A few months ago, PandoDaily broke a story that a driver for Uber, the popular ride-sharing service, assaulted a passenger, called him a “dirty Mexican faggot,” and then struck him. PandoDaily later reported that the driver had an extensive criminal history, including felony and misdemeanor charges and at least one felony conviction that resulted in prison time.

(Frankly, it probably would not have been news if not for it’s explosive growth, controversial surge pricing and skyrocketing value of Uber, reportedly worth more than $3.4 billion in a few short years.)

Nevertheless, the question became, how did Uber, which claimed to do background checks on all its drivers, miss this?

My response, when contacted by PandoDaily, was that either they weren’t doing background checks at all or “they’re doing such shitty background checks that it won’t come up.” It’s one of the worst quotes ever, I know. (Note to self – don’t say things to a reporter that you don’t want to be quoted on.) But it would have fit pretty nicely into our blog post a few months ago discussing how Criminal Record Checks are Mostly C**P.

Then, just last week, the Chicago Tribune found that a Chicago driver had a felony conviction for a residential burglary and had also been convicted of at least two misdemeanors.

In response to these background check gaffs, Uber released its new policy on their “expanded background checks,” in which they said that they now use a “Multi-State Criminal Database” to conduct criminal background checks. They go on to say that “some counties do not participate in this reporting” and that “relying on the Multi-State Criminal Database may miss records.” Under their new expanded program, drivers “will undergo federal and county background checks on top of the existing Multi-State Criminal Database check.”

Dig Deeper: 5 Reasons Why Background Investigations Fail

”Multi-State Criminal Databases” Are Mostly Hot Air

Many employment firms, investigative firms, databases, etc. tout a national criminal database, or in this case a “Multi-State Criminal Database.” Effectively, these may include records from various sources such as sex offender records, prison records and arrest records, adding up to what they describe as a national or “multi-state” criminal check.

But the problem is that these databases are not comprehensive or reliable. They do not cover every state, county, or local offense. So, for instance, if this “multi-state criminal check” did not have data from the county that the person you are searching for information about lived in, it’s pretty much a pointless search.

The driver with the extensive criminal history was arrested and charged in San Francisco County, where he worked. The other was charged in Cook County (Chicago), where he worked. Clearly, the multi-state criminal check did not cover either San Francisco or Chicago, otherwise this mess would have never happened. In fact, I am not aware of any online database source that covers San Francisco County or Cook County (Chicago) criminal records, other than going directly to the court.

So while Hirease, a company that conducts background checks, says that its multi-state criminal search covers “40 states plus DC,” it does not cover every offense or every county within those states. In fairness, Hirease recommends that the multi-state criminal search service should be used “in conjunction with a county-level criminal search.” But I guess that’s not always the case.

County Criminal Checks Are Essential

Uber acknowledged that “relying on the Multi-State Criminal Database may miss records” so under their new “expanded background check,” drivers “will undergo federal and county background checks on top of the existing Multi-State Criminal Database check.”

As we described above, multi-state criminal databases do not include every case in those jurisdictions. It’s not even close.

Since state-level criminal records (which encompass the most common criminal offenses) are filed in the court of the county where the person was arrested, wouldn’t it make sense to search those specific records where the person currently or previously lived or worked?

A “county background check” does that. It includes specifically checking the criminal court record in those counties. So in addition to utilizing a multi-state criminal database, which encompasses a wide area but is not complete and “may miss records,” conducting a criminal search in the specific county that they live or work is essential.

Dig Deeper: How to Conduct a Criminal Background Check Like an Expert

In the case of Uber, if they had completed a countywide criminal check in San Francisco and Chicago by physically searching the records at the courthouse (which is the only way I am aware of  doing a criminal check in those jurisdictions), they would have never gotten into this mess.

A Disservice to the Industry

Personally, I think employment-screening firms are doing a complete disservice offering a “multi-state criminal search” and not requiring a county-level criminal search. It doesn’t do anyone any good when serious criminal convictions in major metropolitan areas are not uncovered in the “multi-state criminal” search.

I get it. Most clients probably don’t want to pay for more comprehensive services and are merely doing the most minimal check possible to cover their asses.

But what good is it when everyone looks bad?

Photo Courtesy of Carolyn Coles / Creative Commons

Criminal record checks are mostly crap.

There.

I said it.

That might be a little harsh. They are still an important piece of conducting a background check, but they are mostly done poorly and give people a false sense of security.

Previously, I’ve explained how commercially available criminal record check sites don’t work anyway.

Also, we’ve talked about how to conduct a comprehensive criminal record check, where you’ve got to jump through a lot of hoops. A step that most people won’t take, mostly because it costs too much.

But a few recent experiences have produced even more examples why criminal background checks are mostly crap.

Experience #1

A recent article in the Telegram (Worcester, Massachusetts) discusses how the town of Brookfield has agreed to conduct criminal background checks on town employees and volunteers through the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) database, the state-run criminal record database.

While I applaud them for making the effort to try to weed criminals out of their local government, the only problem is that it may all be fruitless.

You see, CORI only covers state criminal offenses that occurred within the borders of Massachusetts. So, let’s say someone happened to be an axe murderer in neighboring New Hampshire. Guess what. You would never find that person listed in the database.

Or if he or she had committed ANY criminal offense in any of the other 49 states in the union, records of those offenses would not be found either. Likewise, if they committed some federal criminal offense, CORI would not pick that up either.

And if anyone applies for a position in Worcester knowing that they have a criminal record in Massachusetts, he or she should never get the job anyway.

Is Brookfield wasting $1,500 per year conducting these criminal checks? Of course not.

But it’s only giving them a false sense of security.

Experience #2

In most pre-employment matters, background checks are conducted going back seven to 10 years. The reason? In some cases, states limit the time you can look back into a person’s past, but in the majority of cases, it comes down to cost. The farther you look back into someone’s past, the more costly it gets.

Take, for example, Mr. Martin. We just finished conducting a comprehensive background investigation on him during the course of litigation. Mr. Martin is a licensed CPA and has had several high-profile positions with a high-profile accounting firm and another high-profile company.

Not only has he filed for bankruptcy and had numerous lawsuits filed against him for various matters, but he was charged with stalking a 17-year-old when he was 35.

Problem is, it happened 12 years and three states ago; 99.9% of typical background checks wouldn’t pick this up.

Would you hire someone to be your financial accounting manager who has had serious financial problems and was charged with stalking a 17-year-old?

I wouldn’t.

Experience #3

A lot has been made of the failed background checks on Edward Snowden (the former NSA contractor) and Aaron Alexis (the Navy Yard shooter) conducted by USIS, the federal contractor that missed some critical information.

Regarding Alexis, according to published reports, USIS investigators knew that he had been charged with “criminal mischief” in 2004, but when asked about the incident, Alexis told them that he had “deflated the tires on a construction worker’s vehicle.” Turns out that he had “deflated the tires” with a .45-caliber pistol.

How did they miss it?

They didn’t bother pulling the police report. Another step that most people don’t do.

As far as Snowden goes, the New York Times reported that he tried to break into classified files and that the background check failed to verify past security violations or probe his trip to India that he failed to report.

But guess what. He wasn’t a convicted criminal.

Experience #4

A large mid-western investment firm called last week. They wanted to talk about conducting a more comprehensive background investigations on their senior executives.

Why, you ask?

Their new chief executive officer had just been fired after five months on the job after he had sexual relations with at least four people in the office. The $15 criminal background check they did gave them false hope that he was the right guy for the job and somehow missed the fact that he was a complete loser.

The Problem

So here is the problem. Criminal record checks, while they are important, mostly give people a false sense of security.

That volunteer in Brookfield might be a convicted felon in another state.

The next employer of Mr. Martin may not know about his sketchy past.

The next Edward Snowden, who has absolutely no criminal record, might be sitting right in front of you.

And that sexual harassment lawsuit may be staring you right in the face.

Criminal record checks are an important part of the background check process, but they are mostly done poorly, failing to uncover critical information and possibly giving people a false sense of security.