Wozniak starts by sharing a few stunning statistics. Did you know that assaults and violent acts account for 14 percent of workplace deaths? Did you know that workplace violence costs employers $36 billion a year?

Did you know that almost three quarters of employers have no formal program that addresses workplace violence? What about your company?

There are lots of reasons you should address the threat of workplace violence. A safe workplace is more productive. Morale is higher. And then, there’s the law.

As Wozniak points out OSHA requires an employer to provide a workplace that’s “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to employees.” Here’s how he suggests you proceed.

Do a diligent job of hiring, including background checks on applicants.
Create a threat management team.
Assess vulnerabilities on a regular basis.
Adopt violence prevention policies.
Conduct regular training.
Fire respectfully.
Ban weapons.

None of these things is rocket science. None of them cost a lot. The trick is to cover your employment situation from beginning to end, to have clear policies and procedures, and to make sure that you follow them diligently and consistently.

The headline reads: “Ice cream vendors embrace background checks.” Here’s the lead.

Details of Rapid City’s proposed background-check requirement for ice cream vendors are still being hashed out, but truck operators say they won’t have a problem with the new rule if it is implemented.

The first question is: “Why do background checks on ice cream vendors?” They may not seem like a potential threat, but think back to the last time you were at a public park in the summer.

Remember what happens when the ice cream truck comes around. Kids beg parents for ice cream. Moms and dads hand over money and send their little darlings off to the truck.

You hardly ever see a parent who walks to the ice cream truck with their child. And that means that a vendor with evil intent toward a child may have the opportunity to snatch one up.

So Rapid City is drafting an ordinance to do a criminal background check on ice cream vendors. And the vendors, unlike some folks, say that’s just fine with them.

In fact, Keith Storm, one of the vendors only really has one concern. He hopes the process won’t be a burden, since he already went through a background check to sell ice cream around schools.

So here’s a hearty “Bravo!” for Rapid City’s ice cream vendors and a hope that the city doesn’t squander that feeling of good citizenship with silly regulations and process and costs.

Along with their grades and residence status, high school seniors face another important question on their college applications: ‘Have you ever been convicted of a felony?’ And many colleges, including the University of Oklahoma and nursing programs at Connors State College and Northeastern State University, back that question up with criminal background checks.

In other words, what happens is that the college asks an applicant if he or she has a felony conviction. If the answer is “No,” they proceed with the admissions process. If they answer “Yes,” the college runs a background check.

This strikes me as dangerous. In the interests of streamlining the process for people with no criminal record, they put those same people at risk.

Think about it. In common law as practiced in most of the US, a felony is a crime that carries a possible sentence of a year or more in prison. We’re talking things like battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug sales, embezzlement, grand theft, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud.

It seems to me that if a man or woman has been convicted of a crime like that, they’re more likely to lie than a person without a criminal record. That’s why I’d like to see criminal background checks as part of every college admissions process.

My guess is that would discourage some felons from applying at all. It would identify others so an informed decision can be made about whether they pose a threat to other students or not.

Cade Roberts who plans to attend Oklahoma would agree. He asks: “What if you get a roommate with a background of gang activity or if you get a felon you don’t know about.”

I say, “Check ‘em all.”

A few months ago, I applied for a job at the new distribution center in Gouldsboro. I had the interview, got hired, passed the urine test, then they do a background check which they find a misdemeanor theft charge from two years ago, which was over some coins. I was accused of stealing, but since I was there, I could not prove I did not. Anyway, they told me they could not hire me.

Let’s look at this because it illustrates some issues about hiring that are important. Wording is a good place to begin.

The person refers to “misdemeanor theft charge from two years ago, which was over some coins.” Clearly he’s trying to put things in the best light. In the ad business those would be called “weasel words.”

It may have been a misdemeanor, but it was probably a conviction, not just a charge. Certain criminal databases, like SentryLink, that businesses use for background checks don’t note arrests or charges, only convictions. That’s how we interpret the Constitution’s principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

We don’t know how many coins were involved and we don’t know if they were currency or collectables. What we do know is that stealing was involved and the fact that it was two years ago is irrelevant.

If I’m the hiring manager, here’s how my reasoning would go. “We’re considering this guy for a job at a distribution center where he’ll have access to lots of things he can steal. He’s stolen before. I think we’ll hire someone else.”

Everybody tries to portray themselves in the best possible way. But some people step over the line and use “weasel words” to misrepresent their situation. A charge and a conviction, for example, are two very different things. That’s why we have background checks.

There have been plenty of stories lately about men and women using background check services like SentryLink to check out prospective dates. But now the battle has moved to the online dating services. According to the Tribune story:

The contentious issue of the moment - pitting one of the three biggest companies, True.com, against its major rivals - is whether online dating services can enhance their clients’ safety by conducting criminal background screenings of would-be daters. Last month, New Jersey became the first state to enact a law requiring the sites to disclose whether they perform background checks. True.com - the only large online dating service that already does such screenings - was elated by its successful lobbying and hopes other states will follow suit.

There are two things going on here. True.com is seeking a marketing edge and preying on the fears of people who might be considering using an online service to help them find a date or a mate.

Many people use online services like Match.com or Eharmony.com because they’ve exhausted the usual sources of dates. If you can’t find a date among the people at work, at church, at school or at a volunteer activity, what do you do?

There seem to be three choices. You can assume that dating is not in your future and hope somebody interesting shows up at one of the places where you hang out. You can hit the singles bars. Or you can try one of the online services.

Since you’ll be in contact with people you don’t know, both the bars and the net offer the possibility that you’ll run into a predator or a nut case. Your best defense is good judgment and paying attention to warning signs.

If a background check will make you feel more secure, use a service like SentryLink that lets you check national criminal records for a modest fee. I’d be much more comfortable with that than will leaving the checking in the hands of some dating service.

“Thumb drive” is the name given to little memory devices that hold a lot of data and plug into a USB port on your computer. They’re sometimes called “keychain drives” or “flash drives.” Thumb drives are about the size of your index finger and can hold up to 16 gigabytes of data.

Thumb drives have become popular devices for transporting data or transferring them from one computer to another. A worker from the Nevada company there probably put sensitive files on the thumb drive and slipped it into a pocket or purse.

The very convenience that lets you slip a thumb drive into your pocket makes it a security risk. That’s because it can easily slip out without you noticing.

You owe it to applicants and employees to keep their information safe. Most of the time that will mean keeping it on a secure computer with limited access. If you’re using a thumb drive, or any portable media, to store sensitive information, make sure the data is encrypted.

If you’re using a thumb drive to transport data the encryption rule holds but you also need to keep the device secure. There are three common ways that users do this.

Some users carry their thumb drive on a key chain or on a cord around their neck. Others have a specific place in their briefcase for all portable media including thumb drives and CDs.

Then there are the people who slip the thumb drive into a closable pocket attached to a file folder. They figure it’s harder to lose a file folder than a tiny drive, plus they can put notes on and in the file folder.

If you have sensitive information about employees or applicants, it’s your job to keep the information safe. If you’re storing that information on any computer or storage drive, you need to keep that safe, too.

Robert Lawrence Psaty worked as a mental health clinician at the Colorado Mental Health Institute. A waiter noticed him slip a pill into his companion’s drink while having dinner. The waiter, smart fellow, took the drink from the table and called police.

Psaty was arrested. It turns out that he’s been in trouble before, in 1994 and again in 2002. In both cases he received a “deferred sentence.” Here’s what that means according to the Colorado Judicial Branch:

An arrangement in which a defendant who pleads guilty is placed on probation for up to two years, usually with conditions. If the defendant successfully completes probation, the guilty plea is withdrawn and the case is dismissed. If the defendant fails probation, he or she may be sentenced based upon the guilty plea.

Here’s what that means for Psaty, for the Colorado Department of Human Services who ran the background check on him, and for you. It’s like that conviction never even happened.

The court decided, in 1994 and in 2002 that Mr. Psaty had met the conditions established by the court at sentencing. The cases were then dismissed. When the Department of Human Services ran their background check, there were no convictions on the record.

This just emphasizes the point that while a background check should be part of your hiring process, it shouldn’t be the only part. Your application should ask about criminal activity. Check with your attorney to see how you should ask about deferred sentences. You should check references. You should run a pre-employment credit check.

No system is perfect, but a good process, diligently followed will help you catch most criminal situations. That same process and diligence will also help keep you safe from wrongful hiring lawsuits.

The article is titled “Playing It Safe.” It’s about how they handle background checks and other security at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois.

You should read this piece whether you’re a church or a business or a day care center or any other kind of organization looking for best practices on security. I’m just going to hit some highlights.

The story quotes David Staal who is director of the church’s Promisland Program for children. Here’s a quote I loved. “Safety is one area you can’t ever compromise on or the whole ministry is at risk. You need to bat a thousand every time.”

That’s a good attitude for security anywhere. Here are some of the things Staal does that you can emulate.

The children’s program is in a secure area of the church. Access is limited. The church maintains a “No access” list for people not allowed in, and enforce it with a check-in procedure.

They also have a thorough application process for volunteers who want to work with children. It’s a good model for any application process. Here’s Staal’s description of it.

“The application process deters a lot of people. Because we ask a lot of personal questions, a child predator would have to lie on the application, hope that their background check doesn’t show anything, hope their references check out perfectly, and then face two interviewers who have the gift of discernment. Does this process guarantee we’ll never recruit a bad worker? Nothing is 100 percent. But the steps we use weed out the opportunists.”

Whether you’re a church or not, take a few moments to read the full article. You’ll find tips on the application process, ideas about physical security and much more.

The school system has been doing criminal background checks on new hires for years. When a teacher was caught shooting heroin on school property and when it turned out that same teacher had a history of drug abuse, the school system decided that they ought to check out current employees, too.

So far, so good. The idea was to take steps so that students and teachers in the system were kept safe. Background checks for current employees seem to becoming more common. Teachers even supported the idea, according to the Charlotte Observer.

So a staffer put together a memo and that’s where the problem started. It went out to 18,000 workers and informed them that unless they authorized the district to investigate their finances, background, character and “mode of living” they could be fired. They had a couple of days to sign the form.

Even though the additional background checks had been discussed, workers simply weren’t ready for anything like this. It arrived out of the blue. It was a shock.

The tone was heavy-handed. Comply by Friday, or else!

Just to add insult to injury, the memo didn’t represent the policy accurately. The district wanted to do criminal checks to look for people who might be a danger to students and staff. The memo described a credit check and even used wording taken from the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

To his credit, Superintendent of Schools, Frank Gorman, responded both quickly and contritely. He apologized for the notice and poor communication. He clarified what the district was after and promised that there would be more early discussion on the next version of the new policy.

Lesson: Even if adding additional background checks for current employees is a good idea, and even if they support the idea in the abstract, it’s still a loaded emotional issue. Act accordingly.

Lesson: Memos and other communication on loaded emotional issues should not be left to anonymous staff. Senior people should review them for both accuracy and tone.

Lesson: If you mess up, apologize. It’s the only way you can start making things better.

Sad as it is for a school district to have to pay big bucks for advanced background checks on potential and current employees, as well as volunteers, there is no question about the need for a thorough system for vetting people who work with our children — or our money. That’s why Brazosport ISD’s school board made the right decision in voting to spend $14,620 a year on quality background checks that go far beyond what the district has in place now. The number of teachers accused of abusing students and staff members caught with their hands in the taxpayer till or worse is high all over the place, it seems. Not all accused offenders have prior history, but schools who aren’t doing everything they can to weed out applicants who do simply are inviting trouble.

It’s good to see someone who gets it. You don’t do background checks and expect to catch everyone who might later do something evil or predatory. You do them because it’s smart.

As Damon Runyon, author of Guys and Dolls, put it: “The race may not always be to the swift, nor victory to the strong, but that’s the way you bet.”

In the case of background checks, you “bet” that most of the people who will prey on children in the future have probably been caught at it in the past. You do a criminal background check to catch the ones you can. It’s not perfect, but it sure beats the alternative.

The alternative is hoping that you won’t hire someone who will later turn out to be a criminal or a predator. That’s a really dumb choice.

Karen Carter applied for and got a job as business office manager at a nursing home called the Sanctuary at Tuttle Crossing in Central Ohio. According to the station, “Carter’s state criminal records background check was forged.” She also lied on her application and said she had no criminal record.

In fact, Ms Carter has quite a record. She’s on probation for theft. She was already set to appear in court to answer charges “including forgery, theft, identity theft and falsification.” And now there’s a warrant for her arrest on charges of stealing thousands of dollars from patients at the nursing home where she worked.

I’d call her a pro, except she keeps getting caught. But Ms Carter certainly is a predator.

You may be thinking, “Wow. We’d never have caught her either. She had a forged background check.” Think again.

A forged background check means that someone at the nursing home and involved in the hiring process was either lazy, extremely gullible, or asleep at the switch. If the home relied on a forged document, either Ms. Carter brought it with her or she selected the person or company who provided it.

My guess is that she went from home to home with her forged document, hoping to find someone dumb enough or lazy enough or dishonest enough to hire her. Evidently she did. Maybe they figured they’d save twenty bucks by just accepting the document she brought with her.

It’s not rocket science to avoid hiring someone like Karen Carter. Do your own background check using a reputable firm like SentryLink. That would have done the trick.

“Effective today, no employee will be hired by the city without undergoing a criminal background check.” Here’s the background.

On January 15, the City Council of West Melbourne voted to hire Doug Wyckoff to a three-year contract as city attorney for more than $100,000 per year, even though he had not cleared a criminal background check. The majority of the Council probably figured that Wyckoff was an honest looking fellow and there was no need to wait.

Well, you know that if we’re writing about this, that all did not turn out well. When the background check results finally came in, they showed that several different women he’s had relationships with have taken out temporary restraining orders on Mr. Wyckoff. Ooops.

What was the city’s reaction? Well, first, they went ahead and approved an amended contract for Mr. Wyckoff. He says he’s glad to have support of the majority of the Council and he hopes that pesky issue of the restraining orders will die down since it’s “not in the best interests of the city.” Not to mention Mr. Wyckoff’s best interests.

Then the Council passed a resolution to make any hiring for any position in the city contingent on passing a background check. There’s no policy for that so one will have to be drafted. Perhaps the new city attorney can help.

I don’t get it. Didn’t the city ask Mr. Wyckoff if he had a record? If they did ask him, did he lie?

The lesson for all of us is the same one we keep pounding on here. Just because someone doesn’t look like what you think a criminal should look like doesn’t mean they’re OK. Check out everyone you hire. Even attorneys.

Now the Orlando Sentinel reports that “Florida DCF to screen employees’ backgrounds.” What’s involved is a review of the records of all the 13,000 plus agency employees to make sure that every one has been fingerprinted and every one has had a criminal background check.

Why would they do that? The situation is a bit like what happens when a house is burglarized and then the homeowner purchases an alarm system. It takes a crisis to change practice.

This crisis involves the main public spokesperson for the agency. His name is Al Zimmerman and he was the public face of DCF, the person you saw on screen or heard on the radio or saw quoted in the newspaper telling you about the good work that DCF does.

Zimmerman was in those same media on the first of February when he was arrested on eight counts of “using a child in a sexual performance.” The Sentinel reports that, “According to the arrest report, Zimmerman offered two teens money in exchange for photographing them in sexual acts.” One of the teens was in the care of DCF.

The irony is that the background checks that the DCF is instituting wouldn’t have spotted Zimmerman as a potential child porn offender. Despite checking by both law enforcement and, I’m sure, a bevy of investigative reporters, he doesn’t appear to have a record for that kind of thing.

That’s OK, though. Sometimes good comes from bad. If the more extensive background checks that will be run from now on by Florida DCF help keep even one child safe, it will be a very good thing.

Employees who apply for jobs at Marshall University or Marshall Community and Technical College must now undergo background checks.

The Board of Governors passed the background check provision, Policy No. HR-14, during its Oct. 16 meeting, marking the first time the university has required background checks campuswide, the policy said.

The story gives us a look at many issues that have to be considered when an organization that hasn’t mandated background checks before makes them a requirement. Let’s consider a few.

The story quotes HR Director Jim Stephens as saying: “We hope, though, that departments have been performing these checks for a while because it’s a sound hiring practice,” It sure is.

In many organizations, some departments do background checks and others don’t. A policy like Marshall’s makes it clear that everyone should do them and makes a lot of excuses irrelevant.

Marshall’s policy applies to all faculty and staff hired on or after November 1. You’ve got to have some kind of effective date. You’ve got to be clear about who’s covered and who’s not covered by the policy.

Current faculty and staff won’t be checked when they apply for new positions. I would prefer to conduct background checks any time there’s a change in function that allows access to sensitive information or to money.

Student workers in general are exempt from the policy. But student workers applying for health and research positions or positions where they work with minors will have to submit to a background check.

What’s not mentioned in the article, but which is also important is the kind of background checks that should be done. The big three choices are criminal, per-employment credit check, and driving records check. The policy should also specify any other checks, such as reference checks that should be part of the hiring process.

You also have to decide who’s going to do the background checks. At Marshall, like many organizations, the task falls to HR. I hope there’s been budget money available for them to take on the new work.

So if you’re considering establishing a background check policy, make sure you touch all the bases. Define who will be cheeked, what checks will be done, and who will be responsible for doing them.

By April, taxi drivers who wish to pick up or drop off passengers at Bush Intercontinental Airport will have to pass a background check by the Transportation Security Administration. The cabbies, 80 percent of whom came here from African nations such as Ethiopia, Nigeria and Somalia, protest that the background checks are redundant and discriminatory. They are right about the redundancy. Houston taxi drivers must undergo an FBI background check before they receive an operator’s license. If that screening is meaningful, there should be little need for another. Federal security officials say they will use databases to confirm drivers’ immigration status, but that has more to do with immigration policy than airport safety.

I’m with the Chronicle. If you do the job right, there should be no need to keep doing it over while you spend more money and time. You want your background check system to be both effective and cost-effective.

But there are times when you want to run more than one check on the same person. Here are a few of them.

When you’re hiring, run both a criminal background check and a pre-employment credit check. They help you spot different kinds of trouble and their value when used together with a conscientious reference check is greater than the sum of the parts.

Run those same checks when you promote someone to a new position. Think of it as a new hire, except from inside your organization.

For people with access to sensitive data or to funds, make a regular background checks a feature of employment. And make it a firing offense not to inform you of a criminal conviction that occurs after hiring.

You don’t need to spend extra time and money to re-check the same things, but when time or circumstances change, another background check is a good idea.

Then they lay out several strategies, including background checks, for doing a better job of hiring. The article is aimed at people who hire for positions called “medical coders.” If that’s not you, skip the article and read what follows. Here are a few highlights, along with my comments.

“Know exactly what you need.” Far too few companies do this. I’m not taking about the job title or “education requirements.” Think about what the person will actually do and who they will work with. Then draw up a profile of an ideal candidate. Then you can put in the educational or experience requirements that relate directly to the job.

“Weigh references – but not heavily.” I love the phrasing of this recommendation because it should remind you that it’s getting tougher and tougher to get anything except verification of dates of employment out of previous employers.

“Test your applicant’s knowledge.” Don’t just go by the resume or application. Test the applicant’s assertion that he or she can perform a specific task or is familiar with a particular process or software. Use questions about the process or procedures. Use actual performance tests.

“Perform a background check.” The author recommends both a criminal background check and a pre-employment credit check. So do I.

Remember that the people you hire are your business. They do the work. They deal with your customers and co-workers. You owe it to them and to yourself to do a good, thoughtful, and thorough job of hiring.

There’s an article in Government Executive about how “by Oct, 27, 2007, federal agencies were supposed to complete background checks for employees with 15 years’ or less experience and begin issuing new identity cards.” Want to guess how many Federal agencies met the deadline?

The answer is none. Zero. Not one. And this was a deadline that was set in 2004!

Now, in business, if nobody could make our deadline, we would assume that the problem was the deadline, not the people. But this is the government we’re talking about.

Not only has the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the ones responsible for the deadline, not acknowledged that the deadline might be a problem, they haven’t changed anything about the background check program. Not only do the background checks need to be completed but “new identity cards must replace the standard employee flash-card badges by Oct. 27, 2008.”

So, if you are a Federal agency, you’re supposed to get the background checks done and then get the new cards done. No changes to the deadlines. But of course, if the DHS isn’t enforcing the deadline and nobody’s making it, you could say it’s not really a deadline.

One of the great things about working in business or a not-for-profit is that you can do important things quickly. Aren’t you glad there are services like SentryLink to help you do that?

You decide whose background should get checked. The Livonia schools thought it was a good idea to check on chaperones because they’re in positions of trust with young people they could easily take advantage of.

Who should you be checking out? Who will be in a trusted position they could abuse? Who has access to money, people, or information and could use that access to do something bad?

You decide what kind of check is called for. A criminal background check and a close look at the sex offender registry was what Livonia decided.

For most hires and people with access to money or sensitive data, I suggest both a national criminal background check and a pre-employment credit check. When you make decisions on this, think about what people actually do and what they actually have access to.

You decide what information is important. If you’re hiring an accounting clerk you will certainly want to look at credit history carefully. If you’re hiring a truck driver, the driving record is important. Everybody should have their background checked for criminal activity.

And, this is important, you decide what to do with what you find. If you hit something that might cause you to deny employment or access you need to decide whether to verify it or ask for an explanation. You also should decide if what you find is a good reason, for example, to deny employment or to offer employment with a probationary period or conditions.

Background checks are tools. You’re the one responsible for choosing which ones to use and what to look for. You’re the one responsible for decisions about what to do with what you find.

Tucson police have turned to palm-sized technology to help its officers and those at other law enforcement agencies conduct background checks and keep track of crime trends. A grant from the Department of Homeland Security has enabled the department to acquire more than 200 PDAs, which they have decided to distribute among their own officers as well as about 20 other agencies across Southern Arizona.

Frankly, it got me thinking about the old days. We never used to use criminal background checks or pre-employment credit checks in hiring. Part of the reason was that we didn’t have to.

Even a couple of decades ago, people didn’t move as often as they do now. So you were hiring people from the area and it was easy to check them out by talking to people who knew them.

Employers would talk to you back then. I can remember a time when people didn’t sue you for giving out damaging, but true information. But in the last couple of decades, employers have gotten suit-shy. They’ll verify dates of employment, but not much else.

In today’s world we need a way to check on people when there isn’t anybody who knows the applicant that we can chat with. The old ways won’t work anymore. But technology has come to the rescue.

Another reason we didn’t check for a criminal record on an applicant and why we didn’t check his or her credit was that the process was expensive and time consuming. Technology has come to the rescue there, too.

Today with the click of your mouse and the payment of a modest fee, you can jump on the SentryLink web site and check the background and credit history of an applicant. And you can do it in minutes, not days or weeks. Ain’t technology grand?

There are people out there who will trot out stories like this one to prove that background checks are a waste of time and money because they don’t actually catch any bad guys. Those people are wrong.

The first thing to agree on is what everyone means by “background check.” The schools Superintendent refers to “very comprehensive background checks” but doesn’t describe them.

If you’re hiring, a background check ought to include verification of credentials, reference checks, a pre-employment credit check and a national criminal background check.

Let applicants know up front that you do these checks and you’ll find that some choose to go no farther. That’s usually because they know that a background check will reveal things they’d rather you didn’t know. Just having background checks as part of your process has a deterrent effect.

It’s important to do a national criminal background check, too. People move a lot these days. A check of local records won’t tell you about a criminal past that occurred in another state.

Even so, people will slip through the cracks. A criminal background check only shows convictions. It won’t tell you about times a person was charged with a crime but not convicted. And no background check can spot a back actor who hasn’t got a record yet.

Your background checks are part of a comprehensive review of an applicant’s suitability for a position at your company. That process can help you keep dishonest and dangerous people out of your workplace and help protect you from negligent hiring lawsuits. That’s why they’re worth it.