You are here: Home / Archives for criminalhc

Trying Times Due to COVID-19 Greatly Impacts Landlords and Tenants

April 23, 2020 By

COVID19 continues to spread across the world and the impact on renters and landlords is immediate and significant. Layoffs and loss of income continues to impact society as a whole and renters dramatically; and the subsequent impact on the ability to pay rent has greatly impacted landlords and property managers.

Loss of income due to COVID 19 will greatly effect both landlords and tenants. Civic leaders at all levels of society are struggling with the impact of COVID 19 on society as a whole as well as with renters who have faced sudden loss in income; and continue to scramble for ways to assist those in need.

Millions of people are finding themselves out of work due to COVID 19. As non-essential companies have been shut down workers lose jobs and income dries up. Without a steady income many people are struggling with rent and across the country civic leaders are attempting to assist those in need.

From JD Supra (Mar. 19, 2020):

Notably, other localities have suspended all evictions, including the cities of San Francisco and Seattle and states like New York. jdsupra.com/legalnews/covid-19-update-for-landlord-industry-78234/

Eviction pauses continue across the country.

From CNN.com (Mar. 16, 2020):

Under most of the suspensions, property owners can’t issue new eviction notices, and existing ones can’t be executed. Many courts, like in Chicago’s Cook County, have already shuttered for weeks, so eviction hearings have been paused, too.

Most of the suspensions last up to 30 days. Boston’s could last for as long as three months. cnn.com/2020/03/16/us/cities-suspend-evictions-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

Without question the COVID 19 outbreak has caused enormous challenges to daily routines. Work from home, no school, social distancing, and paying rent: all have an impact. And when a job is lost the challenge of paying rent becomes significant.

A best practice is to talk to your landlord or property manager about your inability to pay the rent and some landlords will work with you directly to come up with a temporary solution. This should be a first option.

As the COVID 19 crisis has affected nearly every single sector of the economy, with an impact not felt since World War II, landlords and property managers should be accommodating.

Tenants should talk to their landlords, especially now as relief benefits from the federal government may not kick in for a few weeks.

As the country continues to maneuver through the current COVID 19 crisis people will still need to rent properties and landlords will need to conduct tenant screening. And a best practice for landlords and/or property managers is to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency in order to remain in compliance with local, state, and federal changes in laws governing tenant screening as well as short-term executive orders.

To learn more about how COVID 19 has impacted the rental marketplace and what government entities are doing to help assist those in need read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: COVID19 Creates Trying Times for Rentals and Landlords

Filed Under: Tenant Screening

West Virginia Crushes New Ban-the-Box Legislation

April 2, 2020 By

The Government of West Virginia just proved it is NOT always instant legislative passage when it comes to passing ban-the-box laws. The Government of West Virginia recently killed a ban-the-box bill and it was the Republicans that did it. Even though such laws have been enacted by many jurisdictions across the country that doesn’t mean it is a guarantee to pass into law.

Many opponents of ban-the-box legislation are still waiting on some hard evidence that these such laws do actually help those with a criminal past achieve gainful employment. Much more research is desperately needed to demonstrate specific statistics in order to prove that such laws are actually achieving what these ban-the-box laws are created to do. However, this process should still remind employers and hiring managers why they should ensure pre-employment background screening policies are current and compliant with law.

Hiring managers need to take note whenever a law governing the use of criminal background records are attempted, such as the recent action in West Virginia, and a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to remain compliant with existing law and aware of potential law.

The legislature in West Virginia recently went through an unsuccessful effort to implement Ban-the-Box legislation for all public agencies. Even when a legislative effort fails to implement a Ban-the-Box law, employers and hiring managers should take note and ensure existing policies are compliant with law.

Legislators in West Virginia recently attempted to enact a Ban-the-Box law that would force all public employers and agencies to ban the question of criminal history on applications. It explicitly dictates when the offer of employment can be made as well as when a background check that includes criminal history information can be conducted.

The movement behind eliminating criminal history from the employment application is to allow for greater access for employment from individuals with criminal histories.

From West Virginia’s Register-Herald on February 22, 2020 discussing the reasons behind Ban-the-Box in West Virginia:

Del. Sammi Brown, D-Jefferson, the bill sponsor, noted that criminal convictions are one symptom of the ongoing drug epidemic.

“It’s a public safety matter,” she said. “It’s a decreasing crime matter. It’s also getting folks back into the job force and making them fully capable and autonomous over their own lives, and you’re less likely to commit another crime if you’re gainfully employed. You’re less likely to go back into incarceration if you’re providing for yourself and your family, and we just want to give folks quality of life and dignity.” register-herald.com/news/state_region/w-va-committee-passes-ban-the-box-legislation-for-public/article_45660d6f-942b-52a4-87e3-21c3652a0659.html

But the push for Ban-the-Box legislation brings political challenges.

After introduction Republican’s killed the Ban-the-Box legislation.

From Register-Herald webpage on February 27, 2020:

Republicans in the West Virginia House of Delegates Rules Committee voted on Wednesday to kill a bill that would have prevented public employers from asking about a job applicant’s criminal history unless the applicant signed a waiver. register-herald.com/news/state_region/republicans-remove-ban-the-box-legislation-from-agenda/article_1e6a611b-c861-5b08-b986-ee5c7c4e6313.html

Employers and hiring managers should pay attention to all legislative action, even those that don’t pass into law. A best practice remains that all hiring managers and employers work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment screening agency to stay fully compliant with existing and potential laws governing the use of criminal history reports as a part of background screening.

Even with the failed effort in West Virginia Ban-the-Box legislation will continue to find its way into different jurisdictions throughout the country, however there will continue to be challenges to all legislative actions. At this point it is still a best practice for all hiring managers and employers to check their current policies and procedures on pre-employment screening to ensure compliance with law.

To read more about West Virginia’s failed attempt to pass ban-the-box legislation and why more research on the effectiveness of such laws needs to be done and why there are valid arguments to both sides read the recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Ban-the-Box Not Always Instant Legislative Passage, Employers Should Still Take Notice; Opines CriminalBackgroundRecords.com

Filed Under: background screening

New Potential Law in Idaho Could Expedite the Eviction Process, But Many Oppose it

March 26, 2020 By

2019 saw the State of Idaho attempting to introduce a new bill that would change how evictions are conducted, essentially speeding them up by combining the requirement of two lawsuits into a single lawsuit and substantially shortening the time for a tenant to react. The debate over HB138 continues and a recent op-ed in the Idaho Statesmen has reignited the conversation. Laws governing tenant screening, specifically the reports used as part of a tenant background check package, can change very quickly and a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency in order to remain fully compliant with existing and potential law.

HB 138 in Idaho remains contentious.

From the Idaho Statesmen opinion page on January 23, 2020:

Fair housing advocates are concerned that a bill that would have sped up the process for evictions in Idaho and narrowly failed in the House of Representatives last year will make a return this session.

The bill’s sponsors last year said it would have simplified the eviction process for landlords and added some new protections for renters.

Opponents of the bill, including the ACLU, see the legislation as simply giving landlords more leverage over renters in a state that some see as already one of the most landlord-friendly in the country. idahostatesman.com/opinion/from-the-opinion-editor/article239531633.html

With the rental values in Idaho spiking, especially around the Boise area, perception is that landlords are trying to evict lower value renters in order to obtain higher value renters. Some suggest that the new law may allow the opportunity for expedited evictions.

From the Idaho Statesmen from March 4, 2019:

The bill, HB 138, was introduced by the Idaho Apartment Association and would have changed the way landlords act against tenants who violate the terms of their lease or fail to pay rent. Current law forces a landlord to file two lawsuits to evict a tenant — one forcing the tenant to return the property to the landlord, the other to seek monetary damages.

The bill would have combined those lawsuits into one and reduce the maximum time for the eviction process to a month or less. Courts would be forced to schedule trials within 12 days. idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article227098164.html

Idaho shouldn’t be making it easier to evict people right now

Preventing eviction may be more cost effective than actual eviction. According to the Idaho Statesmen Opinion piece from January 23, 2019:

Preventing homelessness costs on average about $800 per client, Rabe said, but once a family becomes homeless, it costs up to $10,000 to re-house them, and each person experiencing homelessness costs over $53,000 annually in supportive and emergency services. , according to a study by Boise State University researcher Vanessa Fry. So an $800 investment in prevention pays off. idahostatesman.com/opinion/from-the-opinion-editor/article239531633.html

Rental housing will continue to be a challenge and tenant screening will always be a part of that conversation. A best practice remains for landlord and property managers to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency, in order to remain fully compliant with new and existing laws.

To learn more about the proposed expedited eviction law in Idaho and whether or not this gives too much power to landlords and if such a law was enacted would it increase homelessness read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Potential Idaho Law Expediting Evictions Could Become a Test Case for Other Areas of the Country; Opines TenantScreeningUSA.com

Filed Under: Tenant Screening

New Ban-the-Box Laws – But are they Working?

February 25, 2020 By

Another Ban-the-Box law gets enacted however some experts are suggesting that the purpose of these laws (to help those with criminal background records have a better chance at getting employed) may not be working.

Ban-the-Box is a legislative movement that governs when and if the question of criminal history can be asked of an individual applying for employment. Generally, an employment application will ask about criminal history and by checking the “box” the potential for discrimination against those that check the box is considered very high. Ban-the-Box laws are a method of decreasing discrimination and mandate the removal of the box. These laws also govern when the question of a criminal history can be discussed and, in some cases, whether it is a viable or legal question.

Over the last several years Ban-the-Box laws have spread across the country. A number cities, states, and businesses have implemented Ban-the-Box laws.

Most recently the city of St. Louis enacted their version of Ban-the-Box.

From JDSupra’s website on February 4, 2020:

The St. Louis Ban the Box Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) will restrict private employers in their ability to base hiring or promotion decisions on an applicant’s criminal history. Covered employers that violate the Ordinance could lose their business license and, thus, compliance in this jurisdiction is critical. Such restrictions are not new to the St. Louis area. Indeed, in 2014, St. Louis banned city offices from requiring job applicants to disclose felony convictions, unless the position required a criminal background check. And, in 2018, the St. Louis County Executive issued a similar executive order for county applicants. jdsupra.com/legalnews/st-louis-missouri-enacts-ban-the-box-22753/

Every time Ban-the-Box legislation is implemented hiring managers and HR Departments should make sure their application and pre-employment screening process and policy is fully compliant with law. A best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency.

JDSupra’s web post from February 4, 2020 adds:

Employers throughout the United States, and particularly multi-state employers, should continue to monitor developments in this and related areas of the law, including laws restricting the use of credit history information and fair credit reporting statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act. ibid

Third-party pre-employment screening agencies are a great source of information regarding local, state, and national laws governing the use of criminal record history in pre-employment background screening.

However, it should be noted that some experts see Ban-the-Box laws doing the exact opposite from what they are designed to do.

From the Lexology.com website on January 28, 2020:

…studies, and others, conclude that when employers are unable to find out about an applicant’s criminal history earlier in the hiring process, they assume the worst about African-American and other minority job candidates. Hiring managers may decide to avoid the hassle of potentially complying with ban the box laws by simply not considering these candidates. Therefore, these laws work to the disadvantage of individuals the law was designed to protect. lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d57b898e-3361-459e-9115-f38e5867c5fc

Undoubtedly laws governing background screening can change, and change quickly. HR Departments and hiring managers should focus on the law and how it may impact their pre-employment policies. At this point in time it is essential that more studies and research be done to prove the effectiveness of ban-the-box laws because if it is proven that these laws are hurting minorities and those with criminal background records gain employment then they should be retracted as that would defeat the whole point of it. Still either way it remains a best practice to work with a background screening agency in order to remain compliant with all laws governing pre-employment background screening.

To read more about the new ban-the-box legislation in St. Louis and why some experts are suggesting that these ban-the-box laws may be having the exact opposite effect as they are intended to have read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Ban the Box in the News!

Filed Under: background checks

Washington State Law in Housing May Lead to Concern and/or Confusion in Tenant Screening

February 11, 2020 By

Recent laws in Washington State regarding tenant screening may create concern for landlords and property managers as well as further confusion to the fair and lawful use of public records such as criminal background records as part of a tenant screening process. As cities and states wrestle with an on-going housing crisis, measures taken in an attempt to create easier entry to housing, especially for the poor and previously incarcerated, may create considerable challenges and concern for existing landlords.

Landlords and property managers in the state of Washington are facing increased challenges to tenant screening and the subsequent selection of tenants. Also, they face challenges in the ways to evict problem or bad tenants. Life has become more complicated for landlords and property managers in Washington.

From Fox News (foxbusiness.com; Dec 19, exact date not provided):

Most recently, the Supreme Court passed the city’s “First-in-Time” (FIT) ordinance in November, which requires landlords to approve the first qualified tenant who applies for a property.

FOX News correspondent Dan Springer said tenant groups say the FIT law will “level the playing field and wipe out property owners bias in the rental market” while landlords say the law “violates their century-old right to lease to the tenant of their choice.” The “Fair Chance Housing” ordinance, which prevents landlords from rejecting applicants based on criminal history, went into effect in February 2018 but is still in active litigation after facing legal challenges. foxbusiness.com/markets/washington-supreme-court-seattle-landlords

Whenever there are changes to law, new law, or challenges to law landlords and property managers need to take note and make sure current policies are compliant. Challenges to law, such as those in Washington State, can create an air of confusion. A best practice remains for landlords and property managers to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency.

While good intentions are certainly a part of the First in Time ordinance, the actual results may become a greater challenge for all involved.

As landlords continue to challenge laws such as First in Time, and the use of criminal history records, they should still remain diligent in compliance to existing law.

The eviction process in Washington State is under challenge as well.

From SeattleWeekly.com (Dec 8, 19):

Bills in the Washington State Legislature concerning “just cause” eviction were introduced during the 2019 session, but didn’t pass. John Stovall of the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance said the bills would likely either be re-introduced or that similar legislation will be filed during the 2020 session.

Just cause eviction laws mean landlords can’t serve tenants with 20-day no-cause eviction notices. Under current state law, landlords can evict monthly renters with one of these notices, leaving tenants with no legal recourse. Landlords are also not required to provide a reason for the evictions. seattleweekly.com/news/tenant-advocates-prepare-for-another-push-in-olympia/

Legislators and advocates are active in Washington and change is bound to come sooner than later. And with change comes confusion and, ultimately, working with a third-party tenant-screening agency remains a best practice in order to stay confusion free and compliant with law.

To learn more about the new Washington State law and how such changes to the way a landlord can go about the tenant selection process can cause confusion and why there is so much opposition to the new tenant screening laws including potential changes to the eviction process read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Challenging Housing Laws in Washington State Could Lead to Further Confusion in Tenant Screening

Filed Under: Tenant Screening

New Waterloo, Iowa’s Ban-the-Box Law Faces Opposition and Could Exceed or Conflict with State and Federal Law

January 31, 2020 By

New ban-the-box legislation in Waterloo, Iowa that is scheduled to take effect July 1st 2020 is taking heavy heat from the business groups that oppose the ordinance. The new law would prevent private employers from asking about criminal background history on job applications. The new law would be even stricter than other ban-the-box laws that have been adopted elsewhere in the country. The new Waterloo Iowa law has seen tremendous backlash from people arguing that the ordinance is unlawful when compared to any other regulation of hiring practices under state and federal law.

Iowa’s “Ban-the-Box” legislation is set to take effect on July 1, 2020, but recent challenges may delay the date.

From SouthernMinn.com (Jan. 06, 20):

A state business group is asking the court to strike down a city ordinance that would prevent private employers from inquiring about criminal backgrounds on job applications.

On Jan. 2, the Iowa Association of Business and Industry filed for an injunction in Black Hawk County District Court to head off Waterloo’s “ban the box” rule, which is scheduled to begin in July. southernminn.com/around_the_web/news/article_ed3f883c-d3ec-5b3f-bd4c-2538d1921147.html

Challenges to law are common and only add to the confusion of when or whether a law will be implemented. Ban-the-Box legislation is designed to assist in eliminating potential discrimination and allow greater access for all groups, especially recently incarcerated individuals.

A best practice for all hiring managers is to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to remain up-to-date with all laws that could potentially affect their industry.

While the city is yet to comment on the potential litigation, the claim suggests that the Ban-the-Box law violates state constitution.

From SouthernMinn.com (Jan. 06, 20):

According to Iowa ABI’s petition, the group warned city officials before the vote the ordinance would violate a 2017 state law that ABI championed prohibiting cities from adopting ordinances that “exceed or conflict with the requirements of federal or state law … relating to hiring practices.” ibid

Ban-the-box laws have been implemented across the country, the most recent being the Fair Chance Act initiated at the federal level enacted as part of a funding bill. Employers need to understand that laws, such as ban-the-box legislation, can often be challenged in court and without paying strict attention may be unaware of the status of laws governing their industry. That is why it is important to work with a professional employment screening agency which can help in assisting with compliance to new and existing law.

Below is part of the complaint against the city of Waterloo, as transcribed from a recent article on KWWL.com (Jan 06 20):

(1) The Iowa Association of Business and Industry filed this lawsuit to stop Waterloo’s clearly unlawful ordinance that regulates when and how employers can consider an applicant’s criminal history. The ordinance is one of the broadest criminal-history ordinances in the country, going well beyond any regulation of hiring practices under state or federal law. It doesn’t just affect when an employer can inquire about an applicant’s criminal history; it also forbids employers from considering criminal history at all in some circumstances. kwwl.com/2020/01/06/waterloo-facing-suit-over-ban-the-box/

At this point in time it is very important for employers to take a hard look at the new Waterloo, Iowa ban-the-box law and compare it to existing state and federal law concerning certain hiring practices and determine for themselves if they want these kind of restrictions in the way they hire employees. This could quickly escalate to the state and/or federal level and people in this country need to look into this issue with great care and deliberation as it could affect the future of how employers can go about the hiring of new employees.

Although avoiding discrimination is always a good course of action it is also important to be prudent and realistic about the possible risks involved as well.

As the opposing philosophies regarding hiring practices debate this subject, it is very important that employers and hiring managers pay close attention to this issue as the winning philosophy will have a tremendous impact on the future.

During this time of uncertainty regarding the use/lawfulness of criminal background records in the hiring process a best approach and practice for employers and human resource personnel is to work with a well-qualified professional employment screening agency that can assist with remaining compliant with existing and new law governing hiring practices in the USA and within certain jurisdictions within the USA.

To read more about the new ban-the-box legislation in Waterloo, Iowa and why there is so much opposition to it and how such an ordinance could be in direct contradiction to already existing state and federal laws regarding the hiring process read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: {Insert January CBR Press Release Link}

Filed Under: background screening

Seattle’s Tightly Regulated Landmark Tenant Screening Law Faces Challenges

January 15, 2020 By

The final outcome is still undecided as challenges face Seattle’s new landmark tenant screening law. Seattle’s recent tenant screening law, one that tightly regulates to whom a landlord and/or property manager can rent, has faced legal challenges and Washington’s State Supreme Court upheld key provisions of the law. Any legal or legislative activity that affects tenant screening should put landlords and/or property managers on notice to make sure their policies and procedures are legal and compliant; and a best practice remains to work with a highly qualified tenant screening agency.

Seattle’s tenant screening law, commonly referred to as “First-in-Line” has survived initial legal challenges. Seattle’s law could face numerous legal challenges which, subsequently, highlights the need for landlords and/or property managers to work with a well-qualified tenant screening agency.

Several years after the initial passage of Seattle’s “First-in-Time” law legal challenges continue to slow full implementation.

From Seattle.Curbed.com (Nov. 21, 19):

Three years after its initial passage, Seattle’s “first-in-time” law, which requires a landlord to accept the first qualified applicant to live in a rental property, has been upheld by the Washington State Supreme Court. The law had been overturned in late March by a lower court and was subsequently appealed by the city. seattle.curbed.com/2019/11/21/20967118/seattle-tenant-protections-first-in-time

The law was intended to eliminate bias in tenant screening and related housing.

From Seattle.Curbed.com (Nov. 21, 19):

The laws were the First in Time law, requiring landlords to rent a property to the first qualified applicant, and the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance, prohibiting landlords from looking into the criminal backgrounds of potential tenants. ibid

Landlords and property managers have begun to push back against this law, hence the recent court challenges, and are pushing hard to reverse the law entirely.

From MHPMag.com (Nov. 19, 19):

The property owners objected to these laws based on protections in the United States and Washington State constitutions against government takings of private property and for due process and free speech. Lower courts had found these arguments persuasive based on precedents established by earlier cases. A laymen’s reading of the decisions by the Washington State Supreme Court is that the justices decided that the lower courts erred by concluding that the Washington State Supreme Court had established protections that were broader than those found in the Federal Constitution. Also, the justices determined that recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court had effectively invalidated some of the precedents the lower courts had used as justification for their decisions. Therefore, they reversed the lower courts’ rulings. mhpmag.com/2019/11/setback-in-seattle/

Because of the humungous impact a law like this has on how the tenant selection process must work, landlords need to be cognizant of how they screen potential tenants in a way that does not break the law. This is why it is still a best practice for landlords and/or property managers to work with well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency, one that can assist in maintaining compliance with the law. This is especially true when new laws are introduced and challenged in court. Laws can change quickly and it’s best to be prepared and wise to pay attention to such court rulings.

To learn more about Seattle’s First in Time law and the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance and how these laws affect tenant screening policies and the overall tenant selection process along with how to stay compliant with such new laws read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Seattles Landmark Tenant Screening Law Faces Challenges

Filed Under: Tenant Screening

Paid or Non-Paid Caregivers Must Undergo a Thorough Background Check to Help Protect At-Risk Populations in the USA

December 31, 2019 By

Utilizing thorough background checks to protect at-risk populations should have already been the norm but it wasn’t. Recently several jurisdictions in the country are addressing this issue and are making new State and Federal regulations especially with daycare. Conducting criminal background checks on individuals that will have access to at-risk populations like children and the elderly is one big step in achieving safety for the vulnerable portion of the population in the USA.

The benefits of employment screening and background screening in general is protecting at-risk populations, such as the elderly and children, and everyone in-between. Caregivers of this portion of the population must be thoroughly vetted before given access to these people, it is a sure way to help avoid malfeasant individuals from abusing the at-risk population in this country.

Background screening when conducted in a fair and equitable manner, one that is nondiscriminatory and lawful, can be a great risk mitigation tool. Background screening can verify information on resumes, provide details through the use of public records, and help hiring managers, for paid and unpaid positions, have greater information to make important decisions. Some places in this country are already addressing this issue:

In Buffalo, New York a caregiver facility is faced with the implementation of new regulations designed to further protect at-risk populations.

From WKBW.com (Oct. 28, 19):

New state and federal regulations are now in place for daycares around New York State, that bring daycare providers up to a more rigorous standard, protecting your children from potential predators. wkbw.com/news/i-team/new-background-checks-implemented-to-protect-kids-at-daycare

Enhancing background screening requirements is always a good idea, especially when protecting at-risk populations. Thorough background checks, ones that include a full array of screening reports like criminal history reports, can only improve risk management, and, further, mitigate that risk.

At the Buffalo facility one worker appears to agree with the direction law has taken.

From WKWB.com (Oct. 28, 19):

“It should have been implemented from the beginning,” … “There’s no reason that we weren’t checking a complete background history from state to state…but the benefit of it is, that we will have a complete background history and it’s important.” ibid

However, policies are only as good as how they are being fulfilled. Failure to follow policy can open the door to malfeasance and discrimination.

In Roselle, Illinois a football coach was removed once his past came to light. And it appears that policy was not followed and the coach was allowed to work with and amongst children.

From WGNTV.com (Nov. 07, 19):

The head football coach at Lake Park High School was removed from his coaching duties earlier this week after an investigation found a convicted sex offender was allowed to help coach the team.

Lake Park High School District 108 administration launched an investigation after it came to light that a volunteer varsity football coach was convicted of sexually abusing a minor in 1992. wgntv.com/2019/11/07/if-we-dont-condemn-it-we-condone-it-victim-of-volunteer-coachs-sexual-abuse-in-the-90s-speaks-out/

Similar challenges occurred in Ontario, Canada (Nov. 14, 19):

The Ontario Minor Hockey Association is investigating, two Windsor Minor Hockey Association board members have resigned and parents have been summoned to a meeting Friday after court documents from the United States show a local peewee coach has a criminal record in three states and two arrest warrants.

… admitted in a plea agreement in U.S. District Court in Arizona in 2017 that he had been convicted of aggravated assault, a felony, in Florida in 2001 and sentenced to 90 days incarceration. windsorstar.com/news/local-news/court-documents-reveal-peewee-hockey-coachs-criminal-record-in-u-s

It is instances like these that remind everyone of how important it is to properly vet all individuals paid or not paid that are given access to at-risk populations like children. To help thwart malfeasance and to help prevent past offenders from striking again a thorough background screening program is certainly a best practice.

In the end any company or organization working with at-risk populations should ensure they utilize the most thorough background screening packet, one that utilizes a full array of screening reports such as criminal history, sex offender registry, nationwide criminal record check and others. Further, working with a third party background screening agency still remains the best course of action.

To read more about how in-depth background screening of caregivers (even those that are non-paid volunteers) can help protect the at-risk portion of the USA’s population and how enforcing strict adherence to such background screening policies can mitigate risk and thwart malfeasant individuals and past offenders from abusing the vulnerable read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: {Insert December CBR Press Release Link}

Filed Under: Uncategorized

The Next Step in Tenant Screening Could Include Ban-the-Box on Rental Applications

December 19, 2019 By

The next evolution of ban-the-box laws looks to emerge into the apartment rental industry. These laws in recent years have swept across the country when it comes to employment screening. But now the ban-the-box movement has made its way to the tenant screening arena.

Ban-the-box type regulations may impact Detroit rental applications and might be the first step in a wave of change that could significantly alter how the question of criminal history is handled in housing.

Changes in how applications are managed and what preliminary questions, such as ones concerning criminal history, are utilized has revolutionized the pre-employment hiring process in many municipalities across the country and, now, these changes may be coming to rental applications.

Change is a constant, and change continues to affect how criminal background records are used in application vetting. Pre-employment background screening, in some municipalities, employers are limited as to how they utilize criminal records as part of the vetting process. These Ban-the-Box laws are felt necessary to create a fairer hiring process by eliminating the potential of bias and discrimination from interfering with the process.

Viable housing goes a long way in defeating recidivism, as does gainful employment. Ban-the-box laws are designed to assist in creating a fair hiring environment. The same may hold true in the housing market.

From CaseyGrants.org (Oct. 14,19):

Nearly all rental applications ask about criminal records. According to the FBI, 73.5 million Americans have a criminal record – defined as having a felony arrest. Landlords are known to consider felony and misdemeanor convictions, charges and arrests. caseygrants.org/evn/desmond-meade-made-history-but-housing-is-still-out-of-reach/

And Detroit, Michigan may be leading the country in banning the question of criminal history on housing applications.

From the Detroit Free Press (Nov. 01, 19):

Giving more people a chance is the intention of a new ordinance in Detroit that “bans the box” asking about criminal history from most rental applications, preventing landlords from immediately disqualifying prospective tenants because of their convictions. freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/11/01/detroit-rental-application-ordinance-criminal-records/3851517002/

A “Ban on the Box” in Detroit would affect a great many people and could create opportunity in housing for those that had been challenged with a criminal record.

From the Detroit Free Press (Nov. 01, 19):

Formerly incarcerated people are nearly 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public, according to a 2018 report by the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative. People of color, women, those incarcerated more than once, and people recently released from prison are the most impacted. ibid

Tenant screening should be done in a fair and equitable manner, one that does not discriminant

Ultimately a best practice remains for landlords and/or property managers to work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency in order to remain fully compliant with existing law, as well as potential laws that could greatly affect tenant screening.

To learn more about the emergence of ban-the-box laws into the rental housing arena and how such new laws may affect how landlords and property managers can go about their tenant background screening read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Ban the Box on Rental Applications; the Next Evolution in Background Screening

Filed Under: background screening

Impressive Momentum for Ban-the-Box Movement – News and Highlights

November 26, 2019 By

Starting in 1998 in Hawaii ban-the-box legislation has been sweeping across the country. It is an attempt to level the playing field in the employment process in the USA by removing the box on job applications that ask about criminal history. It is an agenda to give ex-cons and those with criminal background records a better chance to attain gainful employment.

As ban-the-box legislation continues to spread and evolve across the country new jurisdictions are joining in; most recently in Columbia, South Carolina and Waterloo, Iowa; and is under consideration in other municipalities, including a potential citywide ban in St. Louis. “Ban the box” is an attempt to create a fair playing field in employment by removing or “Banning” the question box asking about the criminal history of a job applicant.

Starting slowly in Hawaii in 1998 the ban-the-box movement in recent years has gained significant momentum.

From JS Supra’s website (Oct 22, 19):

Over the last several years, the “ban the box” movement has gained an impressive amount of momentum and support from lawmakers and activists across the nation. With an aim to provide job applicants a chance to obtain employment without the stigma of a conviction or arrest, “ban the box” laws require employers to consider an applicant’s qualifications before inquiring into or considering their criminal background record. While employers may still consider an applicant’s criminal record, they generally must wait until after the applicant’s initial interview or until they extend a conditional job offer, depending on the laws of the particular jurisdiction. jdsupra.com/legalnews/many-states-and-municipalities-now-ban-22407/

There are two new additions to the list and, potentially a third.

South Carolina

Columbia, South Carolina recently passed and enacted a ban-the-box law that will affect all governmental agencies, but not private employers.

From JDSupra.com (Nov. 01, 19):

The ordinance applies to the City of Columbia, government contractors, any person regularly employing five or more persons, any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, or any person undertaking for compensation to procure employees or opportunities for employment. Employment means any occupation, vocation, job, or work for pay, including temporary or seasonal work, contracted work and work through the services of a temporary or other employment agency, or any form of vocational or educational training with or without pay. jdsupra.com/legalnews/update-columbia-south-carolina-enacts-72373/

As often happens changes that affect the public section can eventually make it over to the private sector.

Iowa

Waterloo became the first city in Iowa to have ban-the-box legislation and just passed a second round of amendments.

From kwwl.com (Oct. 28, 19)

The second reading of ‘Ban the Box’ amendments passed through council tonight, the amendments were proposed by council after two work sessions.

Some of the main amendments put in place a violation enforcement policy and prevention of private action after an employer is found guilty of violating Fair Chance Initiative.

The council members against the initiative took a stiff stand against the passing of the amendments. kwwl.com/homepage/2019/10/28/ban-the-box-amendments-pass-second-reading-in-waterloo-city-council/

Additional amendments to a law, especially Ban-the-Box laws add to the complexity, and further highlight the need for employers to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency.

St Louis

A concerted effort to add St. Louis to the rolls of Ban-the-Box legislations is well underway.

From KMOV.com (Nov. 04, 19):

“The proposed bill would prohibit employers in the City from basing job hiring and promotion decisions on an applicant’s criminal history unless the employer can demonstrate its relevance to the job-related decision, and inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history until after it has been determined the applicant is otherwise qualified for the position, unless the applicant is part of a final pool of applicants for the job position and all of the applicants are asked. The forgoing would not apply where the employer is required by law or regulation to exclude applicants with certain criminal convictions.” kmov.com/news/alderman-pushes-for-citywide-ban-the-box-to-keep-criminal/article_5bb81b00-feb4-11e9-aff6-e7a6c7c2914c.html

As seen by extensive previous ban-the-box legislation and now more recent legislation it is clear that the ban-the-box initiative is not going away but instead is steadily spreading across the nation. Additionally even though some of these laws only affect the public sector for now, they could eventually make there way over to the private sector.

New independent ban-the-box laws often differ considerably from other jurisdictions ban-the-box laws and that coupled with certain jurisdictions making additional amendments to their already existing laws add to the complexity, and further highlight the need for employers to work with a professional pre-employment background screening agency. Working with a professional employment screening agency is still a best practice for employers looking to remain compliant with all relevant laws.

To read more about the impressive momentum the ban-the-box movement has recently shown and to learn about the new laws and proposals from all over the country regarding ban-the-box legislation read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Ban-the-Box: News, Highlights, and Updates

Filed Under: criminal background check
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »