大多数行业中，风险管理是一个持续不断的过程。例如，风险投资公司不会犯这样的错误，即在投资前只分析一次初创企业的生存能力，然后再也不分析。与战略供应商合作的组织会对供应商进行持续的尽职调查，以保护供应链和业务连续性。
那么，为什么这么多雇主在招聘过程中只进行一次背景审查，而以后再也不进行呢？
就业风险持续存在；背景审查也应该
将背景调查分为两类很有用：
变化潜力有限的因素，以及
有可能改变并使您的业务面临风险的因素。
第一类包括常量，例如员工的教育和工作经历。大多数组织都会聘请员工筛选服务，以在招聘过程中通过查看原始文件或与候选人的前雇主交谈等方法来确认这些。这些因素很可能不会改变（尽管员工可能会增加他们的教育证书），并且只需要检查一次。
但第二类不同。即使在最初的筛选过程中没有标记任何内容，这些因素也可能随时改变。例子包括犯罪和逮捕记录、驾驶历史和信用状况。
让我们想象三种情况，其中未能进行持续的背景筛选（也称为持续监控）会使组织面临风险。
* 这些场景仅用于说明目的。如有雷同，纯属巧合。
情景一：犯罪记录
在这种情况下，一家 IT 公司聘请了一位有前途的年轻程序员 George。根据良好做法，公司在向 George 提供工作之前会进行尽职调查并进行一系列背景调查，包括筛选犯罪和逮捕记录。乔治没有任何犯罪记录，并获得了这份工作。
五年后，乔治开始改变。尽管他在办公室继续表现出色，但他的脾气暴躁，最终导致了一场路怒症的争吵。乔治被控殴打，被判缓刑，现在有犯罪记录。他对他的雇主保密。
随着时间的推移，乔治在办公环境中控制脾气的能力明显下降，直到有一天（在被指控殴打数月后）乔治在一场激烈的争吵中袭击了一名同事，导致她的手腕骨折。
结果，受伤的工人起诉该组织未能保护她的安全，公司作为一个好雇主的声誉受损，乔治当然被解雇了。但是，如果公司已被告知乔治最初的刑事定罪并立即采取行动保护团队的其他成员免受暴力威胁，这种情况可能会避免。
场景二：驾驶历史
当公司的一辆印有公司标志的卡车卷入多车碰撞时，一家全国性物流供应商的公关部门开始进行损害控制。谢天谢地，没有人受伤，但很快发现司机（黛布拉）喝醉了，很可能是造成事故的原因。
该公司检查了黛布拉的原始就业记录，以确认她有一个清晰的记录，在她上任前七年的驾驶记录完美无缺。不幸的是，一名当地记者走得更远，在多个州进行了 DMV 搜索，发现黛布拉的驾驶记录自她受雇以来变得更糟。发表了一篇文章，指责该物流公司雇佣了一名有多次酒驾和其他违规行为的司机。
由此产生的汽车索赔和对公司声誉的损害可能已经通过对机动车记录的持续监控以及对 DUI、暂停、撤销和违规行为的自动警报来避免。
场景三：信用记录
信用检查对于具有信托职责的职位来说很常见，例如会计或财务记录保存。
在这种情况下，采购专家 Rashid 担任了这样一个角色。作为招聘过程的一部分，拉希德的雇主会进行全面的信用检查。搜索没有发现任何危险信号，拉希德被聘用了。
可悲的是，拉希德随着时间的推移养成了赌瘾。他不断增加的债务导致他的信用评分直线下降，他变得绝望。他对家人和雇主保密，寻找解决方案并找到了解决方案：他在与供应商的回扣（贿赂）计划中颠覆了采购流程，每次与供应商签订合同时，他都会收到非法付款。
当然，拉希德被抓了，被解雇了，警察被告知了回扣计划。该公司遭受了声誉和财务损失，如果他们通过持续的信用检查得知 Rashid 的财务问题，这些损失是可以避免的。
情景四：性侵犯
性虐待犯罪尤其令人发指，而且往往未被报道。即使他们被报道，不同的系统也难以伸张正义。以下是持续监控可能会产生影响的场景：
凯文是一家著名儿童医院癌症病房的注册护士。他以顽皮的行为和对孩子的爱而闻名。在他休息的日子里，他甚至帮助他妻子的家庭托儿所，该托儿所距离邻近县的医院有一个小时的路程。然而，医院领导不知道的是，凯文最近因袭击他妻子的一位顾客而被判有罪。
如果凯文的医院进行持续监测，逮捕和定罪可能已经被标记，医院本可以采取适当措施保护患者。
同意和数据安全
组织可以通过持续的背景调查更好地保护自己并降低风险，但这需要合法地进行。与候选人背景筛选过程非常相似，对当前员工的持续筛选只能在他们同意的情况下进行，并且相关数据需要以合规的方式安全存储。雇主应就背景审查计划的任何变更或补充咨询其法律顾问。
Why, then, do so many employers conduct background screening only once during the hiring process and never again?
Employment risks are ongoing; background screening should be, too
It can be useful to split background checks into two categories:
Factors with limited potential for change, and
Factors with the potential to change and put your business at risk.
The first category includes constants, such as an employee’s education and employment history. Most organizations engage an employee screening service to confirm these during the hiring process through methods such as sighting original documents or speaking with the candidate’s former employers. These factors most likely will not change (although an employee could potentially add to their education credentials), and only need to be checked once.
But the second category is different. These are factors that could change at any time, even if nothing was flagged in the initial screening process. Examples include criminal and arrest record, driving history, and credit status.
Let’s imagine three scenarios where a failure to conduct continuous background screening (also known as continuous monitoring) puts an organization at risk.
* These scenarios are for illustrative purposes only. Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental.
Scenario one: The criminal record
In this scenario, an IT company hires a promising young programmer named George. As per good practice, the company performs its due diligence and conducts a series of background screening checks before offering George the job, including screening for criminal and arrest records. George has no criminal history whatsoever and is offered the job.
Five years later, George begins to change. Even though he continues to perform well at the office, he develops a violent temper which culminates in a road-rage altercation. George is charged with assault, receives a suspended sentence, and now has a criminal record. He keeps this a secret from his employer.
Over time George’s ability to manage his temper deteriorates noticeably in the office environment, until one day (several months after being charged with assault) George attacks a co-worker during a heated argument, leaving her with a broken wrist.
As a result, the injured worker sues the organization for failing to keep her safe, the company’s reputation as a good employer suffers, and George, of course, is fired. But this situation might have been avoided if the company had been alerted to George’s original criminal conviction and taken immediate action to protect the rest of the team from the threat of violence.
Scenario two: The driving history
The PR department at a national logistics provider goes into damage control when one of the company’s trucks – emblazoned with the company logo – is involved in a multi-car crash. Thankfully, no one is hurt, but it is soon revealed that the driver (Debra) was intoxicated and most likely caused the accident.
The company checks Debra’s original employment records to confirm that she had a clear record with a flawless driving history stretching back seven years before she took the job. Unfortunately, a local journalist goes a step further by conducting DMV searches across several states to reveal that Debra’s driving record had taken a turn for the worse since she was employed. An article is published accusing the logistics company of employing a driver with multiple DUIs and other violations.
The resulting auto claim and damage to the company’s reputation might have been avoided with continuous monitoring of motor vehicle records with automatic alerts for DUIs, suspensions, revocations, and violations.
Scenario three: The credit history
Credit checks can be common for positions with fiduciary duties, such as accounting or financial record-keeping.
In this scenario, one such role is held by Rashid, a procurement specialist. As part of the hiring process, Rashid’s employers carry out a full-scope credit check. The search reveals no red flags, and Rashid is hired.
Sadly, Rashid develops a gambling addiction over time. His mounting debts cause his credit score to plummet, and he becomes desperate. Keeping the problem a secret from his family and employer, he looks for a solution and finds one: he subverts the procurement process in a kickback (bribery) scheme with a supplier where he receives an illicit payment every time the supplier is contracted.
Rashid, of course, is caught, fired, and the police are informed of the kickback scheme. The company suffers reputational and financial damage, which could have been avoided if they were alerted to Rashid’s financial problems through ongoing credit checks.
Scenario four: Sexual assault
Sexual abuse crimes are particularly heinous and often go unreported. Even when they are reported, disparate systems make it difficult for justice to prevail. Here’s a scenario in which continuous monitoring might make a difference:
Kevin is a registered nurse in the cancer ward of a prominent children’s hospital. He’s known for his playful behavior and his love of children. On his days off, he even helps in his wife’s home daycare, which is located an hour away from the hospital in a neighboring county. However, unbeknownst to hospital leadership, Kevin was recently convicted of assaulting one of his wife’s customers.
Had Kevin’s hospital conducted continuous monitoring, the arrest and conviction may have been flagged and the hospital could have taken proper steps to protect its patients.
Consent and data security
Organizations can better protect themselves and mitigate risk through continuous background screening, but it needs to be conducted legally. Much like the candidate background screening process, ongoing screening of current employees can only be undertaken with their consent, and associated data needs to be stored safely and in a compliant manner. Employers should consult with their legal counsel regarding any changes or addition to the background screening program.
