The current economic recession has caused individuals, families, and businesses across the globe to examine their expenses, eliminate or reduce unnecessary expenditures and defer some of the needed expenses. Times truly are more difficult and expenses must be reduced, but there are some activities that every business should not be without, as the consequences of their absence exceed their cost. Amidst the ongoing financial belt-tightening, it is encouraging to discover that most employers choose not to skimp on pre-employment background checks.

While this is generally true, it is not universally so. There are a few companies that have either not been burned or burned badly enough, that the lesson has been learned. To better illustrate the value proposition in favor of performing comprehensive background checks, let’s examine a few examples from recent news reports.

Case One: Anger Management and Property Damage, July 14, 2009
An employee at a local fast-food restaurant in Gainesville, TX was informed that his on-the-job performance did not meet minimum requirements and that he would be let go as a result of his poor performance. This news so enraged the employee that he began throwing food and damaging equipment. Before his anger subsided, he had caused damages estimated at $1,500. Recognizing that there are personality and behavioral assessments that can identify hostility and hostile behaviors, it seems wasteful to have suffered those damages and put much more at risk than to have purchased and employed the assessments.

Case Two: Anger Management and Assault, July 10 2009
An employee at an agri-business plant in Chattanooga, TN was working when he began an argument with his boss. His boss told the employee that he was being insubordinate and the employee should clock out and go home. The employee became so enraged that he took out a box cutter and began using it to attack his boss. Thankfully the victim is recovering from his wounds however the employee is facing charges of attempted first degree murder. Again, it is much easier and less expensive to avoid this type of incident by effective screening of the job candidate before making an offer of employment than it is to deal with the consequences after the fact.

Case Three: Validation of Professional Credentials, August 6, 2009
A woman pretending to be a nurse working in a doctor’s office in Norwalk, CT was very convincing in her performance. Not everyone was fooled however and when a patient complained the Connecticut Medicaid Fraud Control Unit investigated. She, “Nurse Betty”, had apparently billed herself not only as a Registered Nurse, but also one who was exceptionally good at her occupation; so good in fact, that she had received recognition as “Nurse of the Year” from the Connecticut Nursing Association. In reality there is no Connecticut Nursing Association, she is not a nurse, and she now faces up to 5 years on charges of reckless endangerment and criminal impersonation. An effective background check is one that not only checks for a criminal history, but also validates previous work history, education, and professional credentials among other checks.

There are a number of other examples that can be lifted from news stories every week that might be cited, but this is sufficient to illustrate the point that the consequences of failing to execute effective background checks can far outweigh the price tag for the background check. The first case was minor with only $1,500 (a relatively small sum) lost. The next case was significantly more expensive and might have been much higher for everyone had the boss died of his injuries sustained in the attack. The last case is probably the easiest, most avoidable, and consequently most conspicuously bad example of why skimping on background checks simply does not make sense (financially or otherwise).

Be smart. Be wise. Thoroughly and effectively pre-screen your job candidates every time to avoid the negative consequences that might otherwise be.