By age 23, almost a third of Americans have been arrested for a crime,
according to a new study that researchers say is a measure of growing
exposure to the criminal justice system in everyday life.
The study, the first since the 1960s to look at the arrest histories of a
national sample of adolescents and young adults over time, found that
30.2 percent of the 23-year-olds who participated reported having been
arrested for an offense other than a minor traffic violation.
That figure is significantly higher than the 22 percent found in a 1965
study that examined the same issue using different methods. The increase
may be a reflection of the justice system becoming more punitive and
more aggressive in its reach during the last half-century, the
researchers said. Arrests for drug-related offenses, for example, have
become far more common, as have zero-tolerance policies in schools.
The study did not look at racial or regional differences, but other
research has found higher arrest rates for black men and for youths
living in poor urban areas. Criminal justice experts said the 30.2 percent figure was especially
notable at a time when employers, aided by the Internet, routinely
conduct criminal background checks on job candidates.
“This estimate provides a real sense that the proportion of people who
have criminal history records is sizable and perhaps much larger than
most people would expect,” said Shawn Bushway, a criminologist at the
State University at Albany and a co-author of the study, which appears
in Monday’s issue of the journal Pediatrics.
The study analyzed data collected as part of the federal government’s National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.
The 7,335 participants were nationally representative and ranged in age
from 12 to 16 when they were enrolled in the survey in 1996. The first
interviews were conducted in 1997. Follow-up interviews have been
carried out annually since then. The researchers found that the probability of a first arrest accelerated
in late adolescence and early adulthood — at 18, 15.9 percent of the
participants reported having been arrested — and then began to flatten
out as the youths entered their 20s.
Robert Brame, a professor of criminal justice and criminology at the
University of North Carolina, Charlotte, and the lead author of the
study, said he hoped the research would alert physicians to signs that
their young patients were at risk.
“We know that arrest occurs in a context,” Dr. Brame said. “There are
other things going on in people’s lives at the time they get arrested,
and those things aren’t necessarily good.”
If doctors can intervene, he added, “It can have big implications for
what happens to these kids after the arrest, whether they become
embedded in the criminal justice system or whether they shrug it off and
move on.”
Monday, December 19, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
New Class Action Lawsuit against Major Financial Institution for FCRA Violations
A class action case filed against a large financial institution – one
of the nation’s top 10 banks – shows once again that legal compliance
is a critical part of any background screening program. The lawsuit was
filed on behalf of an employee alleging violations of the federal Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). According to a press release
from the Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the lawsuit alleges that the
financial institution obtained background checks in violation of the
FCRA and failed to provide required notices. The Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all of the financial institution’s employees and
job applicants for the past three years.
The lawsuit – filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland – alleges the financial institution violated the FCRA in two ways:
- First, the lawsuit alleges that the financial institution’s authorization form is flawed. The law imposes strict formatting requirements on companies who do background checks. The Plaintiff alleges that by burying its background check authorization in a job application, including extraneous information, the financial institution violated the FCRA. The FCRA requires that a consumer receive a “clear and conspicuous” disclosure in a document that consists solely of the disclosure that a background report may be obtained for employment purposes.
- Second, the lawsuit also alleges that the financial institution failed to provide copies of the background reports when it used them to take adverse employment actions, such as refusing to hire an applicant, refusing to promote an employee, or terminating an employee. The FCRA requires employers to provide consumers with copies of their background checks if the employer intends to take adverse action that is based in any part on the background check report, along with a statement of rights prepared by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), so consumers have an opportunity to contest any information they feel is inaccurate or incomplete. If the employer proceeds to take adverse action, a second post-adverse action notice is required.
The lawsuit demonstrates that violations of the FCRA can create large potential liability. Potential class members, including employees and prospective employees, may be entitled to statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each violation in the case of willful non-compliance. Class action lawsuits also create exposure for large awards of attorneys fees and the potential exposure to punitive damages. A United States Supreme Court case decided in June 2007, Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, substantially increased the risk of punitive damages under the FCRA by ruling that a reckless disregard of the FCRA could be sufficient to show “willful” non-compliance.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Social Network Service Facebook Settles FTC Charges over Privacy Practices
According to a news release on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) website,
social network service Facebook has agreed to settle FTC charges of
failing to keep promises of privacy after the company “deceived
consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook
private and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.” The FTC’s eight-count complaint against Facebook
– part of the agency’s ongoing effort to ensure companies live up to
the privacy promises they make to American consumers – charged that the
claims that Facebook made “were unfair and deceptive and thus violated
federal law.”
The FTC complaint against Facebook – available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/111129facebookcmpt.pdf – listed a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:
In a November 29, 2011 post on The Facebook Blog, Facebook’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that while overall the company had “a good history of providing transparency and control over who can see your information” he admitted that “a small number of high profile mistakes” such as “poor execution as we transitioned our privacy model two years ago” may have overshadowed much of the social network’s good work. He also wrote in depth about the issues concerning the privacy of personal information online:
I also understand that many people are just naturally skeptical of what it means for hundreds of millions of people to share so much personal information online, especially using any one service. Even if our record on privacy were perfect, I think many people would still rightfully question how their information was protected. It’s important for people to think about this, and not one day goes by when I don’t think about what it means for us to be the stewards of this community and their trust.
Facebook has always been committed to being transparent about the information you have stored with us – and we have led the internet in building tools to give people the ability to see and control what they share.
But we can also always do better. I’m committed to making Facebook the leader in transparency and control around privacy.
As we have grown, we have tried our best to listen closely to the people who use Facebook. We also work with regulators, advocates and experts to inform our privacy practices and policies. Recently, the US Federal Trade Commission established agreements with Google and Twitter that are helping to shape new privacy standards for our industry. Today, the FTC announced a similar agreement with Facebook. These agreements create a framework for how companies should approach privacy in the United States and around the world.
Later on in his post, Zuckerberg addressed specific FTC charges relating to Facebook:
Even before the agreement announced by the FTC today, Facebook had already proactively addressed many of the concerns the FTC raised. For example, their complaint to us mentioned our Verified Apps Program, which we canceled almost two years ago in December 2009. The same complaint also mentions cases where advertisers inadvertently received the ID numbers of some users in referrer URLs. We fixed that problem over a year ago in May 2010.
In addition to these product changes, the FTC also recommended improvements to our internal processes. We’ve embraced these ideas, too, by agreeing to improve and formalize the way we do privacy review as part of our ongoing product development process. As part of this, we will establish a biannual independent audit of our privacy practices to ensure we’re living up to the commitments we make.
Regarding the settlement with the FTC, Zuckerberg wrote that he looked forward “to working with the Commission as we implement this agreement” which he hoped would make clear that “Facebook is the leader when it comes to offering people control over the information they share online.” The post is available at https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=10150378701937131.
The FTC complaint against Facebook – available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923184/111129facebookcmpt.pdf – listed a number of instances in which Facebook allegedly made promises that it did not keep:
- Facebook changed its website in December 2009 without warning users or getting their approval in advance so information some users designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public.
- Facebook represented that third-party applications (“apps”) installed by users would only have access to user information they needed to operate when, in fact, the apps could access nearly all of the personal data of users.
- Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences such as “Friends Only” when, in fact, selecting “Friends Only” did not prevent information from being shared with third-party apps used by friends.
- Facebook claimed its “Verified Apps” program certified the security of participating apps when it did not.
- Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers but it did.
- Facebook claimed that photos and videos of users who deactivated or deleted their accounts would be inaccessible but they remained accessible.
- Facebook claimed it complied with the United States – European Union (EU) Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and EU but it did not.
- Barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of the personal information of consumers;
- Required to prevent anyone from accessing a user’s material more than thirty (30) days after the user has deleted his or her account;
- Required to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers’ information; and
- Required to obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years to ensure that the privacy of consumers’ information is protected.
In a November 29, 2011 post on The Facebook Blog, Facebook’s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that while overall the company had “a good history of providing transparency and control over who can see your information” he admitted that “a small number of high profile mistakes” such as “poor execution as we transitioned our privacy model two years ago” may have overshadowed much of the social network’s good work. He also wrote in depth about the issues concerning the privacy of personal information online:
I also understand that many people are just naturally skeptical of what it means for hundreds of millions of people to share so much personal information online, especially using any one service. Even if our record on privacy were perfect, I think many people would still rightfully question how their information was protected. It’s important for people to think about this, and not one day goes by when I don’t think about what it means for us to be the stewards of this community and their trust.
Facebook has always been committed to being transparent about the information you have stored with us – and we have led the internet in building tools to give people the ability to see and control what they share.
But we can also always do better. I’m committed to making Facebook the leader in transparency and control around privacy.
As we have grown, we have tried our best to listen closely to the people who use Facebook. We also work with regulators, advocates and experts to inform our privacy practices and policies. Recently, the US Federal Trade Commission established agreements with Google and Twitter that are helping to shape new privacy standards for our industry. Today, the FTC announced a similar agreement with Facebook. These agreements create a framework for how companies should approach privacy in the United States and around the world.
Later on in his post, Zuckerberg addressed specific FTC charges relating to Facebook:
Even before the agreement announced by the FTC today, Facebook had already proactively addressed many of the concerns the FTC raised. For example, their complaint to us mentioned our Verified Apps Program, which we canceled almost two years ago in December 2009. The same complaint also mentions cases where advertisers inadvertently received the ID numbers of some users in referrer URLs. We fixed that problem over a year ago in May 2010.
In addition to these product changes, the FTC also recommended improvements to our internal processes. We’ve embraced these ideas, too, by agreeing to improve and formalize the way we do privacy review as part of our ongoing product development process. As part of this, we will establish a biannual independent audit of our privacy practices to ensure we’re living up to the commitments we make.
Regarding the settlement with the FTC, Zuckerberg wrote that he looked forward “to working with the Commission as we implement this agreement” which he hoped would make clear that “Facebook is the leader when it comes to offering people control over the information they share online.” The post is available at https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=10150378701937131.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Employers Must Begin Using Standard Form I-9 in Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
Beginning on November 28, 2011, employers hiring individuals for
employment in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)
must begin using the standard ‘Form I-9, Employment Eligibility
Verification’ for all new hires and reverifications in the CNMI,
according to a page titled “Form I-9 Guidance for Employers Hiring Individuals in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands” on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) web site.
According to the USCIS web site:
On Nov. 28, 2009, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other Federal immigration laws took effect in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), as provided by the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. As a result, since Nov. 28, 2009, CNMI employers have been required to verify the identity and employment authorization of their new hires as required under U.S. law. Employers in the CNMI are subject to the same civil fines and criminal penalties for Form I-9 violations as U.S. employers.
From Nov. 28, 2009 until Nov. 27, 2011, employers used Form I-9 CNMI rather than the standard Form I-9 to verify the identity and employment authorization of their new hires. Form I-9 CNMI is the same as the standard Form I-9, with one exception: Form I-9 CNMI contains additional List A documents issued by the CNMI government that are not acceptable on the standard Form I-9. These additional documents are only acceptable until Nov. 27, 2011.
By Nov. 28, 2011, all workers who previously held CNMI-issued employment authorization must have another basis of work authorization under U.S. law, or have a petition pending for CNMI-only transitional worker status as described below, to continue working in the CNMI.
Employers hiring individuals for employment in the CNMI may only use Form I-9 CNMI until Nov. 27, 2011. Beginning on Nov. 28, 2011, employers must use the standard Form I-9 for all new hires and reverifications in the CNMI.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) occupies the western Pacific Ocean and is in political union with the United States. Under the union, in general, U.S. federal law applies to CNMI.
According to the USCIS web site:
On Nov. 28, 2009, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other Federal immigration laws took effect in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), as provided by the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. As a result, since Nov. 28, 2009, CNMI employers have been required to verify the identity and employment authorization of their new hires as required under U.S. law. Employers in the CNMI are subject to the same civil fines and criminal penalties for Form I-9 violations as U.S. employers.
From Nov. 28, 2009 until Nov. 27, 2011, employers used Form I-9 CNMI rather than the standard Form I-9 to verify the identity and employment authorization of their new hires. Form I-9 CNMI is the same as the standard Form I-9, with one exception: Form I-9 CNMI contains additional List A documents issued by the CNMI government that are not acceptable on the standard Form I-9. These additional documents are only acceptable until Nov. 27, 2011.
By Nov. 28, 2011, all workers who previously held CNMI-issued employment authorization must have another basis of work authorization under U.S. law, or have a petition pending for CNMI-only transitional worker status as described below, to continue working in the CNMI.
Employers hiring individuals for employment in the CNMI may only use Form I-9 CNMI until Nov. 27, 2011. Beginning on Nov. 28, 2011, employers must use the standard Form I-9 for all new hires and reverifications in the CNMI.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is the government agency that oversees lawful immigration to the United States. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) occupies the western Pacific Ocean and is in political union with the United States. Under the union, in general, U.S. federal law applies to CNMI.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
California the 7th State to Prohibit the Use of Credit Checks
Make sure that you have updated your policy and procedures in the following seven states.
California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a state law banning the practice of credit checks for employment. California thus joins a growing list of state with similar statutes, which includes Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Washington.
The California law does include exemptions from the ban. These include applicants for certain management-level jobs, law enforcement, positions whose duties would include access to customer’s personal data, and jobs calling for the direct handling of money.
California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed a state law banning the practice of credit checks for employment. California thus joins a growing list of state with similar statutes, which includes Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Washington.
The California law does include exemptions from the ban. These include applicants for certain management-level jobs, law enforcement, positions whose duties would include access to customer’s personal data, and jobs calling for the direct handling of money.
Friday, October 28, 2011
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Testifies on E-Verify
On Wednesday, October 26, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano testified about Department oversight before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. Napolitano’s testimony included a discussion E-Verify’s role in DHS’ smart and effective approach to work-site enforcement.
Read the full testimony here.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Public Records - Legal Action Dealing with Access
Oswego, NY -- An Oswego business owner is in the process of suing
Oswego County Clerk George Williams, contending he is breaking the law
concerning searches of public documents at the clerk’s office.
Aaron P. Smith, owner of APS Information Services, says Williams does not allow the public to search Oswego County Court and Supreme Court indices, which include names and disposition of criminal cases. He said Williams has his employees perform the searches so he can charge fees.
Smith, who has been in the document search business for 16 years, said of the six counties in which he does business, Oswego is the only one where the clerk operates this way.Smith works for national background-screening companies charged with making criminal background checks of people, who for instance are applying for jobs, renting apartments or working on military contracts. He does searches in Onondaga, Oswego, Jefferson, Erie, Niagara and Monroe counties.
Oswego County Attorney Richard Mitchell said Williams has not yet been served paperwork regarding the lawsuit. Smith’s lawyer, Scott Chatfield, of Marietta, said the case will be argued Nov. 10 in state Supreme Court in Utica. Chatfield quoted an opinion issued by Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, that says state regulations “have specified that when records are accessible, they must be made available for inspection, and that an agency cannot charge for the inspection of records.”
“Only when copies of records are requested are fees charged,” Chatfield said.
Smith said if he goes to one of the other five counties to search a criminal index on a subject, he would do the search himself, get the information he needs and leave. In Oswego County, Smith would not be able to search the subject’s criminal index by himself. A county clerk’s office employee would do the search and then charge Smith $5 for each two-year period searched.
Smith said he spends from $2,500 to $6,800 a month for searches in the Oswego County Clerk’s office. That is a cost he incurs in no other clerk’s office.
“It’s extortion,” Smith said. “He’s creating this revenue stream for the county and then walking in and saying ‘look how wonderful I am.”
Deputy County Clerk Georgiana Mansfield said Williams had no comment on the legal action.
In a letter to Smith’s lawyer dated Oct. 11, Mitchell said “although you contend your client is prevented from using the County Clerk’s office, that does not appear to be the case.
"Williams has faced some controversy of late stemming from hiring a company to manage county documents.The county Ethics Board investigated him twice.
Once was to determine if he was an employee of Info Quick Solutions, of Clay, one of the companies interested in the document management contract. It is owned by a friend of Williams. He was found not to be employed by IQS.The other involved Williams and his deputy clerk for operations eating at a Fulton restaurant with IQS representatives right after presentations by IQS and other potential vendors were made to the legislative committee. The board found that while Williams and his deputy did not break any laws, dining with the IQS personnel constituted “an appearance of impropriety.” The FBI also has been examining the relationship between the county clerk’s office and IQS and has subpoenaed 10 years’ worth of county clerk records.
Aaron P. Smith, owner of APS Information Services, says Williams does not allow the public to search Oswego County Court and Supreme Court indices, which include names and disposition of criminal cases. He said Williams has his employees perform the searches so he can charge fees.
Smith, who has been in the document search business for 16 years, said of the six counties in which he does business, Oswego is the only one where the clerk operates this way.Smith works for national background-screening companies charged with making criminal background checks of people, who for instance are applying for jobs, renting apartments or working on military contracts. He does searches in Onondaga, Oswego, Jefferson, Erie, Niagara and Monroe counties.
Oswego County Attorney Richard Mitchell said Williams has not yet been served paperwork regarding the lawsuit. Smith’s lawyer, Scott Chatfield, of Marietta, said the case will be argued Nov. 10 in state Supreme Court in Utica. Chatfield quoted an opinion issued by Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, that says state regulations “have specified that when records are accessible, they must be made available for inspection, and that an agency cannot charge for the inspection of records.”
“Only when copies of records are requested are fees charged,” Chatfield said.
Smith said if he goes to one of the other five counties to search a criminal index on a subject, he would do the search himself, get the information he needs and leave. In Oswego County, Smith would not be able to search the subject’s criminal index by himself. A county clerk’s office employee would do the search and then charge Smith $5 for each two-year period searched.
Smith said he spends from $2,500 to $6,800 a month for searches in the Oswego County Clerk’s office. That is a cost he incurs in no other clerk’s office.
“It’s extortion,” Smith said. “He’s creating this revenue stream for the county and then walking in and saying ‘look how wonderful I am.”
Deputy County Clerk Georgiana Mansfield said Williams had no comment on the legal action.
In a letter to Smith’s lawyer dated Oct. 11, Mitchell said “although you contend your client is prevented from using the County Clerk’s office, that does not appear to be the case.
"Williams has faced some controversy of late stemming from hiring a company to manage county documents.The county Ethics Board investigated him twice.
Once was to determine if he was an employee of Info Quick Solutions, of Clay, one of the companies interested in the document management contract. It is owned by a friend of Williams. He was found not to be employed by IQS.The other involved Williams and his deputy clerk for operations eating at a Fulton restaurant with IQS representatives right after presentations by IQS and other potential vendors were made to the legislative committee. The board found that while Williams and his deputy did not break any laws, dining with the IQS personnel constituted “an appearance of impropriety.” The FBI also has been examining the relationship between the county clerk’s office and IQS and has subpoenaed 10 years’ worth of county clerk records.
© 2011 syracuse.com. All rights reserved
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Charge: Worker Used DMV computers for ID Theft
A former clerk at the North Carolina
Division of Motor Vehicles is facing 18 charges, including five counts
of identity theft, in a state probe that has spanned more than a year.The State Bureau of Investigation
began looking at Kimberly Nicole Torres, 36, of 102 Indian Trail in
Wendell, in January 2010 after copies of driver's licenses and Social
Security cards were found in her desk.She was fired a month later, and Steve
Abbott, a spokesman for the state Department of Transportation, said
she did not steal any personal information from the state.
Torres was arrested Friday and was in the Wake County jail under a $275,000 bond Monday evening. Search warrants allege that she used a DMV computer to apply for payday loans in other people's names.Once the loans were deposited into bank accounts, she told investigators, she would withdraw the money, take a cut and close the account.If convicted on the identity theft charge, as well as several charges of obtaining property by false pretense and accessing government computers to defraud and forgery, she could face up to 27 years in prison.
"She didn't have access to anything work-wise, anything DMV – such as personal records, drivers' license. She had no access to that," Abbott said.
It's unclear where Torres might have gotten the Social Security cards and driver's licenses.According to court records, Torres has a lengthy criminal history, including several convictions prior to being hired by the state for assault with a deadly weapon and breaking and entering.
DMV employees are required to have a background check, Abbot said, but because Torres was hired by the DOT, a check never happened.
"We do not do background checks. It's not just DOT, it is all state agencies," Abbott said. "There is no background check required unless it's a job that would require access to private information, access to money or other issues like that."
Torres was arrested Friday and was in the Wake County jail under a $275,000 bond Monday evening. Search warrants allege that she used a DMV computer to apply for payday loans in other people's names.Once the loans were deposited into bank accounts, she told investigators, she would withdraw the money, take a cut and close the account.If convicted on the identity theft charge, as well as several charges of obtaining property by false pretense and accessing government computers to defraud and forgery, she could face up to 27 years in prison.
"She didn't have access to anything work-wise, anything DMV – such as personal records, drivers' license. She had no access to that," Abbott said.
It's unclear where Torres might have gotten the Social Security cards and driver's licenses.According to court records, Torres has a lengthy criminal history, including several convictions prior to being hired by the state for assault with a deadly weapon and breaking and entering.
DMV employees are required to have a background check, Abbot said, but because Torres was hired by the DOT, a check never happened.
"We do not do background checks. It's not just DOT, it is all state agencies," Abbott said. "There is no background check required unless it's a job that would require access to private information, access to money or other issues like that."
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
California Joins Other States in Placing Restriction on Employers' Use of Credit Checks
One Minute Memo: California Joins Other States in Placing Restrictions
on Employers' Use of Credit Checks
On October 10, 2011, Governor Brown signed into legislation Assembly
Bill No. 22, which generally prohibits employers from using an
applicant's or employee's credit history in making employment decisions.
Prior to this legislation, employers could request a credit report for
employment purposes if they provided prior written notice of the request
to the person for whom the report was sought. Assembly Bill 22
significantly changes this landscape by prohibiting employers from using
credit reports for employment purposes unless the report is used for one
of the limited purposes enumerated by the statute.
To view the full alert, please click on the link below:
www.seyfarth.com/OMM101011/
on Employers' Use of Credit Checks
On October 10, 2011, Governor Brown signed into legislation Assembly
Bill No. 22, which generally prohibits employers from using an
applicant's or employee's credit history in making employment decisions.
Prior to this legislation, employers could request a credit report for
employment purposes if they provided prior written notice of the request
to the person for whom the report was sought. Assembly Bill 22
significantly changes this landscape by prohibiting employers from using
credit reports for employment purposes unless the report is used for one
of the limited purposes enumerated by the statute.
To view the full alert, please click on the link below:
www.seyfarth.com/OMM101011/
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
"Statewide Background Checks Miss Records"
Many
companies think that a statewide background check is more complete than
searching the counties that an applicant has lived and/or worked. "In
some cases, that is not correct." Bill Whitford, CEO of S2Verify.
"Many states are not on a unified court system and rely on the county to
report the records to the state. However, in many instances, this
simply does not happen."
It is important to understand each state and then determine if a statewide is the best search. That is why companies need to contract with knowledgable and experienced Employment Screening companies, like S2Verify. We are amazed at the lack of knowledge among prospects about what they are ordering and how it impacts their business.
In one instance, one of our competitors was selling statewide searches and using a database. However, they weren't informing the company that this was a database search. In fact, they were offering a statewide search in states like CA that don't offer a statewide search.
Here is an article that proves you need to be knowledgeable about each state.
It is important to understand each state and then determine if a statewide is the best search. That is why companies need to contract with knowledgable and experienced Employment Screening companies, like S2Verify. We are amazed at the lack of knowledge among prospects about what they are ordering and how it impacts their business.
In one instance, one of our competitors was selling statewide searches and using a database. However, they weren't informing the company that this was a database search. In fact, they were offering a statewide search in states like CA that don't offer a statewide search.
Here is an article that proves you need to be knowledgeable about each state.
Texas background checks let felons slip through cracks in surprising numbers
September 29, 2011
- Like this? Subscribe to get instant updates.
Courts and prosecutors throughout Texas are supposed to quickly submit convictions for arson, burglary, and more serious crimes but the report by the Texas Auditor's office finds more than a-quarter of the arrests are not showing up on state background checks because local police agencies and county courthouses are not sending that data to the Texas Department of Public Safety.
That means if one felon is convicted, the state database won't include it for months because the local police and courthouses are letting it sit on a shelf for months before sending it to the state to be included in the DPS crime database.
That means if that criminal is applying for a job driving a school bus, or trying to enter the military service, or applying for another sensitive security position, a background check won't show the conviction because the most comprehensive statewide crime database doesn't know about it.
Most background checks, especially those by private employers and small government agencies, do not check records at the local level. They won't scour every single courthouse where an applicant has lived, but instead rely on each state's centralized database of all criminal convictions.
Local police and sheriff's departments are also required to submit information for arrests made for certain crimes, even if the person hasn't been convicted yet. Those are among the crimes not being reported to the state, according to this report.
Today's audito report digs into all arrests made statewide in 2009 and it found that more than a-quarter of the crimes had still not been reported to Texas DPS as of January of this year.
In a February 2006 audit, 71-percent of the crimes were being reported by prosecutors and courts. This time around, those agencies reported 73.68 percent of the arrests made in 2009. That's only a slight improvement.
The audit explains,
"Data in the DPS's Computerized Criminal History System is not complete, and users may not receive a reliable result from criminal history background checks that are conducted based on the data in that system."Even though Texas law requires prosecutors and courts to send that data in within weeks, DPS has no authority to slap a fine or any other punishment for agencies that are letting its criminal convictions sit on the shelves for months or years.
"A significant number of prosecutor and court records are not reported to DPS, which impairs the quality of information that DPS uses to conduct criminal history background checks,"the report continued.
Here's a serious illustration of how bad it is:
State background checks are standard when a new inmate arrives in the state prison system, but when 1,634 inmates showed up for prison or probation in November 2010, they had clean records.
That's right, convicted felons on their way into prison were listed as having no criminal record in the state DPS crime database because the local authorities hadn't yet submitted the information as they're required to do within days.
Some are required to be submitted within 7-days and others must be submitted within 30-days, but it's not always happening at all.
Today's report urges DPS to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the records it receives from local authorities, but it didn't say how that should happen since DPS is powerless to issue fines or any other sanctions for it.
The Tarrant County District Attorney's office is listed as failing to submit records, and the report points out that the Harris County District Attorney's Office and the Harris County District Clerk are also both falling short on submitting details of cases to the state crime database.
Each office said the reason this is happening is because some criminals don't have state identification numbers attached to their records, which causes them to slip through the cracks. If the state ID number is attached at booking or later before trial, they are automatically sent in when there is a conviction or other disposition. If that number is missing, it just doesn't happen like it's supposed to, they said.
They also blamed courts for failing to submit some paperwork about the disposition of some cases. Without that paperwork, those agencies don't know there's anything additional to report to the state.
Between September 1, 2009 and November 30, 2010, there were 65,424 arrest records submitted to DPS that could not be properly matched with their crimes or the outcomes of their cases. That means an arrest may be listed without a conviction, or even that a person may be listed as having one charge against them when they really had 5 serious charges against them.
For those 65,424 incomplete records, the audit says local agencies submitted erroneous data or incomplete data for felonies and misdemeanor crimes. Those all affect how a person shows up on a criminal background check.
DPS agreed with the findings of the audit and promised to work on holding meetings with local government officials throughout Texas to make sure they know how to submit timely and accurate data on crimes.
About 80% of the information is being submitted to the state electronically, while the rest are mailed or faxed.
The audit listed these hard numbers between September 1, 2009 and November 30, 2010:
- Of the 1,115,469 of the crimes that were required to be reported within 7-days, 84.25% actually were (amounting to 939,802 crimes)
- Of the 959,892 crimes that can be reported within 30-days, 76.48% were reported (or 734,138 crimes).
Even when local police and prosecutors do submit the arrest or conviction information, DPS is sometimes reporting a two-month backlog in entering the data into the database if it comes by mail or fax. Staffing and budget cuts are getting the blame.
Friday, July 22, 2011
FTC Issues Report: "Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act"
The Federal Trade Commission today issued a staff report,
that compiles and updates the agency’s guidance on the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), the 1970 law designed to protect the privacy of
credit report information and ensure that the information supplied by
credit reporting agencies is as accurate as possible. A credit report
contains information about a consumer’s personal and credit
characteristics, character, and general reputation and is used to make
credit, employment, insurance and other decisions.
"The employment screening rules and regulations continue to change and this will have an impact on our industry" says Bill Whitford, CEO of S2verify, LLC.
The new staff report, entitled “Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff Report and Summary of Interpretations,” provides a brief overview of the FTC’s role in enforcing and interpreting the FCRA and includes a section-by-section summary of the agency’s interpretations of the Act.
The FTC is also withdrawing the agency’s 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, which has become partially obsolete since it was issued 21 years ago. The 1990 Commentary was comprised of a series of FTC statements about how it would enforce the various provisions of the FCRA. Since 1990, the FRCA has been updated several times, most significantly by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, known as the FACT Act. Both updates expanded the provisions of the FCRA.
The new staff report deletes several FTC interpretations in the 1990 Commentary that have since been repealed, amended, or have become obsolete or outdated. It also modifies some interpretations in the 1990 Commentary, and adds several interpretations reflecting changes that Congress has made to the FCRA over the years, rules issued by the FTC and other agencies under the FACT Act, statements in numerous staff opinion letters, and the staff’s experience from significant enforcement actions.
Recent legislation has transferred the authority to issue interpretive guidance under the FCRA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFP. Withdrawing the 1990 Commentary now will ensure that this obsolete document does not transfer to the CFPB.
The Commission vote approving the staff report on the FCRA and withdrawing the 1990 Commentary was 5-0. The report and Federal Register notice can be found on the FTC’s website and as links to this press release. More information for consumers about the FRCA can be found here.
"The employment screening rules and regulations continue to change and this will have an impact on our industry" says Bill Whitford, CEO of S2verify, LLC.
The new staff report, entitled “Forty Years of Experience with the Fair Credit Reporting Act: An FTC Staff Report and Summary of Interpretations,” provides a brief overview of the FTC’s role in enforcing and interpreting the FCRA and includes a section-by-section summary of the agency’s interpretations of the Act.
The FTC is also withdrawing the agency’s 1990 Commentary on the FCRA, which has become partially obsolete since it was issued 21 years ago. The 1990 Commentary was comprised of a series of FTC statements about how it would enforce the various provisions of the FCRA. Since 1990, the FRCA has been updated several times, most significantly by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, known as the FACT Act. Both updates expanded the provisions of the FCRA.
The new staff report deletes several FTC interpretations in the 1990 Commentary that have since been repealed, amended, or have become obsolete or outdated. It also modifies some interpretations in the 1990 Commentary, and adds several interpretations reflecting changes that Congress has made to the FCRA over the years, rules issued by the FTC and other agencies under the FACT Act, statements in numerous staff opinion letters, and the staff’s experience from significant enforcement actions.
Recent legislation has transferred the authority to issue interpretive guidance under the FCRA to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFP. Withdrawing the 1990 Commentary now will ensure that this obsolete document does not transfer to the CFPB.
The Commission vote approving the staff report on the FCRA and withdrawing the 1990 Commentary was 5-0. The report and Federal Register notice can be found on the FTC’s website and as links to this press release. More information for consumers about the FRCA can be found here.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Weakening Job Market
Rise in unemployment applications indicates weakening job market
Nowhere is the fickle economy more evident than in the unstable job numbers, in which an economic snapshot takes shape when jobs data is analyzed, only to change again the following month after a round of fresh data is released.
Another sign of an increasingly weak job market came today, when it was announced that last week the number of people who applied for unemployment benefits climbed by the most in a month.
The Labor Dept. said that unemployment applications rose by 9,000 to a seasonally adjusted 429,000, the second increase in three weeks and the 11th straight week that applications have been above 400,000.
The four-week average for unemployment benefit applications was unchanged at 426,250 last week.
Applications dropped below 400,000 in February and stayed this way for seven of the following nine weeks.
The Washington Post reports that the economy needs to generate at least 125,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. And at least twice that many jobs are needed to bring down the unemployment rate, which rose to 9.1 percent in May.
“We need initial claims to fall back below 400,000 to signal stronger economic growth than the area we seem to be mired in,” analysts John Ryding and Conrad DeQuadros at RDQ told the Post.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Company Settles "Class Action Lawsuit" for $4.3 million
The company failed to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by
first obtaining written consent to conduct background checks and second
they failed to offer the applicants a copy of their report or the Credit
Reporting Agency's (CRA) contact information to obtain a copy.
The proposed settlement would pay the worker that was terminated because of a background check between $2,000 and $4,000 each.
This company was a subcontractor to a large metropolitan school district and provided transportation for children.
Maybe it is time for you to reevaluate how you perform your employment screening, your consent, and how you notify your applicants of the outcome. In addition, you should understand what your current CRA is providing and how it is impacted by the FCRA and State Laws.
Recently, we were preparing a consent for a new client. After reviewing several Fortune 500 companies existing consents, we found NONE of them were in compliance with both the FCRA and the state regulations.
Companies need to understand that these types of lawsuits and actions by the Federal Trade Commission over violations of the FCRA and state regulations will continue.
The proposed settlement would pay the worker that was terminated because of a background check between $2,000 and $4,000 each.
This company was a subcontractor to a large metropolitan school district and provided transportation for children.
Maybe it is time for you to reevaluate how you perform your employment screening, your consent, and how you notify your applicants of the outcome. In addition, you should understand what your current CRA is providing and how it is impacted by the FCRA and State Laws.
Recently, we were preparing a consent for a new client. After reviewing several Fortune 500 companies existing consents, we found NONE of them were in compliance with both the FCRA and the state regulations.
Companies need to understand that these types of lawsuits and actions by the Federal Trade Commission over violations of the FCRA and state regulations will continue.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Meaning of Service
I often wonder why we as individuals tolerate companies that lack the
basic skills of customer service. Why do we continue to use a company
even after having a bad experience? Maybe it's because we are simply
to forgiving. Maybe it's because we just don't want the hassle of
moving our business.
Recently we have been growing and have had to look at alternative internet providers. Our current provider has the fastest speed, but the problem is that it is down 40% of the time. So we had a T1 installed, and my partner, who has been dealing with the mess, was on the phone for over an hour. He sent an email and the new provider and the response was "Thank you we will get back with you in 72 hours." What in the world are these people thinking?
However, we have had a great experience with Clear. This is not an advertisement for their product, but a confirmation of their service. Now their product is really good. But let me tell you about our experience.
One day when our service was down, I went by the mall to get an additional router from "Clear." The sales person went above and beyond the call of duty. I needed a another router that day, so he gave me a loner until our new router arrived. Also, when we were installing the router, we had some issues. So what did the salesperson do? He came to our office and installed the router. It would be a great story if it stopped there, but it does not. He came back when we got the new router and installed it as well.
The meaning of "Service" to me is meeting or exceeding the customers expectations. This is something that we strive to achieve at S2Verify. Not only for our clients, but for the applicants and consumers as well. Clearly we can take a lesson from our friend at "Clear."
Absolutely an outstanding customer service experience.
Recently we have been growing and have had to look at alternative internet providers. Our current provider has the fastest speed, but the problem is that it is down 40% of the time. So we had a T1 installed, and my partner, who has been dealing with the mess, was on the phone for over an hour. He sent an email and the new provider and the response was "Thank you we will get back with you in 72 hours." What in the world are these people thinking?
However, we have had a great experience with Clear. This is not an advertisement for their product, but a confirmation of their service. Now their product is really good. But let me tell you about our experience.
One day when our service was down, I went by the mall to get an additional router from "Clear." The sales person went above and beyond the call of duty. I needed a another router that day, so he gave me a loner until our new router arrived. Also, when we were installing the router, we had some issues. So what did the salesperson do? He came to our office and installed the router. It would be a great story if it stopped there, but it does not. He came back when we got the new router and installed it as well.
The meaning of "Service" to me is meeting or exceeding the customers expectations. This is something that we strive to achieve at S2Verify. Not only for our clients, but for the applicants and consumers as well. Clearly we can take a lesson from our friend at "Clear."
Absolutely an outstanding customer service experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)