Criminal Background Checks in U.S. Higher Education

• Author: Stephanie Hughes,Giles T. Hertz,Rebecca J. White
• Date: 01 September 2013
• Published date: 01 September 2013
• DOI: 10.1177/0091026013495763
• Subject Matter: Articles

Public Personnel Management

42(3) 421 –437

© The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0091026013495763

ppm.sagepub.com

Article

Criminal Background

Checks in U.S. Higher

Education: A Review of

Policy Developments,

Process Implementations,

and Postresults Evaluation

Procedures

Stephanie Hughes1, Giles T. Hertz2, and Rebecca J. White2

Abstract

Recent high-profile events involving fraudulent or criminal activity by university

employees and students have focused increasing attention on the risk mitigation and

management policies of colleges and universities. Despite the increased attention,

there is little quantifiable information available to administrators, outside of anecdotal

accounts, as they attempt to craft and implement policy surrounding the background

check process. This article describes and discusses criminal background check policies

and procedures reported by more than 100 U.S. higher education institutions via a

web-based survey. The authors offer concluding comments based on the findings of

this survey and offer suggestions for future research.

Keywords

background check, higher education, Clery Act, policy, crime

1Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, USA

2University of Tampa, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Stephanie Hughes, Department of Management, Haile/U.S. Bank College of Business, Northern Kentucky

University, Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA.

Email: hughesst@nku.edu

495763PPM42310.1177/0091026013495763Public Personnel ManagementHughes et al.

research-article2013

422 Public Personnel Management 42(3)

Introduction

Over the past several months, there have been a series of high-profile incidents on col-

lege campuses involving faculty, staff, and students reigniting the debate surrounding

the need for more effective risk management practices on college campuses. In

October 2008, a former University of Washington custodian set himself on fire in front

of a large group of horrified staff, faculty, and students (Seattle Times, 2008) He had

apparently been placed on administrative leave for threatening behavior directed

toward his colleagues. Also, in November 2008, a University of Iowa Professor was

found dead of carbon monoxide poisoning shortly after being accused of improper

sexual contact with several students over a period of years (Zilbermints, 2008). In

December 2008, a West Virginia Medical School doctor was placed on administrative

leave pending an investigation into allegations that he molested four children in

Guatemala on a recent trip (Maunz, 2009). Finally, in Nebraska, a Wayne State College

student was charged with three counts of sexual assault on a fellow student and faced

trial beginning in May 2009 (Murray, 2009). State lawmakers across the country have

reacted to these types of events with legislation requiring criminal background checks

(CBCs) on groups ranging from incoming students to new faculty and staff employ-

ees. Unfortunately, the boundaries defining what constitutes an effective CBC process

has not been standardized, so many universities create policies driven by politics and

budgetary considerations rather than with a focus on appropriately mitigating risk.

Even when motivated to craft robust background check policies, administrators often

find themselves crafting policies without a foundation of knowledge about what others

have done in this area. This research is intended to contribute to a better understanding

of these issues for institutions that are in various stages of adopting these practices in

their university environments.

Background Checks

The recent emergence of the use of criminal background screening as a risk manage-

ment tool coincides with a growing prison population. According to Guerino, Harrison,

& Sabol (2012), as of December 31, 2010, there were an estimated 1.6 million adults

in U.S. prisons, a 14% increase in prison populations since 2001. Couple this knowl-

edge with estimates provided by the Society for Human Resource Management

(SHRM) that found in 2005, 80% of employers surveyed now conduct CBCs, up from

51% in 1996 (Gardner, 2008). Despite this explosion of anecdotal evidence, there is

little quantifiable information available on the utilization and effectiveness of this pro-

cess as a way to reduce personnel risk. Connerly, Arvey, and Bernardy (2001) evalu-

ated local governments’ use of CBCs as a way to reduce risk posed to local government

entities in their interactions between government personnel and the public they are

hired to serve. In their analysis, 100% (62) municipal agencies that responded indi-

cated that they do CBCs on at least some of their prospective employees, while 50%

(31) reported doing CBCs on all of their prospective employees. Interestingly 63%

(39) of the respondents indicated that they do not conduct CBCs on current employees