Month: July 2010

I suppose this comes under the category of kids don’t try this at home.   Even in the era of do it yourself, or DIY as it is more commonly known,  conducting in-house background searches can lead to awkward issues.    Attorney, Lester Rosen, points out some of the possible mishaps resulting from in-house background checks in his recent blog on Toolbox for Hr.   He entitled his article, appropriately enough,  The Dangers of Do-It-Yourself Background Checks.

Rosen points out to a variety of complications when you conduct in-house background checks.  Among them are the issues arising from Fair Credit Reporting Act or FCRA compliance standards.   If your Human Resources Managers and support staff are not  fully aware of the FCRA compliance standards, and most are not, certain liability concerns may result.  Rosen also sites education form, meaning when an employment candidate  claims to have graduated from a college or university that is little more than a diploma mill.   These are scam colleges that award diplomas for a few hundred bucks based on “life experience.”   Just what you need.

Rosen does point out the possible benefits of conducting reference verifications in-house.   Arguably, the person conducting the reference verifications would be more aware of the skill sets required of the job applicant and be able to direct questions to the reference source accordingly.

In all, a good article with valid arguments.

Just remember, whether it be a do-it-yourself system or a third party provider, when it comes to employment, check them out before you hire.

Many Department of Motor Vehicles in the different states are going through their changes.  As the request for motor vehicle driving records increases, both as background check for preemployment screening programs and to meet compliance standards for the Department of Transportation, many state DMV’s are either raising prices or adjusting the information they will provide.

In the case of PennDot, which oversees the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles, it has long been established the agency requires that any employer requesting the driving records for one of its employees must have the employee fill out PennDot’s proprietary release and consent form.   Driving records are then returned in about eight business day.   However, if the employer should establish a sub-account, perhaps one through a designated agent, like Corra Group, then it is possible to turnaround the MVR in a couple, few hours.   It may take a few weeks to establish the sub-account through PennDot, but if you are ordering a number of MVRS as  either background checks or as part of meeting DOT standards, then the sub-account  is both cost effective and much more convenient.

When employers have wished to obtain current driving record information, they would often submit the same consent form on their driver as they had, previously.   But now PennDot has established a prescribed time frame where the consent form must have been filled out an signed within the past three months.  Otherwise, the employer is required to obtain a new consent form from the the driver or employee.

So please be aware of this change in your ability to obtain MVRs through PennDot and Pennsylvania.

New PennDOT Requirements for Driver History Releases The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation now requires that all releases for driver histories must be signed and dated by the driver no more than 3 months before receipt by PennDOT.  PennDOT will no longer accept signed driver releases that have a signature dated past 3 months.

E-Verify is an essential background check for any company that is working as a federal contractor.  As of  September 8th, 2009, it is mandatory that anyone serving as a federal contractor or in some cases as a state contractor, must conduct I-9 or E-Verify Background Checks on any of its hires.  With E-Verify, the employer may not use thee service as a pre-employment background check but must first offer the applicant the job and then conduct the I-9 to assure the applicant is eligible to work in the United States.

I have written about the E-Verify and I-9 a number of times, especially with regard to its significance in vetting ineligible or undocumented workers and how the search is essential for federal contractors.  One such article is entitled, E-Verify in Effect for Government Contractors September 8th.  Straightforward enough,  I would think.

E-Verify has recently revised the I-9 form.   Each employer is required to fill out the new MOU or Memorandum of Understanding.  For your convenience, Corra Group has posted the new E-Verify Memorandum of Understanding on its Website.   The new MOU form expires August 30th, 2012.

We suggest everyone also read the memorandum I have posed below.

Memorandum

TO: Web Services E-Verify Emnjeyer Agents

FROM: Howard W. McMillan Am^Al^. I 6 t(r

Chief, Verification Division

U.S Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

SUBJECT: Notification of Significant E-Verify Program Enhancements

The Verification Division, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of

Homeland Security, is responsible for the operation of the E-Verify program. Accordingly, the

Verification Division periodically implements enhancements to improve E-Verify. On June 14,

2010, E-Verify implemented the following enhancements:

• A new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Web Services E-Verify Employer

Agents (formerly known as Designated Agents) – The MOU provides new guidance on the

specific responsibilities of Web Service E-Verify Employer Agents. As a result, all E-Verify

Employer Agents are required to complete the new MOU. You should return the signed copy

of the MOU signature page by August 06, 2010. Failure to return the requested information

by that time could result in loss of access to E-Verify.

To submit the signature page, you can:

1) Fax it to (202) 443-0215. You should include your Company ID number on the upper

left hand corner of the signature page. Additionally, you should include a cover sheet

with your company’s name, address and contact information, or

2) Scan and email it to DAsupport@dhs.gov. You should include your Company ID

number, company name, address and contact information in the email. The subject

heading for the email should be MOU recertifieddon for E-Verify Weh Services.

• Improvements to the 3-day Rule – If you are unable to create a case within 3-days of hire,

E-Verify will prompt the user to enter the reason for the delay. As a result, employers will

no longer be required to note the reason for delay on the employee’s Form 1-9.

• New Audit Trail for Tentative Nonconfirmation (TNC) Notices and Referral Letters –

E-Verify will record when the user prints the TNC Notice or Referral Letters.

www.uscis.gov

Notification of Significant E-Verify Program Enhancements Page 2

• Updates to terminology in the Social Security Administration (SSA) and DHS TNC and

Referral Letters

• New Case Closure Process – When closing a case, users will be prompted by a wizard to

answer a question that will determine which closure codes can be selected by the user.

• New Closure Codes — The closure code language has been simplified to improve user

understanding and case closure accuracy.

• Improvements to the reasons for a Social Security Administration (SSA) TNC – The

language describing the reasons for the SSA TNC has been updated so that they are easily

understood.

All new enhancements are documented in the attached Web Services Interface Control Document

(ICD) V21. Please ensure that you have updated your system interface to these new

specifications no later than December 17, 2010. Failure to update by this date could result in loss

of access to E-Verify,

We appreciate your commitment to the E-Verify program by ensuring that your system is up-todate

with the applicable technical changes identified in the latest ICD. If you have any questions

regarding business processes or policies related to E-Verify, please call USCIS at 1-888-464-

4218. If you require technical support or need a copy of the latest ICD, please send your request

to VISWcbServices.test(a),csc.com

www.uscis.

In but one more case of things falling through the cracks, it has been discovered by the California Board of Registered Nursing  that some 3,500 of its nurses have been punished for misconduct by other states — hundreds even had their licenses revoked — while maintaining clean licenses in California.  So essentially what these means for sanctioned nurses, if you have trouble finding a job in other states,then come to California.   thirty-Five hundred nurses that have been disciplined in other states is no small number.

As the joint report from the Los Angeles Times and Pro Publica indicated, certain healthcare staffing agencies often conduct shoddy background checks, or they do not run background checks at all.  When the staffing agencies or responsible recruiting partners do actually run the background checks, then the responsible personnel does not thoroughly review the returned background searches.   In some cases,  databases and information provided by the sanctioning bodies has not been updated, and healthcare  workers who really shouldn’t be employed go on to find jobs.  In California.  And presumably elsewhere.   One has to believe that healthcare workers sanctioned in other states may find work in fresh states, meaning states where they haven’t worked previously.  An odd concept that nurses and healthcare workers say one step ahead of the disciplinary actions, but that is often how it works.

I have blogged about this issues a number of times.   One such article is entitled, Suspect Caregivers Missed on Healthcare Sanctions Background Checks.   According to the new article in the Los Angeles Times, the California Board of Registered Nursing has discovered these 3,500 odd nurses with prior disciplinary activity.   This activity can range from past criminal records to drug abuse issues or being on the sex offenders registry.     Past infractions can also refer to the nurses and healthcare workers abusing or robbing the elderly or abusing the young.   There are also the issues of professional neglect and general misconduct while on the job.

According to the Times article,California reviewed its list of 376,000 active and inactive nurses against a database maintained by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.  This list consists of disciplinary actions take by the different states.   All states report their disciplinary actions on a voluntary basis.   Some nurses matched up and had beendisciplined by multiple states, sometimes for the same incident.

According to the Times article,m California’s nursing board never bothered  checking to see if its nurses had been disciplined in other states. Until late 2008, the state did not require nurses, when renewing their licenses, to even make this disclosure. . The board checked their records against the national council’s database of disciplinary actions only when the nurses first applied for a California license. Board President Ann Boynton said the board now plans to pay the national council to run  background checks of California nurses on a quarterly basis.

You would think there would be a better background checking system for healthcare personnel.   These are people entrusted with caring for our ill, our frail, our young, and our elderly.  You cannot have them abusing drugs and alcohol or perceiving their patients as easy prey to rob and abuse.   such behavior not only speaks ill of the healthcare industry in general, but of our society as a whole.

Background checks need to be conducted on a periodic basis.  These background checks need to be thoroughly reviewed before healthcare workers can start at their new job.  Otherwise, we are flirting with potential disaster.