The Source - EBI's Knowledge Center

Yahoo Becomes The Latest Victim Of Education Fraud

Tweet

 

On Sunday May 13^th 2012, Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson resigned as CEO of the search engine giant after growing pressure from angry shareholders for embellishing his education credentials.  Mr. Thompson stated that he earned a bachelor’s degree in accounting and computer science from Stonewall College, where he actually only obtained an accounting degree.  In fact, Stonewall College did not even offer computer science degrees until 1983 after Mr. Thompson graduated in 1979.  Certainly a huge blunder on Mr. Thompson’s part as he was only CEO at Yahoo since January of 2012 and came with much experience such as past President of PayPal, EVP of Technology Solutions at Inovant, a subsidiary of Visa, and even held the role of CIO at Barclays Global Investors.  Surely Mr. Thompson had the background and employment experience to do great things at Yahoo.  Now Yahoo finds itself in the middle of a national media storm along with the huge burden of damage control for their brand.  The expensive task of replacing Mr. Thompson lies ahead for Yahoo and the task that will be even harder is to restore shareholder confidence.  Mr. Thompson is not alone in embellishing his education credentials as other corporate executives and even employees in academics have been exposed.

• In April, 2007, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) received an anonymous tip questioning the academic history of the Dean of Admissions, Marilee Jones.  The investigation resulted in Ms. Jones’ resignation and the surprising discovery that she, in fact, did not have college degrees (bachelor’s or masters) from any of the schools she had listed on her resume.  Ms. Jones had received a bachelor’s degree from a small school, The College of Saint Rose in Albany, NY, but had never listed that school on her resume.  MIT never verified any of Ms. Jones’ degrees when she was hired as an administrative assistant in 1979.
• In 2006, David Edmondson, CEO of RadioShack, resigned after executives discovered that he had falsely claimed two degrees from a Baptist college in California.
• In 2001, George O'Leary’s Irish dreams ended within one week of being hired as head football coach when Notre Dame discovered, and Mr. O’Leary admitted, that his resume was false.  He had neither earned a master’s degree from New York University (NYU) - Stoney Brook nor played football at the University of New Hampshire.  Mr. O’Leary had been coaching for many years and no one thought to ever question the veracity of the information on his resume.
• Ronald Zarrella, CEO of Bausch & Lomb, boasted a master's degree in business administration from NYU, which he did attend but never graduated.  Mr. Zarrella was forced to forfeit a $1.1 million dollar bonus; however, remained at the firm.

What Employers Need To Learn About Education Fraud From Executives
Many employers overlook the proper due diligence of academic credentials of senior executives.  Corporate boards and even senior management seem to let their guards down when it comes to verifying prior academic credentials at this level.  Most executives are judged by their prior work performance and accomplishments they leave behind with their previous employers.  They only assume that the academic credentials candidates provide must be true and surely verified by previous employers.  Maybe corporate boards are just embarrassed to ask for verification of something they feel is pretty trivial or insignificant after several years of a work experience.  Many times, prior lies and embellishments go undetected for that very reason as many executives work up through the ranks and education credentials were not part of the hiring criteria for the position sought at the time.  In addition, the trend of verifying credentials was not customary in the 70s, 80s or even early 90s when many of these individuals joined the workforce which let many embellishers slip through the cracks.  With today’s trend of increasing diploma mills and fraudulent online degree scams, employers are taking a second look at education verification and making the education credentialing process a mainstay in many positions. Proper verification up front can detect such fraud before an employee climbs the corporate ladder.  Just think, only a few dollars and a minimum amount of time could have eliminated every one of the scenarios described above.  Executives and leaders of every corporation need to be held to a higher standard as they’re the ambassadors of the corporate brand.  In many instances, they’re in the public eye and under much scrutiny from a variety of stakeholders.  Integrity and credibility are key when hiring an executive that is truly the icon and spokesperson hired to represent the company’s public image.

At Employment Background Investigations, Inc. (EBI), we urge employers to verify the legitimacy of a candidate’s education background and not to take a candidate’s, employee’s or even an executive’s supplied education credentials at face value.  Fraud is on the rise and employers need to take a proactive stance to properly vet their workforce.  EBI works on behalf of employers to properly verify a subject’s credentials.  Our experienced Verification Specialists take several steps to verify if a degree is from a legitimate institution.

EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education, news and resources around background screening, drug testing, occupational healthcare and employment eligibility.  All content provided by EBI is published for the convenience of its readers and should never be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Always consult your legal counsel for specific advice on local laws and industry regulations.

If you found this information useful, select the button listed below and access more industry news, resources and tips from EBI, an NAPBS Accredited screening firm and global leader in the background screening industry!

Updated Regulations Regarding CORI Reform Are Forthcoming

Tweet

 

On April 30^th 2012, EBI published an article that affects employers located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Specifically employers seeking criminal history information about applicants or employees who reside in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are subject to additional state Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) background check provisions that went into effect on May 4^th 2012.  It is EBI’s understanding that there will be further revisions to this regulation coming from the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) that should be finalized by May 11^th and published by May 25^th or June 25^th 2012.  We are still waiting for further clarification regarding these changes and will update our readers as information is published.

EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI will continue to update you on any further action or information available regarding this topic.

All information contained herein is provided by Employment Background Investigations, Inc. (EBI) and solely for the convenience of its clients and readers. EBI is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided within this post should be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Readers should consult with their own legal counsel to determine their legal responsibilities or if they have questions on any information provided by EBI.

EBI to Present At 2012 Gulf Coast Symposium on Human Resource Issues

Tweet

 

Employment Background Investigations, Inc (EBI) Chief Knowledge Officer, Robert Capwell, will present an education session at the Gulf Coast Symposium on Human Resource Issues in Houston, Texas on Wednesday, May 9^th at 3:45pm titled - Critical Employment Background Screening Resources for HR Professionals in Texas.

Discussion topics within Mr. Capwell's presentation will include searching criminal records and sex offender databases in the state, an overview of education and employment fraud, and using social media for employee screening.   Capwell’s presentation will also highlight the complexities of navigating state and EEOC regulations for proper compliance as well as following FCRA guidance when conducting employee background checks.  In light of the recent updates to the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records, Mr. Capwell will dedicate a portion of his session reviewing how these changes impact the employment decision-making process.

EBI’s Regulatory and Compliance Department is dedicated to working diligently on Capitol Hill and with other regulatory agencies to keep our clients informed about legislative and regulatory changes that affect our industry.  Richard Kurland, President and CEO, stated that, “It is EBI’s commitment to our industry and clients which guides us in providing essential information to ensure compliance within the screening process for HR professionals.”  The Gulf Coast Symposium on Human Resource Issues will be held May 9-10, 2012 at the Reliant Center in Houston, Texas.

EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI will continue to update you on any further action or information available regarding this topic.

The EEOC’s Recent Guidance on the use of Arrest and Conviction Records Leaves Questions for Employers

Tweet

 

In the wake of the EEOC’s 4-1 decision to approve the “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” employers are urged to take a fresh look at their application and assessment protocols when dealing with arrest and conviction information when making hiring-decisions.  Employers need to understand that the EEOC’s guidance does not prohibit the use of such information as part of their pre employment screening process; however, employers will need to take a much closer look at their procedures when inquiring about and assessing the use of arrest and conviction information as it relates to job-relatedness and business necessity.  The EEOC’s enforcement certainly comes with much ambiguity and leaves many unanswered question for employers. There will certainly be further questions and challenges from employers and interested stakeholders on proper use.  For now, employers can reference the “Enforcement Guidance” on the EEOC website along with a Q&A section available for employers.  The Enforcement Guidance also offers examples of individualized assessments that are consistent with meeting Title VII regulations.  “Section VIII. Employer Best Practices” also provides insight into general considerations, developing policy, questions regarding criminal records, and confidentiality of such information.  Industry experts have already started to weigh-in on the EEOC’s Guidance; please refer to the following document published by Seyfarth Shaw LLP., titled “How Should Employers Use Criminal History in Employment Now That The EEOC Has Issued Enforcement Guidance?” for further insight.

EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI will continue to update you on any further action or information available regarding this topic.

All information contained herein is provided by Employment Background Investigations, Inc. (EBI) solely for the convenience of its clients and readers. EBI is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided within this post should be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Readers should consult with their own legal counsel to determine their legal responsibilities or if they have questions on any information provided by EBI.

Additional Massachusetts CORI Reform Compliance Requirements Effective May 4, 2012

Tweet

 

Employers located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and employers seeking criminal history information about applicants or employees who reside in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are subject to additional state Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) background check provisions effective Friday, May 4, 2012. It is EBI’s understanding that this requirement applies to employers whether they obtain criminal offender record information directly from DCJIS or through another source - including county court searches. 

Commonly known as “CORI Reform,” Chapter 256 of the Acts of 2010 became law on November 4, 2010, making the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the second “ban the box” law state. Importantly, the CORI Reform provisions that become effective May 4, 2012 mandate stringent compliance requirements for employers who rely on criminal record information as a component of their employment decisions. 

The Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) is the agency responsible for administering the CORI Reform law and has issued 84 pages of Proposed Regulations that defining these new CORI Reform compliance requirements. The key elements of the proposed regulations include: 

• DCJIS will launch a new secure, web-based “iCORI” platform for accessing criminal history information on May 4, 2012. According to the DCJIS website, iCORI will become available on May 7, 2012. Currently certified agencies may continue to submit CORI requests through the Web-CORI system based on the certification previously issued to them. Please note that currently certified agencies will need to register for an iCORI account in order to utilize iCORI.
• New CORI registration requirements and training requirements require any employer who seeks access to iCORI to re-register for an iCORI account annually, and the employees with access to CORI information are required to complete mandatory iCORI training. Complete details pertaining to the iCORI registration are available at the DCJIS website.
• New CORI access levels and the criminal information correlating to each of the access levels has been re-defined. All employers may obtain “Standard Access” to CORI for the purpose of evaluating current and prospective employees, including full and part-time employees, contract employees, interns and volunteers. “Required Access” is restricted to employers required to comply with a particular statute, regulation, or accreditation requirement. Similarly to existing “certified” access, EBI will be “Open Access” is the third access level, and may be requested by any member of the public. Effective May 4, 2012, employers may continue to designate EBI to perform their CORI searches. Please contact EBI for additional details pertaining to this process.
• Employers who conduct five or more criminal background investigations per year must have a CORI Policy. The CORI law specifies a policy must include that the employer will: (a) notify the applicant if a potentially adverse decision may be made based on the criminal record information; (b) provide the applicant a copy of the criminal record information obtained and a copy of the employer’s criminal record policy; and (c) provide information concerning the process for the applicant to correct his or her criminal record. DCJIS is required to maintain a model CORI policy at the DCJIS website.
• The proposed regulations specify CORI Acknowledgement Form requirements before a CRA can request CORI on an employer’s behalf, the employer must: (a) notify the applicant in writing in a document consisting “solely” of such notice of its intent to obtain CORI, (b) provide the purpose for which the information is being requested, and (c) obtain the applicant’s written authorization to obtain this information. Employers should note the proposed regulations prohibit an employer from substituting a CORI Acknowledgement Form for the authorization required by the FCRA.
• The proposed regulations require the employer’s representative to sign and date the CORI Acknowledgment Form certifying that the subject was properly identified. The acknowledgment form is valid for one year from the signature date or until the subject’s employment ends, whichever occurs first. The proposed regulations limit the acceptable types of government-issued identification to include: (a) State-issued driver’s license, (b) State-issued identification card with a photograph,  (c) Passport, or; (d)Military identification.
• CORI Reform requires that the employer provide the applicant with a copy of the criminal history record prior to questioning an applicant about their criminal history. Additionally, if an employer chooses to take adverse action based on a criminal record, the employer must notify the applicant about the potential adverse decision and provide the applicant with: (a) copy of the applicant’s criminal record; (b) copy of the employer’s criminal background check policy; and (c) a state-specified document concerning the process for correcting a criminal record. This document is available at the DCJIS website.
• CORI Reform limits the dissemination of criminal information to individuals within the employer’s organization who have a need to review the information to evaluate the applicant or employee, and to certain governmental agencies charged with overseeing, supervising, or regulating the employer. If an employer disseminates criminal history information outside of its organization (i.e. staffing companies and recruiters), then it must maintain a secondary dissemination log for one year following the dissemination. The proposed regulations state the log should contain: (a) the subject’s name, (b) subject’s date of birth; (c) date of each dissemination; (d) name of the person to whom the information was disseminated; and, (c) the purpose of the dissemination.
• The CORI law states that certain information maintained by an employer with respect to CORI shall be subject to audit by DCJIS. Failure to cooperate or respond may result in immediate revocation of CORI access. During an audit, an employer is obligated to provide DCJIS with access to inspect certain CORI-related documents including:  (a) CORI acknowledgment forms; (b) secondary dissemination logs; (c) CORI policy; and (d) documentation of adverse employment decisions based on CORI. Certain violations of the CORI law can carry criminal sanctions for an individual or an entity, and a conviction for these crimes is punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year and/or a fine of not more than $5,000 for each offense.
• CORI Reform contains some protections for employers related to their use of and reliance on CORI records when the employer made an employment decision within 90 days of obtaining the criminal record information and followed the procedures for verifying the subject’s identity as required by the statute. 

Employers who may be subject to these new guidelines should consult with your legal counsel before implementing or revising their existing policies. We have prepared a more detailed summary of the proposed regulations, and this document is also available via EBI’s Customer Care Department at 800-324-7700 or customercare@ebiinc.com. As an additional resource, DCJIS has also published informative “Implementing CORI Reform” document to assist employers with complying with the new requirements.

EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI will continue to update you on any further action or information available regarding this topic.  

All information contained herein is provided by Employment Background Investigations, Inc. (EBI) and solely for the convenience of its clients and readers. EBI is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided within this post should be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Readers should consult with their own legal counsel to determine their legal responsibilities or if they have questions on any information provided by EBI.

Summary of EEOC’s Guidance on the use of Arrest and Conviction Records for Employment Purposes

Tweet

 

Over the past several months, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken a closer look at the use of arrest and conviction records when used for employment purposes.  The purpose of the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance is to consolidate and update previous EEOC guidance documents regarding the use of such information as not to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Guidance focuses on employment discrimination based on race and national origin and discusses the use of both arrest and conviction records.  The Guidance builds on the longstanding court decisions and existing guidance documents that the EEOC has issued over twenty years.  In light of an employer’s increased access to criminal history information, case law analyzing Title VII requirements for criminal record exclusions, and other developments, the Commission has decided to update and consolidate in this new Guidance all of its prior policy statements about Title VII and the use of criminal records in employment decisions.  Thus, this Enforcement Guidance will supersede the Commission’s previous policy statements on this issue.  The Commission intends for this Guidance to be used by employers considering the use of criminal records in their selection and retention processes.  You can obtain a complete copy of the Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the EEOC’s website.  There is also a link to a Q and A section on their website for additional information. 

Further information is also available through EBI’s partnership with Seyfarth Shaw LLP.  The firm has already published commentary and guidelines regarding the EEOC’s new enforcement.  You can reference this information by visiting their blog The EEOC Releases New Enforcement Guidance On Arrest and Conviction Records In The Hiring Process.   The following information is from the summary of the EEOC’s new Guidance. 

Summary of the EEOC Enforcement Guidance 

The Guidance discusses the differences between arrest and conviction records. 

• The fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred, and an exclusion based on an arrest, in itself, is not job related and consistent with business necessity. However, an employer may make an employment decision based on the conduct underlying an arrest if the conduct makes the individual unfit for the position in question. 
• In contrast, a conviction record will usually serve as sufficient evidence that a person engaged in particular conduct. In certain circumstances, however, there may be reasons for an employer not to rely on the conviction record alone when making an employment decision. 

The Guidance discusses disparate treatment and disparate impact analysis under Title VII.

• A violation may occur when an employer treats criminal history information differently for different applicants or employees, based on their race or national origin (disparate treatment liability)
• An employer’s neutral policy(e.g., excluding applicants from employment based on certain criminal conduct) may  disproportionately impact some individuals protected  under  Title  VII,  and  may  violate  the  law  if  not job  related  and business consistent with necessity (disparate impact liability).
• National data supports a finding that criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin. The national data provides a basis for the Commission to investigate Title VII disparate impact charges challenging criminal record exclusions.
• Two circumstances in which the Commission believes employers will consistently meet the “job related and consistent with business necessity" defense are as follows:
• The employer validates the criminal conduct exclusion for the position in question in light of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (if there is data or analysis about criminal conduct as related to subsequent work performance or behaviors); or
• The employer develops a targeted screen considering at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job (the three factors identified by the court in Green .v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 549 F.2d 1 158 (8th Cir. 1977)). The employer's policy then provides an opportunity for an individualized assessment for those people identified by the screen, to determine if the policy as applied is job related and consistent with business necessity. (Although Title VII does not require individualized assessment in all circumstances, the use of a screen that does not include individualized assessment is more likely to violate Title VII.).

Compliance with other federal laws and/or regulations that conflict with Title VII is a defense to a charge of discrimination under Title VII.

State and local laws or regulations are preempted by Title VII if they "purport” to require or permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful employment practice" under Title VII. 42 U.S.C.5 2000e-7.

The Guidance concludes with Best Practices for Employers.

Employment Background Investigations, Inc. (EBI) will provide additional information as it becomes available to employers.  Please refer to the complete text of the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance for additional information.  EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI will continue to update you on any further action or information available regarding this topic.  EBI is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided within this post should be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Readers should consult with their own legal counsel to determine their legal responsibilities or if they have questions on any information provided by EBI.

EEOC To Provide Guidance On The Use Of Criminal Records For Employment Purposes

Tweet

 

Over the past several months, Employment Background Investigations (EBI) has provided our clients and readers with updates and commentary regarding the EEOC’s focus on the use criminal records and credit history as it relates to background screening and the hiring process.  The EEOC has conducted several meetings regarding this matter and provided an opportunity for public comment after its July 26^th meeting in 2011.  EBI, along with the National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS) and other employer associations and stakeholders continue to lobby for the open and sensible use of criminal records and credit history information to enable employers to make informed hiring decisions.  Using such information can help guide employers, highlight the potential risks of workplace violence, negligent hiring and retention liability, and alert employers to potential risks of fraud, theft and embezzlement. 

On April 25^th, the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is expected to vote and release new enforcement guidance as it relates to the use of arrest and conviction records for employers.  This will be the Commission’s first policy statement since the ramp up of the Commission’s E-RACE initiative released in late 2008. 

On April 26^th, EBI’s legal partner and background screening legal expert, Pam Devata, from SeyFarth Shaw LLP, will be hosting a one hour FREE webinar on Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 2:30 pm EDT to provide a comprehensive analysis of the EEOC’s new guidance and provide employers with steps to take to help mitigate the risks and challenges with compliance under Title VII and the EEOC’s guidance. 

We hope you can join the webinar, please register below!

EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI will continue to update you on any further action or information available regarding this topic.  EBI is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided within this post should be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Readers should consult with their own legal counsel to determine their legal responsibilities or if they have questions on any information provided by EBI.

The Real Story Behind Getting A GED In America – Is It Real or Fake?

Tweet

 

With the United States still at a slow pace to economic recovery, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there are approximately 12.3 million Americans still out of work.  The 2000 Census figures tell us that anywhere from 11% to 27% of Americans over the age of 25 don't have a high school diploma.  During this time, many Americans are searching for ways to better their lives, educate themselves and look for ways to be more competitive in the job-market.  Many are using this time for continued education or as an opportunity to obtain a General Equivalency Degree (GED).  Certainly with today’s Internet resources, consumers are overcome by online advertisements for continuing education.  A quick Internet search will unveil hundreds of firms which provide limited or no course work, life experience degrees or the opportunity to earn your GED online.  Many of these firms provide no education value and a worthless piece of paper for huge fees.  Today, traditional brick and mortar education has certainly expanded well beyond the borders of a school’s geographic boundaries and online education has become the norm for many Americans.  For consumers, you can’t let your guard down by becoming mesmerized by the ease of signing up for online instruction or the option of obtaining a GED online.  There are hundreds of companies that offer GED help online, evening or weekend classes, and even provide a practice test for a hefty fee.  Certain companies even go as far as to state that their GED practice exam is accepted by employers as an alternative to actually taking the nationally standardized and accepted exam.  Many of these firms are fraudulent and offer nothing more than a fake piece of paper for an outrageous fee.

What You Need To Know About GEDs
The tests of General Educational Development were developed in 1942 to certify that an individual achieved academic skills at a high school level even when they did not graduate from high school. GEDs were originally used to test veterans of World War II to determine whether returning GIs were qualified to attend higher education institutions. All 50 states and the District of Columbia use GED Tests as a basis for awarding high school equivalency credentials.

Currently, a General Equivalency Degree, General Education Diploma, General Education Development program or (GED), as many of us know it, is governed and managed by the American Council on Education (ACE).   Although advertised differently by online fraudsters, a GED exam cannot be taken online and must be taken at one of the approved 3,400 test center locations worldwide. You can actually take a practice test online through the ACE website for a nominal fee of $10; however, it’s only practice.  An official GED exam focuses on testing in five areas of study which includes:  Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, and Language Arts (Reading and Writing) which you must score a minimum score of 410 under each section to pass (depending upon state requirements) and you can also retest under each section.  Check your state of residence for more specifics.  Each state has its own jurisdiction’s GED testing administrator that manages the process and offers testing centers throughout its jurisdiction.  States even have several free online education resources, free classroom education, and free practice testing options.  You don’t need to pay an online firm an exorbitant fee to obtain further education or qualifications to obtain a government recognized GED.  Sates even have many nuances to qualify for taking the exam and also a fee to take the test.  For example:  The state of Pennsylvania’s GED program is administered by the PA Department of Education and requires you to be 18, a resident of the state, a $40-$60 fee, and you may not have received a high school degree or be currently enrolled in a post-secondary education program.  If you are under 18, you may be required to provide a letter that you have withdrawn from school.  You may also be required to provide a letter from an employer stating that you must pass a GED to be considered for employment or to be eligible for the Armed Services.  You will also be required to provide necessary documentation to prove your identity to take the test.  The state of California offers the California High School Proficiency Exam (CHSPE) for approximately $150 and students who pass receive a Certificate of Proficiency from the state of California.  The exam is very similar to the GED standardized test and a CHSPE degree is the legal equivalent to a California high school diploma. 

Spotting A Fake GED
Employers should never take a certificate/diploma provided by an applicant at face value.  There are numerous resources for creating fake GED certificates or any type of diploma online.  Just go to “Diplomas and More” and you have four different diploma styles to choose from.  Certificates are frame-ready, have authentic looking paper, and even come with a raised seal for around $60.  You can even order your transcript on authentic looking security paper to complete the set.  Obtaining a copy of the applicant’s degree certificate and transcript is great for your files; however, what you need is the proper information to actually verify the degree.  To verify an applicant’s GED, have them provide the following information:

• Complete name used when the GED was received.
• Date when the GED was received.
• State where the GED was issued.
• Test center location (maybe required for certain states).
• The applicant’s DOB or SSN may also be required for verification.
• Certificate # may be required for certain states.
• A signed release or a small fee may also be requirement of the agency for verification.

Be wary of applicants that supply limited information or provide a website or (800) # to verify their degree.  Especially applicants that state they received their GED online.  Many online fraudsters provide this information for further authentication and an agent may be on-hand to corroborate the information provided by the applicant.  Only a state or governing agency can verify its authenticity.  Diploma mills may even create a fake government agency to support the fraud and verification process.  You will probably need to do some digging around to find the right agency and contact information to truly verify a GED.  Background screening firms typically database this information and track the process for verifying each jurisdiction to expedite the process and keep lists of fraudsters.

By incorporating a solid education verification program, employers can properly credential their candidates and verify the level of education that is required for certain positions.  Spotting employee dishonesty up front will help weed out bad hires before they are part of your workforce.  Employment Background Investigations (EBI) works with employers globally to provide a full range of comprehensive and legally compliant employment background check, drug testing, occupational healthcare and electronic form I-9 solutions.  Our "Just One Solution" suite of services will help reduce the risks and liabilities of a bad hire!  

EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this document should be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Readers should consult with their own legal counsel to determine their legal responsibilities or if they have questions on any information provided by EBI.

Background Checks For Retailers – Is The Focus On Sex Offenders Enough?

Tweet

 

A 2011 survey conducted by the National Retail Federation (NRF) reminds us all as to the importance of background checks and drug testing to the retail industry.  Executives representing department/big box stores, discount, drug, grocery, restaurant and specialty retailers that responded to the survey revealed some interesting statistics and potential gaps in overall background screening tools used by retailers.  Nearly all retailers polled (96.6%) utilized background screening as part of their application/hiring process on either a pre-hire or post-offer basis.  Retailers continue to take a selective approach to screen by job title; however, should conduct more in-depth screening on positions where there is higher risk to the public or safety, or greater risk of theft, fraud or embezzlement.  The survey reveals the use of the following screening components by retailers: criminal checks, SSN Trace, Sex Offender Registries, Motor Vehicle Records, Credit Reports, Education Verification, Drug Testing, and Mutual Association databases. 

Let's focus on the breakdown of the use of criminal record checks and also the use of sex offender registries as revealed by the survey.  Criminal record checks are defined as searches of government and public record sources to uncover any prior criminal history that could come from a variety of local, state and national sources.  The survey does not get into specifics on what sources are used; however, a thorough criminal background screening program should be conducted using multiple sources.  Sex offender registries referenced within the study refers to registries that are maintained by individual state and other local jurisdictions.  The study reveals a large disparity between the use of criminal record checks and sex offender searches within retail background checks.

Here is a breakdown by job function and use of these two background screening components as stated by the survey respondents:

The background check focus on conducting criminal record checks continues to be high across all job classifications identified within the survey; however, the concentration on searching sex offender information is just over 50%.  This is an astonishing statistic considering the high level of contact retail employees have with the general public and concerns about sexual predators.  For retailers in the clothing industry, fitting rooms, storage areas and close contact with customers is always a high rate of concern.  Retailers that provide extended store hours or late night services may provide an environment with limited staff or customers that could pose heightened dangers and areas of increased concern.   Safety and security risks in retail are even higher when dealing with children or vulnerable classes.  Retailers that provide home delivery, door-to-door sales, or in-home services are at an even higher risk.  The search of all state sex offender registries is a must for retailers.  I’m not advocating that retailers discount sex offenders as potential employees, as each employer must consider the particulars of the offense, time-line since the offense occurred and how it relates to the position applied for, corporate policy, along with federal and state laws governing usage.  There are actually a few states that prohibit employers from using such information to make a hiring decision or to discriminate against sex offenders.  Sex offender registry information should be used responsibly and as a research tool to find the specifics of the criminal act behind the registration.  Additional research will also ensure you have the right individual as only a limited amount of subject identifiers may be available on a public site.  This can only be done by searching criminal records within the court where the case originated or where the final disposition was recorded.  You must have a complete understanding of the particulars of the case that resulted in the sex offender registration.   Employers should always know all the facts around each criminal case and assess each on an individual basis along with a thorough understanding of individual state laws around proper use.  Always consult your legal counsel for proper use and to develop a legally compliant policy.

By incorporating a solid screening program, retailers can assess, screen and credential their applicants and employees and alleviate the overwhelming cost, risks and liabilities that theft, fraud, embezzlement and workplace violence bring into the workplace.  Employment Background Investigations (EBI) works with retailers globally to provide a full range of comprehensive and legally compliant employment background check, drug testing, occupational healthcare and electronic form I-9 solutions.  Our "Just One Solution" suite of services will help reduce the risks and liabilities of a bad hire!  EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this document should be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Readers should consult with their own legal counsel to determine their legal responsibilities or if they have questions on any information provided by EBI.

Are Your Employees Embezzling From You?

Tweet

 

Motivating Factors of Embezzlers
The study revealed that there are several motivating factors used by perpetrators to rationalize their actions which included: belief of entitlement; financial need; lavish lifestyle; gambling issues; shopping addiction; substance abuse; or the need to support a personal business or significant other.  Of the cases studied, over 58% of embezzlers rationalized their actions by way of excessive greed or the desire to live a more lavish lifestyle.  Gambling was the second highest key factor as 21% of the cases studied were attributed to gambling issues.  Over 7% of embezzlers were motivated by the need to finance a personal business, and the fourth highest category was substance addiction which equated to over 5% of the cases studied. 

Methods of Embezzlement and Position Held
Employees continue to steal from their employers using several different methods of fraud.  Although some perpetrators used multiple methods and schemes, the study breaks down the following key categories and rates them as a percentage of total dollars lost.  The use of forged/unauthorized checks is certainly the number one method used for fraud as embezzlers cut unauthorized checks for the benefit of the perpetrator.  Theft of cash is a close second as a wide range of employees from each category may have access to cash.  The following is a breakdown by theft scheme:

Over the past four years, the study has analyzed the types of employee theft schemes and also the position of the perpetrator within the company.  Employees with fiduciary and accounting responsibilities, such as CFOs, bookkeepers and bank tellers, continue to have the biggest link to employee theft and fraud.  Of the study, over 72% of fraudulent acts came from employees with a position within the financial category.  The following is a breakdown of category types and their relationship to overall employee theft and fraud. 

Embezzlers with Prior Criminal History
Of the 473 cases studied, 23 perpetrators or 5% had engaged in prior criminal activity or fraud.  According to Marquet International, this figure is consistent with prior studies; however, the report underscores that this figure is estimated to be between 5%-10% as information to prior criminal activity was not readily available and not all criminal matters were prosecuted. 

The following criminal statistics were derived from the information that was gathered from the 23 perpetrators as stated above: 

• 78% of criminals held financial positions
• 91% of criminals were solo embezzlers
• 70% of prior criminals were female
• 57% of prior criminals employed a forged/unauthorized check scheme

Curbing Embezzlement in Your Organization
Unfortunately, there is no simple antidote to eradicating employee theft and embezzlement; however, employers can take a proactive stance in curbing many of the methods used within their organization.  The use of duel signatures on checks; tighter access to cash receipts and credit cards; inventory audits; tighter security and risk management protocols can certainly help.  In addition, the knowledge of your employees’ criminal past or financial security can provide key warning signs for future risk.  By incorporating a comprehensive due diligent background screening program, a company can properly assess potential candidates and screen current employees on an ongoing basis to look for potential risk factors. 

Applicant Fraud May Be a Sign of Things to Come from a New Employee
Let’s face it, fraud and embezzlement can start even before your employee is part of your workforce.  Job applicants commit acts of fraud right on their resume or job application.  If a candidate is willing to commit fraud at this stage, how can they be trusted when they’re an employee?  All of an applicant’s information should be carefully scrutinized and verified before it’s taken at face value.  Here are few acts of fraud that every employer should be aware of: 

• Listing fake companies as part of their resume or job application
• Stretching dates of employment to cover-up negative job references
• Inflating prior job titles, duties or responsibilities
• Leaving unexplained gaps in employment
• Lying about termination status or reason for leaving a previous employer
• Lying about previous wage information to gain additional income
• Lying about education history or degrees awarded 

Beyond verifying a candidate’s credentials, here are additional areas that employers need to consider as part of a comprehensive due diligence strategy to help detect and deter potential embezzlers:  

County/State/National Criminal Records Search
The use of a comprehensive criminal history search in all areas where a candidate has lived, worked or even attended school will help detect prior misdemeanor and/or felony criminal history of fraud, theft and embezzlement.  National criminal database information can be used to help fill in the gaps. 

County Civil Records
Civil records should be searched to help uncover prior county level civil proceedings as they relate to suits, judgments, liens, and can uncover prior fraudulent acts. 

Federal Criminal and Civil Records
Federal records include criminal complaints brought by the U.S. government against defendants for violation of federal criminal law.  Crimes such as bank robbery, embezzlement, drug trafficking, crimes committed across state-lines, or even tax evasions are examples of these offenses. 

Credit History
Credit reports can provide insight into a candidate’s stability and trustworthiness for a specific position.  Credit reports should be considered for employees with financial responsibilities, accounting functions, entrusted with corporate credit or debit or dealing with cash.  Credit reports may also divulge other public records information such as bankruptcy or other public records.  Credit reports should never be used to discriminate against a candidate or used in violation of state laws. 

Drug Testing
Pre-employment and on-going drug testing can help spot drug abusers and the potential for risks and liabilities they bring into the workplace.  As stated in this study, substance abusers have the potential to commit acts of fraud or theft to help finance their addictive habits. 

Ongoing Screening
Employers should also consider ongoing screening as personal, financial and criminal history information related to each employee changes on an on-going basis.  Negative or derogatory information obtained early could be warning signs for potential fraud or embezzlement.

By incorporating a solid screening program, employers can assess, screen and credential their applicants and employees and alleviate the overwhelming cost, risks and liabilities that theft and embezzlement bring into the workplace.  Employment Background Investigations (EBI) works with employers globally to provide a full range of comprehensive and legally compliant employment background checks, drug testing, occupational healthcare and electronic form I-9 solutions.  Our "Just One Solution" suite of services will help reduce the risks and liabilities of a bad hire!  EBI is committed to providing employers with valuable education and resources on changing legislation and cutting-edge and compliant solutions to meet federal, state, local and international mandatory requirements.  EBI is not providing legal advice or counsel and nothing provided on this document should be deemed as legal guidance or advice.  Readers should consult with their own legal counsel to determine their legal responsibilities or if they have questions on any information provided by EBI.