Holiday Safety Tips from Asset Control & ChooseToCare

Reports of assaults, robberies, and vehicle burglaries in strip shopping centers and malls have appeared in the news earlier this year. This does not surprise us in light of the serious problems our economy is facing. With the holiday season is upon us, we may find ourselves preoccupied with holiday planning and shopping. Unfortunately, the safety precautions we normally follow are often forgotten as we enjoy the season's festivities. Feel free to print these tips out and to distribute them to your family and friends. You may even choose to hold a brief family meeting on holiday safety. ChooseToCare wants this holiday season to be SAFE for all. So we remind you to follow these practical safety tips so that your holiday will truly be an enjoyable one!

While Holiday Shopping

1) While out, turn on lights and a radio or TV so it looks like someone's home. Be extra cautious about locking doors and windows when you leave even if it's just for a few minutes.

2) Don't display gifts where they can be seen from outside.

3) Be aware of your surroundings at all times. Criminals often prey on people who are or who appear to be distracted.

4) Carry your handbag close to your body, preferably tucked under your arm. Do not leave it unsecured in your shopping cart or in a shopping bag. Avoid carrying it simply by the handle or strap.

5) Place all packages and purchases in the trunk of your car. Do not leave them visible on the front or rear seat.

6) Do not leave your purchases unguarded while in the store or mall. Keep them close and visible to you.

7) Don't forget to bring your cell phone with you if you have one. They are a terrific safety tool, especially for the teens when they are off to the mall. You will want to have a quick way to contact them and to determine their location.

8) Go to the mall with friends if possible. Numbers often deter thieves or assailants, especially when you are walking to your car.

9) Park under or near lighting, if possible. Especially if you know you will be returning to your car after dark.

10) Have your car keys in your hand and ready. Be alert for anyone following you or lingering nearby. If you become uncomfortable or suspicious, return to the mall or walk to where there are others around. Ask for a mall security escort to your vehicle.

11) Have your house keys ready and in your hand when returning home.

12) Avoid carrying your wallet in your back pocket. This is an invitation for pick-pockets. Carry your wallet in your front or breast pocket.

13) Record your credit card numbers along with the toll-free number for each card. This will help if it becomes necessary to report them stolen.


Holiday Safety at Home & for Children

1) Take this opportunity to test your smoke detectors and/or to change your batteries. If you have no smoke detectors purchase some and install them for the holidays. If you cannot afford smoke detectors, consider contacting your local fire department. Many departments provide detectors free of charge for those who cannot afford to purchase them.

2) Be sure to extinguish holiday candles before going to bed.

3) Have a working fire extinguisher available in the house. Multi-purpose rated extinguishers are best for household use.

4) Check holiday lights and extension cords for fraying or bare wires. Replace those that are damaged.

5) Keep your tree watered so that the needles stay moist and green. Water additives are available that will assist in keeping your tree fresh. Never use real candles on trees, even on artificial trees.

6) Do not run extension cords or other wires under carpets. Avoid overloading electrical outlets.

7) Unplug inside holiday lighting when away from home or when pets and small children will be nearby and unsupervised. Pets and small children may chew wires which poses a risk for electrocution.

8) Follow recommended age ranges on toy packages. The ages listed are there for safety reasons, not to indicate whether a toy is developmentally appropriate for the child. Children under age 3 can choke on small parts contained in toys or games and balls that are 1 ¾ inch in diameter or less.

Background Screening Best Practices - Screening Visitors and Vendors

You've tightened your internal security after 9/11. You screen all new employees at the point of hire and existing employees yearly. But what do you know about the screening practices of outside contractors, vendors, or business partners who frequent your company's properties? In most cases, probably not much. Over the course of time it is likely that you have come to trust the companies you do business with and the people they send to service your account. But, times have changed.

Today, businesses have a responsibility for due diligence and to know what screening practices business partners employ. However, we find that many companies believe that asking these questions of their vendors is invasive or at least impolite. This could not be farther from the truth. To ask these questions is essential to the protection of your employees and your property - so don't be shy. Knowing is essential whether you are interested in protecting students from persons who may want to harm children, protecting employees from a thieves or someone with a history of sexual assault, or protecting a key component of our country's infrastructure from terrorists.

Your business partners should be forthcoming with information regarding their screening practices. Ask them to document their basic screening policy to you in a letter. Work with them to resolve any significant or apparent deficiencies you may see. It is also reasonable to let them know your standards about persons with certain types of criminal records having access to your students, employees, or facilities in general. They should be willing to work with you to resolve any particular issues that may exist.

New York State gives convicts a leg up in tough job market

The State of New York has amended its laws hoping to boost convicts chances of getting work in today's tough job market. New York's ex-convict's have a high unemployment rate of approximately 60% after one year from release. To help those people find employment, New York is working to make it very clear to the users of criminal reports that they cannot discriminate against convicts simply because they have a criminal record.

On February 1, 2009, two changes to the New York consumer reporting laws will become effective: 1) §380-c, General Business Law: If a user requests an investigative consumer report for employment purposes, the user must, in the notice to the consumer, state that a report will be sought and indicate that it is providing a copy of Article 23-A of the New York Correction Law to the consumer which sets forth the anti-discrimination provision relating to those with criminal records; and 2) §380-g, General Business Law: This amendment added sub-section (d) which provides that if a consumer report contains a criminal record then the user shall provide a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law to the consumer. These two laws seem to be contradictory and New York has not taken steps to clarify the situation. Therefore, Asset Control advises clients that do NY Statewide searches to follow 380-c and to include a copy of Article 12-A with the initial release.

While the law does not specifically state which hiring situations are controlled by these new laws, past research suggests that New York discrimination laws will apply to those working in the State of New York. Thus it will apply to a New York company employing an applicant to work in New York. It will not apply to a New York company employing a person in New Jersey unless they hire that person in New York. It will apply to a New Jersey employer hiring someone in New York.

What does an employer need to do?

• Provide a workable copy of Article 23-A of the New York Correction law which provides the rights of non-discrimination for those with criminal records to your customers.
• Provide new language in your Consent and Release forms referencing that a copy of Article 23-A is being provided to the consumer. It is recommended that a single Consent and Release form be used for New York employment and every consumer who is the subject of the report be provided a copy of the anti-discrimination law found in Article 23-A.
• Know, understand, and adhere to Article 23-A!

Article 23-A

This is the article that all of the above hinges on. The crux of the law is that the conviction must be job related for an employer to deny the applicant a job based upon the conviction. From there, the law mirrors traditional EEOC guidelines which outlines those things that must be considered when determining if a conviction is job related (ie. elapsed time since the date of conviction; age at conviction; seriousness (level) of the crime; and, any rehabilitation that may have occurred).

New York has also provided a safe harbor for employers. Since the state is pushing for employment of those with a criminal record, it has now provided a defense to a negligent hiring/retention claim if the employer considers the elements contained in §753 of Article 23-A.

According to Bill Dolphin, Asset Control's V.P. and Compliance Officer, this is nothing new to New York state employers. New York has had similar anti discrimination laws on the books for years. "What this represents is a renewal of interest on the part of the State to promote a dubious right bestowed upon a small element of society ahead of the right of an employer to protect their business, employees, and customers," says Dolphin. "Regardless, we have to believe that the State will be serious about enforcing these new laws. Employers have to be mindful of the new law and and thoughtful regarding the criteria they use in evaluating job relatedness. The State is not going to assist employers by providing any guidance up front. The guidelines will arise from the outcomes of enforcement actions and future litigation."

To help employers assess the job relatedness of an applicant's conviction record, Asset Control is providing a downloadable form for clients to use. This form, as well as an updated Disclosure and Release form can be accessed from within the "downloadable forms" part of the secure, clients only, portion of the Web site. As always, Asset Control advises clients to seek the advise of their internal counsel on all legal matters, particularly when it comes to the interpretation of new laws and regulations.

Press Release: Asset Control Acquires ERS Northwest!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 8, 2009 10:00 AM

ASSET CONTROL INC. ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT IT HAS COMPLETED ITS ACQUISITION OF EMPLOYER’S REFERENCE SOURCE (ERS) NORTHWEST, INC., A PROVIDER OF PREMIUM EMPLOYMENT SCREENING SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE NORTHWESTERN UNITED STATES. THE TERMS OF THE ACQUISITION WERE NOT DISCLOSED.

For Further Information Contact:
Russ Rosenberg
President
Asset Control, Inc. 940-891-1919

January 8, 2009

DENTON, TEXAS / VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON – Asset Control Inc., a Texas based employment screening firm announced today that it has acquired Employer’s Reference Source Northwest, a leading provider of background screening services throughout the Northwestern United States.

Russ Rosenberg, President of Asset Control said today, “The acquisition of Employer’s Reference Source Northwest represents a major step in the building of Asset Control’s risk management business. ERS brings important assets and market positions that fit well with our existing business.”

Bill Dolphin, Asset Control’s Vice President and Compliance Officer stated “the acquisition provides an opportunity to enhance internal efficiencies in order to provide better service to our clients. Moreover, the additional functionality from the acquisition will immediately expand the options and value we bring to our existing customers as well as to our new customers.”

The company announced that operations will continue in the Northwest under the name Asset Control Northwest. Operational assimilation and control will be effective on February 1, 2009. Currently, there are no plans to relocate the existing Vancouver office. “We anticipate that the transition for our customers will be a seamless and pleasant one,” said Rosenberg.

Asset Control is a leading provider of background screening services nationwide and worldwide. In addition, Asset Control is a full service loss prevention and security consulting firm with over 15 years service to the business community. Asset Control is based in Denton, Texas just north of the Dallas Metroplex. To learn more about Asset Control please visit our Website at http://www.assetcontrol.net/.

A sign of the times?

A small business owner and new client sat with his head in his hands in disbelief. His inventory was disappearing and he was at a loss to explain how or why. If the losses continued at the current rate he speculated that he would be out of business by year end. “Who would steal this junk”, he asked. Normally he wouldn’t call his inventory “junk” but he was upset, more than a little mad, and for the moment speaking literally about his product. You see, this client was in the scrap metal business. He bought junk metal, broke it down, sorted it out and sold it to smelters for processing. His yard was fenced, his building secure, his employees tenured, and his scales calibrated. Business was tough enough he lamented but something was very wrong.

And wrong it was. After a series of employee interviews we were able to determine that the yard supervisor, a long term and trusted employee had been making side deals with existing customers; giving them much more product than they actually paid for and accepting “gratuities” for his kindness. The losses approached 100K and had they continued, the client would certainly have lost his business.

According to Jack Hayes, a noted retail loss prevention consultant, employee theft apprehensions have risen steadily since 2003. 2007 saw a 17% increase over the previous year. PricewaterhouseCoopers, which conducts biannual surveys of around 5,400 employers worldwide, estimates companies lost an average of $2.4 million to fraud in 2007 – up from $1.7 million in 2005; the majority of it by employees.

“This is not a pleasant topic for the holiday season says Bill Dolphin”, Vice President of Asset Control. “But we may be in for some dicey times ahead. The bulk of statistics that show a steady increase are for previous years. They don’t include our current economic downturn. But as economic and emotional pressures on employees mount I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a corresponding increase in employee theft.”

In fact, according to a November 2008 survey conducted by the Institute for Corporate Productivity, almost a quarter of all companies that responded feel that today’s economic situation has led to an increase in employee theft. Almost 31% of companies with 10,000 or more workers say they have noticed an increase in theft of company-owned items such as office supplies, products they produce, electronic equipment and food items since the economic downturn.

Retailers may experience the highest level of losses overall as they are vulnerable to both internal theft and shoplifting. “Some of your favorite retailers may disappear in the next year or so”, says Dolphin. “Slow sales are forcing retailers to cut back on staff, causing customer service to suffer and leaving merchandise unprotected. In some cases the security staff is first to undergo cuts. Many retailers relax return policies and other controls during the holidays. This will come back to bite them more in the months to come than in the past.”

Smaller companies may be in a better position to deal with this issue than larger ones says Russ Rosenberg, president of Asset Control. “They tend to be closer to their business and have a better handle on their internal controls. But during hard times employers tend to become focused on external threats and on sustaining their business. What employers must recognize is that business threats can originate from within as well and that an increase in employee dishonesty is likely during times like these."

Companies can do a lot to mitigate internal risk when times are tough says Bill Dolphin. “Increase audits and enhance controls rather than decrease them. Employee Assistance Programs and Ethics “tip” lines can foster communication and help focus attention on the issue. Employee background checks go a long way toward maintaining a climate of honesty in the workplace.”

One of the hottest items this year with thieves – Christmas Trees! Police departments and tree vendors across the country report that trees are walking off the lots in record numbers this holiday season. “We’d normally lose a tree or two every year," said one tree vendor. "But this year is ridiculous. I’ve had to hire a security guard. So far I’ve lost over 30.” “I used to say if someone has to steal a tree for their family God bless them. Now, with a six foot tree costing $200. I have other words for them.”

This holiday season our best advice for Santa is to leave the reindeer at home and take the train. With things as tight as they are we suspect there may be a premium on venison.

Outrage: Dallas Independent School District Flubs Background Checks; Risks Kids Safety - Who's at Fault?

If my child was attending school in the Dallas ISD, I'd be marching outside of the TEA building in Austin right now demanding that the state take over administration of the district. Or would I?

Plagued by multiple ethical and financial scandals in recent years, this current expose serves to further reveal the abject nature of the administrative arrogance that has characterized this school district for too long - now, placing both students and employees at risk. First, by failing to implement an effective employee screening program, and second, by rewriting immigration law in order to expedite the integration of alien school workers into the district. Both serious problems in a vacuum, but wholly inexcusable given the elevated threat school districts face from terrorism.

Neither of the issues mentioned are new. Both have roots prior to 9/11. In 1989 Texas school districts received authorization to check the backgrounds of newly hired school employees. Effectively, DISD has struggled with administering a proper employee background check program since that time. In 1992, after a Dallas Morning News investigation found 185 school district employees to have felony records, DISD administration set out to tighten background check procedures. In 2001, in what would appear to be a sensible commingling of expertise, DISD contracted with Safe Advantage Services (AKA "the Safe Schools Project") to be the district's background check service provider. Safe Advantage is a Dallas based database company headed by former DISD personnel administrator Mark Myers.

But problems continued. According to a December, 2006 report issued by the Dallas Morning News, by the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year the district had fallen behind by about a year in getting information back from Safe Advantage. As reported by the News, DISD assumed some of the blame but only to the extent of admitting that administrators placed "no demands" on the vendor to turn the background checks around in a reasonable time. But this is hard to believe says Russ Rosenberg, President of Asset control. "I can't believe the vendor was at fault. Though inaccurate, database searches are quick turn by nature. If the guy who ran the background screening company was a former ISD personnel administrator he had to be sensitive to just how important that information was to the safety of the students in the district. It's more likely that the information was getting to the district but no one was listening, or, the searches were getting to the vendor long after the employee was hired, or not at all. This is just one man's opinion but I think the district was grossly negligent on this one. In all likelihood the vendor fell on the sword to help the ISD save face." Regardless, says Rosenberg, student safety was at risk.

As of November 2008, Dallas ISD has fingerprinted 10,305 certified employees, teachers and principals, according to WFAA.com. A new law requiring all Texas school districts to begin fingerprinting employees went into effect January 1, 2008. About 13 percent, or just over 1300 educators in the Dallas ISD were found to have criminal records according to the report. This is troubling says Rosenberg. "This is higher than the 11 percent rate we have observed among applicants being screened for "non professional" positions. Although it is unclear just how many of the reported number were already known to the school district. More troubling yet are the 20 educators with disqualifying convictions who got past the system. That's the problem with database searches. They miss records."

But going to a system that relies solely on FBI fingerprint matches for background checks is not going to solve the district's problems. FBI system and FBI fingerprint checks are spotty at best. They are nothing more than a large database. According to the Bureau's own statistics, they have conviction information for only about 50% of the arrest fingerprints they have on file. This means that school districts will get incomplete information on many of the reports the FBI system provides. They will have to turn to the courts to get the updated information they need. Additionally, there is neither law nor mandatory process that ensures that fingerprint cards and conviction records will flow from counties through state agencies to the FBI. The process is voluntary. Thus, the same afflictions that dilute the accuracy of many state repositories throughout the nation also affect the accuracy of the FBI record system. The problem is compounded by the fact that many records will be missed entirely.

Federal law enforcement agencies abandoned the practice of exclusively using NCIC or the FBI fingerprint system to screen their own internal applicants decades ago, says Bill Dolphin, V.P. of Compliance with Asset Control. "Today, they combine database searches with real courthouse research. This is the same process we use for our corporate clients who are concerned about using "due diligence" procedures to protect their employees and customers. The same diligent efforts should go in to screening the educators and others with whom we entrust the safety of our kids.

Creativity or Criminal Behavior

Last month the Dallas Morning News ran a story entitled "Dallas ISD Faulted for using Fake Social Security Numbers". The News has rarely pulled punches when criticizing DISD administration. But it appears to be doing so now. "Faulted" - an interesting choice of words under the circumstances. In an effort to bring bi-lingual educators into the district, and on the heals of an aggressive, on-going, campaign to recruit teachers from south of the boarder, DISD personnel administrators rewrote immigration law by reassigning social security numbers from legitimate holders to the new recruits - an alleged temporary measure to get them on the payroll and into the system. According to the Dallas Morning News, some of the fake SSN's were unknowingly used by the state's educator certification office to run criminal background checks on new hires.

During his 30 year career as an internal auditor and investigator Bill Dolphin has encountered end runs around policy - but never anything so arrogant and on this scale. "Last week Homeland Security arrested one of their regional directors for knowingly hiring an illegal alien to clean her home. The basis for the charge was encouraging an illegal alien to remain in the country. Clearly, this was an effort to make a point. This administrator was in a position to know better and to enforce the law herself. I see a parallel to the current situation in DISD. Personnel administrators are supposed to be professionals. Their training includes labor law and immigration documentation. The decision to use bogus SSN's was likely not made by an hourly paid clerk. Put in the context of 9/11 this is a criminal matter in my opinion."

But Dolphin agrees with superintendent Hinojosa's decision to bring in a special investigator to look into the matter. "I don't think he had a choice. He's been under a lot of fire himself lately. He had to get this one right. It was necessary to mitigate any action by the state. Former U.S. attorney Paul Coggins is highly respected. His involvement will be seen as a good faith effort by the district to conduct a proper investigation. I don't see criminal charges coming from this but I don't rule out some sort of civil enforcement action. Notwithstanding, criminal laws were clearly broken."

The story is not a simple as would seem. While the use of bogus SSN's was described in a report by the District's internal investigative office in September of this year, the practice was first uncovered by the TEA in 2004. According to the News, TEA told the district that the practice was illegal then. According to DISD officials the practice went on for several years before being discontinued this past summer. "We're not sure what action was taken by the TEA when the illegal use of numbers was first uncovered", says Rosenberg. "Whatever it was, it was not enough. The matter should have been referred to the State Auditor's Office for review. They audit schools too as a matter of course. Clearly, the weak follow-up or lack of follow-up by the TEA contributed to the illegality continuing for several more years. Within the context of 9/11 it should have occurred to someone that this practice was extremely dangerous."

Investigative, audit and internal ethics programs have no direct influence on educating our students. However, aggressive programs of this nature can prevent the kind of waste, fraud, and corruption that has plagued DISD. Ultimately, this translates into more resources for the classroom. "But there is a more powerful argument for putting the microscope on DISD", explains Bill Dolphin. "Student safety has been placed at risk. This is the issue that should grab your attention. Employment screening is a personnel function in some organizations and a security function in others. Regardless of where it resides, the process must be subject to outside review. Ultimately, DISD must examine the effectiveness of its own ethics/audit/ investigative function(s). But the effectiveness of any such function in DISD would likely be hindered by internal politics. Nevertheless, its something that has to be addressed and appropriately funded - given proper leadership."

Notwithstanding, says Russ Rosenberg, the topic of the internal control function within school districts needs to be examined, whether by the TEA or by the State Auditor. "How much resources should be allocated, what ought to be reviewed and with what frequency is a question that needs attention at a higher level." In the meantime, school boards and school administrators should appreciate that they are responsible for maintaining a safe and ethical environment for students and employees. Districts might turn to outside consultants, such as Asset Control, to help assess the thoroughness of their efforts. Using third parties to conduct such reviews provides an unbiased assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls.

Lack of School Bus Security Provides Opportunities for Terrorists

The latest Fox News report entitled "Thieves Ruin Dallas County School Buses" illustrates just how terrorists might access school bus yards and just how vulnerable students may still be to bus related terror attacks. But this problem is not limited to Dallas County - it is a risk nationwide.

All one has to do is search the Web for instances of school bus vandalism to understand the risk. Lack of security lighting, fencing, and guards are commonplace, and since 9/11 demonstrate how some responsible for protecting buses are still slow to react. Incidents where buses are vandalized for copper wiring and other sellable parts continue to make local and national news.

Shortly after 9/11 Asset Control's ChooseToCare division was asked to develop a proactive guide to the prevention of terrorism in public schools. The end result was the "Proactive Guide" (short name). The guide highlighted the risk to unprotected or inadequately protected school bus yards and provided guidance for those responsible for protecting this important area of infrastructure. Asset Control and ChooseToCare would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that our children are our most precious assets.

Worldwide, there is a history of terror attacks against school children and the buses that carry them. Thankfully, none have occurred domestically. The full text of the guide can be found at the U.S. Department of Education's ERIC Web site at: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/e0/cb.pdf

Unfettered access to school bus yards costs schools dearly in terms of lost assets. But more than that, poorly protected lots may afford terrorists the opportunity to plant explosives or place harmful biological or chemical residue on seat backs or on other surfaces that will come in contact with students or drivers.

Asset Control & ChooseToCare has given thoughtful consideration to publishing material, such as this, that might be considered "sensitive" by some. However, it is our assessment that exposures such as these are already known to those determined to cause us harm. We firmly believe that increasing awareness is paramount. This is an important issue that goes well beyond the expense involved in repairing vandalized buses or the delays incurred in getting kids to school. This is an important safety matter that deserves immediate attention by school boards, school safety officers, and parents alike. Please watch the video. Remember, the point of showing the the video is that the News totally missed the point!

To play the Fox News video clip click on the play button below.

“The biggest threat to public safety you can imagine”

That’s how Williamson County District Attorney, John Bradley described the continuing problems with the Texas DPS criminal database this week in an interview with the Dallas Morning News. Asset Control commends Mr. Bradley for his candor.

This is the second warning to Texas employers in just a few short years. According to the latest assessment, counties have submitted outcomes on just 69 percent of criminal charges – the same percentage as before. As the Dallas Morning News reported this week, “The state’s criminal database, riddled with holes four years ago, has just as many gaps today.”

The old adage “close enough for government work” seems to apply as far as the State of Texas is concerned. The state requires certain employers licensed by the state, such as nursing homes, assisted living facilities, child care agencies, and schools to use the DPS database. It’s called a “minimum standard”. But the minimum standard rule also prevents these agencies from using better alternatives such as social security number traces in conjunction with county criminal court record searches. There is a bottom line here says Bill Dolphin, Asset Control’s Compliance Officer. “The bottom line is the bottom line. The DPS pulls in significant revenue with their database. It benefits them to legislate their own client list.”

The end result is that students, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations are placed at risk every day because criminal records are missed by employers thinking they are doing the right thing. But there are other “victims” involved. According to Angie Klein, manager of the DPS Criminal History Records Bureau, “no one knows how many Texans didn’t get a job because an acquittal or dismissal wasn’t in the system.” Klein admits this is a growing issue. An increasing number of complaints from Texas job seekers, mostly angry because their acquittal, dismissal, or expungement wasn’t in the system, has forced DPS to double the size of their resolution unit to 20 employees explains Klein. Notwithstanding, the DPS points a finger at the counties for not following proper reporting procedures. While counties are required to report criminal data to the state, there are no penalties for non-compliance. Texas Senator Jane Nelson says that the state needs to be “sensitive to concerns about unfunded mandates.”

While the DPS and Texas counties fight this out, Asset Control recommends that employers not mandated by law to use the database avoid it. Since news about the flawed database has been extensively published, employers should consider themselves put on notice. If an employer obtains data from a source known to have incomplete and correct data, it could be held liable for lack of due process under the FCRA.

The DPS database was never intended for use as an employment screening tool. It was developed as a tool for use by law enforcement agencies. And as some in the law enforcement community admit, it is even failing those for whom it was intended.

Fast food execs become McFelons as ICE moves in

While Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may say that their enforcement efforts target areas involving critical infrastructure and national security, national headlines would indicate otherwise. Recently, an ICE investigation of a Nevada McDonalds franchise resulted in guilty pleas by two franchise executives to felony charges that they knowingly hired illegal alien workers. The franchise owner, Mack Associates Inc., agreed to pay a $1 million fine for the violations and to be placed on probation during the period that the fine is outstanding. A former vice-president for the franchisee faces a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In Cleveland, 58 employees of Casa Fiesta, an Ohio based chain of Mexican restaurants were arrested and charged with illegally gaining employment. In Jacksonville Florida, the 34 year owner of Taurus Painting, Inc. was arrested for harboring illegal aliens and now faces up to 10 years in prison. In Greenbelt Maryland, Francisco Solano, co-owner of El Pollo Rico Restaurant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to harbor aliens and conspiracy to launder money. And in Postville Iowa, ICE raided Agriprocessors, Inc., one of the nation’s largest kosher meat processing plants. According to media officials over 400 employees of the plant were detained by ICE. Two plant supervisors were arrested for aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft. Dozens of false INS documents were seized from the human resource department at the plant.

None of these businesses are part of our nation’s vulnerable or critical infrastructure. None would appear to pose a direct risk to national security. The fact of the matter is that security is ultra tight at water treatment plants, nuclear power plants, dams, electrical power plants, and the like. If ICE had to rely on infrastructure entities to support the bulk of their activity they’d spend the days sitting on their thumbs. Entities that are perceived to share a role in the nation’s critical infrastructure or other risk intense operations are security aware. They draw, and rightly so, a good portion of DHS’s attention. But raids and audits of businesses involved in manufacturing, food service, and agriculture, that employ relatively modestly paid workers make for easy headlines and help to drive home just how real the problem of illegal workers is.

That raids of such businesses occur more frequently has a more practical side and that has to do with how these businesses are identified for audit and investigation. Audits are generally not conducted on a random basis. Audit targets are identified through tips and through data analysis. Tips may come from customers, employees, business partners, neighbors, or other concerned citizens. A key method of identifying targets for audit and investigation is through the analysis of data generated by “no match” letters sent to employers by the Social Security Administration. No match letters are sent to employers who reported more than 10 no-matches that represented more than 0.5% of the W-2’s submitted by that employer.

Train your Human Resource personnel to handle no-match letters appropriately. Although a copy of the letter is also sent to the employee, it is the responsibility of the employer to conduct due diligence in order to resolve the discrepancy noted in the letter. We are aware of some employers who, convinced that the discrepancies were largely the result of clerical error, considered them an inconvenience and ignored them. Largely, no-match letters may be the result of transcription errors, name changes due to marriage, or other clerical issues. However, ignoring the letters may put you on ICE’s radar screen and cause an audit and subsequently an investigation. Moreover, suspending or summarily terminating an employee who is the subject of a no-match letter without properly investigating the cause of the discrepancy may violate the law.

ICE provides “Safe Harbor” for employees who receive a “no-match” letter so long as specific steps are followed. To find out more about the procedures to follow when a no-match” letter is received visit the ICE’s website at http://www.ice.gov/ or call the Safe Harbor Information Center at 800-421-7105.

Take a Course in Defensive Hiring

Defensive driving instructors will tell you that 60% of all serious traffic accidents are avoidable. Why? Although we may not have driven recklessly ourselves, we may have failed to recognize the signs of impending hazard and to take evasive action.

Similarly, we can avoid the anguish and civil liability associated with hiring violent or dishonest offenders by remaining alert to the signals of applicant fraud and by following preventive screening methods. Today, preventive screening methods are even more important due to the threat of terrorism and the risk of injury from copycat criminals.

Lesson 1: Application Omissions

Minor omissions on a candidate’s employment application may be innocent. But, if an employment application leaves you with an incomplete picture of a candidate’s background, this may be just what the applicant intended to do. Applicants with prior histories of violent or dishonest behavior will not go out of their way to provide you with the information you need to contact those who may prevent them from obtaining employment.

Take a few minutes to review each employment application for completeness while the applicant is still there. If there are any omissions, have the applicant provide the information on the spot. Later, during the employment interview, check for inconsistencies between the written application and the candidate’s verbal account of their work history. Dishonest applicants may have difficulty recalling the fabrications they made. A pattern of omissions in the following areas of the employment application may signal trouble: the criminal conviction question; reasons for leaving previous employers; addresses and telephone numbers of former employers; dates of employment; and, names of former immediate supervisors.

Lesson 2: Verify Previous Employment

Even if you are certain that the previous employer will verify nothing other than dates of employment, it is important to make the call. In most cases, dates of employment are all that you will need to detect applicant dishonesty. Even though the applicant may have accurately described their job title, duties and salary, dates of employment may have been manipulated in order to obscure other employment.

Lesson 3: Avoid Fraudulent Personnel Reference Schemes

Fraudulent personnel reference schemes are common but may be tricky to detect. For a fee, operators of these lucrative scams provide the applicant with a telephone number to use as a business reference on his/her application. These con artists will generally answer the phone by saying “personnel” or “may I help you” – very common responses. The numbers will typically be direct, with no company operator or switchboard involved, and will be answered promptly. These professionals won’t provide you with information, but will be happy to verify information you provide to them from the employment application.

Never tell the person who answers the phone the name of the company you believed you were calling. Do not say, for example, “is this the ABC Company”. Instead, say, “I’m sorry, what company have I reached”. If you have reached a scam operator, the response you will likely hear is “click”. Another quick way to detect a reference scam is to give false information from the application to see if he/she verifies it.

Lesson 4: Beware of Uncheckable References

Dishonest applicants may list one or more uncheckable sources as references on the employment application. These sources often take the form of small independently owned establishments that “went out of business”, or whose “owner retired”, or “passed away”. Dishonest applicants may list uncheckable references on an application to avoid revealing a real job from which they were fired, or to obscure jail time. Company names may be fabricated altogether, or may have operated at one time. Be cautious, and take extra care to look into the alleged business.

Lesson 5: Examine I-9 Documents Carefully

Falsified documents may be difficult to detect. Producing counterfeit documents and stealing legitimate documents for alteration is big business. Following are some suggestions for processing I-9 employment documentation:

· Know and follow INS regulations for verifying employment eligibility. Legal requirements and sample documents may be downloaded through the INS Web-site at http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/. If you need further support call your local INS office or the INS National Customer Service Center at 202-514-2000

· Determine whether the information on the document pertains to the individual presenting the document (if the person appears to be 18 and the identification says 40, there is a problem; if a man presents the document with a woman’s picture, there is also a problem). Look for discrepancies between the information depicted on the documents and the information provided on the employment application.

· Look for alterations as evidenced by erasures, photograph substitutions, etc. Official documents are never altered, they are replaced.

· Check to be sure the document is squarely cut.

· Determine that the printing and engraving is parallel with the edges of the document in addition to being sharp, clear, and unbroken.

· Verify Social Security Number information through the Social Security Administration after the employee has begun work. If the name and date of birth provided by the employee does not match the Social Security Administration records, a problem most likely exists.

Lesson 6: Conduct A Due-diligence Criminal Background Check

Criminal history checks are a critical part of the employment process. Countless civil suits are filed each day alleging negligence in the hiring process. A significant portion of these suits stem from faulty criminal background check procedures. Consider the irreparable harm that may occur to a child who comes into contact with an employee who has a serious criminal offense in their past. To be sure your record check process is effective and able to withstand legal scrutiny, consider the following:

· Conduct criminal background checks on every person that you hire, not just on some. Screen volunteers the same way that you screen employees who appear on your payroll.

· Be certain that outside contractors and vendors use due-diligence screening methods to check the backgrounds of their employees who have contact with children and who make frequent campus visits. Adopt a policy that prohibits vendors and contractors from supplying workers that have convictions for violent or sexual offenses. Communicate this policy to your outside vendors and contractors.

· Conduct criminal record checks in all places the applicant has lived and worked, including out of state venues. To help verify the information the applicant has provided and to determine where criminal record checks must be done, have your background screening service provider run a “social security number trace”. This is the best way to detect application falsification and to confirm the correct venues to check.

· Consider using real courthouse searches rather than “database” searches. Courthouse searches provide the most accurate information because you are searching the original record source. Some private companies purchase public record information from counties and states for re-sale to employers and may only update periodically. These types of searches may provide the employer with incomplete record information, or may not detect the record at all. Some state governments have “repositories” that contain criminal records obtained from direct on-line connections with counties, or that have stringent reporting guidelines. Repositories of this nature are an acceptable source of employment screening information. Other states offer searches through databases that do not require local governments to report upward, or that have loose guidelines in place to govern the reporting process. These are not true “repositories” and should not be relied upon as a sole source for employment screening information.

· Adopt a policy that requires current employees to report any criminal conviction they may receive.


The employment screening process is an important part of your student safety program. It touches every part of your operation, including the quality of the education you provide and your district’s public image. To be sure your districts screening procedures are sound, have a consultant experienced in educational security services assess them for you. Most will not charge for this type of review .


Bill Dolphin is a veteran security consultant with Texas based, Asset Control Inc., and co-developer of ChooseToCare.com, an innovative Web-based student / faculty tip-line program. Please address questions or comments about this article to bill@assetcontrol.net

Does Homeland Security have eyes for you?

Just as Homeland Security spends endless days and nights listening to "chatter" by those who might do us harm, Asset Control stays up all night listening to Department of Homeland Security "chatter" to see just what they have in mind for employers in the battle against illegal immigration. Recently, we've picked up some chatter that might be of specific interest to you if you haven't been diligent in verifying the identity of new or existing employees!

While employers may have gotten away with ignoring the Social Security Administration's "no match" letters in the past, a new partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and the S.S.A. may put a damper on this approach. These are letters sent to employers with more than 10 workers, informing them that a particular employee's name does not match the SSN used. They are sent when the no matches for an employer is .5% or more of the company's total workforce. Sources inside the Bush administration now indicate that the President is planning new enforcement initiatives, even in the absence of new enforcement legislation. According to Russ Knocke, the spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, " We are tough and we are going to be even tougher." "There are not going to be any more excuses for employers, and there will be serious consequences for those that choose to blatantly disregard the law."

New enforcement guidelines are expected to give employers a fixed period of time to investigate and resolve any discrepancies between the identification provided by workers and records held by the Social Security Administration. Chatter has it that employers will have 90 days to resolve the discrepancy, fix the problem, or fire the employee. Employers that ignore the letters will risk fines up to $10,000 for each illegal worker. According to the Social Security Administration, over 140,000 no match letters, covering more than eight million workers, will be sent to employers this year.

But the Fed has threatened aggressive enforcement of immigration law in the past. In reality, the threats translated into token arrests, or photo opportunities, intended to do nothing more than give the perception that an enforcement program exited. What has changed? First, the Bush administration is being pressured by the conservative base to do something, anything, in the war against illegal immigration. One measure, to enforce existing law, can be taken without new legislation. Clearly, this has been a battle cry heard from both Republican and Democrat conservatives since the attack on 9/11. But the Fed must pick its battles, and the possibility of a great photo op is still a significant drawing card. This means that the day of the raid on wooden pallet manufacturing plants is probably past.

On August 2, just one day after the tragic I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota, Jose S. Gonzalez was arrested at his office in Greenville, Mississippi. Gonzalez, owner of Tarrasco Steel, was a subcontractor who provided re-bar and installation services to major highway bridge construction projects. On March 29, 2007, ICE agents conducted worksite enforcement actions at the Greenville-Arkansas Highway 82 bridge in Greenville Mississippi; the Huey P. Long bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana; the US 90 bridge in Biloxi, Mississippi; the I-40 seismic retro-fit in Memphis, Tennessee, and the LA-1 bridge in Leeville, LA. These structures are all part of our nation's critical infrastructure and are closely scrutinized when it comes to security matters. During the March raid, several employees were arrested for using bogus Social Security Numbers. The investigation also revealed that the employees did not have proper welding certifications.

Did the Fed choose the timing of the arrest in light of the bridge collapse the previous day? Hard to say. It may have been the sensible action under the circumstances, particularly, from a public relations perspective. Note, that the investigation and subsequent enforcement action at bridges in Louisiana began very early in the year. So, it appears that the Fed was ahead of the curve in this particular case. Protecting infrastructure is a credible objective. Regardless, if what we have observed is part of an overall strategy by Homeland Security, we should expect to see more enforcement actions targeting aspects of our infrastructure; particularly, actions involving contractors receiving federal or state revenue.

So, where should we expect to see more enforcement efforts? If your company provides services in support of bridges, dams, roadways airports, hazardous waste, our food supply, the movement of cargo over land or water, water or water treatment, power generation, schools, security, or liquid or solid waste, do not take the "no match" letters lightly as many employers have in the past. And, expect that state and local authorities will partner with federal agencies to go after employers who hire skilled workers who may have bogus licenses or certificates.

Asset Control can assist employers in their efforts to hire legal workers. To find out how, call our offices at 940-891-1919. Don't let the Fed have a photo opportunity at your expense.

Soft Targets, Hard Lessons - Why terrorists value your school as a target and what you can do!

Shortly after 9/11 I was asked by the Director of the Texas School Safety Center, a legislated branch of the Texas governor’s office to develop a strategy for deterring potential terrorist attacks in Texas public schools. My reputation for developing preventive programs was known. At the time, the law enforcement community had concluded, for whatever reason, that little could be done to deter or prevent a terrorist attack on schools. As a result, their focus would be wholly reactive in nature. This was not altogether acceptable to the TXSSC. Subsequently, Asset Control signed a consulting agreement to develop steps that any school district could take to mitigate their attractiveness to terrorists seeking a soft target. I undertook the project understanding that having a well developed and coordinated response plan was critical in the event of a school attack, but knowing that basic steps could be taken to lessen the likelihood that a particular school might be targeted. The result: in 2002 the “Proactive Guide for the Prevention of Terrorism in Public Schools” was distributed to all Texas public schools. Subsequently, the “Guide” was adopted by several school districts and suport service organizations nationwide.

Unfortunately, the recent trend on the part of some law enforcement and many security consultants has been to minimize the likelihood that a school(s) in the US may be subject to attack by terrorists. In fact, those who attempt to keep the idea of a potential terror attack at school alive in the minds of school administrators and security personnel have been criticized as trying to “hype” the threat to increase their own value. The fact of the matter is that the thought of our children being targeted in a place where they should be most safe is so frightening that is has been rendered unmentionable, if not unthinkable. Some even speculate that terrorists fear that an attack on a U.S. school(s) would cause a reverse affect. That is to say, that the fear and panic created by such an attack would motivate the American people (rather than de-motivate) to exterminate radical Islamic extremists throughout the world.

Yet, we have no evidence that the terrorist fears that the killing of children would have any affect beyond their stated goal(s). In fact there is evidence to the contrary. Video tapes have been found in Afghanistan showing al-Qaeda terrorists training to take over schools. Subsequently, al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith declared al-Qaeda's "right" to kill 2 million American children in retaliation for Muslim civilian deaths in the war on terror. Recently, CNN reported that local law enforcement agencies received a “routine” FBI and Homeland Security Department advisory relating to “Foreigners under recent investigation include ‘some with ties to extremist groups’ who have been able to purchase (school) buses and acquire licenses.”

But the greatest evidence to date is the horrific Belsan school massacre in Russia during which 700 people were wounded and 338 killed, including 172 students. This terrorist attack was perpetrated by Muslim extremists with definite historical links to al-Qaeda. Whether al-Qaeda assisted in the planning of this particular attack is under investigation. It was noted that several Arabs were among the terrorists killed by Russian Special Forces during the massacre.

Be Proactive: The Awareness / Prevention Checklist

The Awareness/Prevention checklist highlights areas of school operations, maintenance, security, and personnel that may pose opportunities for risk reduction. Use this checklist as a proactive tool to generate awareness over the potential for terrorist acts, at a time when it is needed most.

The recommendations contained in this checklist are not intended to represent or to replace a comprehensive school security program. Such a program would include much more. Many of the procedures included in the checklist are routine in districts with full-time security operations. Whether your school district has full-time security coverage, or has minimal security resources, these recommendations may be used as a focal point around which to build an appropriately renewed sense of awareness. The recommendations have been constructed in several “modules” each of which depicts the basic recommendation, the audit point or “question” to be addressed for each recommendation and the departments that would potentially be involved in the addressing the recommendation.

Module 1: Review Employment Screening Policy & Procedure

Steps:

• Does your screening process include volunteers, cafeteria workers, mechanics, bus drivers, and security, in addition to educational staff?
• Does your procedure allow for actual courthouse searches, rather than database searches, which are typically not accurate?
• Do your searchers do Social Security Number traces to identify any out-of-state venues that should be checked?
• Do your outside contractors use due-diligence screening procedures to check the backgrounds of their workers who regularly visit your school?

Departments Involved:

• Security
• Human Resources

Module 2: Review the physical security of bus yards and garages; review transportation security in general.

Steps:

• Are vehicle garages alarmed, and are the alarms in working order?
• Are fenced-in areas gated, locked, and adequately illuminated at night?
• Do drivers do “pilot inspections” of their vehicles before placing them into service each day? Is this done again after each time the vehicle has been left unattended?
• Are bus drivers equipped with two-way radios or cell phones?
• Are drivers trained to be aware of and to report suspicious vehicles that appear to be following their busses during their routes?
• Do drivers keep a student roster for each bus route, to include student name, address, primary and secondary emergency contact numbers, and medical authorization information?

Departments Involved:

• Security
• Contract or proprietary bus operators
• Health Services

Module 3: a) Review the adequacy of physical security in and around campus buildings; b) Review placement of security cameras and review monitoring practices

Steps:

• Review the adequacy of physical security in and around campus buildings
• Review placement of security cameras and review monitoring practices
• Are alarm systems working and have they been tested? This should include main campus buildings as well as maintenance and storage facilities.
• Are keys to campus and administration buildings adequately controlled?
• Are alarm pass codes changed when an employee leaves the school district?
• Make sure pass codes are not shared.
• Is exterior lighting working and is illumination adequate?
• Is interior lighting (night lighting) working and is illumination adequate?
• If security cameras are used, coverage should include main doors and building exteriors, as well as interior locations.
• Make sure recording equipment is in working order and that a reasonable archive is maintained.
• If cameras are not live monitored, make sure that a periodic or spot review of critical areas takes place.
• Encourage students and staff to report suspicious activity quickly, so that video archives can be reviewed for evidence.

Departments Involved:

• Security
• Maintenance
• H.R.
• Operations

Module 4: Review access control procedures and heighten employee awareness

• Are doors that should remain locked from the outside during the day kept locked, and are these doors checked periodically to make sure they are secure? Train all employees to check these doors but consider assigning someone to check them as well.
• Are staff members trained to approach and to “assist” strangers of any age who are observed in and on school property? Report those who have difficulty explaining their presence.
• Are students trained to report suspicious persons or persons who may not be authorized on campus?
• Has a visitor log and ID badge system been implemented?

Departments Involved:

• Everyone

Module 5: Train everyone to recognize and report suspicious activities on campus.

Steps:

• Are persons taking pictures or filming campus activities questioned about their authorization to do so?
• Be alert for suspicious vehicles that seem to have no apparent purpose for being on campus, or, that come, go, and then reappear again.
• Are specific individuals assigned to inspect the outside of campus buildings throughout the day, and to report unattended packages or vehicles near building perimeters?
• Have you developed a plan to handle reports of suspicious activity?
• Is everyone trained to report unattended or otherwise suspicious packages found inside campus buildings? Is this specific issue placed on routine checklists for maintenance and janitorial personnel?
• Do personnel know what to do if a suspicious package is found?
• Have you considered a policy that requires staff and students to visibly identify backpacks, book bags, briefcases and gym bags with luggage style ID tags?

Departments Involved:

• Everyone including students, janitorial, teachers, volunteers, & Student Resource Officers

Module 6: Implement a “tip-line” program that allows students, teachers, parents, staff, and other members of the school community to report issues anonymously, if they choose.

Steps:

• Do you have a zero tolerance for verbal threats of any kind?
• Do all members of the school community know that any threat, or information about a potential threat, must be reported? And, do they understand that there is no such thing as a threat intended as a joke?
• Do students and staff know that they are responsible for informing the building principal about any information or knowledge of a possible or actual terrorist threat or act?
• Have you communicated a hard stand on hoaxes intended to mimic terrorist acts?
• Do students know that these hoaxes are crimes in themselves?

Departments Involved:

• Student Services
• Students/Clubs
• PTA / PTO
• Resource Officers

Module 7: Work closely with local law enforcement, health officials, and first responders

Steps:

• Have you made local law enforcement a partner in your district’s plans?
• Are parking regulations, particularly fire zone regulations, strictly enforced?
• Does local law enforcement have copies of building blueprints, to include ventilation system, and electrical plans?
• Has local law enforcement been given the opportunity to conduct exercises on school property and on busses?
• Have you determined contact protocol with local health officials if bio-terrorism is suspected?

Departments Involved:

• Security
• Clinical Staff
• Crisis Management Team
• Local Law Enforcement
• First Responders
• SRO’s
• Local Health Officials

Module 8: Train staff on identifying and handling suspicious packages and letters.

Steps:

• Have you download and posted the FBI advisory (poster) regarding suspicious packages from http://www.fbi.gov/?
• Or, the US Postal Inspection Service poster on identifying suspicious packages from http://www.usps.gov/?
• Have you considered publicizing the availability of this information to others in the school community for personal use?
• Have you ordered ATF forms: P 3320.5; P 7550.2; and 1613.1, regarding bomb threat planning?

Departments Involved:

• Mail Room
• Secretarial
• Security
• Parents
• Students
• Janitorial

Remember, terrorists place their intended targets under surveillance prior to attack. They will study various potential targets as part of the target selection process in order to identify those with fatal weaknesses. While vigilance alone will not prevent a terrorist attack on a U.S. school, it may prevent your school from being selected for attack. Terrorists will likely select the softest amongst all of the targets considered. These may be rural schools serviced primarily by county sheriff departments or state police agencies. In other words, in places where the closest swat team or other first responders may not be just around the corner.

If you haven’t considered the possibility of a terrorist attack on a school in your district, or if your plans up to now have been solely reactive in nature, now is the time to act. Awareness is inexpensive and one of the most effective tools we have in the war on terror. However, we have to overcome the “it won’t happen here” thinking that paralyzes many Americans with an apparent reluctance to think or act. Moreover, don’t expect that the Fed, or for that matter your state will step in with a reasonable and proactive program to render your school or district a less soft target. All such efforts must come from within and must come now!

Its “buyer beware” for church background checks!

Last week I exhibited at a national conference for church administrators. As chance would have it my booth was situated only two away from a major supplier of background checks to the church community and within the context of this particular conference, a competitor. Shortly, this “competitor” recognized our company name and came over to engage us in conversation. I was taken back by what I heard and after a short time realized that we represented two totally different industries altogether. He represented the sales industry and we, the security industry. A key distinction based upon the conversation that followed next.

This competitor was a database re-seller who offered a “nationwide” solution for churches to use to screen employees and volunteers. I asked how he felt about selling database checks to churches given the problems religious organizations are facing with child safety and the like. His answer was “hey we make a ton of money on databases. All I do is sell them what they want, or, what they think they want”. When I asked what he tells his clients about the FTC/FCRA entanglements inherent in the use of database searches for employment screening and he said, “I don’t get involved in that. Once I sell them the data I’m out of it”. Through further conversation it occurred to me that this salesman was unversed in the myriad of compliance issues involving his product and probably couldn’t care less.

If I sound angry about this – well you’re right. But also disappointed at the attitude that inaccurate “nationwide” database searches were just all right for churches. Just one day after the largest church related child sexual abuse settlement in history, I am here to tell you – no they’re not! Here are some facts for church administrators to consider when selecting a background screening service provider:

• Know exactly what you are getting and where your provider is obtaining the information they provide. This is your responsibility and part of your due-diligence.
• Database searches should never be the core of a proper background check. Databases consist of information purchased from courts or from companies that purchase information form courts – and updated periodically. By their very nature they are inaccurate and litigators know this. Begin with a social security number verification and check where the employment application and the SSN verification indicate. Consider a national database search only as an additional level of defense - to “cast a wide net” so to speak. On average, databases cover only about 50% of venues nationwide so the chance is great that they don’t even cover your applicant’s place of residence or employment.
• There is no difference in a background check for a church, a school, or a business. A quality background check is a quality background check and can be delivered by any employment screening firm that is both experienced and credible. Companies that claim to be church specific in their offerings are taking advantage of a marketing tool and change the name of their company depending on the trade shows at which they are exhibiting.
• Make sure that your screening approach targets the specific types of positions you have. Be sure your contact person at the screening company has the expertise needed to assist you throughout your process and that his/her involvement doesn’t end once they take your money.
• Screen volunteers the same way you would screen employees. Courts have held that churches have the same liability with volunteers as with employees.
• By federal law, you must confirm the results you get from a database search with a real county criminal court record search before taking adverse action based upon the result. Why not do it the right way the first time by using county searches. You will increase accuracy and save money in the end.

Based upon the Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements that background check information be derived from the most accurate source(s) available, database use is riddled with peril for both the applicant and the employer. The “buyer beware” mentality of some database sellers is a terrible commentary on the industry. Your church and the people it serves cannot afford the scattergun approach to background checks the database search provides. Due-diligence in the selection of the employment screening products your church uses will help protect your constituents and limit liability.

EEOC Takes Aim at Employment Credit Reports

Recently, our government’s ability to keep secrets has been put to the test. Insider leaks to the press about confidential programs designed to make us safer are frustrating to say the least. But, there is one nasty secret that I am glad was leaked. This May, the EEOC tipped its hand on its intent to intrude on your ability to screen employees by taking a more aggressive stance against the use of credit reports in the applicant screening process. This, partially driven by EEOC’s realization that the use of credit reports to help screen applicants is at an all time high.

Where’s the beef? It lies in the fact that certain minority groups (particularly black Americans) tend to have lower credit scores than non minorities. The lower credit scores are driven by the higher rate amongst minorities of bankruptcies, collection accounts, credit defaults, and other issues that appear on a credit report - as well as the lower credit value given to certain job categories often held by minority job applicants. In other words, credit reports by their very nature have a racially disparate impact.

If you use credit reports as part of your employment screening process, here are some important things to remember:

• Use “Employment Credit Reports” to screen applicants. Employment credit reports do not show the applicant’s credit score or account numbers. They are specially designed to meet FCRA standards for the use of credit reports in employment screening.

• Avoid developing hard rules, standards, or numeric guidelines for screening out applicants based upon the information contained in the credit report (e.g. a certain number of collection accounts, or charged off accounts will automatically negate consideration). Some believe that by applying a consistent standard to all applicants that they have developed a fair policy. Not so, says the EEOC! Racially “neutral” employment policies may run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

• Make sure that the use of the credit report is closely related (“job relatedness”) to the position applied for. For example, you may be able to show a nexus between a credit report and an Accounting Manager but not between a credit report and a Customer Service Manager. A cashier may handle each dollar that goes into your coffer but the Office Manager who handles your deposit may be more of a theft risk than the cashier. Since there is a correlation between income level and “bad” credit (and race and bad credit), you will have an impossible time justifying the use of a credit report for positions like "cashier", "clerk", "associate", "representitive", or other similar hourly paid jobs.

• Reserve credit reports for management level candidates such as: Manager, Director, Vice president, etc.; then, only for positions in which the employee has unusual power over company accounts or funds. Positions for which history shows a higher incidence of bribes, kickbacks or other forms of inappropriate influence should be considered (such as procurement; real estate; advertising; etc.).

• Document, in writing, your reason for using a credit report for a particular position. The process of reasoning through each justification will help identify positions for which credit reports should not be used.

• Be familiar with the FCRA requirements regarding the use of consumer reports. Realize that credit reports may contain inaccuracies. If you are going to deny employment based wholly or partially on the information contained in a credit report, you must provide an adverse action letter. An applicant has specific rights under the FCRA that you must be aware of and comply with.

Again, the key to using credit reports safely and effectively is to be able to justify their use by showing “job relatedness”. But be careful. The EEOC states that they have seen no study, to date, that shows a connection between credit reports and any job, at any level. Notwithstanding, during a recent meeting in May the EEOC concluded that they cannot absolutely say that there is never a link between credit any employment worthiness.

There is much to be derived from the proper use of credit reports in employment screening. Often employers can discover court ordered judgments, restitution agreements, or other actions relative to previous employers that may point to past dishonesty. By adopting a policy that allows credit reports to be considered and weighed on an individual basis and in conjunction with all other information gathered during the interview and background investigation process you will be on you way to hardening you employment screening against attack. Use the credit header report (a.k.a. Social Security Number search) in all cases in which a full employment credit report cannot be justified. As always, Asset Control will keep our clients updated on decisions and trends that impact you in your effort to hire the best employees!

Coke & Pepsi take corporate ethics to a new and refreshing level

This week, federal authorities arrested Joya Williams, an administrative assistant to a senior Coke executive, for allegedly attempting to sell Pepsi the recipes for Coke’s new soft drink. Coke and Pepsi, heretofore bitter rivals in the global soft drink market and fierce competitors for your pop dollar, rose above avarice and to set a new standard in corporate ethics. This, coming at a time when the number of corporate ethics scandals seems to be at an all-time high.

In May, Pepsi received a letter at their corporate office offering to sell them Coke’s new recipe. Pepsi responded by calling Coke executives and revealing the plot. Together, officials from the two companies called the FBI and worked with the Bureau to set up a sting operation. The sting resulted in the arrest of three individuals, including the Coke secretary, on May 23’rd. A Pepsi spokesman was quoted as saying, “we were just doing what any responsible company would do. Despite the fierce competition in this industry, it should also be fair.” Meanwhile, Coke CEO Neville Isdell stated that the incident “underscores the responsibility that we each have to be vigilant in protecting our trade secrets.”

Pepsi could have ignored the letter, leaving Coke to deal with a dishonest employee on their own. It would have been easier. But there was much more at stake here than simply a matter of corporate ethics, and executives at both companies recognized it. It might sound cynical to say that both CEO’s recognized the photo op presented in the situation although there might be some truth to it. In fact, both companies, American business icons to say the least, had much to gain by separating themselves from the myriad of other big name companies recently plagued by ethics scandals. Notwithstanding, both CEO’s knew that there was nothing more sacred in business than the secret(s) of each company’s success. Both knew that this was potentially bigger than both of them. Catching and prosecuting the alleged thief was the honorable thing to do. And cooperating in doing so was the only way to accomplish this.

Honesty and dishonesty within any organization begins at the top. An ethical organization does not become so by accident. It takes a determined CEO who makes high ethical standards one of his/her priorities. It has been said that employees only care about what their boss cares about. This is basically true. It’s the filter down theory. But if a CEO is ethically neutral or worse, ethically challenged, the likelihood exists that the rest of the organization will be a breeding ground for impropriety. However, when managers present examples of superior ethical conduct the rest of the organization will get the idea.

Theft of trade secrets is a serious federal crime with stiff consequences. It is investigated at the federal level because the very essence of our nation’s commerce system is at stake. A company’s proprietary intellectual property is what gives it competitive value in the market place.

Companies can help safeguard trade secrets by doing proper background checks on its employees. Credit reports should be part of the package for management employees and employees with audit or accounting responsibilities. For senior executive and board level screenings, federal criminal, SEC, and civil searches should be included. A properly structured exit interview can be instrumental in uncovering ethics problems in any organization. Protection of client lists, suppliers, and other sensitive data can be accomplished through proper controls that restrict internal access to such material. Penetration testing of intranet and internet based systems should be considered as part of your overall security program. Finally, access control systems that provide an audit trail can help secure your building and key internal areas.

There is little doubt that Joya Williams’ attorney will advise her to use the Sandy Berger defense and claim the alleged theft of the Coke recipe was inadvertent; simply an accident of sorts. If you recall, Sandy Berger was caught and prosecuted for stealing documents from the national archives (he stuffed them in his socks). For Berger, it worked. He got off with a misdemeanor charge. But unless Ms. Williams has friends in high places, it is likely she won’t be quite so fortunate. A violation of Section 1832, the Economic Espionage act of 1966, can result in stiff criminal penalties. A person who commits an offense in violation of Section 1832 can be imprisoned up to 10 years and fined up to $500,000.

Store clerk helps thwart terror attack on Army base

In a previous article, "The Soccer Mom's role in protecting our communities from terrorism", I used the term "soccer mom" as an analogy for the average citizen in order to demonstrate how everyone can help in the war against terror. I called for a "special vigilance" at the grassroots level and for citizens in every community to question what they see and what makes them feel uncomfortable and to report suspicious activity. The article spurred a lot of interest, discussion, and quite a bit of scepticism. Perhaps the idea of a soccer mom uncovering a terror cell after dropping her kiddies off at the field was too abstract. Yet, the point had to be made that terror cells live among us and that we cannot rely solely on the intelligence gathering efforts of our government to protect us.

This week the FBI announced that a terror plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey had been uncovered and thwarted as the result of a tip provided by a clerk at a Circuit City store close to the base. The clerk called authorities after terror suspects requested to have the clerk copy a CD depicting a violent, radical Islamic theme. Had the clerk not been vigilant; had the clerk not been suspicious; had the clerk not cared for his/her community, many Fort Dix soldiers may have died. For all we know (the identity of the clerk has not been released) the clerk may be a full-time soccer mom with a part time job at Circuit City.

As the war against terror unfolds there will be more examples of vigilance such as the one just described. And, over time, what it means to be vigilant will become less obscure. Our vigilance must extend to our workplaces, our social activities, our church activities and our schools. Whether it is a suspiciously parked vehicle, a lone backpack, a suspicious package or letter, a box cutter on a plane, or someone discussing a desire to commit violent acts, we encourage everyone to follow the example of the Circuit City store clerk and report what you've seen.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of a long fight against terror on our soil - a fight that will span future generations. Our safety and the safety of our children are at stake, yet, as a citizenry we share a reluctance to get involved. We fear being wrong, offending others, or being called a snitch. Perhaps we've gotten lazy, self centered, or just used to playing the odds. Perhaps political correctness has gotten the best of us. Notwithstanding, it is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their communities. Asset Control and ChooseToCare encourages everyone to remain vigilant and to report suspicious or threatening behavior to local or federal authorities.

Asset Control is a full-service security consulting firm. If you think your school or business may be a "soft target", call us today to discuss how we may be able to help make it less so.

Help prevent identity theft & credit fraud!

Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes of all times! But it is also one of the most preventable. Identity theft can ruin a person's credit rating, making it difficult to buy a home, automobile, rent an apartment, or otherwise obtain credit. Repairing the horrifying consequences of identity theft can take years. Similarly, credit fraud costs consumers, banks, and businesses billions each year. Moreover, if your company is negligent in its duty to protect customer and employee personal records you can be sure you will make the 6:00 news.

If you are a business owner, you have an ethical responsibility to help prevent theft of customer and employee personal identifying information. This information can include social security numbers, credit card numbers, driver license numbers, signatures, or any other information that could be of use to a fraud artist. Consider these real cases, and how simply they could have been prevented:

Case 1: The Negligent Retailer
A retailer interested in saving money instructed all of its stores to purge old transaction records by discarding old records in the dumpster behind each of the stores. This lead to several instances of "dumpster diving" in major metro areas where a single credit card number can be sold for between $8.00 - $11.00. In some cases the discarded material included signed credit card applications. Credit card numbers were pulled out of the dumpster by local indigents, who passed them on or sold them to accomplices. The accomplices then entered various stores in the neighborhood to make purchases, or, placed phone orders to local merchants for large amounts of merchandise.

In this case both the company and its customers suffered. Merchandise purchased fraudulently was charged back to the retailers by the various credit card companies. Additionally, the company's reputation suffered and many customers were lost when the story hit the local news. This could have been avoided had the company subscribed to a proper document disposal program!

Case 2: The Charitable Boss
The Home Office was diligent about having sensitive documents destroyed. To make it easy, each home office department was provided a "recycle" bin in which to place the material intended for shredding. This material was collected regularly by mail room personnel and taken to the basement where it was stored for disposal. The material included all types of sensitive material including employment applications, credit card numbers, and more. Monthly, the company subscribed to a document destruction service that would pick up and destroy the material on the company's premises.

When the mailroom supervisor, who was also pastor at a local church, mentioned that his church made money on the paper they recycled, his boss had an idea. Why not let the good pastor hall off the documents for the church where the proceeds could do some good for charity. Additionally, the boss could save some money on his budget by eliminating the document disposal fees. "A no-brainer and a done deal" said the boss! Unfortunately, multiple home office employees and others became identity theft and credit fraud victims as the result of this well intentioned, charitable decision.

Case 3: Whom do you trust?
Needing to know more about their customers, a retailer enlisted the services of a marketing agency to conduct a demographic profile. The agency requested that the retailer send as much information about their customers as possible, including purchase transaction history. Shortly thereafter, company investigators began to receive numerous calls from bank security officials who presented a perplexing problem. The banks had numerous credit card customers alleging fraud. Each customer had made arecent and legitimate purchase at one of the company's locations.

Upon investigation, it was discovered that the company had provided the marketing agency with tapes containing point of sale transaction information to include customer credit card numbers. The agency periodically used unscreened temporary employees to assist with certain projects. These employees took the opportunity to forward these credit card numbers to accomplices who paid the temporary employees $11.00 for each credit card number.

Conclusion
Your responsibility to safeguard employee and customer personal identifying information is important. The FACT Act Disposal Rule, which applies to virtually every business and private employer in the U.S., requires businesses to come into compliance by June 1, 2005 by both adopting and implementing their own document destruction policies or by contracting with a document shredding company or other data destruction company to do so. Penalties for violating the rule include actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000 punitive damages per violation (with no cap on class action damages), attorneys' fees, and civil penalties up to $2,500. What is even more difficule to measure is the impact on your company's reputation and good name! For more information about the rule and business compliance requirements, visit the FTC web site at http://www.ftc.gov

Consider providing departments that handle particularly sensitive information (H.R.,Security, Accounting, Etc.) their own shredder. Cross cut machines that mince documents are more secure than conventional shredders and are no more expensive. Document disposal services that destroy material at your location are a good option and are more secure than services that pick up material and take it elsewhere for disposal.

Last, we recommend that a review of document disposal procedures be added to any existing internal audit program, and reviewed periodically. We still hear in the news about good credible companies stubbing their toes on this issue. Your employees, customers, and your company's reputation are at risk!

Small businesses can learn from Sarbanes-Oxley

Small businesses are more likely to be hurt by the impact of theft than larger, more structured organizations. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the average organization loses approximately 6% of sales to fraud that is primarily internal in nature. To smaller, privately held, organizations that can have a huge impact says Bill Dolphin, Asset Control’s Vice President and Compliance Officer. But, there is much that all businesses can learn from Sarbanes-Oxley, regardless of whether or not they are required to comply.

Smaller organizations, explains Dolphin, tend to rely on trust more than larger, more structured companies. Audit programs may be less formal in nature or non-existent and employee screening may be less of a priority. In short, business owners sometimes operate under a false sense of security that often accompanies a familiarity with employees who may be long term. The thought may be, “I know my folks – we’re like family”. Or, “I’m on top of my numbers, I’d know if something was wrong”, says Dolphin. This thought pattern spells trouble and can create an environment where losses may occur. The fact is that fraud, when it occurs in smaller organizations, typically goes on for extended periods of time and is conducted by long-term, trusted employees at higher levels. It’s often discovered by accident.

Many business owners, executives and managers pride themselves in developing a work climate where employees feel trusted. Dolphin readily admits that organizations depend on trust to function. However, says Dolphin, a true “Climate of Honesty” is one where there is a balance between trust and oversight. Where we find problems is when there is a lopsided reliance on trust without any verification going on. Frequently, executives will tell us that they are not sure how to construct this balance without creating an environment where employees feel distrusted. What they are missing is that honest employees are often uncomfortable in overly “loose” work environments. During investigative interviews employees will often tell us of their level of discomfort with weak policies or controls, Dolphin points out. “The hang up about employees feeling distrusted exists mostly in the minds of executives.”

So what can businesses learn from Sarbanes-Oxley?

• Do a risk assessment and analyze opportunities for fraud. Sarbanes-Oxley guidelines address the need for internal controls that specifically target opportunities for fraud. Once potential risk areas are identified and prioritized, build appropriate controls to address them. Professional fraud investigators, such as those employed by Asset Control, Inc. can assist small businesses with the risk assessment process.

• Develop audit steps to ensure that the controls you put in place are functioning. If your company does not have a full-time internal auditor, this responsibility can be outsourced. This is a more effective practice than assigning this function to your bookkeeper or Office Manager.

• Review policies and procedures to make sure that company policy supports a climate of honesty. Have a written code of conduct that employees are required to sign at time of hire and yearly thereafter. Your code of conduct should tie in with your written policies and procedures and both should be consistent your expectations of an ethical work environment. When developing a code of conduct it is best to involve employees from various levels within the organization. By doing this you will achieve a better finished product.

• Conduct background checks and exclusionary list (OFAC) searches on all applicants and current employees. Many employers are still unaware that the law requires an OFAC search on anyone with whom you develop a financial relationship. Employment is a financial relationship.

Sarbanes-Oxley is a terrific blueprint for building a solid climate of honesty, whether your company is required to comply or not. Whether it’s through employment background checks, our Sarbanes-Oxley compliant tip-line, our audit experience, or our investigative services, Asset Control can assist in reducing your organization’s exposure to fraud.

Bullies: Out of the schoolyard and into the workplace

Bullies are no longer relegated to playgrounds, schoolyards, high school locker rooms, or hallways. In fact, bullies have graduated and taken their behaviors to higher levels. Workplace bullying, or “mobbing” as it is sometimes referred to, is a growing concern for employees and employers alike. Mobbing is recognized as a serious workplace phenomenon internationally as well as in the United States.

What constitutes mobbing? According to social psychologist Dr. Ruth Namie, mobbing is defined as "the repeated mistreatment of one employee targeted by one or more employees with a malicious mix of humiliation, intimidation and sabotage of performance.” Within the context of the workplace, mobbing poses new and unique legal issues for employers and threatens to overtake sexual harassment as the workplace cause de jour. Several states, including California and Oregon, have undertaken legislation or other administrative action to address workplace mobbing:

• Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality Anti-Mobbing Policy No. 50.110 defines mobbing as “intentional verbal or non-verbal conduct by one or more individuals against another individual over a period of time, that continuously and systematically: Intimidates, shows hostility, threatens, offends, humiliates, or insults any co-worker; or Interferes with a co-worker's performance; or Has an adverse impact on a co-worker's mental or physical well-being; or otherwise adversely affects a co-worker”.
  
  
• California addresses workplace bullying within the context of its Abusive Workplace legislation (Assembly Bill No. 1582 2003-04). The bill defines Abusive Conduct’’ as “conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include, but is not limited to, repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets; verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating; or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance”.

According to California legislators, somewhere between 16 and 21% of employees have been victimized by health-endangering workplace bullying, abuse, and harassment. Moreover, they find that this behavior is three times more prevalent than sexual harassment alone. What does this mean? Certainly, employers must put mobbing on their radar screen. Human Resource directors are well advised to review their hostile workplace policies to ensure that bullying is addressed and that proactive remedies are in place. Most importantly, Human Resource Assistants and company managers should be made aware of the signs of workplace bullying and the proper methods for addressing same. Additionally, companies should consider developing an anonymous tip-line, such as ChooseToCare (http://www.choosetocare.com/) , that is administered by a third party. In most cases, employees other than those directly involved in the harassment, have information to share but no way to do so anonymously.

Companies need to be ahead of the curve on this one says Bill Dolphin, Asset Control’s Vice President and Compliance Officer. Part of the liability companies face with mobbing complaints lies in the fact that managers often unwittingly participate in the problem. This occurs when the manager documents the decline in the “target” employee’s performance, often associated with bullying, through counseling’s, poor performance evaluations, or other corrective actions; all of which serves to aggravate the emotional or psychological stress experienced by the victim.

What remedies are available to the targets of mobbing behavior? California’s legislation, for example, provides that am employee could seek compensation under the bill or through worker’s compensation – but not through both. Moreover, an EEOC remedy could be sought if the employee can show that the harassment occurred because of the employee’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation. State level legislation, however, seeks to expand employee protection to cover harassment for just about any reason (appearance, weight, personal habits, political or social beliefs, etc.).

No aspect of the business community has been spared. Cases have occurred within college faculties, school districts, law firms, and corporations. People can be cruel. Anyone who went through school overweight, with braces on their teeth, having to wear glasses, or handicapped knows this. “That school yard behaviors such as physical and emotional isolation, rumor mongering, work sabotage, threatening and the like is alive and well in the workplace shouldn’t surprise anyone”, says Dolphin. Yet, many employers are so focused on the more traditional forms of discrimination, like sexual harassment and EEOC related issues, that the signs that mobbing behavior may be occurring in their workplace escape them. “In fact, among the Human Resource professionals we spoke to, several had not heard of the term “mobbing” in the context of the workplace”, Dolphin points out.

As goes California, so goes the country. But workplace mobbing is not strictly a domestic phenomenon. Cases have arisen in Australia, the U.K., and Canada. In fact, awareness of this problem is gaining momentum worldwide.

For more information on mobbing in the workplace, please visit:

Mobbing – U.S.A. at http://www.mobbing-usa.com/
Mobbing.Ca at: http://mobbing.ca/

Asset Control is an indistry leader in employment screening, workplace safety, and corporate security solutions. Please visit us at www.assetcontrol.net

A case to watch: Former Swift employees sue meatpacker for allegedly hiring illegal workers to keep wages low

If there was ever a case to watch this is the one. Recently, ICE authorities raided a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Cactus Texas, just north of Amarillo. This is one of six facilities raided in a multi-state sweep that led to the arrests of nearly 1,300 employees, temporarily halting Swift's operations. The raids were part of an investigation into the theft of Social Security numbers by illegal aliens who worked at Swift plants in Cactus, Grand Island; Nebraska; Greeley, Colorado; Hyrum, Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minnesota.

Now, 13 former employees of the plant are suing Swift for 13 million dollars. The suit alleges that the employer intentionally and systematically hired illegal workers in an attempt to keep wages low, thus impacting the income-making ability of legal workers. The racketeering-based suit was filed Friday against Swift and HM Capital Partners in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

This is an important case says Bill Dolphin, Vice President of Asset Control. “It’s a unique approach to addressing the issue of illegal workers. The case could open the door for a myriad of similar suits by applicants and former employees who allege they were displaced by employees demanding lesser wages”, said Dolphin.

“This kind of case can make a litigator’s mind run wild”, says Mike Hake of Asset Control and a former Human Resource Director. “While it may take years for a single case like this to lumber through the courts, the potential for it to leave hundreds of similarly themed cases in its wake is extraordinary”.

“It’s a simple and an appealing plaintiff argument”, says Bill Dolphin. For years the federal government has ignored the issue of illegal workers and their potential impact on legal workers. Now, plaintiffs have moved the fight to the civil courts where, quite honestly, there may be more opportunity for punitive action than in the criminal courts. I see this not only applying to displaced former employees, but to applicants who may have been rejected too.

Under RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) private persons and entities may initiate civil suits to obtain injunctions against enterprises that conspire to or actually violate federal alien smuggling, harboring, or document fraud statutes. The law allows for the pursuit of treble damages. Now add the possibility of an individual or class action tort claim for discrimination and you have what amounts to a blank canvas!

The employment of illegal workers is a very emotional issue that has found its place in the national spotlight. This case and its offspring will appeal to persons and citizen action groups who see themselves as soldiers in the war on illegal immigration. For this reason, Asset Control advises all employers to place this case on their radar screens. We guarantee many applicants and employees already have!

What went wrong at HP?

I sat and stared at my HP printer blinking at me for the third time today with yet another paper jam and wondered what happened to the quality. Just a few years ago HP was the darling of the manufacturing community with a product of unsurpassed quality and reputation. I remember too, sitting through a graduate school class and listening to a case study presentation given by the professor about one of the best managed companies in the world - Hewlett-Packard Corporation.

Today, HP is on the verge of unraveling, with members of the Board of Directors and other lesser company directors under criminal investigation for activities the impact of which will affect every employee in every job category and every division. The net result will be that every employee will look askew at their director, manager, or supervisor and wonder if that person spying on them or their family - a further layering-on to the culture of fear that developed during the Carly Fiorina years. Problems like this often trickle down to the product level and quality will likely suffer further due to the huge morale implications that will follow. Stockholders will suffer too.

What happened at HP is not uncommon in the business community. A company culture predicated on good ethics and an above board management style changes, sometimes over time but often overnight, when ethically impaired people happen to good companies. Frequently, the metamorphoses occur as the result of actions initiated by the board in response to lack luster company performance or other real or perceived shortcomings. Often, the changes start with a shake-up on the board itself; sometimes resulting in the appointment of a new chairperson. The change is usually hastened further by personnel changes at the CEO, COO, or President levels. What happens next is a win at all cost climate where ethics take a back seat to achieving certain short term goals and standards of conduct become blurred. Be careful when you hear the euphemism "culture change".

Ironically, the person who initiated the investigations that ultimately cost her her job was the former Audit & Finance Committee Chairperson, and the person who was directly responsible for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, Patricia Dunn; a person in a position to know better. What Dunn specifically knew about the techniques and outsource security agency used to gather personal information, including phone records, is under investigation. What is known is that periodic reports to certain Directors and board members regarding the information gathered were made. The content of those reports and the nature of the information contained in those reports should have set off alarms and sent company ethics police scrambling. The investigation in question was a company inquiry into information leaks by a board member(s). The personal phone records obtained as part of the investigation are alleged to include employees, journalists and the family members of same. Computer spying is also alleged. Whether the information allegedly leaked was material or damaging in nature is questionable.


What is certain is that key individuals in positions of governance made decisions that placed the company at risk - smart individuals whose experience and education would seem to indicate that they knew better. What caused these people to set aside their ethics is speculative. That no one understood that an outsource investigative agency is, in fact, a consumer reporting agency and must comply with FCRA regulations is absurd. But, amidst culture change loyalties are tested and individuals often presented with ethical decisions. The question in play is "are you part of the new team or the old one?" "Are you part of the new circle of trust, or not?" Each person confronted by this question has an ethical dilemma if the newly emerging culture is not ethics based. When intense culture shift becomes evident rest assured that all management employees will be tested. Unfortunately, an employee's options are few: Buy in to the standards of conduct or say "no" and wait for the hammer to fall.

Asset Control recommends that all companies appoint a person to be responsible for the implementation of a company ethics program. This person should be required to become a member of a national organization that provides ethics based training to members. Public companies ought to assign specific board member to oversee its implementation. Typically, this task would rest with the Chairperson of the Audit & Finance Committee. However, the responsibility could reside elsewhere such as with the Chair of the HR Committee. Regardless, that committee's charter ought to include ethics as a documented function. Ironically, the responsibility for corporate ethics does not appear to have been assigned to any of HP's board level committees. What resulted was a disconnect between the board and its Sarbanes-Oxley mandated role in monitoring corporate ethics. All employees need to know that there is a formally established procedure through which to provide ethics related information directly to the board, if necessary.

Last, it is imperative that company officials in appropriate areas are trained in privacy matters. Specific attention should be paid to the FCRA and the company's obligation for compliance as well as the penalties for non-compliance. Several months ago I wrote an article challenging journalist Liz Pulliam Weston's contention that the FCRA has given companies the license to spy on its employees. In the article I expressed concern that some companies might actually buy her story. Apparently, there is one that did. While the primary responsibility for what happened at HP lies with management, the methods of the security agency the company hired must be questioned. The integrity of your outsource agency will ultimately reflect on your company. When you ask for a job to be done, always take the time to find out how it will be done. If the answer is "you don't want to know", walk away. Today (as opposed to 30 years ago, or so) expect that no secret will be kept. Even our government, which is in the business of keeping secrets, can't keep secrets any more. Leaks about questionable ethical behavior will cost executives their careers and topple management.

So how do you keep your ethics while all around you are losing theirs? It's as simple as just saying "no". But there will be consequences. This is what I did when my integrity was tested by the senior most executive in my company. My refusal to bend eventually led to my departure from the company but I left with my integrity intact. You may be the lucky enough to remain after the ethically challenged are purged from the company as is invariably their fate. If you are so lucky, roll up your sleeves. Restoring a company's climate of honesty is arduous work.

Are your service providers placing your children or employees at risk?

Recently, a custodian at Saguaro High School in Scottsdale Arizona was arrested for allegedly raping a 14 year old student. Immigration officials have now said that the custodian, Roberto Lemus-Retana, was an illegal immigrant and was not authorized to work in the United States. Lemus-Retana was employed by a private janitorial firm that supplies about 130 workers to the Scottsdale School District.

Sadly, school districts have helped form negligent hiring law and this incident has the potential to develop into a landmark case. A civil suit of one form or another is inevitable. Here, the flames will be fanned by the fact that the employment of illegal workers is a very emotional issue that has found its place in the national spotlight. One can argue that much of the data that seems to support the contention that illegal aliens are more likely to be involved in criminal activity is anecdotal. Notwithstanding, checking the criminal records of illegal workers is virtually impossible. The vast majority of service providers who knowingly hire illegal workers don’t even bother to check them out. Criminal record checks on workers from Mexico and other parts of the globe are, and always have been of questionable accuracy. You can bet that if an illegal worker commits a violent crime against another employee, a student, or customer, your hiring procedures will be closely examined. Expect enhanced liability and potential criminal penalties.

Going forward, simply requiring your business partners and vendors to certify that they conduct background checks on their employees will not be enough. Due-diligence will require that entities contracting for outsourced employees who will be in close proximity to children and other “vulnerable” persons know for sure that proper screening procedures are being followed.

Many school districts or other employers may want to consider screening the contract employees themselves. You can screen your service provider’s employee by having each contract employee complete a special contractor/vendor authorization form. Your service provider may allow you to bill back the cost of the screening. Screening the employees yourself should be manageable if the employee turnover is low. If administering the screening process yourself is not manageable, we recommend the following:

1) Meet with your business partner and provide them with your company’s employment screening standards. Document the standards and make them a part of your business contract or agreement.

2) Arrange to meet with your business partner and the background screening firm that will be handling the screenings. Make sure you are all on the same page with regard to the screening standards and process (i.e. social search; felony & misdemeanors; at least 7 years back; no database searches; etc.)

3) Discuss what procedures will be used to reduce the risk of hiring illegal workers (e.g. SAVE Program; verify SSN w/Social Security Administration post job offer; etc.).

4) Ask that your service provider make the results of the background check for any person who will be working on your premises available to you on request. Make this a formal part of your agreement. Review all results regularly or audit results on a random periodic basis.

Working with your service provider in this area will be a process of negotiation and agreement. Clearly, it is in your best interest to develop a roster of contract employees who will be regular workers and not a staff that changes every day or two. Administering a background screening program is easier given a more stable staff. Additionally, you will get better service from your provider under these circumstances. If your service provider is uncooperative in your efforts to ensure the quality and consistency of the background checks done on contract employees, consider finding a contractor who will work with you. Your due-diligence in this important area will reduce the likelihood that you will have to share in your service provider’s negligence should an incident occur.

Understanding Sex Offender Searches

Sex Offender searches have become one of our most requested searches. However, it is important to understand just what you are getting when a sex offender search is requested as well as what you may not be getting.

As states succumb to increasing pressure to protect our children, more and more sex offender information is released to the public. However, many states still have laws that restrict which offenders will become part of the “registry” and which names on the registry will be released to the public. In many cases, who becomes part of the public sex offender database is not decided by statute, but by the judges, psychologists, social workers, and other clinicians who work for the courts. In other words, the protection of your children, employees, and neighborhoods is not based upon any objective criteria, but on someone’s opinion.

After an “evaluation’ by the court an offender will be assigned a risk level. This level is less dependant upon the seriousness of the crime, than on the court’s opinion as to the likelihood that the convict will re-offend. Many states, but not all, use a risk level of 1, 2, or 3 (level1 being the least likely to re-offend and 3 being the most likely). Although all offenders who commit some crimes may be required by federal and state law to register, not all registered offenders will be revealed to the public via the state’s sex offender database. In New Jersey and California, for example, about 25% of sex offenders are withheld from public view because they are “low risk” offenders. Moreover, in most states, if an offender chooses not to register as required, he/she will not be part of the public access database. Unfortunately, offenders are not automatically registered upon conviction. They must register themselves upon release into the community.

In 1994 the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act was passed as part of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This law required states to implement a sex offender and crimes against children registry. In 1996, Megan's Law amended the Wetterling Act and required states to establish a community notification system. Unfortunately, the penalty for not fully adhering to these laws is weak. Additionally, politics play a large role in determining just how dedicated some state’s legislators are to protecting our children. As more and more public pressure is applied to legislators, the integrity of the information contained in sex offender databases will improve. Sex offender searches are important as they will help identify offenders who migrate from the states in which they were convicted. They have become a mandatory search for any client who interacts with children or vulnerable adults. However, sex offender registries are not a substitute for criminal conviction searches; rather, they are part of a layering on process intended to achieve due-diligence.

Security Precautions for Realtors

Recently, another savage violent act against a real estate agent has made the news. This time, a real estate sales representative working in an upscale development in McKinney was found brutally murdered in the model home in which she was working. I am personally familiar with a similar case in my home town of Coppell, Texas in which a female real estate agent was attacked and repeatedly stabbed during a home showing. In each case the agent was alone with a supposed potential client. Both crimes are similar in that they occurred during open house showings which have proven to be particularly risky for agents throughout the country. That the neighborhoods were upscale may have been a contributing factor in these and other similar crimes. When a customer asks to see expensive homes sales people sometimes forget security precautions in the midst of their excitement.

The situation in which these agents placed themselves is all too common in the industry. My wife and I have personally viewed hundreds of model homes that were attended by lone female agents. Rarely do we hear about attacks of male agents in these situations. Female agents who work alone in model homes are more likely to be targeted for robbery and sexual assault for reasons that are obvious to most. The following security precautions are written for agencies, builders and independent agents alike. I encourage agencies and builders to formally adopt and adhere to security procedures because they could save a life and because builders and agencies may be liable in the future for not being proactive in protecting their representatives. Train all agents and sales reps how to be safe.

1) Be aware that your chosen profession poses known safety risks that are real! Knowing this and being aware of your surroundings at all times is a step in the right direction.

2) Don’t work a model or open house alone. If the agency will not provide a partner, bring a friend. There is true safety in numbers.

3) If the home has a monitored alarm system, know the alarm’s panic sequence.

4) Builders – activate the model home’s monitored alarm system. Don’t pinch pennies by not having the system monitored prior to the home being sold. Besides the safety of your agents, you have office equipment and furnishings that are vulnerable to theft.

5) Take your cell phone. I generally don’t plug phone companies, but Nextel phones have direct communications (walkie-talkie) capability and provide almost instant communications. Carry the phone on your person – not in your handbag!

6) Make a plan to check in with your office on a routine basis. Let them know the address(s) you are going to. Once back at your base, let them know that too. If there is no staff at your office to check in with, leave a record of your intended destination on an answering machine or with an answering service.

7) Agree on code words that can be used to alert others that you feel you are or may be in distress. For example, “there’s a yellow light on the Jones contract” can communicate that you feel threatened or at risk. Likewise, “there’s a red light on the Jones contract” can mean send help.

8) Leave your best jewelry at home.

9) Adopt a businesslike rather than a provocative manner of dress.

10) Take a few moments to learn the layout of the home you are showing – from a safety standpoint. Plan an escape route in the event you feel threatened.

11) If you don’t know the customer well, have them follow you to the property in their car. Many of the agent assaults we know of have occurred when the customer got in the car with the agent.

12) Minimally, obtain a photo copy of their Driver License, or, pre-qualify the shopper. Explain to them that this is security policy. Simply filling out a buyer information form is not enough. You need to corroborate the information on the form against a driver’s license. Obtain the customer’s license plate number too.

Technology may provide some assistance to builders who show model homes as camera systems, particularly those that can be monitored over the Internet, are very inexpensive. Business partners may be persuaded to install their home video systems in models at no cost, as a sales tool. GPS guided personal security devices are hitting the market and should be considered by sales reps and agents. Some cell phones now include global positioning chips. Similarly, GPS chips can now be concealed in watch bands, bracelets and other items that can be worn on the body. Having said this, awareness and not electronics should be seen as the basis of an effective safety program.

Last, I encourage all real estate certification schools to provide safety training for agents-to-be. If not required by law, it is simply the right thing to do. It could save a life!

First Strike: Feds Seize both Management and Workers in Enforcement Raid

In what may be the first of many raids to come, Federal ICE officials rounded up over 1000 illegal immigrants from a number of IFCO System locations. IFCO Systems, the nations leading manufacturer of wooden pallets and crates, has offices in several states. During the raid Wednesday, Federal authorities hit company locations in Houston, Cincinnati, Phoenix, and Albany. According to CNN, over 53% of employees “sampled” by the Feds had “faulty” Social Security Numbers. That is to say, numbers belonging to children, numbers shared by several other individuals, numbers belonging to dead people, or numbers belonging to people not working for the company. Among those arrested, reports CNN, were seven current and former managers of the company.

“This is a scary proposition for many employers” says Bill Dolphin, Vice President of Asset Control. “We knew it would be just a matter of time before the government reacted to public sentiment against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. What we don’t know is what the Fed’s approach will be going forward. Their enforcement program has been random and arbitrary up to now, if one can say there has been an enforcement program at all”, says Dolphin. “We can only believe this is a glimpse of what’s to come. “It’s a warning shot across the bow of employers who don’t employ due diligence in determining a workers eligibility”.

Although verifying an applicant’s social security number as part of a pre-employment screening process is a “best practice”, some employers still don’t bother to do it, says Russ Rosenberg, President of Asset Control. “Without a social search all you have are spaces filled in on an application and an I-9, but nothing to check your information against. You’re placed in the position of having to take the applicant’s word for much of the information they provide. Employers just can’t afford to put themselves in that position any longer”.

Although employers can verify certain information with the Social Security Administration, post-hire, such as name and date of birth, this verification is of limited value. It won’t, for example, tell you if a number of individuals are sharing the same social security number, or, if the applicant has lived in places other than those listed on the employment application. If discrepancies can be uncovered before the applicant is hired, it saves both time and money. Problems uncovered post-hire most often result in a termination with recruitment and training losses.

Employers must think about documenting a due-diligence effort to screen out illegal workers. Whether using a social security number search or participating in the government’s SAVE program, Asset Control can assist you in constructing a defensible approach. Most investigations into the hiring of illegal workers are initiated as the result of complaints from employees and citizens, says Dolphin. With public sentiment against illegal workers at an all time high, any business that ignores the law is at risk.

For more information about detecting illegal workers go to: http://assetcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/02/know-how-to-detect-illegal-workers.html

Protecting your company’s good name!

Recently, Radio Shack Corporation made the news when it was learned that CEO, David Edmondson, had falsified his resume. Edmondson had worked his way up within the organization and had been with the company several years before resigning late last week. Apparently, the CEO claimed a college degree he never earned. Could a simple background check have prevented the public embarrassment and organizational disruption that befell this local Fort Worth business icon? Probably.

Often we see a reluctance to conduct routine background checks for executive positions, especially at the senior executive and board levels. I know this first hand, after having spent over 30 years in the corporate world developing and implementing employment background screening programs. I have seen many corporate executives hired without so much as an employment application or a release authorizing an appropriate investigation. As one CEO explained to me, “you just don’t embarrass executives at these levels by asking them to submit to a background check”. Later, this same CEO had to fire her newly hired CFO for discrepancies that a routine background check would have revealed. The notion that higher level executive candidates have somehow been vetted as a result of their tenure within the industry is prevalent. Moreover, this attitude is not just present in the private sector. Witness the controversy over discrepancies in biographical claims made by former FEMA Director Michael Brown - discrepancies that ultimately resulted in his downfall and a certain amount of embarrassment for the Bush Administration.

For any successful company their good name is their leading asset. Risk of loosing your reputation in the industry is only one of the many reasons to conduct executive level background checks – but it is a darn good one! Executive and board level packages should include a credit report, degree verification, local and federal criminal record searches as well as civil record searches. An SEC search should always be conducted for finance or senior accounting executives. The SEC has records of literally thousands of senior executive types who have been sanctioned for cooking their employer’s books. Remember, once the cooking’s done these executives have to work somewhere. It doesn’t have to be for you!

Know How to Detect Illegal Workers!

With the increased focus on terrorism and the need for enhanced internal security, clients have become even more aware or the importance of checking the validity of the INS documents applicants present. Producing counterfeit documents and stealing legitimate documents for alteration has become big business. While falsified documents are becoming increasingly difficult to detect, the potential costs of hiring illegal workers has increased dramatically as the result of September 11. But your risk goes beyond the potential to hire a terrorist. Criminals such as child molestors and other felons often falsify their identity or work eligibility to gain access to children or other assets. Expertise in verifying work eligibility has become a required skill for Human Resource and security managers alike.

Document counterfeiting is an art and the organized crime rings engaged in this activity have perfected their craft. This is one reason why detecting counterfeit INS or other documents has become extremely difficult. In some cases documents are produced on stolen, official stock. Notwithstanding, employers should be aware of these basic detection points:

1) Determine whether the information on the document pertains to the individual presenting the document (if the person appears to be 18 and the identification says 40, there is a problem; if a man presents the document with a woman’s picture, there is also a problem). Look for discrepancies between the information depicted on the documents and the information provided on the employment application.

2)Look for alterations as evidenced by erasures, photograph substitutions, etc. Official documents are never altered, they are replaced.

3) Check to be sure the document is squarely cut.

4) Determine that the printing and engraving is parallel with the edges of the document in addition to being sharp, clear, and unbroken.

Being alert to questionable documents and falsifications on the employment application is only the first step toward hiring safely. There are a number of reasonable, no cost or low cost measures available wich allow employers to screen out illegal workers. In fact, the use of some of these measures is absolutely necessary. Your employment screening agency will be able to advise you which of these measures are appropriate for you.

1) The "SAVE" program, an official ICE initiative, allows employers that conduct business in certain high risk states to immediately determine the eligibility of those they hire. Employers can participate in SAVE themselves, or through an authorized employment screening agency. Applicants are screened through the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

2) Ask your employment screening agency to run a Social Security Number Verification as part of your routine pre-employment screening program. This search will give you a 7 year residence history for your applicant. In many cases this is enough to detect documentation discrepancies. Additionally, this search will help your employment screening agency determine where to conduct court record searches. This search will help identify purchased, stolen or shared SSN's.

3) Verify the Social Security Number through the Social Security Administration after the employee has begun work. If the name and date of birth provided by the employee does not match the Social Security Administration records, a problem most likely exists.

4) Employers can verify work eligibility status by completing INS form G845. Complete instructions for the use of this form can be obtained at http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/index.htm. This process is free. Please beware of official looking web sites that charge fees of up to $20.00 to file this form. These sites may appear to be government sites but they are not. Get your information from the aforementioned government site only. Legitimate background screening agencies may charge a small processing fee to file this form on your behalf if you do not have the administrative capability to do so. Ask you employment screening agency to assist if needed.

Remember, contact the local INS Office of Investigations to verify the document number before denying anyone employment based upon documents you suspect to be bogus. Know and follow INS regulations for verifying employment eligibility. If you need further support call your local INS office or the INS National Customer Service Center at 202-514-2000.

Data Breach Costs ChoicePoint $15 Million - But the Industry More!

In an historic settlement ChoicePoint, one of the largest re-sellers of comsumer personal data, has agreed to pay the Federal Trade Commission $15 million dollars as penance for their data breach that made headlines recently. This represents the largest civil penalty ever in the FTC's history.

This incident, the publicity that ensued, and the resulting settlement is likely to have a far reaching impact on the employment screening industry and the public it serves. Rather than enforcing reasonable and effective standards for controlling access to the information employers need to make appropriate hiring decisions, we are already seeing more restrictions on what data will be available to employers. Some of the restrictions, such as truncated dates of birth and other identifiers, are coming from within the industry in anticipation of increased government scrutiny.

Sadly, the data breaches that occurred at ChoicePoint could have easily been prevented had proper procedures been followed. The data was not stolen by hackers, nor were data tapes lost in transit. Consumer data was sold to bogus companies that used fake documentation to set up client accounts. Sources say that Choicepoint continued to sell data, such as credit reports, to these companies even after employees flagged them as suspicious. "This is an example of what can happen when a company becomes primarily sales driven", says Asset Control's President,Russ Rosenberg. "I've seen it many times in my career - a tendancy for sales to overahadow internal controls and true concern for the consumer. Data sellers see their products as quick sales and the customer gets lost in the process", Rosenberg states.

What questions should clients ask when they are shopping for a quality background screening company? First, ask if the agency is providing real court record searches and not repackaged data. Second, ask if your primary contact with the agency will be an employment screening expert and not just a salesperson. Clients need to have their questions answered by someone with human resource or security experience. Finally, ask how the agency is ensuring the security of your employees personal identifying data. "Sometimes size does matter", contends Rosenberg. "Customers tend to get lost in the behemoth sized companies. Smaller companies can give the client a more personal level of service and pricing is going to very similar".

When shopping for a background screening company don't be offended if they ask you to documentation that your business is legitimate. Their livelihood is on the line. Often agencies will ask to physically inspect your place of business, particularly if consumer credit data is involved. Current business licenses, tax ID certificates, charters, incorporation documents and other forms of documentation may be requested. Ironically, these are the same requirements imposed upon the industry by companies like Choicepoint, that they themselves chose not to follow.

New Jersey Schools Look Parents Straight in the Eye!

Before picking up a child at one of three Freehold Borough elementary schools parents will be required to look into a camera that will take a digital picture of their eye. This will establish positive identification and grant them access to the school. Phil Meara, superintendent of the Freehold Borough School District, described the swipe card thechnology that previously operated the doors as "obsolete". The project, funded by a school safety grant from the National Institute of Justice of more than $369,000., makes a clear statement that this school district is serious about child safety! Apparently, the Feds are interested in advancing access control technology in schools.

The Teacher-Parent Authorization Security System (T-PASS), a software application developed by Eyemetric Identity Systems, will control teacher, parent and staff employee access to each of the three campuses. The system will also allow identifying data from Driver Licenses from all 50 states to be swiped into the system to facilitate the identification process. Parents can authorize up to four adults in the system.

While the Freehold Bourough project is an expirement, it serves to illustrate just how serious some school administrators are about the need to improve campus access control. Many (I'd even go so far as to say most school districts) find this critical aspect of campus security to be extremely difficult, even impossible to administer. Yet, in the face of drug crime, sexual assault, kidnapping, and the risk of terrorism, the need for better ways to secure our schools is apparent. Notwithstanding, many schools have all but given up on efforts to prevent unauthorized entry to campuses - or, have not recognized the need to do so at all. The wholly unattended clipboard with a visitor sign-in sheet at the front entrance of a grade school is an all too often sight as I travel in my role as a school security consultant. Ironically, the pen is mostoften chained to the clipboard indicating a greater sense for the need to secure the writing instrument than for the security of the students and teachers. Unfortunately, many security controlls come about as the result of a horrible incident or public pressure rather than through thoughtful adherence to known best practices.

While technology often makes life better, it is not without encumberences. Access cards are often lost or forgotten by those they are assigned to. Electronic locks break and require maintenance. Iris recognition hardware and software software is costly and requires ongoing technical support. Moreover, the concept may be offensive to privany advocates and other segments of the community. While this technology will be that of the very near future, its widespread use in schools is questionable due to the underlying cost and maintenance expense. No access control process is wothout its costs and drawbacks.

Schools are challenged to address this basic security issue and they must start now. We encourage all schools to use those processes that are within their reach and those that are manageable given their recources. Manual processes are better than none at all. Schools that are in a position to afford more sophisticated technology are encouraged to explore those options. Access control has become commonplace as businesses strive to protect property and employees. Yet, schools lag far behind when it comes to protecting our most valuable of resources - our children. If you have not developed a workable solution to this basic aspect of campus security, be proactive and address it now before an incident occurs.

Deferred Adjudications – What Employers Should Know

A “deferred adjudication” is a disposition whereby a defendant is placed on “deferred adjudication probation” for a period of time in exchange for a guilty plea or a plea of no contest. If the defendant completes the probation successfully, typically the charge is dismissed.

Some employers struggle to understand the meaning of and the law surrounding the use of deferred adjudication in the employment decision, and with good reason. Generally, the law regarding the use of deferred adjudications is vague, contradictory, or not enforced. Courts are divided on the question of whether or not a disposition of deferred adjudication constitutes a judgment. Some have determined that since a deferred adjudication (again, in exchange for a plea of guilt or no contest) results in a consequence which involves a sentence to custody (probation) that it is, indeed, a judgment. Other courts have determined that since no final determination of innocence or guilt has been delivered, that no judgment has been entered.

Deferred adjudications are intended to protect first time offenders who have committed minor criminal infractions from the lifetime stigma a conviction may impose. However, deferred adjudications remain a part of a person’s public record unless the charge is expunged or granted restricted access. Therefore, in most cases, deferred adjudications remain visible to employers and difficult to ignore during the employment decision. Currently, we are aware of no law, except in California, that restricts background screening agencies from reporting deferred adjudications, or, employers from considering deferred adjudications in the employment decision. California allows the reporting of D/A cases where the defendant is still on probation but not cases that have progressed to a dismissal. Yet, some employers prefer that deferred adjudications not be reported to them. Others want them to be reported but have difficulty deciding how to consider them in the employment decision. Since deferred adjudications, by definition, are not considered to be convictions some element of care and common sense must be used when considering them. Here are some things you may want to consider with regard to D/A dispositions:

1) A policy that states deferred adjudications shall not be considered in the employment decision may be short sighted and may place your customers and employees at risk. Consider amending your employment application to request information regarding deferred adjudications as well as convictions. For example: “Have you ever been subject to deferred adjudication, indictment, conviction, probation or fined for a crime other than a traffic offense?” (Employment Application – Texas Attorney General’s Office) Or, “Have you ever been convicted of, pled guilty or no contest to a felony or a misdemeanor crime, regardless of whether sentence was imposed by the court.” (Employment Application – High Technology Manufacturing Firm). Remember, applicants are correct in responding “no” to the conviction question unless the question specifically requests D/A information.

2) Deferred adjudications once were reserved for first offenders. This is no longer true. We have seen multiple deferred adjudications granted to repeat offenders. Often, in cases where each crime was committed in a different venue. Caution should be exercised when considering a single deferred adjudication, especially one for which the charge does not directly relate to the position applied for. However, multiple deferred adjudications for the same crime may indicate a pattern of behavior that could place your company at risk. Moreover, an applicant who receives D/A for one crime while still on D/A for a previous crime might be considered differently than an applicant with a single D/A.

3) A D/A probation that was not terminated satisfactorily generally results in a conviction being entered by the court. These should be considered the same as a straight conviction.

4) Certain organizations, particularly those entrusted with the safety of vulnerable persons such as children or the elderly, are legally justified in giving deferred adjudications close scrutiny. In fact, even a single deferred adjudication for a serious crime may warrant denial of employment. Some of those crimes are: Indecency with a child; rape; murder; sexual assault; injury to a child, elderly, or disabled person; kidnapping; sale, use or distribution of controlled substances or other dangerous drugs; robbery; and assault with serious bodily injury. Other crimes may apply depending on the employer and the overall mission of the employer.

Some states are considering laws that will allow a person who has received a deferred adjudication to apply to have their record expunged or to have access restricted. Requiring the person to apply for this privilege allows judges to consider each request on its own merits. Texas is one state that has moved in that direction. Employers who use database searches to obtain their criminal information run the additional risk of receiving D/A information that has been restricted or expunged since the database was last updated. Employers are advised to avoid this liability by using real court record searches. Last, the use of common sense may be the best advice when considering deferred adjudication in the employment decision. By making sure the charge is job related, by paying attention to patterns of behavior, and carefully assessing charges for violent offenses, employers can make proper employment decisions while keeping their workplaces safe for all.


Asset Control does not provide legal advice and nothing included in this article should be considered as such. As always, we advise that you ask your legal department or outside attorney to assist with the development of policy and in other sensitive Human Resources matters. Know the FEP laws in each state in which you do business.

Does your employment screening policy place your employees and customers at risk?

Wonders never cease to amaze, particularly in my business. Each day I look at records of serious violent acts, and shake my head in disbelief. Currently, I'm shaking my head over a felony rape charge reduced, by plea bargain, to a misdemeanor assault count. Yesterday, it was an aggravated robbery charge reduced to a misdemeanor theft count. The day before, a felony stalking charge, plea bargained to a disorderly conduct charge.

In each case, serious violent crimes reduced to misdemeanors. In each case, based upon the client's internal company policy, not reportable to them. The reduction of serious violent crimes, by plea bargain, to lesser misdemeanor offenses has become commonplace in our court system. In fact, as police, courts, and judges communicate less and less with one another, we see applicants with histories of violent crimes charged as felonies and adjudicated as misdemeanors in an effort to move cases through the judicial system. Last night's Law & Order television show dealt with a violent sex offender who stayed out of jail because his many violent offenses were reduced to misdemeanors. Avoiding incarceration, he went on to commit the most heinous of crimes. As a professional, I am here to tell you that this example was a clear depiction of what comes accross my desk every day.

What does this mean to the employer? The answer is everything, if your employment screening policy is working against you and the safety of your workplace! If your employment application asks about felony convictions only, you may be placing your company at risk. If your employment policy allows you to consider felony convictions only, your policy may be placing your employees and customers at risk.

Here's what we recommend:

1) Review your hiring practices and policy against the current reality - a majority of violent offenders initially charged as felons are adjudicated at the misdemeanor level. Believe me, you want to see misdemeanor offenses too. What you don't know can hurt you

2) Work with your background screening agency to understand legal terms like deferred adjudication, probation, deferred sentence, probation discharge, probation revocation, nolle pross, nolo contendre, etc. Understand which pleas and dispositions you can consider and which ones you must take extra care when considering.

3) If you don't have a background screening policy, create one. Your background screening agency and your legal delartment can work together to develop one that will protect you and your company.

4) Have a thorough understanding of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and other state laws that may guide how you implement your policy. Every day I hear "I thought the law only allowed my to ask about felony convictions". Or, "the FCRA says I can't ask about convictions over 7 years old". Neither statement is true! Remember, some states, like California, may restrict what employment screening data you see. But, such restrictions are the exception not the rule. Unless your business is primarily California based, we advise against basing your overall screening policy on this state's model.

Asset Control wishes you all a happy and safe Holiday season!

Do Camera Systems Really "Deter" Crime?

One of the questions I am frequently asked is what impact do cameras have on “deterring” crime. Often this question is asked by school safety officers or others charged with reducing school crime. Since quality camera systems are perceived to be expensive they are often a controversial topic. As such, this question warrants some consideration.

After thirty years of using cameras to address criminal activity I can tell you that installing cameras has about as much of a chance of deterring criminal behavior as they have in reducing traffic violations or accidents. That chance can best be described as slim to none at all. Almost nightly, the evening news includes images of convenience store robbers caught on overt camera systems. Most bad guys know that a majority of convenience stores have cameras. But the existence of these cameras, for the most part, does not deter a robber from committing his/her crime. Generally, what you manage to get is a beautiful picture of a crime(s) in progress, often with deadly consequences. I recall fighting vehemently, early in my career, to place overt camera systems in several retail pharmacies that were chronically victimized by flagrant groups of armed robbers. I recall parents of employees, some only sixteen or seventeen years old, who threatened law suits if the company failed to take preventive measures. Operations had made standard the practice of installing a security guard or off-duty police for a week or two after each robbery. However, the robbers invariably would return once the guard was removed. Long term guard coverage was seldom an option for expense reasons. Overt cameras, then only an experiment in robbery deterrence, cost less than a guard and seemed worth the try. The end result was that the robberies continued and I had beautiful pictures of men in masks. In the end, Operations wanted to deduct the cost of the cameras from my paycheck.

For the most part, the same applies to overt cameras used as a means to “deter” internal crimes such as theft or embezzlement. In one situation I marched six employees off to jail, one at a time, as each was caught stealing beneath a single overt camera in a seven day period. All had been stealing long before the camera was installed. Each had stopped for about a 30 day period after the camera had been installed, before they began to steal again. One psychological factor in play has to do with perceived risk versus reward. After every crime caught on camera I asked the same question: “Why did you steal knowing the camera was watching”? The answer was either “I didn’t think the camera was monitored”, or “I didn’t think the camera was real”. The crook made an assessment of risk, weighed it against the potential reward of ill gotten gain and took action. Another common answer was “I forgot the camera was there”. The camera became just another aspect of the criminal’s environment and eventually was ignored.

When contemplating a surveillance camera system you should consider the following:

• Cameras have an initial deterrent impact which typically diminishes over time, once the cameras become just another part of the landscape
• Most camera systems cannot be monitored actively enough to net the result initially desired or expected - budgets and time constraints typically preclude active monitoring
• "Dummy" or fake cameras systems have little or no impact on behavior and ultimately undermine the credibility of your security efforts - they should be generally be avoided
• Overt cameras tend to shift unwanted behavior to places where cameras don't exist
• Camera systems that are poorly monitored or improperly used can increase liability if a violent crime occurs - the argument, a "false sense of security"
• Cameras should never serve to replace or substitute for other character, ethics, or awareness based training

Now the good news! Camera systems can be an extremely effective addition to your overall security program. Cameras will deter only if there is aggressive follow up on the unwanted behaviors you’ve caught on tape. To be effective the follow up must include a program to publicize the fact that the camera was used to resolve a case. Keep in mind that cameras can be helpful in monitoring unauthorized access to your school by outsiders, especially given the risk of terrorism. Recorded evidence plays an invaluable role in identifying and prosecuting offenders who commit a variety of crimes. Keeping an archive of appropriate duration is mandatory, especially if live monitoring is not an option. But before you spend you precious dollars, develop a thorough and realistic understanding of what you are trying to accomplish and communicate this to the folks that are funding your efforts. There is nothing worse that spending a ton of money with no affect on the behavior you are trying to address - or worse, it increases

If you are targeting bullying we advise that you use cameras as part of a comprehensive bullying program, not as the single component. You will have to increase monitoring of rest rooms, locker rooms, and other areas where cameras are prohibited and where much of the bullying takes place. Don't forget playgrounds and other outside areas. We also recommend an anonymous tip-line that encourages and facilitates the reporting of bullying and other unwanted behaviors. Follow up on reported or observed cases of bullying and other offensive behavior right away, otherwise the cameras will have little value. Last, we recommend that you administer a school safety survey that includes bullying before you install your cameras and again after an appropriate length of time. Use incident reports and other statistics to document any trends one way or the other. Don't be afraid to move cameras around on occasion.

Licensed to Spy?

Recently, MSN ran an article by journalist Liz Pulliam Weston entitled “Is your boss spying on you?". Ms Pulliam Westin is a personal finance columnist for MSN Money and author of the question-and-answer column "Money Talk," which appears in newspapers throughout the country. I have read some of her articles and enjoyed them. However, in her recent article Weston wades neck deep into subject matter with which she is only marginally familiar. In 300 words or less, this journalist solidified her anti-business bias by managing a mischaracterization of facts that can only be described as treacherous. Under the pretense of alerting unsuspecting consumers, Pulliam Weston dons her advocate clothes and offers that the government has issued American businesses a license to spy on their employees. My concern, for those that may have read her article, is that some employers and employees may actually buy it.

The culprit, according to Ms. Weston, is the 2003 FACT Act (FACTA). Specifically, she is concerned with certain FACTA provisions that corrected an FCRA mandate that required employers to notify employees, in advance, if a consumer reporting agency was asked to provide a background check pursuant to an employee misconduct investigation. This unintended FCRA requirement left Human Resource and Security executives reeling in disbelief. To notify an employee in advance that he/she was being investigated for sexual harassment or misconduct opened the door to the potential for the destruction of evidence or threats against witnesses. Moreover, this requirement handicapped many small companies that used investigative firms (a.k.a. consumer reporting agencies) because they lacked the resources to conduct internal investigations in house. Thankfully, through intensive lobbying this unintended aspect of the FCRA (mandated by the notorious Vail opinion) was overturned in FACTA.

So, where is the FACTA issued license to “spy” about which Westin feels compelled to alert employees? The journalist believes it lies in the FACTA provision that reinforced an employer’s ability to conduct post-hire background checks such as driving history, criminal, OFAC and other exclusionary lists to investigate “compliance with Federal, State, or local laws and regulations, the rules of a self-governing organization, or any preexisting written policies of the employer” – without notifying the employee beforehand. All, by the way, common and perfectly appropriate business practices long before the notorious Vail Opinion letter. Leave it to the Feds to issue one law (FACTA) authorizing employers to adhere to yet another law (OFAC).

Many organizations, both public and private, are mandated to conduct on-going, post-hire background checks. It is prudent and necessary for child care, financial, transportation, security, law enforcement, technology and other industries to protect their customers, assets, employees and shareholders from persons engaged in illegal activities. In order to comply with OFAC, all businesses are required to screen employees using this agency’s database; not only at the point of hire but on an on-going basis. Why, because employment is a financial arrangement. The post-hire requirement comes into play because the OFAC list is updated periodically, and businesses must ensure that a current employee has not been placed on the list after they were initially hired. The same reasoning applies to post-hire criminal checks, although they are not mandated in quite the same way. For example, child care agencies or schools need to know if an employee has been arrested or convicted of an offense that would place children in danger. Businesses, in general, ought to be in a position to know if an employee has been arrested or convicted of an offense that could place other employees, customers, or the company’s reputation at risk. FACTA made no material changes in a company’s ability to conduct pre or post-hire background checks for “employment purposes”. The Vail letter, which FACTA negated, only served to confound an employer’s ability to conduct legitimate misconduct investigations.

What then does the journalist find so insidious in FACTA? Perhaps it is that FACTA reinforces an employer’s right to investigate compliance with “pre-existing” company policy. For example, if a company policy states that an employee who drives on company business must maintain an acceptable driving record, generally defined by the employer’s insurance company, then the company would be justified in running post-hire driving record checks. Apparently, Ms. Westin finds this offensive. Moreover, if company policy states that a person who works with children must not be convicted of a sex crime or crime of moral turpitude, that that employer is justified in conducting post-hire criminal record checks to protect clients and other employees is offensive too. Likewise, if an employer has a policy that states, as many do, that an employee must report a felony or misdemeanor conviction, that the employer is justified in conducting post-employment criminal record checks to monitor compliance with this policy is an affront to this journalist’s values.

Clearly, Ms. Pulliam Westin equates this with a license to spy. She rails, “your employer doesn’t need any reason to suspect you of misconduct to set the background bloodhounds on your trail……employers don’t have to notify you in advance……. and, employers don’t have to get your written consent.” Bottom line, “in many cases employers can fire workers for what they find.” She suggests, as some have, that FACTA provides employers a safe harbor that shields them from actions associated with post-employment background checks. It has been a long time since I have seen a more re out-of-context, mischaracterization of facts

Let’s take a look at each of her contentions. 1) “Your employer doesn’t have to notify you in advance….and doesn’t have to get your written consent”: This is partially true. However, in most cases employees have been given advance notice and have consented to on-going background checks in the release signed prior to employment (except for credit reports which FACTA requires the employer obtain an additional release to pull). 2) “In many cases, employers can fire workers for what they find”: True, if your employment is “at will”. But if that is the case, your employer doesn’t need a background check to terminate you. Moreover, the overall concept of “employment at will” has been heavily challenged of late. Employers must be extremely careful when discharging workers, even in “at will” states. Many states have specific laws governing the use of background checks in the context of employment. Employers must use the same guidelines in making a post-hire decision based upon a background check as they would in making a pre-hire decision (i.e. job-relatedness, etc). This is where one must pay close attention to the FACTA verbiage relating to investigating compliance with “pre-existing company policy”. Clearly, the intent here was to link the use of the information obtained from background checks to some aspect of company policy.

Again, the hidden danger in this article lies in the out-of–context and summary treatment afforded this key business issue. The risk, is that based upon her article, an ill-informed employer might undertake post-hire background checks not fully understanding the rules. So, here they are:

• If you are going to conduct post-employment background checks of any kind, add this wording to you company’s pre-employment release form. Write a formal company policy documenting the fact that post-employment background checks will conducted and explaining the reason for their use.
• A separate release and notification is still needed for post-hire credit reports.
• If a consumer report is to be used as the basis for a negative post-employment action, employers must provide the employee with a summary of the information contained in the report but not necessarily the report itself.
• Be consistent in your application of company policy and in your use of background checks.
• To avoid discrimination claims, screen all employees rather than conducting random, periodic checks. If your company screens only certain positions or security levels then screen all employees in those positions or at those levels.

Businesses have an obligation to protect their employees, customers and shareholders. All FACTA did was to restore the employer’s ability to conduct due diligence to where it was for years prior to Vail. I have run background screening programs for several multi-national corporations and I am here to tell you that time and money are too tight to run checks for any reason other than for legitimate business purposes. Is it possible for an unscrupulous person to run a criminal history report on an employee out of curiosity, or for other than legitimate reasons? Sure it is. But it is just as easy and probably more likely that your friends and neighbors will check on you by accessing local public court records. Ms. Pulliam Westin – please get a life!

ID that Backpack or Book Bag for Safety!

It was barely a week after 9/11 and clearly the need for more enlightened security measures had not sunk in with some. I had just approached the front door of a north Texas school for a meeting with the Superintendent as I noticed a dark blue unattended backpack just outside the front door of the school. When I reached the administrative office I notified the Superintendent of the article. He was aware of the backpack and had already placed a call to the local police. In fact, he had been watching the blue bag from his office window. Great, I thought. It was a heads-up decision to call the police as, given the recent terror attack in New Your City, an unattended backpack fell well within my definition of a suspicious package. About 20 minutes later the local police arrived and it was just at that point that I realized just how much work we had ahead of us. The officer walked up to the backpack, picked it up summarily, and proceeded to walk into the school with it in his hand. For a moment, I thought the Superintendent was headed for the small space beneath his desk. I believe he hesitated only because he saw me eyeing up the same space.

Today, particularly with the recent London events, police, school administrators, and others recognize that an unattended backpack warrants close scrutiny. Yet, students will leave these items on busses, in halls, and other places unintentionally. Tagging all backpacks, knapsacks, and book bags with a standardized ID tag may help school officials and police to determine which unattended items should be considered suspicious, and the way by which such items should be handled. With the student’s name clearly visible on the item, authorities can determine which items belong in the facility and which items are foreign to the campus. Giving each campus within the district its own color ID tag may further assist in identifying the origin of unattended items.

Some schools have banned backpacks and knapsacks for security reasons. But most schools have continued to allow such items. For those schools that allow these items, ID tags may be the answer to enhanced security. ID tags need not be sophisticated to be effective, but they ought to be durable. Most companies that produce promotional items have a variety of ID/Luggage tags that can be customized. The use of the tags should be required, not optional. After a reasonable grace period, bags that are not tagged should not be allowed into the building.

The tagging of bags will also serve to enhance awareness over the importance of identifying and reporting suspicious packages. In fact, the procedure, in conjunction with tighter building access control, would be an appropriate kick-off to any campus security awareness program.

Special Vigilance: The “Soccer Mom’s” role in protecting our communities from terrorism

When Homeland Security experts are asked about the meaning of “vigilance” and how being vigilant can help protect us from acts of terror, this question is usually asked: “What should the average “Soccer Mom” look for and report?” Unfortunately, most security experts struggle through a literal response to a question that is more figurative in nature, clouding the issue even more. In some respects, this question reflects both a frustration and lack of understanding on the part of the media and the public as to the role all of us must play in protecting our homeland.

Many of us understand that the use of the term “Soccer Mom” in this context equates to the average person who has a family to care for and who ought to be concerned about the threat of terrorism. The question becomes how can this person “connect” with what is going on from a homeland security standpoint and be better prepared to protect his/her family, business and community? When we use terms like “vigilance” and “protection”, we are not necessarily referring to activities such as spotting a terrorist or thwarting an attack. We use them within the context of a larger framework that relates to our personal responsibility to be aware of what our federal, state and local governments plan to do to protect us. Additionally, we need to be aware of the extent to which these plans have been communicated to appropriate elements within our communities at large.

Let me begin with schools because I believe them to be likely soft targets for terrorists. I made a point of this in my presentation to the Texas School Safety Center State Summit in March of 2002. Additionally, I devoted quite a bit of attention to this notion in “A Proactive Guide to the Threat of Terrorism in Public Schools”, a guide I developed on behalf of the Texas School Safety Center and the Texas Governor’s Office. The commentary I am about to make is based partially on anecdotal evidence and partially upon first hand knowledge I gathered over several years working with school districts to enhance the safety of students, teachers, and employees. I believe that many school districts that have done a superb job of preparing for a potential terror attack. That is to say, they have updated their crises plans to allow for this new threat, have rehearsed these plans, have coordinated their plans with local first responders, and have assessed security in light of these new risks. I know of even more school districts in which the possibility of being a terror target hasn’t been considered. And this is where the “Soccer Mom” plays a role. I encourage every parent who has a child in school to hold their local school board responsible for determining the status of their district’s crises plans with regard to a potential terror attack. And, since school boards are comprised of Soccer Moms too, I beseech every school board member to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the status of their district’s crisis plans with particular regard to the increased risk caused by 9/11. District plans can easily be evaluated against known best practice documents such as “A Proactive Guide to the Threat of Terrorism in Public Schools”, or other criteria developed by state level school safety agencies. I don’t expect plans to be discussed in an open and detailed format (in fact this would be detrimental) but I would expect the board to perform due-diligence in order to determine the true status of terror related plans. Soccer Moms can spearhead this cause by forcing the issue at school board meetings and following up throughout the process.

Businesses have an obligation as well to be aware of what they can do to help make their employees and local communities safer. Awareness is evident amongst defense contractors, security service companies, food service organizations, utilities, transportation, and certain other technology sector businesses. Sadly, outside of these sectors, most businesses have not assessed their role in deterring terrorism. I maintain that the most significant thing any business can do is to hire workers who are documented and who have a legal right to work in the United States. Terror cell members normally work somewhere and that somewhere may just be a small local business. Additionally, terror cell members are inclined to cross the boarders illegally so as to avoid any official documentation. Under this current threat, every U.S. business has the responsibility to hire only legal workers and to scrutinize the employees they hire with regard to the documents they present. Further, it is incumbent upon all hiring authorities to properly educate themselves on I-9 procedures and on recognizing false employment documents. I have written several articles on this point some of which are posted on this blog.

Here, again, I call on the Soccer Moms in the work force to ask of their employers: “Has the mail room clerk (or any other person who handles the mail) been trained to recognize and respond to suspicious packages?” “Is the receptionist aware of how to respond to bomb threats or other threatening calls? “What is being done to identify strangers on the premises or other persons who may be acting suspiciously?” “Are human resource employees trained on how to identify and respond to falsified INS or other documents?” “Is my company properly screening the employees it hires?” “Have security procedures been reviewed against the current threat?” “Has IT security and web site content been examined against our new threat?.” “Are your suppliers and vendors screening their employees properly and otherwise exercising proper security procedures”?

As a security professional I urge security professionals everywhere (some of whom I am sure are Soccer Moms) to ask these same questions of their own companies or on behalf of the companies with which they consult. I urge you to attend seminars, read profusely, and to learn everything you can learn about the terrorist threat we now face. Your job is to educate department heads within your company to be aware of and to appreciate what they can do to be vigilant. You may be accused of being a security zealot, but this should be nothing new to most of you.

I truly believe that the vast majority of U.S. citizens still have no idea of just how immediate and how severe of a threat terrorism poses to our lives, lifestyles, careers, and financial futures. We witnessed the devastation of 9/11, grew tired of mourning and holding on to the pain, and then became resolved to regain our lives and the way we used to feel. To some degree we should all feel assured in knowing that our Homeland Security Department at the state and local levels are vigilant in their quest to thwart the next terror attack. Although they have extensive resources at their disposal, the one resource they really need are the legions of soccer moms who know how to get involved at the grassroots level and who appreciate why they need to do so. I urge all soccer moms to learn all you can learn about who wants to hurt you and your families and to press your local governments, schools, and other key community organizations to demonstrate, to the best of their ability, that they have updated their plans to reflect this new threat. Most importantly, have key organizations within the community coordinated their plans, or do plans that ought to have been coordinated exist in a vacuum?

Homeland security experts recommend that each family develop a personal plan in the event of a terror attack. In this regard, I am less interested in collecting duct tape and plastic wrap that I am in knowing how family members will communicate with one another and reunite if a crisis occurs. Again, what is important here is to learn where the information you need resides and how to access it. For example, has your school district included plans to reunite students with their families as part of their crises management program; and, how will they communicate these plans? Where will family members meet if they cannot go to the primary residence? How will you stay in contact with one another? There are a number of web sites and other sources available that provide tips for creating personal family plans.

Last, I would like to point out one significant area in which your government has failed you. That is, in securing the boarder – particularly the U.S. / Mexico boarder. I urge soccer moms everywhere to write their U.S. Senator and congressional representative. Let them know how our current boarder protection policy is failing us with regard to our personal security, and how it is almost certainly facilitating our next terror attack.

Related Links:

Special Vigilance: How employers can protect their assets and their communities Our Special Vigilance: http://www.choosetocare.com/links/SAVEArticle.docrs.doc

Special Vigilance: Is your School District Prepared for the Threat of Terrorism?
http://www.choosetocare.com/links/Is%20Your%20District%20Ready.do

Background Screening Debunked!

Today, screening your employees properly is a necessary cost of doing business. Thirty, perhaps even twenty years ago there was a mystique surrounding the process and private investigators often charged exorbitant fees to check employee backgrounds. Then, the fees charged often reflected the time a P.I. spent driving to the county courthouse, schmoozing a court clerk, paying other P.I.’s to obtain out-of-state records, or simply sitting at the local donut shop. Private investigators often alluded to confidential contacts at the police department or other nebulous sources for information in order to maintain the mystique surrounding what they did. In reality, they were accessing what amounted to be public records. Notwithstanding, clients, many of whom had initially been stung by a dishonest employee, were willing to pay the $200 - $400 dollars a P.I. would charge for the service. Competition was negligible and agencies were all too happy to collect the fees. Screening employees was not an industry standard practice thirty years ago and only a very few employers could afford the cost.

Thankfully, the era of the $300 dollar background check is long gone. Today, most employers understand that background checking entails accessing public information. With the onset of computers, obtaining criminal history and other necessary employment information is inexpensive compared to thirty, twenty, or even ten years ago. The industry is extremely competitive which has contributed to the lowering of prices. Today, screening employees is standard throughout all industry sectors and mandated in many sectors by regulation or legal climate. Ironically, employers today are faced with more perplexing issues than the potential to overpay for background searches. Government regulation and technology have combined to confound what should be a simple process. Add to this the fact that a material segment of the employment screening industry flourishes by overtly or tacitly deceiving their clients about what they are doing and a haziness reminiscent of that which permeated the industry thirty years ago emerges again.

Much of the industry operates on the principle that “an educated consumer is our best customer”. But a growing segment appears to adhere to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule. Potential clients interested in conducting employment searches for the first time might get the impression that the industry is simply and clearly divided between agencies that charge cheap prices for their services and those that needlessly charge more. The unfortunate perception, and one perpetuated by some in the industry, is that technology has driven down the cost of accessing and delivering background screening information to the client, and that this accounts for the $5.00 background checks now available on the Internet and elsewhere. This is the dangerous half-truth that many agencies exploit, that serves to confuse the public, and that places many employers and their customers at risk.

Clearly, a large part of the problem lies with the business community which does not fully understand the background screening process. Many business consumers are attracted only by price but clearly do not understand what their $5.00 is purchasing. Our client list is filled with businesses that have thrown money away on $5.00 background checks only to find that they hired an employee with a serious record that a true background check would have uncovered. They fell victim to the database search.

In many respects conducting a true background check is the same now as it was thirty years ago. Public (source) records must be searched just like the “private eye” once did. Today, screening firms use a nationwide network of “runners” who spend their entire day searching court house records. Where allowed, agencies go on-line with the court system to access the same records available to the clerk of courts. On-line court access, SSL protected client input / retrieval systems, HR record interfaces and other technology innovations have served to reduce the costs and turnaround time associated with doing real court record checks. Generally, records are searched and located at the county level. Where a quality statewide repository exists, an agency can check all counties in the state for one moderate fee. Searches are conducted in venues uncovered by a social security number trace and in those identified on the employment application. The cost of a search will necessarily vary by person depending upon where the applicant has lived or worked. In most cases a client should expect to pay from $25. - $50. for a criminal record search that covers the necessary venues. Additional costs would apply if credit or other special reports are needed. Maiden names and aliases must be checked separately as most courts do not cross reference by other names used. If a screening agency is charging substantially more than these prices for criminal history reports, a flag should be raised. Flags should also be raised if the prices are substantially less.

What gives then with the $5.00 (or $7.95, or $10.00) background checks? These are database searches, not true public record searches. Database records are purchased from the originating government source, reformatted and resold to the end user. Databases are proprietary to the reseller because they are no longer under the control of the originating public agency. Although they are cheap, they pose many problems for the employer and public safety. Database searches lack the integrity of public record searches since they are updated only periodically, which places them at odds with federal regulations governing consumer reporting agencies. The federal government requires that all “hits” originating from a database search be verified by a real court record search before the results can be used in the employment decision. Large database resellers were reluctant to inform their clients of this requirement since it appeared to defeat the purpose of their product. Many resellers have recently taken action to inform their clients of this requirement after severe security breaches on the part of two major re-sellers drew attention to control and compliance within the industry. Another flaw - databases generally contain less information than the original court record because resellers download fewer data fields to their systems in order to save money. This creates an additional and serious data integrity issue. Last, because updates are periodic (sometimes yearly), end users are obligated to re-screen applicants again after they are hired in order to capture records that failed to hit the database originally.

Here are some actual examples of how clients have poured their company’s money down the drain on database searches:

• A school district hired a janitor with a record of child molestation after he was cleared using a database search. The database used did not include the county in which the conviction occurred
  
  
• A retailer hired a finance executive with a history of embezzlement after he was cleared using a database search. Because the database had not been updated in the county in which the record occurred for the prior 6 month period, the record was missed.
  
  
• A small manufacturing firm used a nationwide database to screen its employees. The firm, which had two U.S. locations, hired employees who were primarily local to the plant locations. Unfortunately, the re-seller failed to inform the firm that the database did not include records from either of the states in which the plants were located. As a result, employees with dishonest pasts were hired at both locations.

Resellers often present their “instant” database searches as the product of the latest in innovation and technology. However, quick and inexpensive access to information that is less that 50% accurate at best, and the use of which is encumbered by increased federal regulation, is not a viable risk management tool. While $5.00 background checks may impress your company’s budget director, they will not impress the legal department or company president who must disburse a large settlement fee. This article is not written for the HR executive who has made the decision to use databases with a full knowledge of what they are (or are not) getting. It is written for the executive who is faced with making a choice between background screening service providers and who may not fully understand the difference between a $5.00 background check and a $25.00 background check. It is written to help educate the business community and to give decision makers the edge over those in the industry who operate under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” principle. It is written to help protect employers, employees, students, customers, and others from unfortunate hiring decisions. Following are questions to ask when selecting a background screening service provider:

o When you call will you be able to speak to a qualified professional who is knowledgeable about employment screening law as opposed to a salesperson whose sole responsibility is to sell data?

o How long has the agency been in business?

o Are you getting real courthouse searches or databases?

o If the agency offers “statewide searches” do these searches access the official state repository and does the state require counties to report to the repository?

o Are you getting both felony and misdemeanor records when you request a search?

o Will the agency provide you with client references of companies similar to yours?

o Is the agency knowledgeable about the FCRA and can they assist you with compliance?

o Is the agency licensed (where required) and insured?

o Is your agency able to help you construct an employment screening policy?

o Does your agency understand what a due-diligence search is and are they able to help you in developing a due-diligence search program for each level of employee in your organization?

Employers can screen out applicants who have been dishonest on their applications even before the criminal background check has been requested – and should. Search the index of this Blog for the article entitled, “Take a Course in Defensive Hiring”. Here you will find all you will need to know to do a diligent job of flushing out resume and application fraud. From there, let you background screening agency do its job. Standards and best practices have developed in the industry that together dictate what is involved in doing a due-diligence search. Industry and legal experts agree that criminal history database searches do not meet due-diligence standards. The notion that “doing something is better than doing nothing at all” may have made partial sense ten years ago, but provides no solace today. Having an inadequate or flawed program, when faced with a negligent hiring suit, will likely result in a larger settlement than if there was no program in place at all. Bottom line, select a screening firm that has the expertise necessary to assist you in developing a due-diligence program – and stick to it. Today, the greater risk is in paying too little for your background check. The old adage “if it’s too good to be true, then it probably is” is more true today than ever before!

Breaking the student code of silence – the facts about tip-lines

I like the movie “Scent of a Woman”. I am a big Al Pacino fan. But I have always struggled to understand the underlying purpose of the message depicted during the movie’s expulsion hearing scene. This is the scene in which Col. Frank Slade chooses the only strategy he could think of to get Charlie Simms off the hook. That strategy was to make old Charlie appear somehow righteous for refusing to “snitch” on fellow classmates for acts of vandalism. Ironically, Slade, a military college graduate, was educated under a code of student conduct where revealing dishonesty among fellow students was considered to be the epitome of ethical behavior. I find it just a little heartening to know that most all critical commentaries that refer to the movie as “great but flawed.” cite this message as part of the reason.

Now that the identity of Deep Throat is known, we can expect to see a national media debate on the ethics, loyalty, and the propriety of whistle blowing. Sides are forming now and I am certain that ultimately the truth will be lost in the brouhaha – that is, that there should be no debate. Every citizen has an ethical obligation to report acts of wrongdoing that have the potential to impact the physical safety of others or the overall wellbeing of society. Ok, call me an idealist. But, while this national debate may play out to be a philosophical one, students are more practical in their views on the issue. With students the issue is one of fear rather than ethics or peer loyalty. Is there really a student code of silence when it comes right down to it? If there is, I believe it is one that can be broken.

Our basis for this assessment is not speculation. Our assessment is based upon the School Safety & Drug Assessment Survey taken by tens of thousands of students throughout Texas over the last three years. The survey is a joint project of the Texas School Safety Center and ChooseToCare. Without a way to report things anonymously, 57% of students surveyed say they would likely not report something they knew could potentially harm them or someone they knew. This figure is both astounding and disturbing. Add an anonymous tip-line and now over 63% of students say they would not hesitate to report crimes or other harmful behaviors. The issue – fear! Students are afraid of physical retaliation; being ostracized by their peers; or, being labeled a snitch. Thankfully, only a small percentage of students (5.5%) seem to believe that doing what most reasonable people believe is the “right thing” somehow violates a student “code of silence”. Given a safe and secure way to report issues without saying who they are, the majority of students say they would come forward. Apathy among students (14%) characterizes the feelings of the majority of students who say they would not report a student safety issue. They simply don’t want to get involved or they feel no action would be taken based upon their report.

Based upon the post incident investigation we can speculate that what happened at Columbine may have been prevented had a well promoted student tip-line been in place. Today, No Child Left Behind encourages schools to adopt an anonymous student reporting procedure. Still, many school districts are reluctant to implement such programs. The reasons come down to an overwhelming lack of understanding about the costs, benefits, and liabilities of having such a program. By way of example, we recently encountered a school board attorney who, in a recorded public meeting, stated that he has advised the Superintendent to destroy (“trash”) any anonymous letter or other anonymous correspondence received by the school district. The attorney stated, “If the person doesn’t have the nerve to say who they are, why should anyone believe them”. This attorney unwittingly placed the school district in a position of extreme liability – publicly! Clearly, this attorney has missed what school security and law enforcement experts across the country have discovered. That is, that anonymous is big with students and that students have used tip-lines to save their own or the lives of other students. Moreover, that tip-lines have become a “best practice” in the fast changing realm of school security.

Tip-lines too have evolved over the years. They have gone from the basic operator answered toll-free phone service to sophistated Web-based programs. Before we began the ChooseToCare program, now the most widely used student based tip-line in Texas, we conducted focus groups with students to find out what type of tip line process kids would most likely use. Students told us they would prefer a Web-based process that ensured their privacy and provided more anonymity than phone based services (your phone number appears on the service’s phone bill). What did students find most attractive about the Web-based process? Ironically, it was the impersonal nature of the Web that attracted them. That they didn’t necessarily have to speak to a live operator was the single most attractive aspect of the Web process. This was especially true with female students who said they would be reluctant to speak to a stranger about matters of a “sensitive”, perhaps sexual nature.

ChooseToCare offers students, parents and the community with options for making their report. A toll-free number is available, but seldom used. About 95% of all information destined for participating school districts comes in through the Web. Regardless of how the report is submitted, ChooseToCare users may identify themselves or remain truly anonymous. When a user decides to let ChooseToCare know their identity but not the school district, CTC acts as an intermediary between the district and the informant. ChooseToCare does not replace a school district’s existing and traditional ways of communicating with students and parents, but rather supplements them as part of layering-on process.

One thing is certain, for better or worse, the Internet has become a preferred way to communicate for many people. If you are considering a school safety tip-line for your community, choose on that provides the most options for potential users. Be certain that the process is secure server based and SSL protected. Avoid systems that send your sensitive information by email – it is just not secure. Last, be sure your tip line process is school specific and deals with issues like bullying, gender orientation discrimination, sexual harassment, and other behavioral issues that confront students every day. These are behaviors that students won’t report to some of the “crime based” tip-lines that some schools use today. To inquire about how your school district can become a ChooseToCare participant please call us at 940-891-1919.

Tipping the Scales in Favor of Student Safety

“Is drug use prevalent in your school, ” I asked. “Yeah, what else is there to do in this town, “ she replied. Her response caught me off guard. “This town,” as she described it, was my town too.

“What would you do if you knew about something happening at school that could harm you or someone you know – I mean, who would you tell?”

“I’m not really sure what I would do, or who I would tell,” she said. “It’s risky, you know. They see you coming out of someone’s office, or the person you go to tells someone else, and then its all over. I don’t know. I don’t think I would take that chance. No one really wants to be known that way, if you know what I mean.”

“What if there was a way to tell what you know anonymously? Would that make a difference?” “Yeah, I think it would”, she said. “For me anyway.”

I was not “interviewing” her. Although, after a while I suppose she felt that way. She was a junior at a local high school and a hostess at my favorite restaurant. She just happened to be in view when I was talkative and had work on my mind.

How many other students feel this way is up for speculation. Having administered “tip-line” programs for corporations for over two decades, I am comfortable drawing on my private sector experience. The vast majority of people who use tip-lines to report serious workplace issues, do so anonymously. The general exceptions, of course, are the persons who report issues where they, themselves, are the victims. In many cases, the person who initially made the anonymous report will identify themselves once they have become more comfortable with the investigative process. When they do, I have made it my practice to ask them why they chose to be anonymous. Consistently, their answers point to two things. First, is the fear that others will know they have come forward. This, stemming from a lack of trust that the traditional reporting processes available to them will ultimately protect their confidentiality. And last, is the fear of embarrassment if the information they provide proves to be wrong.

The age distribution of corporate tip-line users varies from persons in their mid-teens to older adults. But I dare say that the sentiments and concerns most frequently expressed within the population of corporate users likely reside in an even more significant fashion among students today. The root of these sentiments being a struggle to trust, and the fear of being perceived negatively by their peers.

I have encountered more than a few educators who would minimize the potential impact these issues might have on students and their willingness to report critical and sensitive information. Some, I believe, perceive that the promotion of an anonymous method of reporting known or suspected student safety issues implies a failure to achieve a desired level of trust between students and educators. Others perhaps feel that the promotion of such a process may compromise the level of trust already in place.

Truly reaching students is a personal and professional goal for every educator. The recognition that not every student will trust the system enough to come forward with safety information, even when critical to saving lives, is both difficult to accept and disheartening. In some cases I have encountered a sentiment of abject rejection by certain school administrators for any information provided anonymously. When this sentiment manifests itself in practice, it is dangerous and places the safety of students and others at risk.

The truth is that anonymous tip-lines need not conflict with a school’s existing and more traditional student resources. They are incremental and should be part of a “layering on” process during which administrators take the opportunity to re-enforce established resources for reporting student safety issues. Students should be encouraged to seek help from teachers, counselors, and Student Resource Officers first, and from secondary resources when necessary. Moreover, tip-lines should not be limited to student use. School districts that install tip-lines are encouraged to promote them for the use of the entire school community, to include parents, teachers, volunteers, bus drivers, clericals, cafeteria workers, and others. To properly ensure anonymity, tip-lines should be administered by a reputable third party agency experienced in tip-line implementation and administration. Tip-lines administered from within the school district (such as e-mail based programs sometimes linked to a district’s Web site) invite compromise and potential liability.

We have learned that there is likely a portion of most student populations that will not use traditional resources to report information they suspect or know. Columbine showed us that. Most importantly, schools must take aggressive steps to build awareness among students and others for the types of behaviors that potentially place them at risk. Character education, now required for schools by many states, can help address this need. In this context, tip-lines can play a part in proactively reaching those members of the school community who may be reluctant to use traditional resources, for whatever reason. The first step is to recognize that they exist!


Bill Dolphin is a veteran security consultant with Texas based Asset Control, Inc., and co-developer of ChooseToCare, a Web-based student tip-line program. ChooseToCare can be accessed through the Web at www.ChooseToCare.com

The role of "databases" in employment screening

Over the years professional background screeners have striven to provide their customers with the highest quality screening possible. Thus, primary source searches (searches done directly at the state or county levels) became and still remain the benchmark for due diligence criminal background checks. As you know, there isn't an NCIC style national criminal information system available to private sector employers or the vast majority of public and social service agencies. Consequently, credible screening agencies serviced their clients using the best screening tools available under the law.

Database searches (data purchased from primary source and re-sold to end users) have come under increasing scrutiny and regulation by the federal government. The feds know what we have known for years: databases are inherently inaccurate in some critical ways. First, databases will cause the employer to miss records. I have tested several national databases against real court house searches and find them to be about 60% accurate. Databases are updated sporadically. Sometimes this is the fault of the court system that sells the data which, on occasion, is not able to meet the download schedule requested by the re-seller. Often, a re-seller who cannot afford to purchase down loads regularly is the culprit. Last, database accuracy is affected by original sin. Certain state and county repositories are only happy to pass their internal inaccuracies on to a re-seller who is only happy to pass them on to you. For example, the Texas state repository is notoriously inaccurate because Texas counties are not required to report their data. Additionally, there is no uniform "system" in place for the convenience of the counties that do report their data. Nevertheless, the Texas repository is only happy to pass this data on to re-sellers and end users for a fee.

These inaccuracies, however, are not what is upsetting the fed. They could care less if an elementary school using a database missed a record and hired a janitor with a history of molesting children! This is the concern of the tens of thousands of civil attorneys who are standing by waiting for a negligent hiring case to litigate. No, the fed is concerned with consumer rights. They are concerned about protecting a "consumer" whose employment or prospective employment could be jeopardized because an employer considered a potentially incomplete court record. Post-adjudication actions such as expungements or set aside judgments are good examples. As an H.R. professional you should be concerned that the fed is concerned. They are just now beginning to enforce FCRA regulations on database use and have recently leveled heavy fines for non-compliance.

There are two other factors that have dramatically increased the legal exposure an employer now faces by using a database as their primary screening tool. The first has to do with the recent negative press surrounding the two largest criminal database companies. I believe the the FED will take a close look at the way these vendors operate and that the closer scrutiny will filter down to the end users. We have already had an influx of new clients wanting to distance them selves from these companies, all now interested in conducting due diligence screenings. The second is of even more significance and yet has largely escaped the vast majority of database customers (and their legal counsels). This has to do with the vivid disclosures and acknowledgements database companies have made regarding the questionable accuracy of the products they sell. These published statements have placed employers in a "should have known" situation in the event a problem occurs. Triple your settlement dollars if you signed an agreement with one of the database re-sellers that contained such a disclosure. Double it if you read the disclosure on a site like the Texas DPS Web site but ignored it anyway.

Many employers continue to use databases as their sole screening source regardless of the risk, as a cost saving measure. Databases are cheap. But an employer that uses criminal database searches as their primary screening tool is wading into an ever deepening and murky pond of legal exposure. Yet there is a place for database use in employment screening. I believe that databases can enhance a due-diligence screening package to make it even more "bullet proof". A national criminal database can cast a wide net to perhaps identify a crime an applicant or employee may have committed while traveling or on vacation. They can also be helpful in the event your applicant intentionally lied on their application about where they have lived or worked. The national database search is ideal for companies hiring over-the-road drivers, traveling executives or sales staff.

Professional screeners are always searching for ways to improve the quality and effectiveness of the service they provide. That's why we are releasing our newest product, Diligence Plus. Because of complex federal (FCRA) and state regulations regarding the use of database searches in employment screening, we cannot offer Diligence Plus as a primary screening (stand alone) tool. It is only offered as a supplement to a proper, due-diligence search package. Additionally, federal regulations dictate that any hit obtained through Diligence Plus be confirmed by conducting an actual court search in the indicated venue.

We have always believed that databases should never be used as a primary screening tool. We are glad that the federal government agrees and we fully abide by the message they've sent with the encumbrances they've placed on their use. We believe this is best for employers and the safety of their employees and customers. However, we believe that a nationwide criminal database, like Diligence Plus, when properly used and properly integrated into your screening process, can greatly enhance the effectiveness of your due diligence screening program.

If you would like to bullet proof your screening process for little additional cost, please call us. For just $10.00 per search Diligence Plus can give you the best night sleep you've had in a long time.

Pay-per-snitch - will these programs keep drugs and guns out of schools?

To snitch or not to snitch. That is the question and one we've posed to over 80 thousand students throughout Texas over the last few years. And, a matter taken up by a Rome Georgia high school recently when they announced a new pay-per-snitch program.

Since the inception of the ChooseToCare program I have been against reward based tip line programs. My belief is that this sends the wrong message to students who ought to be taught to do something simply because it is the "right thing". And, in a system where character education falls short or is largely ineffective, intentionally sending a message that does nothing to advance the concept of civic duty appears repugnant to me.

In Rome (Georgia) Model High School educators have not only adopted a pay for information policy, but they have established a bargain basement bill of fare to incent students to talk. According to the Associated Press, students will be paid $10.00 for theft related information, $25. to $50. to dime a drug dealer, and up to $100.00 for guns or serious felonies. Fittingly, funding will be derived from candy and soda vending machine proceeds.

I have administered tip-line programs for over 30 years. During this time I have run several "dime a thief" type programs. In all, I've issued maybe $3000. in awards during that time. Curiously, the programs that were reward driven were the most negatively perceived and and netted the least results. Most people who have provided credible tips have done it for reasons other than the reward. Many of the people I dealt with turned down the reward, some truely offended by the notion of being offered one. The vast majority of folks who have provided information were wholly unaware that an award was available when they provided the information. In fact, I've had to push money into the hands of some informants who I knew could really use the cash. Many of the people I've dealt with in my career have been young people - juveniles ranging from 16 - 18 years old. In the business environment I came to view pay-for-tip programs as sometimes handy, if not unnecessary. In the school environment I believe them to be contrary to what we should be teaching our kids and to what any quality ethics program ought to be about.

ChooseToCare's School Safety & Drug Assessment Survey addresses the important issue of what motivates students to or prevents students from breaking the code of silence. And believe me, one exists in every school. Sadly, only 43% of students say they would report a security concern even when they believed it could harm them or someone they knew. The majority of students (57%) would hesitate to make a report for a variety of reasons. Almost 24% of students wouldn't tell for fear that others might find out. And this is where a school district can make a significant impact on the student code of silence. Twenty percent of all students say they would report a student safety issue only if they could be anonymous! Add this to the 43% of students who would report a safety concern and you have tipped the scales in favor of student safety in your district.

The majority of kids who are reluctant to pass on critical information are afraid. They are afraid of physical harm, being ostracized, and being known as a a "narc". But more importantly, these fears are predicated on the perceived risk that their involvement will be found out. And this is where reward programs fail as a sole strategy. Students perceive that reward based programs are not truely anonymous. They know, to begin with, that the telephone number of the phone from which their call was made will likely appear on the phone bill of the agency administering the pay-for-information program. They also know that there is some risk attached to the reward payment process which usually reqiures that you present yourself in person in order to receive your reward. This is a skepticizm we have heard repeatedly during our student focus group sessions and one I believe is rooted in a general distrust of the "adult system".

Add the ability to be truely anonymous and we find that about 63% of students say they would make a report. How to reach the remaining 37% is a question worth investigating. Perhaps some would be reached by initiating an ethics program that stressed "doing the right thing for the right reason". A proper ethics program might make a difference with the 10% of the student population that simply "don't want to get involved". Or, the 5% of students who believe nothing would ever be done based upon their report. Or, even the 4.8% who would be afraid to make a report out of fear of being wrong. A quality tip line that is properly promoted as part of a strong character education program (ethics) could truely make a difference in reaching some of these students.

The most popular arguement I have heard from pay-per-snitch proponants is the "just one gun" arguement. If the program gets just one gun out of a school it was worth it. But if this is the only strategy and it is implemented absent the character education which I believe has the potential to reach far more students than those motivated by purely mercenary values, than the harm the message sends outweighs the benefit. A similar arguement was presented in support of an MTV sponsored hot line some states have unfortunately adopted. When this program was presented to the state of Texas for use as a statewide program, I argued that MTV was an innappropriate vehicle for the effort because of the questionable messages it sends to kids. I believed then as I do now that the effort was more an attempt by MTV to improve their image than a true effort to impact school safety. Yet, the "just one gun" arguement was presented by some administrators in support of the program. Luckily, more level heads prevailed.

As I mentioned I have used reward money in conjunction with tip lines before. I'm not opposed to offering money for tips so long as it is not presented as the marquis motivator on which the program is based. But unfortunately, some school districts have adopted such approaches because it is easier than teaching students why, particularly after Columbine and Red Lake, they should be concerned about their safety and the safety of others around them. I think it is important to understand, however, just who educators are reaching (notwithstanding the "just one gun" arguemet) with pay-per-snitch programs. Recently, I enhanced the School Safety & Drug assessment survey to query students about the extent to which they might be motivated by rewards for information. We will be able to compile the survey data to determine if there are material differences in the responses of urban, suburban and rural students. When I think I have sufficient data from which to draw conclusions I'll be happy to publish the results. In the meantime I will be following the Rome model to see just how the disarmament is going.

In a time when many schools have adopted pay-for-grade programs I can understand why some believe that cash awards may be the quick and easy path to success. One administrator offered that cash removes the value judgement from the decision to "snitch". I guess the message is that doing it for the money has truely become the American why. As we quietly slip and slide towards a non judgemental society my advice to the Romans is to load your vending machines with something more profitable than snacks. You'll need that revenue as the market forces the price of information higher than ten bucks a pop.

Identity theft - is there anything you can do?

Identity theft occurs on so many levels now that it is difficult to say whether the average person can do anything to prevent it from happening to them. If you buy on credit, rent or own a home, shop at a retail store, own or lease a car, or basically breathe at all, your personal information is available for thieves to exploit. Why, because data aggregators (such as Lezus Nexus, Choicepoint, or the credit bureaus) are aggressively pursuing your personal data for profit. And, in many respects, their accumulation of your personal information is unregulated. Easy to understand when you consider that the federal government is the aggregator's biggest customer. Moreover, the vast administrative and operational complexity of such companies makes it more lilkely that internal controls designed to protect your data will fail at some point over time. In fact, thieves count on it.

To a large degree the likelihood that your personal data will be snatched from one of these aggregators is a matter of chance. Put another way, that your data won't be compromised is simply pure luck. When theives work their way into the aggregator's system they can net thousands if not hundreds of thousands of records to include social securtity numbers, birth dates, credit card account numbers, purchasing habits and other potentially damaging data. With this data, thieves are able to cherry pick consumers with the very best credit for identity theft and credit fraud. Dumpster or trash diving is no longer the chosen method of the more sophisticated thieves.

What then can you reasonably do to reduce the likelihood that you credit will be destroyed by identity theft? First, carefully review debit card or credit card statements for any questionable activity. On line access programs provided by most major credit card companies and banks enable you to do this more frequently than by if you simply reviewed the statement you receive monthly by mail. Contact the bank or credit card company quickly if you notice anything suspicious. Next, obtain a copy of your credit bureau report at least once a year and review it carefully. Multi-bureau reports are now available. Don't be surprised by a problem that you were not aware of at a time when you need credit the most.

Last, buy a cross-cut shredder for your home. They are cheap enough and will prevent the indigent or any other dumpster diver from obtaining any useable information. Be sure to shred those "pre-approved" credit card applications that come in the mail on an almost daily basis. And, if you have accumulated years of cancelled checks and credit card statements consider calling a mobile document disposal service that allows you to observe the shredding process at you home or place of business. If you live in an apartment, avoid placing credit card payments in common outgoing mail receptacles. Thieves break into these regularly.

Doing these things will not necessarily prevent you from becomming a victim of identity theft or credit card fraud. But, you may be able to lessen the chances of it happening or, minimally, control the damage if it does.

A Comprehensive Review of Soft Targets may Make them Harder to Attack

Recently, according to certain media sources, allegedly leaked government reports indicated that Iraqi terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may be contemplating attacks on soft targets within the U.S. This, allegedly at the behest of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. According to media reports schools, malls, stadiums and restaurants have been mentioned as potential soft targets.

Soft targets are targets that are relatively unprotected compared to infrastructure, utility, military, or landmark targets. Soft targets hold yet another benefit for terrorists besides the ease of accessibility. That is, they bring the horror of a terror attack home to the average neighborhood and the average citizen. This has been the terrorists approach in Israel where schools, restaurants and malls have been standard fare for decades.

Shortly after 9/11 I was asked to develop a “curriculum” to address the threat of terrorism in Texas public schools. This resulted in the development of the “Proactive Guide to the Threat of Terrorism in Schools” which was distributed throughout the state by the Texas School Safety Center, a legislated branch of the Texas Governor’s Office.

Soft targets may be soft for another reason. That reason relates to the diminished vigilance which has occurred with the passing of time and the false sense of security which prevails with the lack of additional terror attacks on U.S. soil. Of the soft targets mentioned I believe that our schools are the most likely because of the intense emotional impact inherent in the loss of even a single child’s life. Take note of how the story of even a single missing or injured child, anywhere in the country, resonates throughout national media channels. As I’ve stated many times before” there would be no more effective way to crush the heart of America than to strike children where they should be safest – in our schools”.

The thought behind the “Proactive Guide” was that even though a terror attack might not be preventable altogether, an attack on a specific target might be deterred in favor of a “softer” target as the result of increased vigilance. I looked at all aspects of a school district’s operation, including the hiring process. Awareness and vigilance were key issues since they are intimately bound-up. In the Guide I also addressed the need to coordinate crises plans with first responders as well as with other key support elements within the community. The full text of the Proactive Guide was distributed to all school districts on CD-Rom in 2002. Following are some key sections of the Guide that help define the special vigilance that contributes to making a soft target harder to hit. Use these sections to undertake a thorough and proactive review of just how “soft” your particular school district may be. I encourage all school boards to review the checklist and to use it to develop appropriate questions regarding the status of the school district’s overall crises plan. Ultimately, this is where responsibility will be placed.

A Note on Disaster Planning

Disaster planning differs from most other types of planning in that a significant part of the planning process must consider the utter chaos that frequently accompanies such situations. Good plans are as much about how the plan will be carried out as they are about what steps need to be taken.

Too often, plans reside solely in binders and on shelves, rather than fresh in the minds of those who are destined to react once a tragedy occurs. Following are some brief recommendations from a veteran federal agent who was often one of the first on the scene of a disaster, and in a position to observe organized chaos at its worse:

• Plans are life saving devices and should be treated as such. Un-shelf them periodically, make sure they are in proper order, and that the intended users know how they work.
• Have a well-defined chain of command. Plans should specifically address who will take over if the first person in charge of each critical plan component is incapacitated during an attack.
• Key individuals should know their specific roles. Additionally, roles common to particular levels or types of employees (such as all classroom teachers) should be clearly defined and documented.
• Wallet cards or similar types of portable documentation have worked well in the past to assist people in executing their roles.
• Remember that when a disaster occurs, there may be any number of visitors present in your facility who are not aware of your plan. Your plan should include a provision to assist these individuals as well.
• Include volunteers and substitute teachers in your planning and training process. They may have to fulfill specific roles should an incident occur.
• Devise a way to identify key employees to law enforcement and emergency responders at the scene. Simple arm bands with various colors signifying different positions would be an effective way of accomplishing this. The arm bands could be incorporated into the Campus and Classroom emergency kits.
  
  Practice, practice, practice!
  
  Again, you can obtain a complete version of the original “Guide” by calling the Texas School Safety Center. As I mentioned, it is also contained in the CD-Rom that the Safety Center provided to all school districts.

Is your data safe? How a high tech giant fell victim to low tech scamsters

I remember how frustrated our clients were when we first began asking them to provide documentation that they were indeed legitimate businesses. This was in response to then new credit bureau rules requiring us to do so. Some bureau agreements even went so far as to require re-sellers to personally visit or otherwide send someone to photograph their client’s physical office facility. All of this, in the interest of protecting your personal consumer information. Ironically, your personal data would be safer today if ChoicePoint, one of the nation’s largest employment screening firms and resellers of consumer data had followed its own rules. ChoicePoint was a subsidiary of credit behemoth Equifax until spun off in 1997.

“It was a simple scam”, says Russ Rosenberg, President of Asset Control. “You set up a bogus firm and mine for data under the guise of screening your own employees. I can’t see the scam having real legs unless the fraud artists set up multiple firms over a long period of time in order to enlarge the scope of the operation. If this is the case the scam could potentially affect tens of thousands of consumers or even more”, said Rosenberg. According to Bob Sullivan, MSNBC’s technology correspondent, about 50 fraudulent companies may have been identified so far. Additional media sources have recently reported that consumers in all 50 states may have been affected.

According to the industry’s own rule, each company would have had to provide specific documentation in order to show that the company was a legitimate business entity. “I can understand one or two companies slipping through the system" said Rosenberg, "and then only long enough for the documentation to be reviewed. If fifty companies slipped by ChoicePoint’s scrutiny then I would have to believe it to be something else other than a fluke. The sad part is that ChoicePoint is a security services company when it comes right down to it”.

If the infiltration was electronic you could almost understand it. In fact, fraud artists, hackers and various virus purveyors find ways around the protections put in place the most reputable of companies such as Microsoft and others. But in this case, con artists wheeled an entire herd of Trojan horses right into ChoicePoint’s client list. A rather unsophisticated maneuver but one the industry anticipated.

This is only the latest blunder, however. ChoicePoint has been on the hot seat before for security breaches that allowed millions of records containing personal identifying information to be sold via the internet, thus falling into unauthorized hands. In January 2000, the company was fired by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation because it violated privacy / security stipulations in its contract. Because of the violation, the personal information of millions of Pennsylvania residents was offered for sale on the internet.

Hopefully, the FTC will apply the pressure where it is founded and not on the vast majority of smaller agencies that are just trying to do a good job for their clients. The likely result of all of this, says Rosenberg, is that the multitude of smaller employment screening agencies will be placed under stricter guidelines, making it even more difficult for firms to provide their clients with the products and services they need.

Regardless of which background screening agency you use, we recommend that you closely examine their privacy policy. If they cannot produce one, this should be the first flag that something is wrong. Next, specifically ask if they have any agreements with other companies to sell, or otherwise transfer your or your employee’s personal data for any purpose. Last, make certain that any web-based program the company uses to send or retrieve your searches is SSL protected and that the company can demonstrate this.

To view Asset Control’s privacy policy go to http://www.assetcontrol.net/ and click on “Privacy Policy”.

Does your company have a documented conviction policy?

If your company checks for conviction information on its applicants, you should have a written policy to govern your actions. A written conviction policy will help guide any employees responsible for making employment decisions and help you to remain consistent in the employment decisions you make. What should your policy include? Consider the following:

• What definition of “conviction” will your company use to consistently apply the policy. For example, a “conviction shall include a plea, verdict, or finding of guilt, regardless of whether senescence is imposed by a court.”

• How will the company use conviction information? For example: “ the company may consider any conviction as a possible justification for the refusal, suspension, revocation, or termination of employment when it directly relates to the applicant’s possible performance in the job applied for; and, to the employee’s performance in the job the employee holds”.

• Is the conviction job-related? Your policy should describe the factors you will consider when determining if a particular conviction relates to the ability of your applicant or your employee to perform on the job, such as: the length of time since the conviction occurred; the nature of the conviction; the job and its responsibilities; employment history before and after the conviction; age at the time of conviction; etc. Additionally, your policy should take into consideration a concern for the safety of your employees and those they serve, as well as the public reputation of your company.

• What records should not to be considered? For example, annulled or expunged records, misdemeanors aged twenty years or more, convictions for which no jail sentence may be imposed under the law (infractions, etc.) should not be considered. Additionally, your policy should address what actions may be taken if an applicant or employee lies regarding a conviction.

• Several states (such as California) have laws that limit restrict the use of criminal histroy records for employment purposes in a way that is more restrictive than the FCRA. Ask your legal department if any of the states in which you opertate have restrictive laws.

Having a written policy not only guides decision-makers in their actions, but also helps provide justification for decisions made. It is best to consult with your corporate legal department before devising or implementing any important employment policy.

Texas DPS “CCH System” Criminal Database Searches – Know What You Are Getting!

If you are considering searching the Texas Department of Public Safety’s “CCH System” you probably have a good reason for wanting to do so. Most likely, you are interested in protecting your company, its employees, your customers, and others. Additionally, you are more than likely concerned about protecting your company liability relating to negligent hiring. You’re probably interested in all of these things, including, the potential to save some money in your employment screening budget.

Before you decide to hang your hat on this database search, you should know what you are getting. Or, more importantly, what you are not getting. Below is an excerpt from a December 2000 report by the Texas State Auditor’s Office (SAO) relative to the accuracy of the CCH database used by some public and private entities for employment screening.

“Data in the CCH system are incomplete because the records are based on information provided by local justice agencies. A 1996 SAO evaluation of the CCH system indicated that criminal history information on arrests, prosecutions, and court decisions will not be complete, accurate, and timely, until DPS controls are strengthened”........”local jurisdictions failed to enter 27% of known arrest information and 50% of known felony case dispositions into the CCH system”

Moreover, the DPS site itself carries this warning relative to the information you obtain through its database:

“Information obtained through this system may be inaccurate for several reasons. All Conviction and Sex Offender Registration data is provided to DPS by courts and criminal justice agencies. DPD sometimes does not receive information from these sources in a timely manner. Also, reporting courts and agencies may not always provide dates and/or locations of these convictions or offenses. Additional information may be available from court clerks and criminal justice agencies where these offenses were adjudicated.”

Asset Control cautions anyone engaged in screening applicants against relying wholly upon information obtained from the Texas DPS and CCH conviction database. The first danger in relying on CCH searches lies in the risk of obtaining an existing but incomplete record (arrest but no conviction data). This is a risk inherent with all “database” searches. However, the more significant danger to you, your employees, and your customers resides in the 50% chance that existing felony level convictions will be missed by your search because the record was not reported to begin with. With the accuracy rate reported by the SAO and with the caveats clearly posted on the DPS site, we believe it is unlikely that this search will meet the due-diligence standard needed to protect you from civil liability. Additionally, we believe users will be exposed to increased liability in the event a serious record is missed. Punctuate this with the October 3rd, 2004 Dallas Morning News expose "State's criminal database has holes", and users are duly forewarned that use of the database for employment screening could pose serious consequences.

European Union (EU) Stands Up for Employee Privacy

Recently, some of our clients have asked about the EU’s stance on employee privacy and the transmission of personal identifying data between EU countries and the U.S. Our clients that have asked have contracts or corporate facilities in Europe.

The EU "rules" on the transmission of personal identifying data are only recently developing as is the enforcement of these emerging rules. By the way, these "rules" apply to the transfer of all employee related data between EU countries and the "outside world", not just background check data. Historically, the development of these rules has lagged behind ours in the U.S., and to date the EU has basically achieved an on-par status with our own privacy rules. Nevertheless, we believe it is important for all clients who transmit personal identifying data back and forth to EU nations to stay on top of this issue through communication with their foreign offices and business partners.

Appointing a "Privacy Officer" to coordinate the collection of information regarding these new rules is not a bad idea. We hesitate to say that if you are in tight compliance with our own FCRA standards and practices that you should be in good shape for the meantime, because we all know that those Europeans have their own nuances. But this is primarily a correct assessment. The main issues are consent, disclosure, and data security - as they are here. Also, it is important that you begin to put your privacy policy and procedures in writing so that you can produce them if necessary.

Asset Control is in the process of investigating just how the EU rules diverge from our own at this time. For now, I would say that if you are doing the following you should be OK, for the moment: 1) when you transfer data make sure you are using industry standard SSL encryption methods; 2) avoid fax transmission of personal identifying information between EU countries and the U.S; 3) make release forms available in their native languages if applicants cannot read English; and, 4) make sure applicants have a way to obtain written "consumer" reports that may contain derogatory information.

In our opinion, the most critical thing at the moment is to understand the laws surrounding the use of background information in Europe. This is the one area where litigation or criminal penalties are most likely to be assessed. Some of the more liberal countries in Europe (like Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, and others) may place a different value on certain behaviors than we do in the states. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if they have barred discrimination in employment for certain convictions, where we have not. Remember, even in California there are laws which prohibits employers from considering certain drug convictions in the employment process.

Asset Control will keep our clients posted as we learn more.

Employment Eligibility Verification & the Law

Many of our clients have asked what the government is doing to better enable employers to verify the work eligibility of applicants. Indeed, employers everywhere are interested in knowing for sure that the employees they hire are authorized to work in the United States. For some the concern reflects 9/11 and the potential for terrorists to infiltrate by gaining employment. For others the interest lies more in making sure their company is strictly complying.

First, let me begin by saying that any assistance or information provided by the Fed occurs on a post hire basis and not at the application phase of the hiring process. Having clarified that one point, I can tell you that unfortunately the program remains essentially the same now as it did prior to 9/11. The government still expects you to do the best job you can of reviewing employment documents at the point of hire. If you suspect some falsification or fraud in an employee's documentation you may still call the Fed for assistance. The Social Security Administration will still verify the information provided by your employee against the SSA database without much fuss, so long as you provide them with your EIN number. The INS (now the U.S.CIS) will also assist, but only in cases where fraud is suspected. I have known them to be reluctant to assist even under those circumstances, probably due to the high volume of calls they have received since 9/11.

There is one piece of good news though, and that is that President Bush has extended the SAVE program through November, 2008. The SAVE program allows employers in Texas and a select number of other states to verify the eligibility of new employees on-line. Employers can subscribe directly, or work through a designated agent such as Asset Control/ChooseToCare. Queries can be made on-line and hit up against a data base consisting of information from several government agencies, such as the Social Security Administration.

The SAVE program is currently available to employers in the states of California, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Texas. However, once an employer has signed up to participate in CA, FL, IL, NE, NY, or TX, they may elect to sign up other company hiring sites located outside of the Basic Pilot states. To find out more about the SAVE program and how Asset Control can act as your designated agent please call our offices at 940-891-1919.

Special Vigilance: How employers can protect their assets and their communities

Given the current situation at our boarders, we believe there is a significant risk that terrorist might gain access to U.S. employers to help establish cells. This risk is paramount in south Texas and southern California, in particular. While cell members may want to gain access to certain employers (such as public utilities, chemical manufacturers, or refineries) because of target value, we must quickly point out that any public or private sector employer is susceptible to being used by a foreign national terrorist(s) as a means of cover or base of operation. Subsequently, it is the responsibility of all employers to do everything allowable, under the law, to identify workers who are illegal or who are presenting false worker identification.

Minimally, employers must make certain that I-9 procedures are closely followed. Additionally, companies should train human resource employees how to recognize falsified employment documents. Information regarding false INS documents and proper I-9 procedures can be found on the following Homeland Security Web-site: http://uscis.gov/. Additionally, I recommend that companies run Social Security Number searches on applicants as a way to detect “borrowed” numbers. Social Security Number searches are cheap to run, and they are invaluable in determining where criminal background checks need to be done. Your background screening service provider has the access and the means to do these searches for you.

On a post-hire basis, the Social Security Administration will assist employers by verifying an employee’s D.O.B., and gender. Many fraudulent applicants will not know the real D.O.B. or gender associated with the people whose identities they have stolen. Often this is all you will need to trip them up. Before you get on the phone with the Social Security Administration, you will need to be prepared to give them your company’s EIN number.

Last, in certain high risk states, the Department of Homeland Security provides a means for employers to verify employment eligibility on a post hire basis. This program, called SAVE, also checks an employee’s name against various other Homeland Security databases and watch lists. Participation in this program is a terrific way for employers to help protect their businesses and their communities against the risk of terrorist attack. Asset Control is a registered agent for the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE program and can facilitate your participation in it. Please call us if you are interested in participating in this valuable but inexpensive program.

Security in Schools Used for Polling

In July, Homeland Security Officials announced their belief that al-Qaida may seek to mount an attack aimed at disrupting our upcoming election. Currently, we know of no specific information that would lead us to believe that this concern implies a specific threat to any Texas school, or to schools in general. However, we believe that the potential risk to students and others in schools used as polling places should be considered. We believe that prevention and deterrence are the best ways to ensure the safety of our students and teachers.

Following are some precautions and protective measures that we believe will help ensure the safety of students and others in campuses that are used as polling places on Election Day:

1) To the extent possible, consider shifting polling places to other non-school locations in order to eliminate any potential safety threat to students and others.

2) If possible, consider not holding class on Election Day in those campuses where polling is scheduled to occur.

3) If campuses to be used for polling will remain open, the following safety precautions should be considered. These precautions should be coordinated closely with local law enforcement and elections officials:

a) Make certain that polling activity is closed off from student activity and that all appropriate access control measures are in place. Public access to student areas on polling day should be more closely monitored than usual, with additional staffing placed strategically.

b) Consider placing a uniform or plain clothes police officer on campus for the day. Many campuses have School Resource Officers on campus under normal circumstances and Election Day should be no different. Officers should patrol student areas and make certain that the separation between the student area and the polling area is maintained. The officer should work with school personnel to make sure that proper access control procedures are followed. The presence of a police officer devoting his/her attention to student safety and acting in accordance with normal campus patrol activities would not be incongruous to the polling process.

c) Parking enforcement is critical, with particular attention paid to fire zones and building perimeters. Cars illegally parked curbside or otherwise should be considered suspicious and given immediate police attention.

d) Access to polling areas should be restricted to persons with a legitimate intention to vote. Voter identification procedures should ensure that persons without a legitimate purpose for their presence are scrutinized before entering the facility or immediately thereafter. Consider checking ID preliminarily, at the door, and then again in the normal fashion just prior to voting.


These points are not intended to be inclusive of all the things schools need to do to prepare for the risk of a terror attack. Again, we advise school officials to closely coordinate Election Day activities on campuses with local law enforcement and election officials.

To monitor alert levels or to learn about other sources for information on terrorism preparedness go to the State of Texas Official Homeland Security web site at: www.texashomelandsecurity.com

Terrorism – How should our schools prepare for this threat?

Throughout the Middle East and in other parts of the world, schools have been the focus of terrorist activity in the past. Although we are not currently aware of specific threats against schools in the United States, intuitively, we believe that circumstances warrant that school administrators and their security personnel adopt a heightened state of awareness. Purely from a terrorist’s perspective, there would be no more effective way to crush the heart of America than to target our children where they should be the safest.

Without doubt, school administrators and security officials are examining their emergency preparedness and response plans for holes. If not, they should be. Minimally, written plans should be reviewed for adequacy and updated where necessary. All persons who play a key role in the plan should be refreshed on the nature of their roles and on the specific expectations their roles place on them. This, to be well prepared to react to a crisis should one occur, or, to an impending crises should an alert come.

What, however, can school officials do to be proactive? What can be done to detect signs of trouble early on, or to potentially avert a crisis? Following are some precautions that school administrators should consider.

1. Review your employment screening policy & procedures (Personnel).

· Make sure that your screening process includes volunteers; cafeteria workers; maintenance workers; mechanics; bus drivers; and security – in addition to educational staff.

· Your screening procedures should allow for actual courthouse searches rather than criminal "database" searches, which are generally not current. An exception to this might include sexual crimes database searches, which should be conducted in addition to courthouse, but not instead of. Have your background screening agency conduct Social Security Number searches on applicants to help determine where criminal court searches need to be done.

· Make sure that outside contractors screen their employees using industry standard procedures, or, that your school district screens contract workers who visit your schools regularly. Contract agencies should be forthcoming in telling you what procedures they use to screen their employees.

· In addition to I-9 verification, check the Social Security Number and date of birth of all newly hired employees through the Social Security Administration. This is a free service available to employers on a post-hire basis and will help identify employees who have falsified documentation.

2. Review the physical security of school bus yards and garages; review transportation security in general (Transportation, Maintenance & Security).

· Are vehicle garages alarmed, and are alarm systems working? Test signals to central station or police.

· Are fenced in areas gated, locked, and well illuminated at night?

· Make sure that drivers do a "pilots inspection" of their vehicles before placing them into service each day, and, again after each time the vehicle has been left idle and unattended. This inspection should include the vehicle’s interior and undercarriage. Drivers should be trained to know what to look for and what action to take if something suspicious is found. Your local police can assist with this training.

· Make certain that bus drivers are equipped with two way radios or cell phones.

· Train school bus drivers to be aware of and to report suspicious vehicles that appear to be following their busses during their routs.

· Keep a student roster for each bus route, to include student name, parental contact number, address, and medical authorization information.

3. Review the adequacy of physical security in and around campus buildings (Maintenance & Security).

· Make sure alarm systems have been tested recently. Conduct a walk through with your alarm service provider to make sure that all detection devices are working properly. This should include main campus buildings as well as maintenance and storage facilities.

· Review the adequacy of key control for each campus building.

· Make sure that exterior lighting is working and that illumination is adequate

· Make sure that interior (night lighting) is working and that illumination is adequate

4. Review access control procedures and heighten employee awareness (everyone).

· Make sure that educational staff and other key employees are aware of doors that must remain locked from the outside during the day, and that everyone is trained to checks these doors periodically. In addition, specific individuals should be assigned to check these doors throughout the day.

· Train all staff members to approach and to "assist" strangers of any age who are observed in and on school property. Report people who have difficulty explaining their presence.

· Implement a visitor ID log and badge system, if one is not already in place.

5. Train staff to report suspicious activity on or about school property (everyone).

· Be alert for strangers taking pictures of or filming campus activities. Question their intent and report those who have no authorization to do so.

· Be alert for suspicious vehicles that seem to have no apparent purpose for being on campus, or, that arrive, leave, and then reappear with no apparent purpose.

· Assign specific individuals to inspect the perimeter of campus buildings throughout the day, but train everyone to be alert. Report unattended packages or vehicles near building perimeters. Have a set plan to handle suspicious parcels or activities.

· Train everyone to report unattended or otherwise suspicious packages found anywhere on campus. Place this specific issue on routine checklists for janitorial and maintenance personnel. Train personnel what to do if a suspicious package or item is found.

6. Implement a tip-line program that allows users to report concerns anonymously, if they choose.

· Communicate a "no-joke" verbal threat policy. Within this context, let all members of the school community know that any threat, or information about a potential threat must be taken seriously and must be reported.

7. Work closely with the local law enforcement (Security & Administration).

· Local law enforcement agencies receive information and special bulletins from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that could potentially cause heightened states of alert. Develop a constructive relationship with local law enforcement agencies that supports the flow of the type of information you need to be placed on proper alert, when appropriate.

8. Train mailroom and other key personnel to recognize suspicious packages.

· Your county police, local police, or your Postal Inspector will be able to provide you with the basic awareness materials necessary to train your staff to know when a package should be considered suspicious. Or, visit the FBI Web-site at http://www.fbi.gov/, and download the current FBI Advisory on suspicious letters and packages. It is General Information Bulletin 2000-3. The link to the document is located at the bottom of the first page of the Web-site and you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view the document. If you do not already have Reader, it can be downloaded from within the FBI web-site. The document is a full-color awareness poster suitable for posting in mailrooms or other areas where incoming mail is handled.

· Look for: mail without return addresses, with return addresses from foreign locations from which you typically do not receive mail, and return addresses that do not match the postmark; mail with restricted delivery instructions ("Personal", Confidential"); addresses with misspelled words; mail addressed to someone’s title only (such as "Chairman"); mail that has the wrong title for the name it is addressed to; mail with way too much postage applied, typically stamps; mail having a strange odor coming from the letter or package; mail with oily stains, discolorations, crystallization, or other strange substances on the wrapper; mail with excessive taping or string; mail with protruding wires; and, mail that is lopsided or uneven in appearance.

· If a threat is identified: If school administration has reason to believe that the suspicious package contains a bomb, evacuate immediately and call 911. If you suspect that the package contains a biological or chemical hazard, isolate the package, do not handle it, call 911, and wash you hands with soap and warm water.

These recommendations are not intended to represent or to replace a comprehensive safe school program. Such programs include much more. Many of these procedures are routine in districts with full-time security operations. Even where this is the case, these recommendations can be used as a vehicle to build an increased level of awareness at a time when it is needed most. In school districts without full-time security operations, or in those having minimal security resources, these recommendations may be used as a focal point around which to build an appropriately renewed sense of awareness.

Bill Dolphin is a veteran security consultant with Texas based, Asset Control Inc., and co-developer of ChooseToCare.com, an innovative Web-based student / faculty tip-line program. Please address questions or comments about this article to bill@assetcontrol.net
School Safety Bulletins are a special service supplement to the quarterly Texas School Safety Center Newsletter, which is available on-line, at http://www.txssc.swt.edu/. School Safety Bulletins will be developed and issued on topics that the TXSSC believes to be timely, and in the best interest of student safety. Suggestions or recommendations for School Safety Bulletin topics may be sent to: txssc@swt.edu