Month: February 2010

Categories
Background Checks

Suspect Caregivers Missed on Healthcare Sanctions Background Checks

Caregivers with criminal records or unsavory histories are going undiscovered as the background checks included in the  sanctions lists are flawed and missing vital information.    According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times,  the records on the Health Resources and Services Administration, or HRSA, had glaring discrepancies when compared to other sources.   As a  follow up to the joint Pro Public Los Angeles Times report on the frightful condition, concerning the oversight on healthcare workers, the mistakes were rather shocking.

It has been reported that various disciplined  healthcare workers slip from state to state, avoiding detection and finding gainful employment despite their past histories.   Nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, and other healthcare workers are fired from one job and find another, their past histories undetected.  Some have serious criminal records, including felonies for theft, drugs, and violent crime.  Some are sexual offenders.

Apparently the states are supposed to file notice of disciplinary actions to the database.    Apparently some states do not file as often as they should or so sporadically that the evident lapses create dangerous situations for vulnerable patients and for the institutions themselves.   I have wrote about this on different occasions, as on one article entitled More California Nurses Shown as Convicted Criminals.  I praise the Los Angeles Times and Pro Publica for their joint study.

I recommend that anyone hiring candidates in the healthcare industry conduct the third tier FACIS search.  This background check includes the OIG/GSA plus information regarding disciplinary action from more than 800 healthcare services in the fifty states.    At the very least conduct the Healthcare Sanctions Search, known as the OIG/GSA.   As members of the healthcare service you want the best employees you can find, and ones that do not pose a danger to either your patients or fllow staff members.

Check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks

Dallas County to Run Background Checks on Constables

As part of the increasing trend in preemployment screening for state and public service agencies, Dallas County will be conducting background checks on its prospective constables.    The background checks are to ascertain whether the prospective deputy constables are qualified for the job.

As it often seems to be the case, background checks are implemented at public service agencies, after one employee is suddenly have a criminal record or at least some form of unsavory past.   More than a few sex offenders have been discovered after the fact.   According to the Dallas Morning News

, a lieutenant in one of the constable’s offices has been charged with nine felonies, as part of a larger constable investigation.   This same employee has previous troubles in California, including criminal charges that were dismissed.   He also has a large legal judgment against him as well as certain issues over child support.

As I have mentioned in previous blog articles, including Background Checks for Utah Schools, there is an increasing,albeit reactive trend to implement background checks on state and public service employment candidates.   There is also the matter of the responsible background checking service to conduct thorough background searches.  In the recent past, some background checking services were reported to have done shoddy jobs when conducting background searches for state agencies, school boards, etc.

It is then a matter that these background searches turn around in a timely manner.  Background checks fail to do anyone good if the job candidate is hired and is on the job for months, before the background report is returned to the employer.   It is finally a matter of reviewing the background report carefully, making sure no criminal charges, or discrepancies in the applications are overlooked.

I would hope that other public service agencies are more proactive in instituting background checks.  That is to say that they don’t wait until one of their employees faces criminal charges before they learn of the past criminal history.   This often seems to be the case.   Better to run these background checks up front.   It is, after all, one way of protecting both the public and fellow employees from nasty character.

Check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks

Background Checks May Prevent Workplace Violence

The economic meltdown has just about everybody crazy.   But some are more crazy than others as the financial pressures melt and the economy for many on Main Street doesn’t look that much better.   So, while the homicide rate on the job has diminished, there are still glaring incidents of workplace violence.

There are a number of articles on the subject.  One such article is in Utica Observer Dispatch.  It takes note that  employers are nervous about increased workplace violence.  They know the economy has gotten to a good man workers, and managers fear that certain employees will act out violently on the job.  With unemployment at extremely high levels and with competition for available jobs as fierce as it has been for decades,  there is notable tension on many companies.

Many employers have increased the level of background checks they have run for preemployment screening.  This has proven effective in reducing workplace homicides.  Many have written workplace violence policy, which documents how incidents of workplace violence should be reported and subsequently handled.   Some employers are bringing in consultants to help train managers to deal better communicate with employees and to deal with violent situations.

The fact remains that all the psychological testing, all the background checks, and management training sessions won’t entirely eliminate workplace violence.     However, these precautions will go a long way toward prevention.   Considering the state of things, the last thing an employer needs is a violent outburst of any kind, yet alone a case where people are killed by a disgruntled worker.

Check them out before you hire.

Categories
Background Checks

Controversy Over Credit Reports as Background Checks

For quite some time now employers have been ordering job candidate’s credit reports as part of their series of background checks.   the credit reports, it has been long believed, will not only reveal someone’s credit, but will show their ability to manage money and provide also a better sense of their behavior patterns.   The credit reports are indicators of bad credit, so the employer may take into consideration that if they do hire a particular job applicant whether credits will attempt to garnish wages.  This can be problematic and at the least requires additional bookkeeping on the part of the employer.

It has long been believed that a poor credit report will help indicate whether a job candidate would have the proclivity to steal out of desperation.  n employer would consider whether its funds, its proprietary databases or sensitive information would be vulnerable to  the employee’s desperation and the subsequent theft of that information.   For employers hiring accounting and financial workers, it is important to know that their job candidates can manage their own finances before trying to manage those of a business.   This appears to be sound and logical thinking.

However, different states believe that employers should be prevented form conducting credit reports on their employment candidates.   They deem the reports invasive, and depending on the state, are trying to pass legislation to prohibit credit reports for employment purposes, unless the report is directly relevant to the position the job applicant is being considered for.    California is one such state that wants to restrict credit reports for employment purposes.  Now Maryland has Bill175 that is similar in content.

The Maryland bill would prohibit an employer from using an applicant’s or employee’s credit report or credit history in determining whether to deny employment to the applicant, discharge the employee or determine compensation or terms, conditions, or privileges employment; authorizing an employer to request or consider an applicant’s credit report or credit history under specified circumstances; authorizing an applicant or employee to bring an action for injunctive relief, damages, or other relief for a violation of a specified provision of law; etc.

Part of the concern on the part of state to prohibit credit reports for employment consideration is in relation to the economic downturn.  It is no secret that the tanked economy has caused many a job applicant credit to head south.   Applicants have been denied jobs because of poor credit.  Of that there is really no question.

While states wish to protect their citizens, to some extent they are denying rights to the employers.  An employer should have the right to review a credit report as this will help ascertain a job applicant’s behavior pattern, the way he or she manages money.  A discerning employer can make the distinction between someone with good credit who got into trouble due to extensive medical costs or a house turning sour in the real estate market and someone buying a car that was priced way over their salary range.

While it is a difficult economy and a competitive market for the employment candidate, it is also a tough economy and highly competitive for the employer.  The last thing an employer needs is to hire a desultory employee, someone who out of desperation is prone to steal or utilize sensitive and proprietary data for his or her own benefit.   It happens.  In fact, it happen frequently enough to be of some concern.

States should reconsider these laws.  To prohibit employers to conduct credit reports as preemployment background checks can cause obstacles that would result in financial loss and public embarrassment.   And then there is a matter of added bookkeeping,  setting up the salary schedule so the employee’s credits get their due.   There may be no easy answer.   In any case this issue bears further scrutiny before these bills are rushed into law.