Acting on your Screening Results

Share on LinkedIn

One of the greatest challenges in implementing a comprehensive employment screening programme is deciding how to address the results of your screening. Employers are often surprised at the volume of unfavourable outcomes that are presented as part of the screening process. The primary objective of implementing a programme is to reveal such outcomes, acting on them effectively and efficiently will determine its success.

Your approach to unfavourable outcomes should be documented in a policy. While it is difficult to outline each potential outcome and scenario, some general principles should be applied when determining your response to background screening outcomes:

How serious is the outcome?
How recent is the outcome?
Are there multiple outcomes?
Does the outcome impact on the inherent requirements of the role that the Candidate applied for?

A traffic light methodology is often applied to simplify the review process. A green light may be applicable for instances where the outcome was isolated and immaterial. Amber lights may be allocated to cases where the outcome is considerable or there are multiple immaterial outcomes. Red lights are reserved for cases where the outcome is considered significant and has obvious impacts on the Candidate’s ability to perform their role.

As an example, an Employer may give the green light to a Candidate that provided the incorrect year of graduation for a qualification that was awarded more than 10 years ago. However, an amber light may be warranted should that outcome be accompanied by multiple discrepancies relating to the dates of their employment history. Does it appear that they are attempting to cover gaps in their history?

Certain outcomes may deem a Candidate ineligible from holding any role within your organisation. A red light may be necessary for Candidates applying to the service industry with a long history of anti-social and violent behaviour. However, other outcomes may be deemed a red light for one role within your organisation, but not another. For example, a recorded bankruptcy may disqualify an individual from holding certain positions for legislative reasons, but it may not be such a finite case for other roles depending on the circumstances.

Integrity is an inherent requirement of any role and it can be argued that any misrepresentation would be cause for a red light and the withdrawal of a Candidate from the recruitment process. It is necessary to determine whether the Candidate had intentions to mislead or whether inconsistencies relate to poor record keeping or memory, particularly if the Candidate has moved frequently.

Regardless of how the outcome is categorised, it is imperative that the Employer has in place a sufficient review and remediation consultation process, involving legal and/or risk departments where necessary. Prior to basing an employment decision on outcomes presented in a background screening report, it is important to discuss the outcomes with the Candidate in question and allow them the opportunity to respond.

Whatever the result, Employers are encouraged to keep a record of their discussions regarding the outcome and how it impacted on their employment decision.

First Advantage provides implementation support including advice on how to approach the decision making process. Contact First Advantage for a free consultation.