Case Study — Retail store chain

 

Issue: Management conducts background checks on only a small number of employees.

 

IntelliCorp helped senior management for a chain of retail stores gain a greater understanding of their exposure to risk and loss. Historically, the chain conducted background checks on individuals only if they applied for high-level positions or positions that required handling large sums of money.  

 

IntelliCorp offered to perform background checks on all current employees.

 

Findings

Of the chain’s 9,300 employees, 10.8% had criminal records. In addition, the type of criminal activity reported in those criminal records was of great concern to management. 

 

Here are examples of the criminal charges uncovered:

·         shoplifting   ·         forgery ·         embezzlement ·         consumer fraud/racketeering/theft ·         felony larceny ·         receiving stolen property ·         theft by deception

·         credit card fraud ·         grand theft auto ·         theft by unlawful taking ·         obtaining property by false pretense ·         possession of stolen goods ·         issuing bad checks ·         grand larceny

 

Criminal records on the company’s employees also cited the following charges related toviolent acts:

·         homicide/negligent homicide ·         trafficking cocaine ·         rape ·         assault with a deadly weapon ·         unlawful possession of a weapon ·         aggravated sexual battery

·         attempted rape ·         child abuse ·         child molesting ·         aggravated assault ·         threat to kill/criminal sexual contact ·         cruelty to animals

 

In addition, background checks on local and regional managers uncovered these criminal charges:

·         Manager 1:        aggravated assault

·         Manager 2:        burglary/conspiracy/theft

·         Manager 3:        theft/sex offense/drug possession

·         Manager 4:        aggravated sexual battery

·         Manager 5:        driving under influence of controlled substance

·         Manager 6:        weapons charge/aggravated assault/possession of controlled substance

·         Manager 7:        communicating threats/assault with deadly weapon/assault to cause serious                                     injury/aggravated sexual battery

·         Manager 8:        threat to kill/possession of controlled substance/criminal sexual contact

·         Manager 9:        failure to identify fugitive/drug possession

·         Manager 10:       assault

 

Conclusion

Senior management took immediate steps to change the chain’s policy on background screening. Today, as part of its application process, the chain conducts background checks on all employees.

 

Case Study — Retail store chain

 

Issue:  IntelliSearch showcases the power of database searches.

 

IntelliCorp worked with a large retail store chain to help management better understand their potential loss exposure. The store’s existing background-check provider used court runners exclusively. By using IntelliSearch, IntelliCorp helped management understand the need to conduct comprehensive database searches.

 

IntelliCorp ran background checks using its IntelliSearch product on 900 recently hired and screened employees.

 

IntelliSearch automatically performed the following searches:

-          Social Security number (SSN) verification and address history

-          national criminal-history database

-          Nationwide Sex Offender Registry

 

Results

IntelliCorp uncovered information and discrepancies that the chain’s current provider missed. Here’s an overview of what IntelliCorp found using its IntelliSearch product:

 

-          Social Security Number Verification — Of the 900 individuals reviewed, 88 (or 9.8 percent) claimed Social Security numbers that the system could not verify.

 

-          Criminal Records — Of the 900 employees reviewed, 76 (or 8.4 percent) had a criminal record.

 

-          IntelliSearch Recommendations — When an employee’s current or prior address did not meet specific criteria in the database, IntelliSearch recommended and ran a single-county search. Single-county searches uncover additional, often critical, information. While database searches are available instantly, single-county searches take additional time. In this study, IntelliCorp returned 99% of the single-county searches within three days.

 

Conclusion 

The client was shocked to discover that more than 8 percent of recent hires had a criminal record. A background-screening company using court runners had already researched those individuals, but IntelliCorp uncovered criminal histories the background-screening company missed. Furthermore, many of the employees were working in positions responsible for handling company assets.

Case Study — Hospitality provider

 

Issue:  Not all single-county searches are alike.

 

IntelliCorp worked with a large hospitality provider to help management improve the timeliness of their background checks. 

 

The client asked IntelliCorp to match its services against the client’s current provider — a single-county search provider. Both IntelliCorp and the company’s current provider conducted identical single-county searches over a 30-day period. 

 

Findings

IntelliCorp completed the searches much more quickly than the company’s current provider:

 

·         IntelliCorp completed the searches in an average of 2.19 days. The client’s current provider averaged 4.60 days to complete the searches. 

 

·         IntelliCorp completed 80.9 percent of the searches within 3 days. The client’s current provider completed only 33.3 percent of the searches within 3 days.

 

 

Conclusion 

The client was pleased to learn that IntelliCorp could outperform the current provider — a company that specialized in single-county searches.