The Good, the Bad, and the Convicted - A Due Diligence Story

An Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix is a valuable tool in background investigations, as it allows for a systematic and objective evaluation of a candidate's qualifications and suitability for a role. 

By breaking down the candidate's qualifications, skills, experience, and other relevant factors into an assessment, a hiring manager can weigh the pros and cons of each candidate and make a more informed hiring decision.

In addition, the assessment provides a clear and transparent record of the hiring decision-making process, which can be useful in defending against potential legal challenges. 

Overall, it is best practice to utilize an Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix for every job applicant with adverse information in their background report, as it creates consistency in hiring, along with complying with NY Article 23-A and the EEOC Guidelines. 

Since the assessment can look daunting at first, we’ve provided an example to go through together.  Click the link to request your own copy of the Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix to follow along with.

Bad Diligence

In this example, we will be using Due Diligence as our applicant, and his Resume. 

Due’s interview to be a verification specialist at CI went very well.  He was dressed professionally, spoke clearly, and asked questions about the company interviewing him. 

Based on Due’s resume and how smooth the interview went, there was no reason to believe there would be any major red flags.  The hiring team liked him, so they decided to offer Due a conditional job offer, requiring him to pass a background investigation.

Both parties were excited until Due’s Report came back, which uncovered some significant issues.  Due didn’t say anything in the interview about him being convicted of sexual abuse five years ago. 

This changes the hiring team's view of Due, as it raises concerns about his lack of transparency and integrity.  Without the background investigation, the hiring team would not have discovered this information themselves.  

In light of Due’s criminal history, the hiring team’s completion and utilization of the assessment becomes crucial.   

When viewing Dues Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix, we can see the number of convictions related to sexual abuse that were uncovered in the background investigation.  In this example, the hiring team already completed their assessment. 

Every Red Line item in Due’s report will result in a new row being created as you go through the assessment.

Starting Your Assessment

The first red line item row in Due’s assessment is Commercial Investigations’ Origin™ search, which is how we begin all of our background investigations. 

Origin found that Due had been convicted of sexual abuse in 2016, so the hiring team needs to input that information.

Column A is for tracking the order number, so you can find the details in CIware at a later date, it also allows you to keep personal identifying information out of your Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix for security reasons.

Column B is for inputting the date of analysis, which allows you to track the timeframe parameters around past decisions, creating a level of consistency in your hiring decisions.

Column C, which is age of the subject at the time of analysis, is important to get correct as it will be one of the main evaluation criteria the hiring team will use to determine if they hire Due. 

At the time of analysis, it is essential for hiring teams to get the applicant’s age correct, so they can determine if enough time has passed since an offense was committed. 

In this example, Due is currently 51, and the background investigation found the offense was committed when Due was 46.  Five years might be enough time for some hiring teams to still consider Due for hire. 

However, since he didn’t bring it up in the interview, the hiring team had no context surrounding the conviction.  Therefore, they had to treat it as very serious. 

You can see this information in columns R, T, U, and V.  Each of these columns directly relates in some way to time passed, age, and severity of the conviction. 

If the hiring team decides not to hire Due, they need to be consistent in their decision-making for the next applicant that is in a similar situation.

For example, if the next applicant is found to have the same conviction that Due did, but the new applicant’s offense happened three years ago instead of five, the hiring team should decide not to hire that person based on that information. 

This creates a shell against liability as a way to prove the hiring team went through proper due diligence when deciding whether to hire.  It also develops consistency in the hiring teams decisions.

Direct Work Relationship

Once the hiring team correctly identifies the applicant’s age, it is then time for them to go into more detail about the conviction and job functions. 

The columns directly after Column C are for inputting the conviction type (D), number (E), level (F), and description of the offense (G). 

Origin searches for criminal offenses, so the information is only input under the “If Criminal” columns.  The next row down is a Motor Vehicle inquiry, which is not criminal, so that information is input in the “If Not Criminal” columns.

After providing the initial details of the conviction, the hiring team must decide if there is a direct correlation between the conviction and the necessary job functions. 

In this example, Due is applying to be a verification specialist, so the sexual abuse conviction does have a direct relationship with the job functions, as he will be working with women. 

In this case, the hiring team would legally be justified for not hiring Due based on this information.  The hiring team also needs to stay consistent with decisions based on the amount of time that has passed since conviction. 

Specifically, if any subject applying to be a verification specialist had a sexual abuse conviction within 5 years, they should not be hired. 

The red line item under Origin is a Motor Vehicle inquiry, which doesn’t have a direct relationship to the verification specialist job function.  If Due did not have the sexual abuse conviction, the hiring team would most likely feel comfortable hiring him. 

Also, if he did not have the sexual abuse conviction, a Motor Vehicle inquiry infraction on its own is not enough to deny employment.  The hiring team still needs to input the information into the assessment, as they will use that criteria for the next applicant.

One Last Check

The last third of the columns (W - AD) are meant as general questions designed to make the hiring team think about any possible complications they might have overlooked. 

Information from past employers and references should be captured here, as they can offer pieces of information that help put the full picture together.  For more serious convictions, such as sexual abuse, there may be incentives for the press or news outlets to uncover that information. 

Therefore, it is an important consideration with each hire.  For compliance purposes, the hiring team also needs to state if the applicant was excluded from hire because the conviction was related to the job. 

If the organization is ever audited, they can show proper compliance within the FCRA, EEOC, and NY Article 23-A.  It again builds a level of consistency in hiring decisions, as that criteria should be the same for every applicant.

The two main factors that the hiring team needs to base their decisions on are the time that has passed since the conviction (R), and the relationship between the offense and the specific job functions (J). 

Proper documentation of the information and decision-making is essential in building a compliant, consistent hiring process.  By using an individualized approach, employers can mitigate these risks and ensure that the individuals they hire are trustworthy and capable of performing the required duties.

Due Diligence was not hired for the position after all.  The hiring team went through the individualized assessment process and came to the conclusion that the offense was too closely related to the job functions. 

Now that the hiring team took the time to go through each red line item of Due’s report, they now have information they can use as a guide for the next time an adverse report has to be recorded. 

This hiring team has now created a consistent hiring process and are able to prove compliance.  It is important to note that the use of the Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix should happen with all adverse reports, even if you do hire the individual. 

This will assist in staying consistent when faced with any adverse information.  We have also observed this tool assisting clients to combat claims that they never hire anyone with adverse information.  

Please use the following link to start using the Individualized Assessment Decision Matrix to enhance your onboarding process.  Jump right in or give us a call for an in-depth walkthrough of the process with our compliance team. 

By adhering to consistent hiring practices, organizations can build a strong and successful workforce with employees who are motivated, productive, and committed to the organization's mission and goals.  We look forward to building your process with you!