Editor's note: Though I always include specific references to other articles, based on the tone of this article I do not feel it's appropriate to single out individual journalists or media outlets.
Throughout the last decade's explosive growth of pre-employment background checks, the news media has published hundreds or even thousands of stories. From business behemoths like the Wall Street Journal to community papers in rural Oklahoma, media coverage helps to influence the perception employers and job seekers have of the background screening industry. Unfortunately these articles are commonly filled with misinformation or misguided calls for action.
Throughout the last decade's explosive growth of pre-employment background checks, the news media has published hundreds or even thousands of stories. From business behemoths like the Wall Street Journal to community papers in rural Oklahoma, media coverage helps to influence the perception employers and job seekers have of the background screening industry. Unfortunately these articles are commonly filled with misinformation or misguided calls for action.
Take, for example, the recent coverage of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's hearing about background checks. The most accurate articles describe the confluence of opinions and expert testimony about background screening. But some creative journalism apparently reads between the lines and tells employers that the EEOC is proposing a ban on background checks for prospective and current employees1. The article continues to rehash the details of the hearing, without any details to support the so-called ban, and wraps up by asking readers to write the EEOC and oppose their proposal.
The problem? The EEOC didn't propose a ban; in fact, they didn't propose anything. Further, the hearing began by recognizing the importance of background screening to prevent acts of violence in the workplace. The whole purpose of the hearing was to analyze the positive and negative impacts of background checks on communities as a whole so the EEOC can develop a plan or proposal to take to lawmakers.
In Massachusetts, a law passed in 2010 that reforms the state's criminal record database, referred to as "CORI". One of the most highly regulated and complex criminal record databases in the country, CORI is well-known and often notoriously misunderstood in terms of what it includes and how it's used. Perpetuating the myths and misunderstanding? You guessed it: the print and television news media in Massachusetts.
A news source with perhaps the highest readership in Massachusetts2 published a short informative guide for employers and job seekers, explaining how a minor criminal record would not likely hold up a job seeker's employment. Although the author's interpretation of CORI was based on some knowledge of the law, her explanation was incomplete and misguided. For example she quoted some parts of the law that have not yet been enacted and didn't take into account that there are many more ways to obtain criminal records than just using the highly restrictive CORI system.
In a recent "special investigation", a local3 television news agency exposed the "loopholes" in the CORI system. The loophole is nothing more than common knowledge about state-maintained criminal record repositories: that the information contained therein is limited just to that state. The same "loophole" exists in the other 44 states that make criminal records available on a statewide level.
To its credit, the investigation exposes the public safety issue that the loophole creates. Massachusetts' requirement for many safety-sensitive positions is limited to CORI and doesn't statutorily require employers to look at the big picture. Additionally a slice of the general public undoubtedly were (and still are) unaware that CORI is not the end-all, be-all source of criminal records. But to imply that the team's crackpot investigative skills uncovered a dangerous secret, this group of journalists is doing nothing more than patting each other on the back.
At the core of each incomplete or misinformed news story is an important message and some useful information. Readers must keep an open mind when reviewing this information and seek the whole story before taking action. Employers should speak with objective legal counsel or experts in background checks to understand the bigger picture, and job seekers should fully understand their rights when dealing with their pasts.
Notes:
1. Per an article in a trade publication for the food service industry.
2. Blog on a job board website published by a Boston multimedia news agency.
3. Boston affiliate for a major television network.
