Being treated like a number, not a person—it’s a consumer complaint ranking up there with those recorded spam calls we’re all getting on our cell phones. Unfortunately, the hiring process can also be impersonal, with online submission forms, automated résumé screenings, scripted interviews, and toward the end of the process, a background report resulting in a list of blunt facts about one’s past.
With regards to background checks, employers for a long time functioned with hard and fast rules screening out applicants based on the results. For example, an organization might eliminate from consideration anyone with a prior drug conviction, regardless of the severity or the time elapsed since.
Recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance, however, has led to an evolution in this practice toward a more personalized approach. Not only does this have compliance implications, a more individualized review of candidate information can empower HR professionals to tap talented employees they might otherwise overlook. This can be critical now when unemployment is low and the race is on for great people.
The concept seems fair enough at first blush. A given employer would have a pre-determined policy, compare the results of a background check with that policy, and make a hire/not-hire decision. The EEOC has shown concern that certain protected classes are more likely to be arrested and convicted, for example. Thus a policy intended to be fair and neutral can disproportionately screen out minorities or other groups. “Ban the Box” laws in many states and localities also have implications for hiring matrices and similar background evaluation protocols.
These developments have led so-called “bright line” disqualification policies to fall out of favor among many employers, but what’s taking their place?
If no one is perfect, how can we tell which applicants will make good hires? Following are a few things to take into account when a troubling issue crops up in a background check:
Working with a seasoned, service-oriented background search provider can help make the process easier. Asurint partners with clients to design and execute the right background checks for different positions, and our systems are constantly updated to ensure legal compliance.
Need more information about evaluating background check results? Download our whitepaper here. And always consider engaging legal counsel to help formulate an assessment process aligned with current legal standards and best practices.
With regards to background checks, employers for a long time functioned with hard and fast rules screening out applicants based on the results. For example, an organization might eliminate from consideration anyone with a prior drug conviction, regardless of the severity or the time elapsed since.
Recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance, however, has led to an evolution in this practice toward a more personalized approach. Not only does this have compliance implications, a more individualized review of candidate information can empower HR professionals to tap talented employees they might otherwise overlook. This can be critical now when unemployment is low and the race is on for great people.
The End of the Hiring Matrix?
Human resources professionals who have been in the industry for a while will be familiar with the hiring (or adjudication) matrix. For years, employers used these tools to determine what types of offenses would make someone ineligible for employment.The concept seems fair enough at first blush. A given employer would have a pre-determined policy, compare the results of a background check with that policy, and make a hire/not-hire decision. The EEOC has shown concern that certain protected classes are more likely to be arrested and convicted, for example. Thus a policy intended to be fair and neutral can disproportionately screen out minorities or other groups. “Ban the Box” laws in many states and localities also have implications for hiring matrices and similar background evaluation protocols.
These developments have led so-called “bright line” disqualification policies to fall out of favor among many employers, but what’s taking their place?
Nobody’s Perfect
We’re living in a time when more personal information than ever is available at the click of a mouse. Events that once could have been left in the past rear their ugly heads in today’s comprehensive background searches, on social media, and elsewhere. The extent of this information demands a more nuanced interpretation of candidates’ histories.If no one is perfect, how can we tell which applicants will make good hires? Following are a few things to take into account when a troubling issue crops up in a background check:
- Not all offenses are created equal. Not everything that can arise on a background check need be disqualifying. Severity of a given offense should be taken into account, and timing matters. Has the candidate changed since the issue arose?
- Is it relevant to the job? Driving history is essential for an employee who may use a company vehicle, whereas financial status might take precedence for an executive with control over company accounts. Hiring managers should prioritize different screening elements based on the role.
- The rest of the story. The biggest EEOC takeaway is to put the offense in context. Consider the circumstances, look at evidence of rehabilitation, and examine the work history before and after. Candidates have a right to explain themselves, and employers may want to proactively solicit input from a great prospective hire suffering from one black mark.
HR is a People Business
The good news is that a more personalized approach to background check evaluations fits right into the Human Resources wheelhouse. Valuing each individual’s unique experience, perspective, and growth trajectory is central to the job, so it makes sense to bring this mindset into the screening space.Working with a seasoned, service-oriented background search provider can help make the process easier. Asurint partners with clients to design and execute the right background checks for different positions, and our systems are constantly updated to ensure legal compliance.
Need more information about evaluating background check results? Download our whitepaper here. And always consider engaging legal counsel to help formulate an assessment process aligned with current legal standards and best practices.