark, a staffing agency, alleging that the company had a policy that anyone with a criminal record would not be eligible for employment.  Peoplemark, in fact, had no such policy.

Why did the EEOC feel the need to investigate?  Because one person, Sherri Scott, who was a two-time felon with convictions for housebreaking and larceny, did not get hired and filed charges with the EEOC.  They went after Peoplemark based on one person’s charge.  The EEOC identified 286 individuals they claimed were denied jobs because of criminal histories and Peoplemark proved they hired 22% of them.  In the end, EEOC just simply could not prove their case.

Peoplemark spent three years and alot of money fighting the lawsuit.  They requested the court award them compensation for attorneys’ fees as well as the money paid for expert witness fees and other expenses.

The Judge awarded the following:

$219,350.70 for attorneys’ fees

$526,172.00 for expert witness fees

$6419.78 for other expenses

Grand total:  $751,942.48  This is one of the largest awards ever granted against the EEOC.  You can read the entire motion here.

Children deserve every bit of protection available.

The working life of 2011 in America frequently demands that both parents head off to work versus the family model of 50 years ago where Dad headed off to the factory and mom minded the kids. Because of this change in family work structure, many children are spending 35+ hours a week in childcare facilities.

But a recent survey of state child care regulation and oversight by the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) resulted in failing marks for 26 states. Not one state received an “A”.

The only entity that scored high was the Department of Defense, which received a “B” grade for maintaining strict licensing standards, quarterly inspections of childcare facilities and mandating thorough training for workers.

Aside from the Department of Defense, only just a few other states including Oklahoma, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Massachusetts came close to meeting most of the NACCRRA requirements.

Largely however, the 2011 NACCRRA report illustrates a patchwork system of regulation from state to state where licensing and background check standards seem to vary wildly from “so-so” to nonexistent.

Louisiana, for example, does not require childcare workers to be compared against child abuse registries. Individuals operating a childcare center in South Dakota don’t even need to be licensed until they have more than 13 kids to care for. Texas, where a deadly day care fire recently made national news, only marginally meets national licensing standards.

You would think that with $10 billion dollars in taxpayers’ money being used every year to support national childcare programs, there would be some sort of national standard ensuring the safety and well-being of children everywhere.

NACCRRA Director, Linda Smith, shared the same outlook in a written statement by saying, “The reality is that most state licensing requirements are weak and oversight is weaker. The safety of a child in child care should not depend on the state in which the child lives.”

The NACCRRA has recommend that all states adopt a uniform policy for background checking day care workers, 40 hours of initial training for all workers, and to make facility inspection results available online to the public.

To provide incentive to meet these standards, the NACCRRA is suggesting that the federal government withhold funding to states that are not able to adhere to the recommended minimum standards.

Given the amount of federal funding available and the reasonable requirements put forth by the NACCRRA, a national standard should be implemented immediately. Children will one day become the next generation to inherit this country and they deserve every bit of protection obtainable.

Theft and child endangerment is the last thing you’d want to be thinking about if you left your children in the hands of a nanny. But for the Potter family it was a shocking reality when Louise Perry, a nanny hired through a Truckee-based nanny staffing agency, was discovered passed out on prescription drugs while on duty minding three of the family’s five children.

Coming home from a night out on December 23^rd, Mr. and Mrs. Potter entered their bedroom and found their nanny under the influence of alcohol and prescription drugs, “zoned out and totally out of it to the point of not being able to function.” The three children under her care with the youngest at just around 9 months of age had been left to watch after themselves.

Mr. and Mrs. Potter ordered Perry to leave the property immediately after managing to wake her up from her drug and alcohol induced stupor. Although the Potter children left in her care were fine, it was later discovered by Mrs. Potter that the nanny had walked off with a pair of diamond earrings valued at $17,000.

Initially denying the theft of the earrings to police officers, Ms. Perry later admitted to authorities she had pinched Ms. Perry’s diamond earrings as well as taking pills and drinking while minding the children. After surrendering the earrings to the Nevada City police Department on Dec. 24^th she was rewarded with a pair of silver handcuffs to replace the diamond earrings she had stolen.

The Potters employed Louise Perry’s services through North Lake Nannies, an agency specialized in child-caregiver staffing.

“I asked up front if North Lake Nannies conducted background checks. Obviously no one wants to leave their child in a dangerous situation.” stated Mrs. Potter.

Louise Perry had indeed been screened by North Lake Nannies, but the original screening had been conducted 11 years prior at the time of her initial registration. Since then Louise Perry had accumulated a decent rap sheet peppered with theft, narcotics possession, driving under the influence, and is currently on probation from a 2008 incident in Napa County, Californa.

“As far as I knew, (Perry) had a spotless reputation in the industry for the past 20 years and she was a personal friend. I was not aware of her probation from Napa County…I am extremely disappointed she did not let me know the crimes (in Napa County) occurred.”

A one-time background check is by no means a magic bullet that will ensure your employees stay on their best behavior during their tenure working for you. Unlike Twinkies, the results of a background screening should not be expected remain good after 11 years.

Since the incident, North Lake Nannies has initiated a more consistent background screening process to avoid future incidents of this sort.

Recurring background screenings for your employees can help you avoid problem situations like this regardless of your industry. While there are specific stipulations for enacting a company policy requiring repeat background checks, you’ll find it’s an invaluable method for protecting your business as well as your client base.

If Senator Jeffery Piccola of York, Pennsylvania has his way, it may soon be next to impossible for individuals with specific criminal backgrounds to apply for school employment positions according to the York Daily Record. Although school officials think the appropriate safeguards are already in place, Senator Piccolo seeks amendment to the Public School Code of 1949 SB224 to enact a lifetime ban on school employment opportunities for individuals convicted of serious crimes.

Existing Pennsylvania law states specific crimes such as rape, aggravated assault, homicide, rape, sexual assault, and felony-grade drug offenses committed within 5 years of an individual’s background check will automatically disqualify them from the application process. If older than 5 years from the date of the background check, then it is up to the discretion of the school officials if someone with say, a rape conviction, may be hired.

Robert Wildasin, substitute superintendant for the York County South Eastern School District is confident that existing policies are doing their job

“I think the proper things are in place, assuming all the checks are done thoroughly and timely.”

Trusting official discretion to manage such a critical portion of the employment process is what has led Senator Piccola to challenge the current school employment laws. Years earlier Dauphin County, discretion was found lacking after an individual was hired with a criminal background who then engaged in several offenses with students. 

Senator Piccola stated that individuals who could think someone with a serious criminal record belongs in an academic setting with students they “…need to go back to school themselves.”

Revamped system under his new law would introduce a tiered system that visits stiffer penalties based on how serious the crime is up to the lifetime employment ban.

Senator Piccola is not trying to deny redeemed individuals a chance at a fresh start. The employment ban would be reserved for what Piccola described as ”very serious offenses” such as child abuse, trying to lure a minor into a car, unlawful contact with a minor, solicitation of minors to traffic drugs, etc… in addition to the crimes already covered under state law.

It might seem like a bit of a witch hunt at first but the senators plan makes a lot of sense and would likely shore up existing policy. It is clearly not meant to punish individuals who made mistakes and have led straight lives. The new law is more along the lines of sealing up any loopholes that would prevent the most serious offenders access to schoolchildren.

Paired with a properly executed background check, a sensible and thought-out safeguard law such as SB-244 will likely go a long way to ensuring a safer and secure learning environment for Pennsylvania students.

As of January 19^th, the Federal government will now be able to execute background checks on all individuals employed under government contracts thanks to a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Reported by the Washington Post, the ruling will ensure that contract workers in all branches of government submit to the same background checks as their full-time federal counterparts.

 The case began when a group of 29 engineers and scientists employed in Pasadena, CA at the U.S. Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) felt their right to informational privacy was being violated by a series of open ended interview questions and queries about possible past drug-use. JPL is run by the California Institute of Technology, which has a contract with NASA.

The group of JPL Scientists and engineers felt the line of questioning went too far and took the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th circuit. Feeling there might be a cause for concern regarding the open-ended reference questions; the case was taken before the Supreme Court.

After much consideration of the facts at and existing constitutional law, the Supreme Court decision ruled in favor of the mandated background checks. You may cry foul that it’s another case of big brother government but the decision was grounded in very realistic expectations and reasoning.

Questions on the background report were examined and found reasonable with necessary safeguards in place to prevent accidental disclosure of any findings to exterior parties. Furthermore, questions regarding drug use and treatment are of course pertinent for government employees especially those employed in sensitive areas whether directly employed or under contract.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote “Reasonable investigations of applicants and employees aid the government in ensuring the security of its facilities and in employing a competent and reliable workforce.”

Justices Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the background checks did not violate the constitutional rights of the JPL contract workers simply because there are none that do guarantee informational privacy.

Justice Scalia stated that it would be “farcical” for anyone to believe that “a right (to privacy) deeply rooted in our history and tradition bars the government from ensuring that the Hubble telescope is not used by recovering drug addicts.”

Background checks have been a mandatory process for government civil service workers since 1953. Background check on contractors however have been a much more recent addition to the federal hiring process and came at the behest of the 9/11 commission.

It’s not as though the background screenings at the JPL were being conducted for frivolous reasons. The work undertaken at the lab includes testing new technologies that are employed by NASA for use in space travel and other related missions. I don’t think I’d feel comfortable being shot into space knowing whoever tested my flight system could have had a history of drug abuse or other criminal activity.

Granted everyone should be entitled to their own individual privacy, which is addressed by employers having to remain in compliance with the Fair Credit and Reporting Act when to running background reports on employees and applicants. However, can anyone seriously think the federal government would forgo background checks on people conducting work on multi-million dollar projects funded with taxpayer money?

Honestly, the higher the position and more sensitive the nature of your work goes, the higher level of scrutiny you will receive.  The nature of the world we live in and the need for enhanced security everywhere. Hey, you can’t deal with it, try down the street at Bongo Burger. I hear they’re hiring!

Stealing someone’s identity is not the best method to gain employment. Unfortunately, 42-year old Carollena M. Vaccaro seemed to think it was a fairly great idea.  She stole the identity of her cousin, Anna Derosa, to hide an extensive arrest record in order to secure a nanny job working for the LaBorde family in Webster, Michigan.

Miss Vaccaro’s ruse went well for about three months. Under the assumed identity of her cousin, Vaccaro was coasting pretty well under the radar. However, when she was suspected of swiping a $25 Walmart gift card from her clients, things fell apart fairly rapidly.

The subsequent arrest and processing by Webster Police uncovered the identity theft and Carollena Vaccaro’s arrest record including theft, forgery and yes, identity theft. One would think with the previous arrests for identity theft, Ms. Vaccaro would have learned her lesson by this point.

At her sentencing, where she received a prison term of three to six years for two counts of first degree identity theft, Vaccaro apologized with tears in her eyes.

“I won’t ever do anything like that again.”

The original Democrat and Chronicle article makes no mention of where the LaBorde family found Ms. Vaccaro or the type of background screening method they used (in some cases people erroneously assume entering someone’s name into Google is good enough.) Why risk putting your loved ones in the care of a crook? Always deal with a legitimate caretaker agency that utilizes a qualified, FCRA compliant background check company to screen their employees. You might not know who you’re really dealing with if you don’t!