On Saturday, the Fort Worth Star Telegram published an article attempting to explain the weaknesses in the database-driven background checks used by many non-profit organizations.  The article does a fair job of explaining the problems with so-called national background checks, even though the article severely misquoted me.

The Decision of the Day Blog has an interesting note about a 3rd Federal Circuit decision affirming an employer's right to use an applicant's criminal history in making employment related decisions.

The district court granted summary judgment for SEPTA, and the Third Circuit cautiously affirms. The Court explains that employers face a high hurdle in justifying these hiring policies. The employer must have a good justification for excluding felons, and the policy should not be broader than necessary to accomplish these goals.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram reports that the family of a 77-year old Alzheimers' patient is alleging that she was raped by a man hired to sit with her. The sitter turned out to be a registered sex offender.

The family is suing both the company that placed Michael Anthony Gilbert, who was registered as a sex offender with the State of Texas, with the patient and the background screening firm that conducted the flawed background check. According to the plaintiff's original petition, which includes Gilbert's employment application and his background check, the criminal background check was limited to a search of the records in a private criminal records database.

This should be yet another wake up call for our profession.

These words make many screening firm managers’ blood run cold. The phone call brings a raft of questions. Did we make an error on a report? Am I about to be on the receiving end of an undeserved berating because our report was correct? Why haven’t I delegated these calls to someone else?

Of all the responsibilities ascribed to consumer reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, responding to consumer disputes is perhaps the most underappreciated. From the initial agitated call from the consumer to the final notice of the results of the reinvestigation, this process offers a screening firm a host of opportunities to turn lemons into lemonade.

Not-for-profit organizations, particularly those serving vulnerable populations, are increasingly becoming aware of the need to better screen their employees, volunteers, and, in some cases, those they serve. While this sector is an obvious market for background investigations, many screening firms fail to properly understand and educate their not-for-profit clients.

My firm’s experience has been that not-for-profit organizations are often among the best intentioned but least prepared firms when it comes to due diligence. In many ways, they are not significantly different from our business clients in sensitive market sectors.