Last Push for Participation – New ECC Test Validation
We are hard at work on bringing you 3 new entry-level Emergency Communication Center (ECC) tests. As you know all of our tests go through a thorough validation phase that gets documented in the free Technical Report available with every test. Now your agency can be a part of the process, have a test with direct evidence for use within your organization, and enjoy a deep discount on your next test order (plus other benefits).
All the detailed information can be found on our ECC Validation page. But to summarize, we’d need your to get together a group of your incumbent ECC staff to take the test, then have their first and second line supervisors fill out a brief evaluation for each incumbent taking the test. If you can’t commit to a large group, that’s OK, even 5-6 staff can make a huge difference if multiple agencies get on board.
We are making one last push to get enough participation to finish the validation stage of the development. If your organization can participate in the next 2 months please fill out an interest form here or email Andrey Pankov with any additional questions.
Test Score Posting Policies in the Public Sector
My blog this month deals with what I believe is a complex question that requires deft consideration of the demands of multiple stakeholders and the careful weighing of legal and ethical issues. I am speaking of the question of how does a public sector jurisdiction make decisions regarding the posting of scores both during and after the completion of an assessment or selection project.
As human resource and assessment professionals, we have to resolve the conflict between the equally important values of transparency of feedback to test takers, the privacy rights and expectations of confidentiality held by job or promotional candidates, and the public’s right to know, along with the media’s right to information. Deciding how and what type of information to post can seem like a judgment worthy of Solomon, as the human resource professional must reconcile:
- the public’s right to information, including possible public record laws;
- the candidate’s desire for feedback and test score information; and
- the right of the candidate to privacy and the candidate’s expectation that their scores will be handled in a confidential and sensitive manner.
In my opinion, one of the complicating factors is that the release and posting of test score information has to consider many factors beyond simple psychometric and assessment issues. Some of the factors that must be considered or questions which need to be asked and answered include:
- Are there federal or state laws that govern the release of public sector employment test information, as well as public records in general?
- Are there local Civil Service regulations or rules?
- Does the union contract specify how test results will be issued?
- Are there past, relevant court decisions?
- How have we done it in the past? What are the existing precedents?
- What precedent, if any, do we want to create for future tests?
My own experience has been that every jurisdiction tends to make decisions regarding the posting of and release of a candidates test and score information differently, even within a specific geographic area such as Northeast Ohio. I know of some cities that post in public all the test score information for each candidate, while similar nearby cities post only the final rankings of the test takers.
If at this point you are starting to mumble to yourself, “I fear that Doverspike is not going to give us a simple answer in this blog,” you are correct. However, I am going to share with you some data from a survey conducted by IPMA-HR Assessment Services. (more…)
Legal Update: Background Checks Revisted
Revisiting Background Checks (Again)
Background checks continue to be a source of litigation. In June 2013, we highlighted two lawsuits filed by the EEOC against Dollar General and BMW for allegedly violating Title VII by relying on background checks (EEOC v. BMW Manufacturing Co., Inc.; EEOC v. Dolgencorp LLC d/b/a Dollar General). In both, the EEOC asserted that each company discriminated against African American job applicants through the improper use of criminal background checks as an applicant screening tool which were not job-related and consistent with business necessity and resulted in disparate impact. Since then, there have been additional developments related to background investigations in employment contexts.
In the BMW case, the claimants were employees of a company that provided logistical services to BMW. That company conducted criminal background checks, but they were limited to convictions within the past seven years. The company ended its contract with BMW and the employees had to reapply for jobs at BMW and subsequently had to undergo another criminal background check. During that process, several employees were found to have criminal convictions and were told they were no longer eligible for employment. At issue appears to be the duration of time since the conviction. The EEOC stated “The policy is a blanket exclusion without any individualized assessment of the nature and gravity of the crimes, the ages of the convictions, or the nature of the claimants’ respective positions.” While the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) allows for the use of criminal record checks in screening regardless of the time frame, the EEOC has considered limiting this to seven years. The EEOC alleges that BMW’s criminal conviction background check policy disparately impacts African American employees and applicants because BMW does not conduct an individual assessment of the nature or seriousness of the offense, how old the conviction is, or the nature of the claimant’s respective positions. Moreover, EEOC claims the policy is not job-related and consistent with business necessity.
In the latest action in the case (October 2014), the Federal judge in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina denied BMW’s motion to acquire documents from the EEOC related to the EEOC’s own policies and practices on background screening for its own employees. The judge ruled that the EEOC’s practices were not relevant to BMW’s defense.
In October, Dollar General agreed to settle a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FRCA) class action lawsuit for $4 million dollars (Marcum v. Dolgencorp). The suit was initially filed in 2012 by lead plaintiff Jonathan Marcum who alleged that the discount retailer solicited a background report on him without proper notification and that he didn’t get the job as a result of the report. The $4 million dollar settlement fund will be used to satisfy claims by approximately 112,000 class members who allegedly did not receive proper FRCA employee screening disclosures.
Amid all the litigation, in March the EEOC and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) co-published new guidance that consolidated the two agencies’ rules on background checks. The two technical guidance reports, Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know and Background Checks: What Job Applicants and Employees Should Know are available on EEOC’s website. The fact that EEOC and FTC have collaborated to issue a new set of guidelines suggests that both agencies consider this topic to be a priority and could potentially share information and leads when enforcing laws concerning the use of background checks. Employers are well advised to consider the risks that come with the use of background reports when making personnel decisions.
Co-Author: Brian O’Leary U.S. Government Retired, Independent Consultant
Reprinted with permission from the Personnel Testing Council of Metropolitan Washington
Job Analysis – What’s New?
What’s new in job analysis? A cynic might reply – “very little.” However, such a conclusion would lead to a very short blog and, more importantly, would not be accurate. Despite the foundational nature of job analysis, there have been some recent developments worth sharing.
Consensus on Recommended Practices
Although it is still true that the Uniform Guidelines and courts show no preference for any specific method of job analysis, due to pressures for documentation from regulatory agencies, a professional consensus has begun to evolve and emerge around recommended practices for job analysis. The associated principles can be expressed as follows. A job analysis should:
- Be task-based. Despite continued mention of worker-oriented approaches, including the emergence of competency models, the job description should be task-oriented including detailed listings of tasks and associated knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal characteristics (KSAPs).
- Identify linkages. The identification and measurement of linkages between tasks and KSAPs is critical. When job analysis is used in test development, it is equally important to establish linkages between the KSAPs and the test content.
- Utilize interviews and focus groups. The appropriate use of interviews or focus groups remains important in obtaining job information from incumbents and supervisors.
- Incorporate questionnaires. Where practical, with practicality a function primarily of the number of incumbents and the quality of the information obtained from the interviews, questionnaires should be used to gather quantitative ratings of tasks, KSAPs, and linkages. The collected data can then be subject to statistical analysis. Technological developments, including the widespread availability of easy-to-use online survey software, have made it much simpler and cost-effective to create and distribute job analysis instruments. In designing surveys, practitioners should be aware of the now ubiquitous nature of smartphones. Large matrices of the type so frequently used to collect job ratings do not translate well to small screens. As a result, analysts must be creative in designing surveys when the incumbents will be responding using mobile devices, including tablets and smartphones.
Police-Community Relations: The Importance of Hiring and Recruitment Practices to Achieving Success
“Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential in a democracy. It is key to the stability of our communities, the integrity of our criminal justice system, and the safe and effective delivery of policing services.” —The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing
The job of a police officer is extremely complicated: you have to switch gears on a dime – one minute you’re counseling someone, the next minute you’re making a split-second decision on use of force. Selection and training are extremely important, especially in today’s tumultuous environment.
Beyond the headlines, many police forces are working to disabuse the current of distrust running through their communities. According to police experts, improved relations are attributed largely to common-sense approaches that build on the philosophy known as community policing. (more…)
ASR Bookshelf: Your Guide to Assessment-Related Resources
Periodically we will be posting links to resources that we have found from across the web. We hope you find this information helpful as you navigate through the everyday, and not so everyday, issues facing HR professionals today. Here’s a list of resources that caught our eye. As always, we have included a couple of good free publications to the list.