Maine is set to enact a Ban the Box law that will greatly affect employers in that state, joining numerous jurisdictions across the country that have similar laws governing pre-employment background screening already in place. Ban the Box laws continue to spread across the country and existing laws are consistently changing, and hiring managers and HR Departments should take immediate note, continuing a best practice of working with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to remain compliant with evolving law.

Many states across the country have enacted “Ban the Box” laws governing the legal and lawful use of criminal history reports, as well as when criminal background records can be utilized as part of the hiring process, and these laws continue to evolve and change. Ban the Box laws will continue to change over time and employers must remain vigilant in ensuring all hiring policies are current and compliant by working closely with a pre-employment background screening agency.

Laws governing the use of criminal histories and when and where such a history can be reviewed by an employer continue to evolve and change. With each iteration these laws become more powerful and stringent.

From Lexology.com on August 16, 2021:

Over the last ten years, a flurry of “ban-the-box” laws have been enacted, on the state and local level. Such laws are now being passed at the federal level. In response, many employers reevaluated how they used criminal history screens and background checks in hiring. Now, lawmakers in several jurisdictions—like New York City, Philadelphia, and Illinois—are expanding existing laws, imposing new, more stringent requirements on employers. As a second wave of “fair chance” legislation starts to form, lawsuits related to criminal history screens and background checks have also intensified. The shifting legal landscape and growing risks of litigation present challenges for organizations large and small. Prudent employers will take this opportunity to review existing practices and build a compliant, flexible system for hiring new talent. ^{www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bbdcd487-477c-441a-9c14-fdbdf1d22c25}

It’s very simple. Ban the Box laws will continue to expand and change, and every time this occurs employers should review hiring policies to ensure compliance with all laws governing the question of criminal history, as well as the appropriate use of criminal history reports. Subsequently, a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background agency to remain compliant.

A recent change in California law regarding the governance of background screening could have significant impact on employers seeking to vet new hires. California is often seen as a leader in laws governing background screening and a court ruling eliminating the use of date of birth and driver’s license number will create challenges for hiring managers and HR departments, further highlighting the urgent need to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency to remain compliant.

A California Court of Appeals has acted to remove date of birth and/or driver’s license numbers from being used as identifiers on individuals via electronic search, further complicating the acquisition of key data regarding new hires and the vetting process. Challenges to the use of public data as part of the pre-employment process continues to be complicated by court action, and the ruling in California should alert any hiring manager and/or HR Department to work with a third-party background screening agency to remain compliant with existing and forthcoming law.

Recently the California Court of Appeal ruled against the use of DOB and Driver’s License as part of electronic County Court searches, thus creating greater challenges and concern regarding pre-employment background screening.

California is a leading state regarding laws governing the use of public records, such as criminal history records, in pre-employment background screening and action taken by this state could spread across the country.

From The National Law Review’s website on July 28, 2021:

By ordering the Riverside Superior Court to remove birthdates and driver’s license numbers as data that can be used to identify individuals with a criminal record, the ability of employers (and others) to conduct criminal background checks will be further impeded if not made impossible. With the use of only a first and last name to conduct the search, the search results of a particular applicant or employee may show the criminal history of perhaps dozens of other people with the same or a similar name. natlawreview.com/article/new-restriction-background-checks-california

Various public agencies, associations and organizations are fighting back at the harsh reality the court decision has created.

From the website of Consumer Data Industry Association on July 16, 2021:

On July 15, 2021, a diverse group of trade associations and businesses, all with a keen interest in protecting the public, signed on to an amicus letter to the California Supreme Court asking the Court to reverse a lower court decision that, if left standing, would render most employment in the state severely delayed, and in many instances, they will no longer be possible at all. The amicus effort was led by the Consumer Data Industry Association (CDIA) and the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA). On July 22, CDIA and PBSA filed a supplemental amicus with 13 additional businesses and associations. cdiaonline.org/15723-2/

Ultimately a higher court may be forced to further review this ruling, but challenges will be ongoing.

A best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background agency. The challenge of the California decision will impact hiring and create further confusion as the courts will surely have to make a final decision, a decision that could take years and eventually end up in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Important Note: The challenges the court record retrieval process is facing in light of this new California law could make it impossible to verify the identity of a person on a criminal record during a court check without using personally identifiable information like date of birth and/or driver’s license number and why keeping these records on file at a courthouse without these key details would deem this record keeping process completely pointless to the extent that keeping any court records on file will become absolutely useless as these documents will not be able to prove anything without a way to identify and verify a record match to any individual.

Pre-Employment Screening hits a hurdle with the removal of personally identifiable information like individuals dates of birth from public records that will make it extremely difficult to match criminal background records with the person who committed the offense.

Across the country many states are starting to remove key identifiers from public records and the result may be increased time and cost in retrieving these records as related to pre-employment background screening. In Michigan the use of key identifiers such as DOB on public records will end and that will force background screening agencies to make greater use of researchers in order to fulfill key records requests, and a best practice remains for hiring managers to work closely with third-party pre-employment background screening agencies to remain compliant with new laws governing the use of public records.

Redaction of personal identifiers will create challenges for hiring managers and HR departments and suggests a best practice remains to work with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency to remain up-to-date with changes in background screening and applicant vetting.

Pulling public records from County Courthouses has received a blow as more states are limiting the use of identifiers, such as DOB or CDL numbers, on public records, and this action will have serious implications for vetting applicants.

Recently, in Michigan, the use of identifiers has become limited by law.

From PBSA.org, a leading industry group for Background Screening, in June 2021 (No specific date provided):

Effective July 1, 2021 Michigan courts will redact date of birth (DOB) from their public records available through courthouses. This change is the result of Michigan’s ADM File No. 2017-28 and 2020-26 adopted by the Supreme Court that the State Court Administrative Office has interpreted to require clerks not to use or provide DOB in searches. This means that only one identifier (Name) will be available on court records. This change will impact all criminal background checks in Michigan until further notice. ^{thepbsa.org/government-relations/michigan-dob-redaction-information/}

Additional courts across the country are beginning to follow the same process highlighted by Michigan’s action, and could create significant challenges to those vetting employment applications.

In California a court challenge ruled that the use of identifiers should be limited.

From NBCPalmSprings.com on June 28, 2021:

All of Us or None argued that permitting the use of dates of birth and driver license numbers to initiate a search was a violation of Rule 2.507 and sections of the Government Code. ^{nbcpalmsprings.com/2021/06/28/fees-now-in-effect-to-view-superior-court-criminal-records-online/}

Michigan is not the only state to go in this direction. Other states, such as California, have varying degrees of redaction of identifiers. While public record searches will continue, the use of a single identifier (first, middle, last name) will push HR departments and hiring managers to work very closely with a third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to properly match identities of candidates to public records.

Additionally the Professional Background Screening Association or PBSA was just recently able to suspend this new Michigan law for another year as they proved it would be a disaster for the court record retrieval process and could prevent many employers and landlords from finding out about their applicant’s criminal past that could cause tremendous risks to the safety of their employees and tenants.

To read more about the challenges involved in redacting personally identifiable information from public records like criminal background records and why Michigan delayed enacting of such a law for another year read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: DOB and Other Identifiers Removed from Public Records, Potentially Slowing the Background Screening Process; Opines CriminalBackgroundRecords.com

After about six years from passing their first ban-the-box law, NYC has updated its Fair Chance Act and the changes will take affect this summer.

When Ban-the-Box laws came into existence 20 plus years ago they were generally enacted at a statewide level. Over time cities took up the call for legislation regarding the use of criminal history reports, specific to their use during the pre-employment screening process and as related to the question of a criminal history on employment applications.

Larger cities enacted ban-the-box laws and, over time, continued to update and expand the scope of this type of legislation. One example of this evolution with a ban-the-box law is New York City.

The city’s initial law came into existence in 2015 but recently took action to improve the law, and these changes take effect in July 2021.

From the National Law Review’s website on January 29, 2021:

On January 10, 2021, amendments to the New York City Fair Chance Act (“FCA”) – New York City’s “ban-the-box” law – were passed into law. The amended FCA will significantly expand employment protections for applicants and employees with criminal background records, including convictions, charges, and arrests. ^{natlawreview.com/article/new-york-city-expands-its-ban-box-law}

One of the key areas on the newly expanded law regards the question of “non-pending arrests” or “criminal accusations.”

From JDSupra.com on January 12, 2021:

It is unlawful to either make any inquiry about non-pending arrests or criminal accusations, adjournments in contemplation of dismissal, youthful offender adjudications or sealed offenses, when such an inquiry would violate the New York State Human Rights Law. Currently, the FCA prohibits denying employment on these bases, but does not prohibit inquiries about such information. ^{jdsupra.com/legalnews/2021-employment-law-spotlight-new-york-2307634/}

Every jurisdiction can have a law that is unique and finely nuanced. Without a federal law governing the use of criminal history confusion can be created with different laws and cause considerable concern for hiring managers and HR Departments. At this point in time it is very important to understand all the Local, State and Federal laws concerning the use of public records such as criminal records in the hiring process and when and where such records can be utilized.

The new and expanded protections for employees under New York City’s expanded Fair Chance Act are numerous.

From the National Law Review’s website on January 22, 2021:

The amended Fair Chance Act expands employee protections in the following ways:

New York City employers will now be:

• Required to conduct the Fair Chance Process when seeking to act on a pending arrest or other criminal accusation.
• Required to undergo the Fair Chance Process when seeking to rescind a promotion or transfer, or when ending the employment of a current employee.
• Required to apply the Fair Chance Act to independent contractors and freelancers.
• Prohibited from inquiring about specific types of criminal history at any point, including the employee/applicant’s (1) violations, (2) non-criminal offenses, (3) non-pending arrests or criminal accusations, (4) adjournments in contemplation of dismissal, (5) youthful offender adjudications or (6) sealed offenses. natlawreview.com/article/amendment-to-new-york-city-s-fair-chance-act-further-prohibits-employers-basing

 

The expansion of New York City’s Ban-the-Box law serves as a great example to the overall complexity of such a law as well as the willingness to expand and change law. Employers should take immediate note and work with a well-qualitied third-party pre-employment background screening agency in order to remain compliant with existing as well as changing law.

To read more about the effects of NYC’s newly revised ban-the-box law and how that will affect the use of criminal background records in the hiring process read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: NYC Example of Ban-the-Box Law Evolution at a Municipal Level

The Covid-19 pandemic continues to persist worldwide and within the USA. Because of this crisis guaranteed shelter to those unable to work due to the virus is crucial. However, even with eviction moratoriums the rent these renters will owe at the end may be too much debt to repay.

Millions of Americans struggle with the effects of Covid-19 as the pandemic continues to flare up across the country. Additionally, affordable housing remains a challenge, one that has a significant impact on families. Combine the two crises and the impact is tremendous.

In the early days of Covid-19 governors across the country were quick to implement moratoriums on evictions. Individuals and families who had income loss related to Covid-19 were protected. Combined with the supplemental unemployment income many families were able to survive these challenges.

However, the eviction moratoriums and supplemental unemployment ultimately came to an end. Renters were once again faced with the challenge of housing.

It’s not only the renters that are affected by the devastation brought on by the pandemic but landlords and property managers were hit hard as well, especially those managing smaller rental properties.

Recently the federal government announced a new, extended moratorium against evictions related to loss of income from the Covid pandemic. This action could cause additional challenges to landlords and property managers.

Renters would still be liable for any rent delayed by the federal moratorium, but the fact remains that landlords will be immediately hit with loss of income.

Yet, an important fact remains that even during a pandemic people will continue to rent.

With job loss due to the pandemic families are often uprooted as the search for viable employment can force relocation. More and more families are renting until they feel secure with new employment. And traditional moves will continue. Importantly, landlords must remain diligent with tenant screening during the Covid pandemic.

An important message for landlords and property managers is that risk mitigation and management remains the central importance of tenant screening. And despite moratoriums and changes in law and practice, tenant screening should remain consistent and thorough.

A typical tenant background check package should include Consumer Credit reports, Eviction records, Criminal Records History and a 50-State Sex Offender Registry Check. Also many landlords perform reference checks such as previous employment and personal reference checks. Combined these background reports and reference checks give a landlord a better understanding of their prospective applicant’s history both financial and character.

Understanding and verifying the information provided by a potential renter is key, and a thorough tenant check can provide verification. Working with a third-party tenant screening agency should remain a best practice.

Tenant screening is governed by a wide variety of laws, which are often confusing and complicated. Further, laws governing tenant screening can change quickly. Failure to comply with law could result in legal action, ones that may end with financial penalty.

A well-qualified tenant screening agency should be able to keep a landlord mindful of critical and important laws.

In the end, tenant screening should not change due to the Covid pandemic. In many cases the laws that existed pre-Covid remain in place.

In the end a best practice remains that landlords and property managers should work with a well-qualified third-party tenant screening agency. They can provide the important data and information required to make a well-informed decision, in a safe and legally compliant manner.

To learn more about why landlords and property managers should continue to perform in-depth tenant screening during the Covid-19 crisis and how a professional tenant screening agency can help them remain compliant with new and existing laws read recent TenantScreeningUSA.com press release: Diligence in Tenant Screening Remains Critical as Covid Pandemic Continues; Opines TenantScreeningUSA.com

For over 20 years Ban-the-Box legislation has been sweeping across the USA. However, over time these such laws need to be reviewed and must evolve in order to ensure they are achieving what they are meant for. This of course is to help previously incarcerated and/or those with a criminal background record have a better chance at getting employed. Not all ban-the-box laws are the same and not enough research has been done to prove that these laws help out those with criminal records at all.

As of this publication more than 35 states now have a form of Ban-the-Box legislation. And many cities and counties have acted as well. Every day there is potential for new ban-the-box legislation and hiring managers/HR departments should strive to stay current with all changes to law.

Form NELP.org (July 1, 2019)

Nationwide, 35 states and over 150 cities and counties have adopted what is widely known as “ban the box” so that employers consider a job candidate’s qualifications first—without the stigma of a conviction or arrest record. … these initiatives provide applicants a fair chance at employment by removing the conviction history question from job applications and delaying background checks until later in the hiring process. ^{nelp.org/publication/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiring-state-and-local-guide/}

What many hiring managers and HR Departments may not realize is that Ban-the-Box laws have a tendency to change or evolve. Over time flaws or shortcomings can be discovered and changes need to be made to ensure the law is as effective as possible.

Recently, in Montgomery County (Maryland), members of the county council set out to make changes to existing Ban-the-Box legislation.

From Bethesda Magazine (July 31, 2020):

The Montgomery County Council is considering a bill that would set limits on what information an employer could seek about an applicant’s criminal history.

The employer could not check an applicant’s background until there is a conditional job offer. The employer also could not ask about certain crimes.

The bill, introduced at the council’s meeting on Wednesday, would expand the current “Ban the Box” law. Under that law, employers in the county with at least 15 full-time employees can’t do criminal background checks of applicants and can’t ask about criminal or arrest history before a first interview. ^{bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/government/bill-would-prohibit-background-checks-until-conditional-job-offer/}

The use of public records, such as criminal history reports, is strictly regulated and fines and penalties for the misuse or inappropriate use of such records can be significant. Staying compliant with law is critical for all companies and organizations.

Laws governing pre-employment background screening change on a frequent basis and these changes can impact a business. Working with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency, in order to remain current with existing and pending law, remains a best practice.

Changes to ban-the-box laws in Montgomery County is but a single example of how laws change and evolve, and it is incumbent on hiring managers and HR departments to stay current with those laws.

It is also incumbent on the government to conduct research on whether or not ban-the-box laws are actually helping previously incarcerated or those with a criminal background record get a better chance at employment. Without such statistics there will be no way to know if such laws are helping minorities and those with a criminal record; and some suggest that these laws may actually be worse for such individuals. There would be no point for having these laws if they are making it worse for minorities and those with a criminal record to find gainful employment.

At this point in time the use of criminal history reports in the hiring process is under scrutiny due to ban-ban-box legislation which makes it compulsory that employers follow such laws; and in order to do that employers need to be aware of these laws in order to know when it is appropriate in the vetting process to conduct a criminal background check.

To learn more about why the ban-the-box laws need to be reviewed and must evolve and why doing research is the only way to prove whether or not these laws actually help those with a criminal record get employed read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Working with Background Screening Agencies Remains Best Practice as Ban-the-Box Laws Continue to Change & Evolve

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!

The Holidays are fast approaching and companies are already starting to recruit extra help to deal with the huge increase in business. However, even though these new hires will only be temporary they still need to do due diligence and vet these new hires in the same way they would a full-time employee. Pre-employment background screening should apply the same way to seasonal hires as with full-time employees.

Even though part time help may be temporary they will still be representing the company they work for the same way as the full-time employees. Enacting consistent employment screening policies across all hires both temporary and full-time goes along way at mitigating risk and staying compliant with hiring laws.

Already holiday hiring is in full affect as the season of giving fast approaches. Retailers across the country are poised to hire hundreds of thousands of temporary workers. And it is a daunting task, but companies hiring seasonal help should maintain pre-employment screening policies and continue the same vigorous vetting process one might conduct on a long-term or permanent employee.

With the push for quick hiring on employers shoulders they are starting to have job fairs and hiring events at their stores. And 2019 promises to be a big year for seasonal help.

From HRDive.com (Oct 9, 19):

The seasonal hiring push is on. Retailers, in particular, are competing for talent in customer service, warehouse roles, distribution and delivery — and in heightened numbers even from the year before. ^{hrdive.com/news/what-to-expect-from-the-2019-holiday-hiring-season/563953/}

And the momentum is increasing.

Recently, a USA Today article highlighted the manic requirement for temporary seasonal help.

From Target.com (Sep 10, 19):

On Tuesday, Target announced it would be hiring more than 130,000 seasonal workers and will host hiring events at every store. The events are Oct. 11-13 and Nov. 2-3 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. local time. There also are openings at distribution centers. ^{usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2019/09/10/seasonal-jobs-where-to-find-work-over-holidays/2271056001/}

Companies should be encouraged to continue with their vigorous pre-employment background screening practices, with temporary and/or seasonal hires, as a best practice. Risk mitigation remains a priority within hiring and the responsibility does not lessen with seasonal employees.

From theJobNetwork.com (No Date Provided):

Yes, there’s a lot do when hiring seasonally, and you may need to fill vacancies quickly, but you still need to do basic things like conducting criminal background checks. Hiring the wrong candidate can hurt your business and force you to restart the entire cycle. The hiring process for seasonal employees should not deviate from the process you undergo for regular long-term employees. Even though you may be hiring at a higher volume for a seasonal push, you need to maintain your hiring standards and consider short-term workers as integral members of your organization. The short-term worker will be representing your business like any other member. ^{thejobnetwork.com/5-tips-for-hiring-seasonal-workers/}

Employees remain the face of a company and regardless the position are a critical part of a successful business. As the holiday’s fast approach and the need for help increases, hiring managers must maintain the integrity of the hiring process by conducting the same and equal background screening process regardless the term of employment.

Thorough vetting is critical for all new hires, permanent and seasonal, and working with a well-qualified third-party pre-employment background screening agency remains a best practice.

A thorough background screening should include a criminal background check (that includes a 50-State sex offender registry check), a social security number validation with address history trace and the necessary verifications such as previous employment and education background. Again, the key to compliance is consistency and that is why all new hires either seasonal or full-time should be vetted the same way.

To read more about why businesses and organizations should perform consistent pre-employment screening practices on both seasonal and full-time employees and why staying compliant with background screening policies is so important read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Holiday Hiring is in Full Effect; Maintain Pre-Employment Screening Policies

At-Risk populations such as children and the elderly should always be cared for by good people that treat them with dignity and respect and never take advantage of them or harm them. Although it may not be possible to discover the true intentions of caregivers before giving them access to a vulnerable at-risk person there are certainly ways to greatly reduce that risk. The best course of action to do this is to perform a thorough background screening on them before they are hired or utilized. A thorough background screening should include several reference checks, verifications to determine if what they put on their application is true and of course a criminal background check that includes a national sex offender registry check.

Caregivers are responsible for working with some of the most at-risk populations, the young and the elderly, and it is incumbent on those individuals hiring caregivers to ensure at-risk populations remain protected while being managed by a caregiver. A thorough background check on a caregiver is a best practice in protecting those being cared for. Not only can a background check verify application information, it could also give pause to any malfeasant characters with certain criminal history. A thorough background check can be a useful tool in risk mitigation.

Finding a caregiver can be a significant challenge. Often a caregiver might be utilized in a limited capacity, such as a babysitter. Parents may be new to a neighborhood and not know any of the older kids that may be willing to sit and, subsequently, look to a service to provide baby-sitting. Parents should ensure these services conduct thorough background checks.

But when the time calls for longer term babysitting arrangements parents may want to conduct the background check on those individuals they wish to hire. Nannies and long-term babysitters should be thoroughly vetted through interview and background check.

From the Pocono Record (Aug 04, 19):

Experts suggest asking your potential sitter for three references. Ask the references whether the sitter was responsible, how they followed directions, why they no longer work for them and if they would ever consider hiring them again. “You cannot underestimate the power of parental intuition. If a potential sitter made a reference uncomfortable or makes you second guess your choices, beware. A parent should always trust his or her gut when it feels like something is off,”…. ^{poconorecord.com/entertainmentlife/20190804/expert-tips-on-how-to-find-safe-caregiver-for-your-child}

Three references in addition to a thorough background check is definitely a best practice.

When the level of care is relatively low an in-home caregiver might be hired directly and not through a service. But the best practice remains.

A caregiver background check could include a variety of reports and services, such as:

• Sex Offender Registry
• DMV Records (if the caregiver would be driving those cared for)
• Criminal History Reports
• Verifications & Reference checks, specifically to verify certifications and education

Ultimately a best practice for caregivers working with our youth and our elders should be a thorough vetting process, one that includes: a thorough interview, reference checks and verifications, and a criminal background check.

Elder care can be more complicated, especially when one must consider the level of care. However, at any level of in-home caregiving individuals providing care must be thoroughly background checked to help ensure the patient is in good hands and won’t be abused.

It is clear that for any type of caregiver the safest approach remains to have those individuals being held responsible for the care of at-risk populations (our kids, our elders, the handicapped and others) be properly background checked prior to having contact with such individuals. Implementing safeguards to help protect the vulnerable in each community goes a long way in improving society as a whole and making the USA a better place to live in.

To read more about why caregivers should always undergo a thorough background check before being allowed access to any at-risk population read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Background Screening & Caregivers

The debate on whether or not volunteers should undergo a background check continues and there are convincing arguments on both sides. Proponents for volunteer background checks say that in order to protect at-risk populations like children all volunteers should be properly vetted to help weed out malfeasant individuals. While on the other side of the aisle people who are against volunteer background checks say that if people who would normally be willing to volunteer for certain positions may opt out of applying altogether. This is due in part to the hassle and intrusiveness of undergoing the background screening process. Which means that the public would lose a lot of good people that would otherwise be happy to offer their talents as a volunteer.

Now that the country is into the summertime thousands of volunteers are required across a broad spectrum of activities. From summer sports to sleep over camp and hundreds of other places, volunteers interact with at risk populations daily and, subsequently, many believe should be thoroughly vetted. Background checks, especially criminal background checks on volunteers some believe should be a critical part of the vetting process and consider this approach a best practice for volunteer organizations.

And yet volunteer checks are often questioned as either unnecessary, inconvenient or too expensive.

Volunteer background checks are often considered an important tool in risk mitigation, one that can help protect at-risk populations and should be treated as a number one priority.

From an op-ed article posted to the Richmond-DailyNews.com (Jun 06, 19) and discussing the pros and cons of volunteer background screening:

The idea is a mixed bag. In some cases, potential volunteers may not like the hassle of government intrusion into their lives, with the result being that some otherwise decent volunteers may not bother. But there are also the rare cases where a background check might reveal a person has an unsavory history that disqualifies that person from being around children. Overall, erring on the side of caution – particularly when considering child safety – suggests background checks may turn away a few good people, but losing them is preferable to giving a pass to even one pedophile. ^{richmond-dailynews.com/opinion/gov-should-require-checks-on-volunteers/article_3a0a6312-8891-11e9-985f-d395ca0ace8a.html}

Those against volunteer background checks have made themselves heard.

From mySanAntonio.com (Jul 02, 19):

“Putting up new roadblocks to dissuade the general public from wanting to apply to serve their community would be unwarranted,” Allen said, calling the checks “a slippery slope” that the city should avoid.

“This is opening Pandora’s box. Where do we draw the line as to what kinds of crimes or records would disqualify a commissioner from being appointed?” he said. “Who would be the judge, jury and executioner in regard to making decisions about what disqualifies an applicant from serving on our boards?”

Councilman Tim Woliver countered, saying he views the checks “as a means of public safety” and as “a bit of an insurance policy” that could protect the city in the future. ^{mysanantonio.com/news/local/communities/northeast/article/Cibolo-considers-new-policy-for-background-checks-14065051.php}

The argument is on-going, but as stated previously, a background check can weed out potentially malicious individuals and a best practice for protecting at-risk populations especially children is to thoroughly vet all volunteers that would have access to such individuals.

As of the publication of this article this issue is still being discussed and both sides have not found common ground yet, but the bottom line is that volunteers are very much in demand and nobody wants a good person willing to contribute as a volunteer to be dissuaded from applying for a volunteer position due to the uncomfortability surrounding an impending background check and possibly the inconvenience of the whole process; yet no one wants an unsavory individual to gain access to at-risk populations like children either.

There still needs to be some mediation on both sides so good volunteers aren’t scared away and also so the wrong type of individuals applying for volunteer positions never get hired.

To read more about the ongoing debate of whether or not volunteers should be background checked prior to working and how protecting at-risk populations should be paramount while at the same time trying not to scare away potential contributing volunteers in the process read recent CriminalBackgroundRecords.com press release: Background Checks for Volunteers: An Ongoing Debate; Opines CriminalBackgroundRecords.com