Data supports that it is a good practice for companies to step up their pre-employment screening program . . . and for applicants to think twice before including untrue information on their resume or employment application.
Who you think you are hiring is not always who you are hiring. An April 22, 2008 press release by Kroll presents some interesting data from their 2007 Hit Ratio Report. One disturbing finding is that pre-employment screening for criminal convictions continue a consistent upward trend — from 8.5% in 2005 to 9.1% in 2006 and 9.5% in 2007.
The construction (15.4%), automotive (13.9%) and retail industries (13.7%) had the highest criminal record hit ratios, while education (3.7%) had the lowest. To view the data online go to: http://www.kroll.com/about/library/hit_ratio/.
In addition to criminal background screening U.S. employers are looking more closely at applicants’ credit history, drug testing, driving record, workers comp claims, and employment/education verification. What the data supports, and technology has allowed employment screening companies to determine more readily, is that job applicants, as a whole, are far less truthful than one would expect.
The good news (if you can call it that) is that the two biggies–criminal record and drug testing–while consistently growing, have the lowest levels of “hits” (meaning incidents contrary to information provided by applicant) compared to other screening categories such as employment verification.
For example . . . across the board averages of data taken from pre-employment background screenings from companies of various sizes in 13 industries show that:
1. 48.1% return “hits” (a discovered incident discrepancy) for employment history.
2. 22.6% of applicants return “hits” for education history.
3. 47.5% return “hits” for DMV information.
4. 42.9%return “hits” for credit history.
Of course it’s uncomfortable and embarrassing to disclose to a potential employer that you missed a few mortgage payments in 1996 due to financial hardship, or let a bunch of parking tickets go unpaid during college. But what is to be gained by not disclosing such information? Especially if you know that the company is quite likely to conduct a pre-employement background check. I guess it’s a calculated gamble where an applicant feels that having an innacurate job title or dates of employment on their resume “isn’t that big of a deal”. They are willing to roll the dice and place the burden of detection on the employer.
The rub is this . . . because of more affordable, advanced, and widely available technology, vendors who specialize in pre-employment background screening are able to offer their sevices to companies with a valid and proven value statement. That is employers will save money by weeding out bad apples than they will by hiring a potential liability. Employers are readily accepting this burden of detection in growing numbers and will indeed discover discrepancies. Quite often a negative finding will result in the loss of a job offer, or at the very least an uncomfortable and embarrasing conversation that even if you are hired could put an ounce of doubt in your employer regarding your honesty and integrity. Is it worth it.
Your mother was right . . . honest is the best policy.
