BRB's Public Records Blog

Employment Screening Background Checks Annual Criminal Statistics

Various organizations publish their annual criminal “hit rates,” showing how many applicants subject to background screening had criminal records or other discrepancies. On one hand, these figures are extremely valuable because they confirm an already compelling case that background checks are critical for any employer that wants to exercise due diligence and protect its workforce and the public. In fact, as Employment Screening Resources has been advising employers for sometime, without a system of pre-employment screening, it is a virtual statistical certainty that an employer will hire someone with a serious issue that has the potential to create a legal and financial nightmare or cause workplace violence.

On the other hand, as with all statistics, these yearly reports need to be taken with a grain of salt. First, not all criminal records come as a surprise to employers. Given the number of Americans with some sort of criminal records, many employers are still willing to hire someone for an appropriate position, providing the applicant was not dishonest in the application. In fact, certain industries by nature of their workforce are more likely to draw upon a pool of potential applicants that may tend to have higher levels of past criminal conduct. Examples might be construction or firms that provide employment for entry level workers.

A statistic that would be very interesting but much harder to obtain is how many criminal records were discovered where the applicant was dishonest about past conduct. Of course, that gets complicated by the fact that an applicant may have been genuinely confused about what is or is not reportable on an application.

A related issue is that not all criminal records have the same impact. A criminal record for underage drinking is not in the same league as a conviction for armed robbery.

In reviewing these types of statistics, employers also need to keep in mind that not all of the criminal records located are job related. Employers should NOT automatically deny employment to an applicant with a criminal record unless there is a business justification that takes into account the nature and gravity of the crime, the nature of the job and the age of the crime. As noted in a recent blog on this site, the EEOC takes the position that the overuse of criminal records without a business justification can create a disparate impact, and therefore can be discriminatory. See: http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/1057/new-eeoc-lawsuit-for-discrimination-based-on-credit-report-and-criminal-records

Finally, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the statistics without knowing the search methodology. Depending on how the searches were conducted, it is entirely possible in fact that such annual statistics may even understate the number of criminal records applicants had. The most accurate criminal record searches are done by accessing information directly from the county courthouse level, either by physically going the court, or by use of the court computer system that is the functional equivalent of going to the courthouse. That is the method used by Employment Screening Resources. Databases on the other hand, although much wider in scope, are not nearly as accurate, do not have all courts or jurisdiction, may not be updated, or may not contain sufficient identifiers.  To the extent any searching was done by the use of databases, the numbers could potentially be understated.

The bottom line: These statistics are an excellent reminder that employers need to be careful in hiring. However, as with most statistics, there is more to the story. Contact Employment Screening Resources for additional information.

State and Fed Conference on Criminal Records

 On December 15 and 16, a forum for state criminal record repositories, courts, and other interested parties will be held in San Antonio. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act (NIAA) Conference is the co-sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, and SEARCH. This invitation-only conference is intended for the agencies responsible for implementing provisions of the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 (NIAA). NICS background checks are conducted when for transfers of firearms to non-licensed individuals.
 
For more information about this conference and its agenda, check the SEARCH web calendar at www.search.org/calendar/. 

Kansas and Hawaii Courts Facing Closure Days

In a letter to court employees circulated in early November, Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Davis warned that KS state courts will have to close as much as 6 weeks from February through June if the Legislature fails to restore $8 million in budget cuts. Staff would be placed on unpaid leave. Since the letter was released, there has been talk of closing the courts for only 12 days, providing changes are implemented to meet the shortfall. Earlier this year, 18 Kansas counties cut back on their court hours open to the public. See www.kscourts.org/.

In October, the Supreme Court of Hawaii announced a 2-day per month furlough for all court employees, with the exception of juvenile detention facilities. A calendar of the closed days from November through June 2010 is posted on the web at www.courts.state.hi.us/.
 
The court closures in Kansas and Hawaii follow the example in California, whose court system is already operating on a furlough schedule that closes all state courts the third Wednesday of each month.
 

Hamilton County Courts, Indiana

In late September, 2009, the Circuit & Superior Courts of Hamilton County Indiana switched their case file management to the Odyssey case management system provided by the Indiana Supreme Court. As a result, online access to the court record index is now available at http://mycase.in.gov/default.aspx.

Previously, courts place the record index with https://www.doxpop.com. While Hamilton County records may still be accessed from Doxpop's subscription system, the range of records date from 01/1987 to 9/21//2009. Thus, since the switchover, new cases and updates to existing cases for Hamilton County are no longer updated on Doxpop.

Connecticut DPS Increases Record Fees

Effective October 1, 2009, the Division of State Police, part of Connecticut's Department of Public Safety, doubled the fees for criminal record checks and accident reports.

The fee for a criminal record check increased from $25.00 to $50.00 per request, be it a name search or fingerprint search. Please note, the actual fingerprinting for the criminal record checks must be completed by a law enforcement agency.  The fee for fingerprints taken by the DPS State Police Bureau of Identification DPS is an additional $15.00.

The fee for an Accident report increased from $8.00 to $16.00; add $1.00 for a certified record. Note, the agency web page does not use the words accident report or crash report and refers to these reports as State Police Reports.

The DPS home page is www.ct.gov/dps/site/default.asp.

New Study on Impact of Past Criminal Record on New Employment Creates More Questions than it Answers

A new study just released by researchers from Carnegie Mellon University has attempted to devise a model to quantify the relevance of a criminal record for employment on the basis that the importance of a past criminal record recedes over time when a person is not re-arrested. The study looks to develop a methodology to measure how much time must pass before an applicant with a criminal record is no greater risk than an applicant without a criminal record. (Blumstein, Nakamura, “Redemption in the Presence of Widespread Criminal Background Checks,” Criminology, Volume 47, Number 2 (2009))

The study, based upon limited data just from the state of New York, found that with time, a person with a criminal record was no greater threat than persons without a criminal record. It suggested that depending upon the offenses included in the study and the age at which the offenses were committed, that after approximately 4½ to 8 years without further arrests, an offender had a minimal risk of re-offending. Of course, the more violent the offense, the longer the time would be required before a person could be considered “redeemed.” Serious crimes such as murder, rape, or child molestation were not part of this particular study, but presumably more serious crimes would have a different result.

Although there is a temptation for the press to take “sound bites” from the findings, it is abundantly clear even from the authors of the study themselves that this is only a beginning. The authors were clear that much more study was needed and that there are substantial issues still to be addressed. The authors’ characterization that the study represents a “significant step forward in an area where so little is known empirically” is well-taken.

The study does not have nearly enough data to reach conclusions from which policy recommendations can be effectively made, has not been reviewed critically by other professionals, and most importantly has a number of drawbacks that can affect its reliability. Many of these limitations were acknowledged by the authors.  There are also unstated assumptions in the study that would certainly skew any results.

For a more in-depth analysis of why this study cannot be the basis to make policy changes, see a more complete analysis by ESR at: http://www.esrcheck.com/Blumstein-and-Nakamura-study-on-redemption-in-Criminology.php

This posting was provided by the ESR Newsletter and Legal Update and Lester Rosen, Atty at law.

 

Minnesota Increases Certain Court Fees

As of July 1st, 2009, a number of fee increases will take place involving the Minnesota Court System. Most of the specified increases affect filings of civil cases, marriage dissolution actions, and the filing of motions or responses. However, there are two fees which will affect record access. The fee for a non-certified copy of any instrument from a civil or criminal proceeding increases from $5.00 to $8.00, and the fee for a certified copy increases from $10.00 to $14.00.

Finding a copy of all the fee increases is tricky. Go to www.leg.state.mn.us/, click on Statutes, Laws and Rules, then click on 2009 Session Laws, and finally on Chapter 83. This will bring up the bill in its entirety. Look for Article 2 and the Amendment to section 357.021, subdivision 2.

Standards for Searching Records at Federal Courts

The typical search fee is $26.00 per item (one party name or case number). Copy fee is $.50 per page. Certification fee is $9.00 per document; double for exemplification, if available. Most courts require prepayment. Mail requests should enclose a SASE unless otherwise noted. Before releasing records, most courts require prepayment.

District courts index by defendant and plaintiff and by case number. Bankruptcy courts usually index by debtor and case number. While most courts now have their indexes on computer, many may still maintain index card files as well. Courts will archive closed case files at different times.

There are numerous public access programs available to online subscribers. Search the U.S. Party/Case Index to find party names and case numbers among all courts. Individual case data is provided on PACER. A search of CM/ECF provides copies of cases filed electronically. For details about PACER, the US Party/Case Index, and CM/ECF see the Appendix or go to http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov or call 800-676-6856.

  excerpt from The Sourcebook to Public Record Information

Winchendon District Court in MA Moving

The Winchendon District Court in Worcester County has relocated from Winchendon to the town of Gardner Massachusetts. The court is now housed at the Gardner District Court located at 108 Mathews in Gardner. The case records will not be co-mingled; Winchendon's records are to be kept separate from Gardner. The Winchendon Courts jurisdiction includes Ashburnham, Phillipston, Royalston, Templeton, and Winchendon.

New Hampshire Court Search Fees to Signficantly Increase

We learned that the NH Administrative Office of Courts, through administrative rule, is mandating a significant increase in many court fees, effective August 1st. For example, the current fee for searching civil or criminal records will increase from a  flat $10.00 fee for up to 9 names, and $25.00 for 10 or more names to the following fee structure: $20.00 for each of the first 5 names, then $5.00 per name afterword.  Following the new guidelines, if 9 names are ordered the fee is now $120. It used to be $10.00. Thanks to the folks at County House Research Inc. in Philadelphia for alerting us to this situation.