


It all starts at the global headquarters of a Fortune 250 technology company. Three individuals, including the head of Accounts Payable, are indicted for fraudulent acts leading to $11.5 million in losses – and immeasurable impacts on the company’s brand and reputation.
Overnight, the company’s HR division shifts from a relatively limited approach to conducting background searches on new employees to mandating them across job classifications. Call it a “blanket policy,” if you will. With “teeth.”
“Our vendor at the time gave us arrest-related information,” says the HR director. “And we used this to discern ‘patterns of behavior’ among prospects.”
The room is silent. Most of the attorneys are taking notes. One of them reaches over and turns off the tape recorder.
Hindsight can be painful. That this corporate policy completely overlooks the absence of a trial – and
most importantly a conviction – is just as troublesome as the fact that this admission tumbles out “on the legal table” in the early stages of a multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Too often, the best paths forward aren’t followed. While executives across industries now widely acknowledge the need to keep the workplace safe, many companies and their background screening providers do not fully understand the complex, shifting relationship among security practices, screening requirements and workplace safety – on the one hand – and enterprise risk management and compliance on the other.
Here’s what happens when a strong independent oversight mechanism is not in place:
In the past, one of the toughest screening challenges for HR directors was managing the risks and opportunities associated with the conversion from manually-based background investigations using multiple jurisdictions, databases and sources to automated ones. Automation is no longer a new technique. And HR directors used to making judgment calls alone now often need the counsel of attorneys, compliance experts and experienced screening providers.
Today, among the most difficult challenges is compliance – especially given rapidly changing best practices required to address the implications of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The CEO of one of the most innovative screening providers in the industry puts it simply. “Every day,” he says, “the compliance issue is a battle for our clients.” Many companies just don’t understand what’s in their best interest. “Let me explain to you,” he tells their executives patiently, “why you don’t want to know the information you’ve asked us to provide.” Here’s a sampling of the issues companies struggle with most often:
To find out more about our background investigation and screening services as well as our broader security and investigative services, contact:
FOOTNOTES: 1 “Watch Your Back: Smart Hiring and Proper Background Checks,” Employee Relations
Law Journal, Winter 2008. 2 Special Report: Background Checking, “Burden of Proof,” Workforce Management, Feb 2010. 3, 4 “You Wanna Background Check Me? Well, Be Careful Where You Look…,” Corporate Counsel, Jan 2010.
The Hillard Heintze 360° INSIGHT publication is an ongoing and regular series of executive briefings on a wide range of critical and emerging issues at the forefront of best-in-class security and investigative practices today.
Tip #1 – Review and update your background screening policy.
Many companies haven’t done so since they first wrote it. Continually realign it carefully with your broader risk management, compliance and operational objectives. Pay special attention to privacy laws related to issues such as consent, information storage and confidentiality. And insist that your policy authors determine if, where, when and how external vendors and partners should be asked to meet or beat these guidelines.
Tip #2 – Determine the skills and experience that should be resident on your in-house team.
Then supplement these with external advisors in the most strategic and cost-effective manner.
Tip #3 – If you engage the services of a screening vendor, know precisely which characteristics differentiate the most reliable ones from the rest of the industry.
Start by insisting on demonstrated expertise in HR, security, compliance, data analytics, case management processing and automation in search, retrieval and reporting. Then put these qualifications aside and take an even closer look at how the vendor addresses areas such as: 1) data validation through on-site court checks of actual files; 2) adjudication when information of concern surfaces; 3) strategies for risk mitigation, transfer, acceptance or avoidance when compliance-sensitive decisions and risk-related judgment calls are required; and 4) vetting approach to international third-party data screeners. And don’t be fooled by size. Scale is never a proxy for excellence.