Investigating a tip, the local news station found Eric Ellis, who is listed as a Registered Sex Offender on the Illinois State Police Website, was placed by a temp agency at the Little Green Tree House daycare. Ellis committed related crimes in 2000 and 2001 and spent four and a half years in prison, before being added to the state sex offender registry. When asked, Ellis told the news station: “I work through a temp service. I don’t mess with kids. I got wrongly accused and people are trying to put that on me.” He additionally mentioned the temp agency is aware of his background.

The daycare, on the other hand, counted on the temp service to run thorough background checks on all workers and never screened any of the placed employees in its facility. As a result, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) is conducting a child protection investigation and filing a daycare licensing complaint. DCFS responded in a statement: “By law, child care centers are prohibited from hiring registered sex offenders, and are required to notify DCFS of new hires and complete background checks on those new hires.”

No or incomplete background checks for daycare workers isn’t isolated in Chicago. Last year, a National Study revealed that most daycare centers do not conduct background checks on workers, including investigating child abuse records and education histories. Washington is one such state. A recent news piece focusing on Yakima, Wash., revealed some preschools do not screen workers and are not obligated to. While licensed facilities are required, unlicensed daycares are exempt.

Although some states require dating websites to disclose risks and preventative measures, Illinois would mandate that all operating in the state must conduct background checks on all applicants and prominently and clearly display such policies. If a dating website fails to adhere, it violates state laws against consumer fraud and deceptive business practices.

If such a law is passed, all dating websites operating in Illinois will need to check government databases before approving an applicant. More specifically, the site would pull criminal records and sex offender registries to examine each applicant’s history, especially as convicted sex offenders, former criminals, and scam artists have been known to set up dating profiles for luring unsuspecting users.

Widely-used dating websites, such as Match.com and eHarmony.com, already screen all applicants with public sex offender registries. True.com takes it a step further by running thorough background checks, ones that examine state records, on all applicants; according to a piece in the Chicago Tribune, the site has turned away two percent of its applicants.

Online dating is less of a taboo, but risks are still present, from getting ensnared by a con artist looking for cash to ending up assaulted by a convicted sex offender. While caution must be taken with this medium, individuals also have a right to feel moderately secure.

On January 11, the EEOC revealed that 300 blacks were affected by Pepsi’s use of criminal background checks in hiring, which excluded such individuals from permanent, full-time employment. The Minneapolis location of Pepsi, where the charges were filed, implemented a policy that blocked applicants with arrests pending prosecution from employment, even if the individual was not convicted or had a minor offense. The hiring policy, as a result, negatively affected individuals of color, which is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Aside from the large amount of money Pepsi paid to settle the EEOC charges, what happened to the victims of the company’s hiring practices? EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe told the press:

“We obtained significant financial relief for a large number of victims of discrimination, got them job opportunities that they were previously denied, and eradicated an unlawful barrier for future applicants. We are pleased that Pepsi chose to work with us to reach this conciliation agreement, and that through our joint efforts we have been able to bring about real change at Pepsi without resorting to litigation.”

Pepsi, as well, has a new hiring policy and is required to provide the EEOC with better reports of its practices. To make sure the new policy is enforced, hiring personnel and managers are being trained on Title VII.

Criminals should not be blocked out of employment – especially when the job description does not pertain to his or her past offenses. Companies, to avoid discrimination lawsuits like Pepsi’s, must consider each candidate’s background – and not eliminate an individual simply for an unrelated criminal conviction.

But, does more background checks mean more firearms are actually being bought? Not necessarily. A background check simply indicates a request – not if an actual gun was purchased. Gun dealers request brief FBI background checks on each potential buyer; criminal charges and other red flags, such as extensive mental health history, can bar a potential buyer. At the same time, though, one background check may be conducted for the purchase of multiple firearms.

Gun purchases have increased since 2006, and 2011’s higher background check numbers may correlate with similar figures, although the FBI does not keep track. During this time, Kentucky, Texas, and Utah, in order, have had the greatest concentrations of background check requests. Utah, unlike the other two, is considered less stringent with firearm purchases, and applying for a permit, which is recognized in most states, is cheaper.

Although background checks for firearms were up overall in 2011, December saw the greatest amount, with 1.5 million performed. In fact, as the Telegraph noted, 500,000 were conducted just six days before Christmas.

But, why 2011? Some think that increased gun sales are related to the uncertainty surrounding the upcoming presidential election. Stricter gun control laws, likely as the result of the Tucson shooting which happened nearly a year ago, might be another reason. Why do you think requests for background checks increased over the past year?

Is there any way to get around these bumps in the road? The Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office in Louisiana is testing a solution — the Civil Live Scan System. According to the Shreveport Times, this program is designed to efficiently scan and transfer fingerprint data to the state police, who conduct an investigation of a candidate. The candidate and law enforcement, in this process, are less involved, and the employer can access results in 24 hours.

Nevertheless, the Civil Live Scan System doesn’t appear to be perfect. The background checks conducted only address state-level crimes, and an employer, as a result, may not get a full picture of the candidate. Also as a result of the speed, the background check has a greater chance of coming back with inaccuracies. Cost, as well, doesn’t appear to be lower than that for an ordinary background check.

Although for certain occupations, a background check from the Civil Live Scan System may be efficient, it may not be for others, particularly care worker and teaching positions that often require national-level FBI background checks. Yet, for businesses that need to run a general background check on each candidate, the system could prevent wasted time and inaccurate hiring decisions.

In the case of the Civil Live Scan System, could quicker be better for employers?

Many argue, however, that pit bulls – and their owners – shouldn’t be discriminated against, and that background checks, or other measures like muzzles or liability insurance, single out the breed and make it seem more dangerous than it actually is. But, no matter if you think the owners make the breed malicious or the dogs are inherently prone to attacking, they have the potential to, as writer Brian Anderson detailed in his piece for the City Journal in New York. Anderson describes his experience living in the Bronx, across the street from a park that was informally transformed into a training ground for pit bulls.

About the greater threat pit bulls pose, Katherine Houpt, director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Cornell, said:

“Different breeds have genetic predispositions to certain kinds of behavior, though that can be influenced by how they are raised. The pit bull is an innately aggressive breed, often owned by someone who wants an aggressive dog, so they’re going to encourage it.”

Yet, contrary but in the same line of thought, breeders do have a significant influence on the animals. Geneticist Zawistowski stated:

“Irresponsible breeders have let the dogs’ block against being aggressive to people disappear. They’ve created a kind of pit bull with what I call `undifferentiated aggression.’ “

Because the dogs pose such liabilities, should all owners and breeders be screened? Do you think this approach would cut down on pit bull-related injuries and deaths?

How does this process work? According to the Star Tribune, a former criminal can appeal for a second chance, regardless of whether his or her record includes felonies or misdemeanors. The former criminal needs to document how he or she has changed, provide references, and prove that he or she is no longer a risk. Yet, even with this process, some have still slipped through the cracks, harming clients or stealing money to fund a drug habit.

Stella French, a Health Department manager, thinks the process works. She told the press: “I believe it’s working. I believe we have a thorough process, that we have checks and balances that minimizes the risk to vulnerable adults. … If there’s any question, we go with not setting that person aside.”

On the other hand, some care centers still reject former criminals, waiver or not. Tom Pollock, administrator of Park River Estates Care Center in Coon Rapids, explained: If you’re willing to write a bad check, from our standpoint you’re willing to steal from the bank. If you’re willing to do that and you have all these vulnerable adults, we just don’t want to take the chance.”

While former criminals are not barred from employment, their past crimes are factored into hiring decisions. Although a former criminal with a record unrelated to, say, an office job does not pose a threat, leaving such an individual in charge of taking care of the most vulnerable can be.

Although no drug test would be required upfront, applicants would be assessed for risk, if such a law is passed. In the process, an applicant would fill out a screening questionnaire from the National Institutes of Health to determine if he or she has a higher probability of taking drugs. If so, he or she would then need to submit to and pass a drug test in order to receive benefits. Existing laws, however, prevent drug tests from being required in the initial application.

An employer in Kingston’s Georgia district apparently found half that half of its applicants could not pass a drug test. Screening would, then, prevent federal funds from going toward a drug habit. Kingston said:

“Drug screening as a condition of unemployment benefits safeguards valuable taxpayer dollars by ensuring job seekers are at their competitive best for re-employment and helps to reduce the nation’s debt by not using federal resources to enable an individual’s drug dependency.”

Yet, considering employers are requesting the unemployed not apply, such a measure would make the process of losing a job and getting back on one’s feet even harder. Against the proposal, Rep. George Miller of California stated:

“This is just another attempt to demonize the unemployed, most of whom have no job for no fault of their own. Why doesn’t he propose to drug test executives at Wall Street banks? It was their actions that have been documented to have directly contributed to the recession and high unemployment rate in the first place.”

Should drug screening be required to obtain unemployment benefits, or is Congress out of touch?

According to the Associated Press, Sandusky was recommended for the position by Juniata’s former head football coach. Although why Sandusky failed the background check is not clear, he never accepted the position at the school, which screens all applicants for paid and volunteer positions, with the exception of student workers in campus offices, before making a formal offer. At the time, however, Sandusky was applying to the position after a year-and-a-half investigation into his contact with young boys, and Juniata issued the following statement:

“This letter is to notify you that we are unable to make you an offer of volunteer employment based on our hiring criteria. Justifacts Credential Verification Inc. ran a background check and discovered that Central Mountain High School, where you worked as a Volunteer Football Coach, is undergoing an investigation that prevents you from being eligible to work for their school. You failed to include this information on the background verification form that you filled out at the time of your interview.”

Sandusky has been accused of sexually abusing a Central Mountain student and nine other boys over 15 years and is being charged with 40 counts of child sex abuse. His hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, December 13, and is expected to take at least a day. Sandusky, through interviews, denies the charges.

Considering this background check was conducted more than a year ago, why didn’t Penn State respond sooner?

While background checks are often called excessive for and, in some cases, are thought to shrink the pool of eligible volunteers, this instance indicates that screening all candidates, regardless of recommendations, is necessary.

New York is one state that requires background checks to be performed on all buyers at gun shows; but, rather than screening attendees prior to the event, gun shows expect the sellers to conduct short background checks on all buyers via a computer or telephone call. According to the BuffaloNews.com, however, undercover investigators went to a handful of gun shows in New York state to purchase semiautomatic rifles – and several dealers were found to not be not conducting background checks. In New York, guns should not be sold to those with domestic violence charges, mental illness histories, or other criminal charges, and the investigators were, in fact, open about their criminal charges when speaking with sellers. As a result, 10 dealers are being charged for illegal gun sales, and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wants to prosecute the operators, as well.

In New York, not performing background checks on buyers at gun shows is a misdemeanor, but Schneiderman wants to strengthen the penalties in order to deter both dealers and sellers. Gun control groups are in support of Schneiderman’s efforts. Jackie Hilly, executive director of the New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, told the press:

“When gun sellers don’t follow the law, anyone can buy a gun at a gun show, including terrorists, convicted criminals or the mentally ill, and the result is that no one is safe from the threat of gun violence.”

What are your views on increasing the severity of charges for not performing background checks at gun shows? Should background checks be the responsibility of a seller, or should the operators share some of the blame?