Today I Sent My Horse to Rainbow Ridge

Treat me kindly, my beloved friend, for no heart in all the world is more grateful for your kindness than the loving heart of mine.

Speak to me often, for your voice is the world’s sweetest music, as you must know by the swishing of my tail when your footstep falls upon my waiting ears.

Please take me inside when it is cold and wet, for I am a domesticated animal, no longer accustomed to bitter elements.  Do not hesitate to blanket me and protect me. I ask no greater glory than the privilege of you letting me walk quietly beside you, for I  am the schoolmaster and forever your teacher. 

Our beloved Jackson

Jackson 1992-2012

Keep my trough filled with fresh warm water, for I can’t tell you when I’m thirsty. Feed me nourishing food that I may stay well, to run and play, to brush up against your side or to simply greet you at our gate. 

And, my friend, when I am old, and I no longer enjoy good health and happiness, do not make heroic efforts to keep me. Forgive me if I bring you no more fun or pleasure.  Please see that my trusting life is taken gently.  I shall leave this earth knowing with the last breath I draw that my fate was always safest in your loving hands. Thank you my dear friend. I will wait patiently in God’s glorious green pasture and will come running for you when I see you up on Rainbow Ridge. 

My love always, 

Jackson

My wife and I had the privilege of caring for Jackson for five years. Though he was a registered Thoroughbred and trained as a hunter-jumper, we were not once on his back. He had been over-worked and mistreated by his former owners. In pursuit of ribbons and trophies, they injured his spine and disabled him. Adopted by us, he became our school-master. He led and trained our other horses. He protected the herd, was always out in front and never failed to lead the way. Though not strong, he was proud. He was our friend and trusted companion and we will miss him deeply.

ASIS International and SHRM Jointly Publish New ANSI Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention Standard

Late last year, ASIS International and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) issued a joint ASIS/SHRM Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention American National Standard. I had the pleasure of participating as ASIS Standards and Guidelines Commission liaison co-chair with friend and colleague, Mike Crane of IPC International. The new Standard is aimed at helping organizations implement policies and practices to more quickly identify threatening behavior and violence affecting the workplace, and to engage in effective incident management and resolution.

The document reflects a consensus from professionals in the fields of security, human resources, mental health, law enforcement, and legal. It serves as an important tool to help organizations evaluate current practices; develop or enhance workplace violence prevention and intervention programs; and effectively manage post-incident issues.

Workplace Violence Prevention

Go to this page and click link

“Practitioners can use the Standard to evaluate whether their organization is taking sufficient steps to protect employees from a wide range of problematic behaviors that can compromise workplace safety,” said Rebecca A. Speer, Esq., founder and principal, Speer Associates and chair of the Workplace Violence Prevention and Intervention Standard  development committee. “It helps to answer the tough questions many security, HR, and legal professionals need to ask:  ‘Are we doing enough?’ and more importantly, ‘Are we doing the right things?’”

The Standard defines the recommended scope of an organization’s efforts to prevent and manage workplace violence; describes the key stakeholders within an organization who will be responsible for this issue; delineates the components of a workplace violence prevention and intervention program; outlines intervention techniques; and addresses post-incident issues.

“On behalf of the membership, SHRM has been very pleased with the outcome of this partnership with ASIS,” said Lee Webster, JD, MBA, SPHR, GPHR, director of HR Standards, SHRM. “Through this relationship the HR and the security communities have created an enduring and comprehensive approach for business professionals to manage the risk of violence and to better assure the safety of employees under their charge. There is no higher duty for HR professionals, which makes this work so gratifying.”

The Standard’s requirements and recommendations are broad in order to provide the necessary flexibility organizations will need to implement specific prevention and intervention strategies appropriate for their workplace needs. To download a free copy of the new standard go to http://www.shrm.org/TemplatesTools/Toolkits/Pages/WorkplaceViolenceandPrevention.aspx and click the hyperlink shown in the accompanying image.

If you have questions regarding the Standard and how your organization can best use it, please contact me at eferraro@BusinessControls.com or call me at 800.650.7005.

How to Know When the National Crime Rate is Down

For those of you who may not have been following the news, it might be a surprise to know that according to the latest FBI crime statistics, crime rates in America continue to fall (see chart). According to the FBI’s Crime in the United States report, overall the estimated volume of violent crimes in 2010 dropped 6 percent compared to the 2009 figure, the fourth consecutive year it has declined. For the eighth consecutive year, the volume of property crimes went down as well—2.7 percent. According to the FBI, the report was compiled from data submitted to it by more than 18,000 city, county, university and college, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies from around the nation. Best of all, violent crime offenses were down across the board—the largest decrease was robbery, down 10.0 percent. Property crime offenses went down as well—the largest decline, 7.4 percent, was for motor vehicle thefts.

Crime Declines

Crime Rates Down Across the Board

But who needs the FBI, when our nation’s hard-hitting investigative reporters have nothing bigger to report than stories like these:

Watsonville: Security Guard Arrested After Reportedly Forcing Off Woman’s Pants, Underwear
San Jose Mercury News (12/24/11) Kelly, Cathy

A security guard at a shopping center in Watsonville, Calif., has been arrested on suspicion of sexual battery after he allegedly pulled down a woman’s pants in the shopping center’s parking lot. Authorities say that Jose Moreno, who works for Santa Cruz Peninsula Security, approached a woman who was sleeping in her car in the shopping center’s parking lot early in the morning of Dec. 23 and asked for her identification. Moreno also asked the woman, who was sleeping in her car because she was too tired to drive home, whether she had any drugs or weapons. Moreno then said that the woman was hiding things in her pants and allegedly forcibly pulled down her pants and underwear. Web Link

Police: East Erie Gas Station Where Monday Shooting Occurred Robbed Early This Morning
Erie Times-News (PA) (12/28/11) Hahn, Tim

Police in Erie, Pa., are investigating whether a robbery that occurred at a gas station in the city early in the morning on Dec. 28 is connected to a series of other robberies that occurred nearby earlier this year. The latest robbery took place at a Country Fair store at roughly 12:05 a.m. on Dec. 28, when two men armed with handguns forced a security guard who was standing outside the store back into the building and made him get on the ground. Three other men armed with guns then ran into the store and rounded up the employees, forcing them to open the cash registers and give them money, as well as cigarettes and other types of tobacco products. All of the robbers eventually got away. Police say that the robbery may be connected to six robberies that took place at a nearby Kwik Fill station earlier this year. Three people have been charged with robbing the Kwik Fill in August, though the rest of those robberies are still being investigated. The Kwik Fill has since been closed.  Web Link

Seems obvious to me that when stories like these make national news, no one needs the benefit of crime statistics to know that crime in America indeed, is on the decline.

Be safe out there .

The Ten Best Hiring Tips for 2012

There can be no argument, our employees are our most valuable asset.  They can make us, as easily as they can break us.  However, many employers don’t take the time or expend the necessary resources to seek out, and hire the best people possible. The result is often disappointment and frustration, and sometimes even litigation. Although there are no guarantees, there is a great deal employers can do to attract, hire and retain quality employees.  Here are the Ten Best Hiring Tips for 2012:

Recruit constantly, not just when a position needs to be filled.  Recruiting is a continuous and never ending process. It is not something an organization only does when it needs to hire. Maintain a revolving inventory of qualified candidates so that when positions become available, interviewing and screening can begin immediately.

Mr. Eugene Ferraro

Mr. Eugene Ferraro

Don’t use generic store bought employment applications. They look unprofessional, and frequently don’t meet current legal standards.  Instead, create a customized application. Be sure to provide plenty of space for applicants to explain their leaving prior employers. Allowing enough for a one word explanation will likely yield only one word. But, before going to press, have it reviewed by an attorney to ensure it complies with applicable federal and state law.

  1.  In addition to requiring completed applications be signed, get a signed release of liability from each applicant.  In addition to the notifications and authorizations required by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2004, the release should be fashioned as to protect the prospective employer from any invasion of privacy claim that might arise during the pre-employment screening process.  The release should authorize, without liability; the examination and use of public records, communications with former employers, and reference checking.
  2.  Interview thoroughly and consistently.  Use only trained interviewers, and ensure that they know what can, and can not be asked.  Develop an interviewing process whereby every applicant is properly interviewed and his or her skills are examined and job suitability can be determined.  Allow the applicant to thoroughly explain; strengths and weaknesses, how long he or she thinks it will take to become a contributor, and any gaps in employment.  Retain all notes as part of the applicant’s permanent file.
  3.  Request as many references as possible, and check them thoroughly.  Ask the applicant to provide the work, and home telephone number of every reference provided.  Additionally, ask for the names and telephone numbers of former peers, and subordinates. Contact each one of them and ask for help to determine if the applicant is suited for the position for which they’ve applied.  Be direct, but be respectful, and take notes.
  4.  Insist the applicant provide relevant documents, such as recent performance reviews, check stubs, military discharge records (DD 214), copies of transcripts and degrees, and professional licenses if applicable.  Applicants should unhesitantly produce such documents—smart applicants anticipate this increasingly common request.
  5.  Conduct a thorough and complete background investigation.  In most states, an applicant’s driving history and criminal history (if any) are public records and available to perspective employers. A string of traffic violations or even misdemeanor offenses should be taken seriously. A history of bankruptcies, tax liens and unfavorable judgments can also be red flags.  Check federal and local laws before making any inquiries, and be sure to comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its amendments.
  6.  Drug test all applicants.  According to recent studies, one third of the population has used an illegal drug at lease once, and 11.6 million are still regular users. Substance abusers are less productive, have more accidents and miss more work than non-substance abusers.  Budget permitting, consider psychological testing as well.  Tests that have been scientifically validated will help match applicants’ skills with job requirements, and screen out those unlikely to meet performance standards.
  7.  Team consult with staff members and collectively identify the best candidates.  Establish a standardized rating system and rate qualified applicants based on skills, work experience, past performance and the information provided by references. Re-interview the best candidates before making a final decision.  Put your offer in writing and have it acknowledged by the final candidate by signing it.  Maintain good will with those not selected, with a timely thank-you letter.
  8.  Sell the organization, not the job.  It is common for business owners, recruiters and even, experienced human resource professionals to over sell a position.  The practice often leaves the new employee disillusioned, frustrated, and angry.  Instead, sell the organization and all that it offers.  Valuable benefits often not mentioned include; technical training, personal and/or professional recognition, and professional networking opportunities.
  9.  It is a sad fact, each year, businesses lose over $40 billion dollars to employee theft and dishonesty.  While this staggering figure continues to rise annually, employers of all sizes can do more to reduce their individual losses.  But, the best investment against employee crime is to make careful, well informed hiring decisions.
  10.  This series and course material was designed and developed by Eugene F. Ferraro, CPP, CFE, PCI, SPHR.  Mr. Ferraro is the founder and CEO of Business Controls, Inc.  He has been a corporate investigator for over 29 years, specializing in the investigation of workplace violence, employee dishonesty, fraud, harassment, discrimination, substance abuse, and criminal activity in the workplace.  He has conducted thousands of investigations for employers (public and private) throughout the world.  He has been a member of ASIS International since 1987 and currently serves as the Program Advisor for the PCI Review course.  He is a member of the ASIS International Standards and Guidelines Commission.  He has written numerous articles on the topic of workplace investigations and interviews and interrogation for Security Management magazine and is a frequent book critic for the magazine.  Mr. Ferraro is also the author of eight books, of which Investigations in the Workplace (2006) is his most recent, and it may be found wherever quality books are sold.

Remember, if you are not properly screening your applicants-you are likely hiring those who have been rejected or fired by one of your competitors.

Eugene F. Ferraro, CPP, CFE, PCI, SPHR is the founder and CEO of Business Controls, Inc.  He has been a corporate investigator for over 29 years, specializing in the investigation of workplace violence, employee dishonesty, fraud, harassment, discrimination, substance abuse, and criminal activity in the workplace.  He has conducted thousands of investigations for employers (public and private) throughout the world.  He has been a member of ASIS International since 1987 and currently serves as the Program Advisor for the PCI Review course.  He is a member of the ASIS International Standards and Guidelines Commission.  He is board certified in both Security and Human Resources Management. He has written numerous articles on the topic of workplace investigations and interviews and interrogation for Security Management magazine and is a frequent book critic for the magazine.  Mr. Ferraro is also the author of nine books, of which Investigations in the Workplace, Second Edition (2012) is his most recent, and it may be found wherever quality books are sold.

Business Controls, Inc. is a leading SaaS (“Software as a Service”) provider of incident reporting/case management software and risk consulting services. From a Microsoft .NET platform, BCI delivers fast, cost-effective risk mitigation solutions to over 22,000 client locations in 130 countries as well as sophisticated investigative and consulting services.

Eugene F. Ferraro, CPP, CFE, PCI, SPHR is the founder and CEO of Business Controls, Inc.  He has been a corporate investigator for over 29 years, specializing in the investigation of workplace violence, employee dishonesty, fraud, harassment, discrimination, substance abuse, and criminal activity in the workplace.  He has conducted thousands of investigations for employers (public and private) throughout the world.  He has been a member of ASIS International since 1987 and currently serves as the Program Advisor for the PCI Review course.  He is a member of the ASIS International Standards and Guidelines Commission.  He is board certified in both Security and Human Resources Management. He has written numerous articles on the topic of workplace investigations and interviews and interrogation for Security Management magazine and is a frequent book critic for the magazine.  Mr. Ferraro is also the author of nine books, of which Investigations in the Workplace, Second Edition (2012) is his most recent, and it may be found wherever quality books are sold.

 

Business Controls, Inc. is a leading SaaS (“Software as a Service”) provider of incident reporting/case management software and risk consulting services. From a Microsoft .NET platform, BCI delivers fast, cost-effective risk mitigation solutions to over 22,000 client locations in 130 countries as well as sophisticated investigative and consulting services.

Killer Prime Rib

I couldn’t resist. Prime rib, when done properly, is my all – time fav. So as 2011 comes to a close, I thought I’d share a simple, almost foolproof recipe for my favorite holiday roast. Yeah I know, what possibly could some tired, old investigator know about prime rib, or cooking for that matter. At the expense of appearing to boast, let me tell you I am one darn good cook. To prove it I will periodically drop one of my killer recipes on you. Try one or two and then you can decide who is the best cook’n investigator you know. Here goes:

Killer Prime Rib

Gene's Killer Prime Rib

Select any well marbled prime rib roast with three bones or more. Have your butcher separate the roast for the rib bones and reattach with butcher’s string for cooking. Season generously with salt, pepper and a little rosemary. Top with some chopped garlic if you like, but expect it to burn at the high temperatures used in this recipe.

Cook roast rib side down in uncovered roasting pan for 20 minutes at 500 F. Then reduce temperature to 325 F and cook for 17 minutes per pound. DO NOT OPEN OVEN to inspect, baste or toy with the roast.

Using a high-quality electronic meat thermometer (inserted into the roast prior to roasting) cook till the internal temperature reaches 135 F (for medium rare, a beautiful pink but done). Watch thermometer closely as it approaches 125 F, for the internal temperature will rise quickly and if not careful, soar past 135 F. Should that occur you will have overcooked your $65 (or more) roast.

Remove from oven and let rest for 20 minutes loosely covered with foil. Internal temp will increase to 145 F and then slowly begin to decline. The inside of the roast will still be piping hot even after falling to as low as 125 F.

In the meantime, make gravy with drippings using cold water and corn starch in the original roasting pan upon the stovetop. Slice to desired thickness on warm plates! Best served with mashed potatoes and one or more of your favorite vegetables.

 Enjoy and Happy New Year!

Three Things for Which to be Thankful

Each of us probably have many things to be thankful for. Whether its our family, health, or just our general good fortune, each of us have enjoyed precious things for which we can indeed be grateful. Some things however are easily overlooked. In 1979 I spent Christmas in Atsugi, Japan. As a young Marine temporarily stationed there during the holiday I was lonely and sorely missed home. On Christmas morning I was asked to fly short scouting mission with my commander, a major. Just before we departed, while standing in front of our planes he asked if I knew why we were there. I do not remember my reply, but I recall clearly his answer. He said we there to do three things: protect democracy, protect our families, and show the lousy communists who’s in charge.

U.S. Navy aircraft in front of Mount Fuji

Today we indeed live in a free and democratic county and our families are safe (unless over seas serving our country) and there are almost no more communists. This Christmas season let’s all give three big thank yous. First to those who protect us, next one for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and one last heart felt big thank you to all of their families-the Americans they left behind and continuously and unselfishly wait for those they love. Thank you one and all.

God Bless and Merry Christmas

Gene Ferraro

Obama Plans to Cut Guard Force Along the Border

US border security agents at work

According to today’s Houston Chronicle, “the Obama administration is planning to change its approach to securing the U.S.-Mexico border, in response to a drop in the number of arrests of illegal immigrants. Under the changes, the White House will gradually reduce the number of National Guard troops who are stationed in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and are tasked with helping to secure the border. There are currently more than 1,200 National Guard troops who are on active duty and have border security responsibilities. It is uncertain how many National Guard troops will remain on the border, as the administration refused to provide any numbers. The National Guard troops who are taken off of the border will be replaced by Army National Guard and Air National Guard personnel who use aircraft, helicopters, and unmanned drones to conduct surveillance along the border. Border intelligence analysis will also be used to help secure the border. The changes come as the number of arrests along the U.S.-Mexico border have dropped from 1.6 million in 2000 to 340,252 in fiscal year 2011, which is a historical low.”

Given the administration’s logic, maybe if the president cut the guard force on the border even futher, fewer people will try to cross illegally. In fact, the administration’s refusal to provide additional details is not good news at all. Were he actually increasing the size of the guard force, I am sure he realizes that disclosing such would increase the deterant effect. His failure to reveal more, suggests just the opposite.

Social and Economic Impact of Incentivizing Whistleblowers

 The Origins of Whistleblowing

 History reveals that the False Claims Act, also known as the “Lincoln Law,” enacted during the Civil War was the first U.S. statute to formally recognize whistleblowers and reward them for their tips. The law’s intent was to combat the fraud perpetrated by businesses that sold supplies to the Union Army during the war. The Act contained “qui tam” provisions that allowed private citizens to sue, on the government’s behalf, those they believed were defrauding the government.

 Congress passed the statute on March 2, 1863, which enabled the assessment of double damages and a $2,000 civil fine for each false claim submitted. Those who filed lawsuits, known as “relators,” were entitled to receive 50 percent of the amount the government recovered as a result of their cases. The statute remained virtually unchanged until 1943 when Congress radically altered the qui tam provisions with drastic cuts in the amount of the reward relator’s were entitled. The amended act also changed a provision that prohibited qui tam lawsuits based on evidence or information already in the possession of the federal government. This provision effectively prevented whistleblowers from filing a qui tam lawsuit if any government employee had received a tip about the fraud or if any information about the fraud was contained in any government file, even for matters not under investigation (regardless that the whistleblower was the only source of the government’s knowledge). Paradoxically, by blowing the whistle, the tipster thus disqualified himself for any potential reward. Not surprisingly, useful tips virtually ceased.

Spurred by reports of widespread fraud against the government in the mid-1980s, Congress took another look at the law. In 1985, the Department of Defense reported that 45 of the largest 100 defense contractors ─ including nine of the top 10 ─ were under investigation for multiple fraud offenses. Frustrated with the government’s inability to respond effectively to the large amount of suspected fraud, Senator Charles Grassley, (R-IA), and Representative Howard Berman, (D-CA), sponsored the first substantial amendments to the False Claims Act in forty years. President Reagan signed the bill into law on Oct. 27, 1986.

The amended False Claims Act provided that whistleblowers who brought successful cases were entitled to 15 percent to 30 percent of the government’s recovery, and their attorneys were guaranteed payment of their regular hourly fees by the defendant. Companies and other entities that defraud the government are now liable for treble damages and a $5,000 to $10,000 penalty for each false claim. The Act has since been amended two more times: as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Section 10104(j)(2) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amended 31 USC 3730(e). Section 1079A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act amended 31 USC 3730(h).

 According to the law firm, Phillips & Cohen, LLP, (Washington, D.C.) qui tam lawsuits brought under the False Claims Act for fraud against the federal government have returned more than $15 billion of the total $24.1 billion the government has recovered since Congress amended the False Claims Act in 1986. Whistleblower rewards for qui tam cases exceed $2.5 billion.

 

Whistleblowing Goes Public

 Since first introduced in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1976, community-based crime stopper style programs have enjoyed significant popularity and can now be found almost everywhere. The original idea was the brainchild of the founders of Crime Stoppers International and focused on the principle that once a crime is committed, someone other than the perpetrator always has information regarding it. Supposedly, the fear of reporting is overcome with anonymity, and apathy is overcome with monetary rewards.

 

Numerous communities have implemented this strategy, reporting successes in arrests of criminals and recovery of stolen and contraband property. According to one of Crime Stoppers’ websites, during a recent five-year period, more than 200 crimes in San Jose, California, were reported as solved with help from callers to the Crime Stoppers hotline. Other communities report similar results with their reward based programs. One such entity representing more than 1.2 million California citizens using a nonprofit service called WeTip, claims its reward based tip line gets approximately 200 calls per year. Neither the entity nor WeTip report how many crimes were resultantly cleared or solved.

 

The Social and Economic Impact of Incentives

Despite the arguable benefits to both public and private entities from providing monetary rewards to whistleblowers, the practice has been controversial. In the public sector the first argument is the claim that much of the information divulged through whistleblowing mechanisms would have been divulged even if no reward had been offered. Thus resources and time are possibly wasted. Second, is whether payments to people simply for doing their civic duty is a healthy practice. Those that take this position claim that monetary incentives tend to create community distrust and a sense that being a busybody is socially appropriate and potentially monetarily rewarding. The third argument questions whether incentives actually make communities more dangerous by encouraging impersonal, anonymous reporting in lieu of more proactive and possibly life-saving intervention.

 

In the private sector the arguments are similar. However, some argue that incentives make corporations more vulnerable to false claims made by opportunistic whistleblowers who may be motivated to force corporations into financial settlements in order to avoid the adverse reputational and related effects caused by highly public, albeit ill founded, accusations. It is also sometimes argued that rewards for whistleblowing to regulators (outsiders) frustrate efforts at internal compliance, or act as disincentives to internal whistleblowing. For instance, an employee may be dissuaded from reporting some form of misconduct in a timely fashion to his employer because of the prospect of receiving a large reward by disclosing organizational wrongdoing through external means or by way of litigation. The effect thereby undermines internal efforts at organizational compliance and ethical behavior (the importance of which is often stressed in a wide range of internal policies and public law). There is also the argument that the calibration of the amount of the reward from whistleblowing directly to the amount of the penalty (and thereby to the degree of seriousness and extent of the wrongdoing) provides whistleblowers with an incentive to report wrongdoing later rather than earlier, and to do so only after the crime or act has produced much more serious consequences (in some instances, fatal), rather than disclosing evidence immediately.

 

The final argument might be the most valid. It contends that incentives tend to condition the members of an organization (or community for that matter) to behave socially responsibly only when monetarily incentivized. This potential seems rather real. Consider the organization that effectively advertises its incentive program but for any number of reasons few rewards are ever provided, or when provided they are poorly advertised. Over time members of the organization might conclude that the rewards are a come-on and grow increasing distrustful of those who manage the program. Eventually, such a workforce (or student body) could become cynical and conditioned to intentionally withhold useful information that would have otherwise have been eagerly provided. Moreover in the case of programs which pay students for information one must ask, is it socially responsible to teach our children that civic duty and community service are inextricably tied to immediate gratification in the form of a reward? Are we building good citizens and sound communities when we teach the most impressionable that their behavior should be governed by first determining what’s in it for them? If for no other reason, this one alone is enough to bring into question the appropriateness of reward based whistleblower programs.

 

Conclusion

Readers will easily conclude I am biased, for my firm’s practice is to offer no reward to whistleblowers. If using the common definition of bias (

Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair), I must plead guilty. However, I do not consider my bias unfair. Our hotline service successfully receives and transmits (to designated recipients with in our clients’ organizations) many thousands of reports containing tips each month. Yet we have no record of a single party ever asking for reward. After ten years in the hotline business the results leave me to conclude that monetary incentives to induce tipsters to report matters which concern them is neither economically necessary or socially responsible.

Mr. Ferraro is the founder and CEO of Business Controls, Inc. BCI is a leading SaaS (“Software as a Service”) provider of incident reporting/case management software and risk consulting services. BCI currently delivers risk mitigation and whistleblower solutions to over 22,000 client locations in 130 countries. He is board certified in both Security and Human Resources Management.

The FCRA Revisited

Employers are permitted to use consumer reports when screening employment applicants and when evaluating employees for promotion, reassignment, or retention—as long as they comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). FCRA (Public Law No. 91-508) Sections 604, 606, and 615 spell out their responsibilities and the methods for using consumer reports for employment purposes.

The FCRA, which became law in 1970, was intended to ensure that the information supplied by consumer reporting agencies (then called credit reporting agencies or sometimes, bureaus) was accurate and consumers were afforded recourse when they thought it was not. Amendments to the FCRA—which became effective September 30, 1997—significantly changed the relationship between the user (the employer) and the consumer reporting agency (CRA). It also clarified a number of ambiguities contained in the statute while increasing the legal obligations of users who procured consumer reports. The FCRA was again significantly amended in 2003. That revision, commonly called the FACT Act, clarified additional ambiguities and lessened some of the burdens placed on users in prior amendments. The following revisits some of the more substantial aspects of the FCRA and sheds light on some of the obligations of both users and CRAs.

What is a Consumer Report?

A consumer report contains information about a consumer’s personal and credit characteristics, character, general reputation, and lifestyle (a consumer is considered to be any natural person). A consumer report covered by the FCRA would include:

  1. Criminal background checks
  2. Credit checks
  3. Driving record histories
  4. Education, personal and employment background investigations
  5. Internet and social media checks, such as Facebook and LinkedIn profiles and Twitter accounts

 To be covered by the FCRA, a report must be prepared by a CRA—a business that assembles such reports for the purpose of reselling them.

 An employer that performs its own investigation and does not use a CRA, does not trigger the compliance requirements of the FCRA. However, subscription based databases and for-fee online search services, or other third parties are all considered CRAs and thus their use requires FCRA compliance. For business reasons, some employers obtain and use investigative consumer reports—reports that include interviews with an applicant’s or employee’s friends, neighbors, or associates. These types of reports are also considered consumer reports if they are obtained from a CRA.

Applicants are often asked to give references. Whether verifying such references is covered by the FCRA depends on who does the verification. A reference verified by the employer is not covered by the Act; a reference verified by an employment or reference checking agency (or other CRA) is covered. Section 603(o) provides special procedures for reference checking; otherwise, checking references may constitute an investigative consumer report subject to additional FCRA requirements.

Key Provisions of the FCRA Recent Amendments

Written Notice and Authorization.

Before an organization can obtain a consumer report for employment purposes, it must notify the individual in writing—in the form of a stand-alone document consisting solely of this notice—that a report may be obtained. The consumer must also provide his or her permission before the report can be order.

The FACT Act however, relieves employers from the FCRA’s permission and disclosure requirements when a consumer report is obtained in connection with an internal investigation. Under the new amendment, several types of investigations are exempt from some of the FCRA requirements:

“Investigations of employee misconduct are exempt as well as any investigations required by law, regulation, or the employer’s written policies.” (15 U.S.C.1681a (p)(1)(B)). 

“Such investigations are exempt so long as the outside agency is not investigating a consumer’s credit rating and the information gathered during the investigation is not provided to any person except an agent of the employer, an agent of the government or regulatory agency, or as required by law.” (15 U.S.C.1681a (p)(1)(C) &(D)).

Adverse Action Procedures.

If the consumer report obtained is relied upon for the purposes of deciding an adverse action(denying a job application, reassigning or terminating an employee, or denying a promotion) the employer must make further disclosures. Those disclosures must unfold in the following manner:

Step 1: Provide the applicant or employee a copy of the document entitled, A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (copy of which can be obtain from the Federal Trade Commission’s website, FTC.gov;

Step 2: Communicate the intention to take the adverse action (commonly referred to as a pre-adverse action disclosure, when included with a consumer report in question);

Step 3: A copy of the consumer report (or summary thereof), if not yet provided;

“After taking any adverse action based in whole or in part on a communication described [in the law], the employer shall disclose to the consumer a summary containing the nature and substance of the communication upon which the adverse action is based, except that the sources of information acquired solely for use in preparing [the] consumer report need not be disclosed.”

 Step 4: Disclosure (either verbal, written or electronic notification is acceptable) of the adverse action decided;

Step 5: A written adverse action notice which includes, a second copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the name, address, and phone number of the CRA that supplied the report; a statement that the CRA that supplied the report did not make the decision to take the adverse action and cannot give specific reasons for it; and a notice of the individual’s right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information the agency furnished, and his or her right to an additional free consumer report from the agency which provided the original upon request within 60 days.

Certifications to Consumer Reporting Agencies.

Before providing an individual’s consumer report to a user, the CRA must require the user’s certification that it is in compliance with the FCRA and that it will not misuse the information provided.

Restrictions on the use of Criminal Conviction records are eliminated.

Non-compliance

There are legal consequences for employers who fail to comply with the FCRA. An offending employer can face both criminal and civil penalties. The law allows individuals to sue employers for damages in federal court and if able to prevail, recover court costs and reasonable legal fees. The law also allows permits punitive damages for deliberate violations. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission, other federal agencies, and the states may sue employers for noncompliance and obtain civil penalties.

Special Considerations when using Credit or Criminal Background Histories

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has expressed concern that the use of credit histories in hiring decisions might have an adverse impact on some protected classes. Similarly, it has concerns regarding criminal background histories and recently issued guidelines for employers when taking an adverse employment action criminal history information. The guidelines suggest that employers consider the nature and gravity of the offense for which the applicant or employee was convicted, the time that has passed since the conviction, and the nature of the job held or sought.

Summary

In addition to the consideration mentioned above employers should know that many states and localities have placed further restrictions on the use of consumer reports and how they may be used. Employers are well advised to seek the advice of competent experts before taking adverse action against any consumer.

About the Author

Mr. Ferraro is the Founder and CEO of Business Controls, Inc. BCI is a leading SaaS (“Software as a Service”) provider of incident reporting/case management software and risk consulting services. BCI currently delivers risk mitigation solutions to over 22,000 client locations in 130 countries. Mr. Ferraro is not an attorney and the information in this paper should not be considered legal advice.

When Watchdogs No Longer Watch and Leaders No Longer Lead

Penn State

The Arrested Jerry Sandusky

It is a tragedy of unthinkable dimension. Joe Paterno had been a Penn State coach for 61 years. Jerry Sandusky, the alleged criminal pedophile had been associated with Penn State football for nearly 50 years, beginning as a student player. Not surprisingly, Sandusky has rigorously denied all charges against him and the school’s board of trustees has fired Paterno. Even Assistant Coach Mike McQueary, who years ago reported to Paterno that he had seen Sandusky in the shower with a young boy, has been diminished (he was asked by the school’s athletic department to not attend Saturday’s home game for they could not assure his safety). The question which has left everyone scratching their head of course, is how could so many know something was wrong and appear to do nothing about it?

History is littered with similar episodes of human failing. Again and again sane men and reasonable and civilized women have stood by and watched the unthinkable and said or did nothing. Their silence and inaction, horrified us to such a degree that the people and governments of great lands swore to never allow it again. So how is it Penn State had learned so little and collectively failed so miserably? While I am not a psychologist, I do have a possible explanation. Ironically that explanation combines pride and manic enthusiasm. I think the leaders of Penn State traded their moral groundings for a blind loyalty to an institution festooned in a phony kind of colligate pride and a reputation bigger than it deserved. These men put the wellbeing and reputation of their institution before that of a few defenseless young boys. They failed to do the right thing in order to protect not themselves, but the public’s image of the school they so loved.

But there is hope. While the lawmakers who wrote Sarbanes Oxley attempted to impose a new ethic upon the public markets, they unwittingly give us a possible means to diminish the likelihood of another episode like Penn State. In Section 301 of the much despised law, it requires that the watch dogs and leaders of the business world establish procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of concerns expressed by those who might have them. Thus, instead of asking what were they thinking, maybe the institution which calls itself Penn State might ask instead, why were we not thinking? Maybe the board of trustees will leave their ivy covered towers of academia and explore the outside world a little bit. Maybe they will discover that institutions around the globe have embraced the idea of encouraging whistleblowers, protecting their anonymity, and doing the right thing, for the right reason, at the right time. The game’s on. Let’s see if they are ready to play.

 

Next Page »