Background Checks - Are They Really Accurate?
There has been an explosive growth in background checks conducted by employers, since 09/11, on applicants and, more recently, current employees. All to often, however, employers who are looking to skimp on price may find that the report is inaccurate or incomplete or that the company was sloppy in its collection of information. This article in the Christian Science Monitor describes some of these problems.
So who is doing background checks and what are they finding? According to the article, approximately 80% of employers now conduct some sort of background check. The results of these checks are interesting. According to one survey, 41.6% had motor vehicle violations, 39% had bad credit, 26% had discrepancies on their resumes, 8% had criminal records, 8.2% had inaccuracies about their education and 3.3% tested positive for illegal drugs.
The article reminds us that not all is so rosy in the industry. Often, I suggest that you get what you pay for. So many times I have seen background screens come back with questionable flags only because the company failed to verify or continue to search for accurate information. It's the automated process of searching potentially inaccurate public record databases, human error or just plain negligence on the part of the screening company. Much of this is caused by employers who don't want to spend the money to work with a reputable firm upon whose results they can rely.
Lest we also forget that the FACT Act also applies to background checks conducted by third parties. There is a link on the sidebar on the left for more information. In addition, see one of my previous posts on this subject here.