background screening trends india€¦ · 2.a. discrepancy percentage - top 10 by industry [q2-15...

INFORMATION YOU NEED. PEOPLE YOU CAN TRUST.

Quantifying the trends and Qualifying the nature of Applicant fraud in IndiaJuly to September 2015

TRENDS REPORT

Background Screening Trends � India

Trends Report � Q3 2015

1.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Quarter [Q1-11 to Q3-15]

1.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Gender [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

1.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Age [Q3-15]

2.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

2.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Age [Q3-15]

2.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry By Component [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

3.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Component [Q4-14 to Q3-15]

3.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Component By Gender [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

4. Discrepancies - By Component Across Zones in India and Abroad [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

5. Discrepancies - By Top 6 States [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

6.A. Employment Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

6.B. Education Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

6.C. Address Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

7.A. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Employment [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

7.B.1. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Education [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

7.B.2. Discrepancies - By Education Level [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

7.C. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Address [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

8.A. Discrepancies - By Employee Category [Q4-14 to Q3-15]

8.B. Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Age [Q3-15]

8.C. Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Industry [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

9. Veri�cation Success % Vs. Unable to Verify % [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

Table of Contents

Dear Readers,

Purushotam SavlaniManaging Director and SVPFirst Advantage

As organizations �ght for the best talent available in the marketplace, it has become a necessity for them to get the insights they need to hire people with the right skills and backgrounds. We are very happy that many organizations are utilizing our trends reports to model their background screening programs and establish best practices. Such a proactive approach to background screening is enabling companies to make informed hiring decisions, resulting in improving the quality of hires. We remain committed towards aligning Indian recruitment and pre-employment screening practices with the best in the world.

FOREWORD

3BACKGROUND SCREENING TRENDS - INDIA

Executive Summary � Q3-15

Case Level Discrepancy has remained consistent at 11.5%.

Beng

alur

u

Nam

chi

City-wise Bengaluru leads in Employment and Address related discrepancies & Namchi leads in Education related discrepancies.

0

255075

100

Out of every 100 Education Discrepanciesidentified - 71 are from the Graduate level.

Discrepancy rates for Employment and Address checks are very high in the Southern zone in India and Education checks are very high in the Northern zone in India.

Out of the total occurrences of discrepancies a huge chunk of them have occurred in the Employment Component, followed by Address Component and Education Component.

Highest number of discrepancies have been observed in the Associate level employees and in that too - the age bracket > = 22 to 30 years has the biggest chunk of discrepant cases at 44.1%.

Talent occupies the most important position in any organisation no matter what the current economic scenario may be. Irrespective of the continuously changing nature of recruitment process, the need for a good hire is indispensable. There has been a tremendous shift in the mindset of organisations as well as recruiters when it comes to talent today. As organizations have started to capture talent early on, the overall recruitment process cost is even higher and to be cost-ef�cient in such cases, knowing a candidate's background becomes all the more important. It helps mitigate risk and saves the time and money involved in hiring a candidate with a fraudulent background. In this regard, First Advantage helps you make the right decision by presenting essential facts about the current workplace scenario through this trend report. Here are some of the �ndings that might prove bene�cial in the process of a talent search by any organisation:

78% 22%78% of the Discrepant Cases are males and remaining 22% are females.

The case inflow in the third quarter of 2015has by far been the highest ever - ascompared to the previous eleven quarters.

Case Level Inflow across Industrial sectors like FMCG, Retail, Travel & Hospitality, Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals, ITES/BPO and BFSI have increased very significantly in Q3-15 .


GLOSSARY OF TERMS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

First Advantage is conducting a background check for a candidate ABC [ ].Case

The check is authorized by a say XYZ Corp. This client belongs to the BFSI sector [ ].client Industry

As per the client�s mandate, the screening components include latest Education and two previous Employments of the candidate. Here Education and Employment are & there are a total of three Checks - one Education Components [ ] and two Employment [ ].Check Checks

Depending on a predefined matrix followed by the client, either as standardized by First Advantage or a client customized matrix � a disconnect identified [Discrepancy] would be categorized as major or minor discrepancy, suspect, , etc. possible suspect

FOR EXAMPLE

One case indicates one candidate. It is denoted by a case reference number which is unique to that particular candidate.

The organization which authorizes First Advantage to conduct the verification.

Case(s)

Client

The industry sector/segment under which the client falls. All abbreviations used are as per Indian standards of industry bifurcation and are easily accessible via the internet.

Industry

A confirmation shared by authorized personnel/body on the authenticity of the document/university.

Fake

One case can have one or more than one check based on the credentials being verified.

Screening carried out for various phases of the candidate�s background like Employment, Education, Address, etc. are termed as Components.

Component(s)

Check(s)

The designation at which the candidate worked/is working [current employment] in the organization.

Employee Category

Any organization or company - whose credentials might not be genuine.

Possible Suspect


1.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Quarter [Q1-11 to Q3-15]

OVERALL DISCREPANCY

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

11.0%

201320122011

Q1

2014Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Cases

Q2

11.0% Q3

A study of the Case Level Quarterly Discrepancy Analysis for Q3-15 shows that the discrepancy percentage has maintained the high trend of 2015 at 11.5% [which goes to say that out of every 100 candidates who were screened by First Advantage - 11 candidates were found to have discrepancies in one or more than one component].

Case Level Trend from July to September 2015

2

2

7

10.0%Q410.7%

The discrepancy trend for the previous four years - 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 illustrates an average of 10 percent discrepancy in the first three years and in 2014 it has risen to 10.5 percent.

Q111.4%

2015

Q212.3%

Q311.5%

75% of the overall cases verified by First Advantage, in the third quarter of 2015 were Males [which means out of every 100 cases verified - 75 were Males] and the remaining 25% were Females.

In Q3-15, 78% of the Overall discrepancy cases were Males [which means out of every 100 discrepancy cases 78 were Males] and the remaining 22% were Females.

In comparison with Q2-15 � the trend for Q3-15 illustrates that the Male discrepancy cases have decreased by 1% and the Female discrepancy have remained consistent at 10%.

In Q3-15, 12% of the Male verified cases were discrepant [which means of every 100 cases verified of the Male gender - 12 were found to be discrepant]. Likewise, 10% of the Female gender verified cases were discrepant.


1.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Gender [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

OVERALL DISCREPANCY

Discrepancy Based on Gender

OVERALL CASES VERIFIED

75%

25%

OVERALL CASES VERIFIED

74%

26%

OVERALL DISCREPANCY CASES

78%

22%

OVERALL DISCREPANCY CASES

79%

21%

GENDER WISE DISCREPANCY %

12%

10%

GENDER WISE DISCREPANCY %

13%

10%

Q3-15

Q2-15




1.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Age [Q3-15]

VER

IFIE

D C

ASE

SD

ISC

REP

AN

CY

CA

SES

DIS

CR

EPA

NC

Y V

s.V

ERIF

IED

%

<= 21 years >= 22 to 30 years >= 31 to 40 years >= 41 to 50 years >= 51 years

9.0% 65.0% 22.7% 2.9% 0.3%

3.9% 60.1% 31.6% 4.1% 0.4%

5.2% 11.2% 16.8% 17.2% 12.3%

Please note: Cases wherein the date of birth is not mentioned have been excluded from the analysis. These cases have a 1.5 % discrepancy.

Verified cases : Highest number of cases have been verified for the >= 22 to 30 years [age bracket] candidates.

Discrepant cases : Similarly highest number of discrepancies have been detected in the >=22 to 30 years [age bracket] candidates.

Discrepancy Vs. Verified % : The discrepancy percentage is highest in the >= 41 to 50 years [age bracket] candidates at 17.2%, followed by >= 31 to 40 years [age bracket] candidates at 16.8%.

Discrepancy Trends

PERCENTAGE

NEW


Discrepancy Trends

In Q3-15, total number of cases Verified were highest for the IT and BFSI sector at 31% each [i.e. out of every 100 cases Verified - 31 were for the IT and BFSI sector].

Vis a vis the trend for discrepancy cases shows BFSI at the highest at 43% [i.e. out of every 100 discrepancy cases � 43 were from BFSI sector] and IT at 21%.

The discrepancy %, that is the number of cases [Discrepancy Vs. Verified] based on industries, has a totally different story to say, with Telecommunication leading at 28% [i.e. out of every 100 Telecommunication cases verified �28 cases were discrepant], Travel and Hospitality at 19%,BFSI & Retail at 18% followed by Healthcare and Pharma at 11%. A surprise element in Engineering sector shows a very high discrepancy percent at 29% but the percentage can be sort of misleading as the number of cases verified for Engineering sector is pretty less in comparison.

Today, background screening is not only restricted to the traditional sectors like IT, ITES, BFSI, Manufacturing, FMCG sectors, but has also shown rapid growth in Retail, Petroleum, Hospitality, Healthcare, Travel, Telecom, Education and Entertainment industries.

In fact, this concept of risk mitigation has tempted even sectors like NGO, Research, KPO, etc. [basically non profit earning sectors] amongst others, to join the bandwagon and engage in the best practices of due diligence.

In Q3-15, the Discrepancy Vs. Verified trend in comparison toQ2-15, has shown a decrease in almost all the above illustrated sectors.

Verified Cases % is based on Overall Verified Cases only.Discrepancy Cases % is based on Discrepancy Cases only. Discrepancy Vs. Verified % is based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Cases.

Numbers in the graph indicate %

Verified % Discrepancy % Discrepancy Vs. Verified %

Q2-15 Q3-15

2.A. Discrepancy Percentage - Top 10 By Industry [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]


MANUFACTURING8

1

1

91

1

TELE-COMMUNICATION

49

28

512

30

BFSI 16

3143

17

3141

HEALTHCARE AND PHARMACEUTICALS 4

4

114

4

12

IT 2131

825

36

9

FMCG 0

1

51

2

4

RETAIL 1

1 0

251

18

ITES/BPO 36

42

5

5

53

194

2

22

TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY

ENGINEERING 0

0

0

0 81 29

The Discrepancy Vs. Verified % by Age and by Industry is another interesting analytics.

The overall discrepancy trend shows that the >= 41 to 50 years age bracket is the highest at 17.2% [which means of every 100 cases verified - 17 cases are discrepant].

FMCG shows a high discrepancy trend in the> = 22 to 30 years age bracket.

BFSI and Engineering shows a high discrepancy trend in >= 31 to 40 years age bracket.

IT, ITES/BPO, Manufacturing, Retail and Travel & Hospitality shows a high discrepancy trend in >= 41 to 50 years age bracket

Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals and Telecommunication sector show a high trend in the >= 51 years age bracket.

As confirmed in page number 7, cases wherein the date of birth is not mentioned have been excluded from the analysis. The same is applicable to all the above mentioned sectors as well.



2.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Age [Q3-15]

<= 21 years

>= 22 to 30 years

>= 31 to 40 years

>= 41 to 50 years

>= 51 years

Discrepancy Trends

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified %

NEW

OVERALL

5.2%

11.2%

16.8%

17.2%

12.4%

1.5%

11.5%

BFSI

6.4%

15.0%

20.5%

17.9%

13.0%

3.8%

16.1%

ENGINEERING

0.0%

27.8%

38.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

29.4%

FMCG

0.0%

12.5%

7.5%

5.9%

0.0%

0.1%

0.9%

HEALTHCARE &PHARMA

3.1%

10.3%

14.8%

30.6%

41.2%

40.0%

11.4%

IT

1.5%

7.0%

11.5%

13.8%

11.5%

8.9%

8.0%

ITES / BPO

0.9%

5.6%

10.6%

18.4%

0.0%

1.0%

5.5%

MANUFACTURING

0.9%

9.5%

29.9%

59.4%

15.4%

0.0%

8.4%

RETAIL

9.8%

23.8%

39.4%

53.3%

50.0%

5.9%

17.9%

TELECOMM

9.0%

27.2%

32.5%

40.9%

55.6%

0.0%

28.1%

TRAVEL &HOSPITALITY

15.6%

18.5%

22.3%

24.4%

11.1%

26.7%

18.5%

Not considered in Analysis

Discrepancy Vs. Verified %

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

DIS

CR

EPA

NC

Y V

s. V

ERIF

IED

%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

DIS

CR

EPA

NC

Y V

s. V

ERIF

IED

%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

DIS

CR

EPA

NC

Y V

s. V

ERIF

IED

%


Discrepancy Trends

2.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Top 10 Industry By Component [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

Check Level Trend from July to September 2015

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks

BFSI Engineering

13.5%

0.0%

7.7%

FMCG Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals

10.7%

1.0%

1.1%

10.1%

2.5%

0.5%

IT

5.3%

2.3%

0.5%

5.8%

2.4%

0.5%

ITES / BPO

Employment Address Education Employment Address Education



8.2%

2.5%

0.9%

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

10.8%

7.1%

1.6%

11.4%

0.3%

0.7%

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5Q

3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5Q

3-1

5Q

2-1

5

10.3%

9.3%

1.3%

10.5%

0.0%

8.3%

19.3%

0.8%

1.2%

6.7%

3.8%

0.6%


In Q3-15, Employment discrepancies vs. verifications have recorded an increase in most of the above mentioned sectors in comparison to Q2-15. The maximum increase was recorded in the Retail sector [from 23.3% in Q2-15 to 28.2% in Q3-15] followed by ITES/BPO sector [from 6.7% in Q2-15 to 8.2% in Q3-15]. It has shown a fall in the FMCG sector [from 19.3% in Q2-15 to 11.4% in Q3-15] followed by Engineering sector.

While the maximum increase in Address discrepancies vs. verifications was recorded in the Manufacturing sector [from 1.8% in Q2-15 to 4.6% in Q3-15], the highest drop was observed in the Retail sector [ from 18.2% in Q2-15 to 14.2% in Q3-15].

The maximum increase in Education discrepancies vs. verifications was observed in the Engineering [from 7.7% in Q2-15 to 8.3% in Q3-15], while the highest drop was in the Retail sector [from 5.2% in Q2-15 to 2.2% in Q3-15].

Discrepancy Trends


Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks

Manufacturing

Employment Address Education

Retail

Employment Address

11.9%

4.6%

0.4%

28.2%

14.2%

2.2%

23.3%

18.2%

5.2%

Education

24.3%

15.4%

0.9%

25.6%

15.0%

1.3%

Travel and Hospitality


Telecommunication


8.3%

9.3%

1.1%

10.2%

7.7%

0.9%

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

14.3%

1.8%

0.2%


Based on Discrepancy checks only

Employment component has always had the highest number of discrepancies in comparison to other components. An average of 53% discrepancies are formed by it [which means out of every 100 discrepancies identified � 53 are of the Employment Component].

Discrepancy Trends


3.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Component [Q4-14 to Q3-15]

ADDRESSEMPLOYMENT

OTHERSEDUCATION

Q3-15

56.3%

14.3%

4.8%

24.6%

In Q3-15 - discrepancies related to Employment, Address and Education components [checks] were at 56.3%, 14.3% and 4.8% respectively.

The remaining discrepancies of 24.6%, were related to Criminal, Document Investigation, Database, Reference, etc. [clubbed under Others] checks.

The Employment related discrepancies have increased from 49.3% in Q2-15 to 56.3% in Q3-15.

The Address related discrepancies have decreased from 16.2% in Q2-15 to 14.3% in Q3-15.

The Education related discrepancies have increased from 3.9% in Q2-15 to 4.8% in Q3-15.

At times, discrepancies tagged by First Advantage are used as highlighters, which may serve as triggers for further investigation and might not necessarily signify a fraud or discrepancy in the literal sense

These tags/requirements are purely based on client criteria

Note:

Q4-14

55.7%

13.0%

5.3%

26.0%

Q1-15

52.1%

18.4%

4.0%

25.5%

Q2-15

49.3%

16.2%

3.9%

30.6%


Discrepancy Trends

3.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Component By Gender [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]


*It refers to some of the Components included in the � Others� category.

Q3-15 Trends: In the Employment discrepancy checks - Males form the biggest chunk at 80% [which means out of every 100 Employment discrepancy checks - 80 are Males and 20 are Females]

Q3-15 Trends: In Address discrepancy checks, Males are at 74% and Females are at 26%

Q3-15 Trends: In the Education discrepancy checks - Males form 86% and the remaining 14% are Females.

Q3-15 Trends: In the Criminal discrepancy checks - Males form 85% and the remaining 15% are Females.

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks.

ADDRESSEMPLOYMENT

80%

20%

74%

26%

EDUCATION

86%

14%

Q3-

15

EMPLOYMENT ADDRESS EDUCATION

82%

18%

72%

28%

88%

12%

Q2-

15Q

3-15

CRIMINAL*

85%

15%

CRIMINAL*

96%

4%

REFERENCE*

83%

17%

REFERENCE*

86%

14%

DATABASE*

93%

7%

DATABASE*

Q2-

15

DOCUMENT INVESTIGATION*

67%

33%

DOCUMENT INVESTIGATION*

100%

0%-----------

100%

0%-----------


Discrepancy Trends

4. Discrepancies - By Component Across Zones in India and Abroad [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]


Based on Discrepancy checks only.

The discrepancy trend across zones in India and abroad has displayed an interesting spectrum and has remained constant except for a couple of surprises:

Employment discrepancy trend has remained consistent across zones except for a slight increase of 1% in the West and North Zone [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15].

Address discrepancy trend in South India has increased from 42% in Q2-15 to 46% in Q3-15 and in the West Zone it has

dipped from 25% in Q2-15 to 19% in Q3-15.

Education discrepancy trend shows a jump in East Zone from 18% in Q2-15 to 29% in Q3-15.

The highlighting factors:

Discrepancy rates for Employment and Address checks are very high in the Southern zone

Discrepancy rates for Education checks are very high in the Northern zone

Q3-15

Abroad 6%Abroad 0%

Abroad 16%

EMPLOYMENT

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

24%

39%

25% 6%

EMPLOYMENT

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

25%

38%

26% 5%

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

24%

46%

19% 10%

EDUCATION

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

36%

7%

13% 29%

Q2-15

Abroad 6%Abroad 0%

Abroad 19%

EMPLOYMENT

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

24%

39%

25% 6%

EMPLOYMENT

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

24%

39%

25% 6%

ADDRESS

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

24%

42%

25% 9%

EDUCATION

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

39%

10%

15% 18%

ADDRESS


In Q3-15, State-wise discrepancies, Karnataka state leads at 22% [which means out of every 100 discrepant checks, 22 were from Karnataka State]

Maharashtra closely follows at 20%, Andhra Pradesh at 11% is followed by Tamil Nadu at 8%, Uttar Pradesh at 7% and New Delhi at 6%.

Discrepancy Trends

5. Discrepancies - By Top 6 States [Q2-15 Vs. Q3 -15]



Q3-15

KARNATAKA ANDHRA PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH NEW DELHITAMIL NADUMAHARASHTRA

22% 11% 8%20% 6%7%

Q2-15

KARNATAKA ANDHRA PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH NEW DELHITAMIL NADUMAHARASHTRA

22% 12% 8%20% 6%6%



Q3-15

7%

7%

3%

4%

3%

5%

18%

4%

3%

3%

Mumbai

Gurgaon

Hyderabad

Bengaluru

Chennai

New Delhi

Pune

Noida

Kolkata

Ahmedabad

Q3-15

17%

13%

3%

1%

8%

7%

6%

6%

5%

7%


Discrepancy Trends

6.A. Employment Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

Bengaluru, Mumbai and Hyderabad are the metro cities which have topped in Employment related discrepancies in Q3-15.

6.B. Education Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

Namchi, Mumbai and New Delhi are the cities topping the Education related discrepancies in Q3-15.


Namchi

Mumbai

New Delhi

Kanpur

Lucknow

Gaya

Jhansi

Pune

Allahabad

Bengaluru

Q2-15

18%

13%

4%

1%

8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

8%

Q2-15

9%

7%

3%

2%

5%

3%

12%

5%

3%

3%


Discrepancy Trends

6.C. Address Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

Bengaluru, Hyderabad and New Delhi are the metro cities which have topped in Address related discrepancies in Q3-15



Q3-15

8%

4%

2%

3%

2%

9%

6%

3%

13%

8%

Thane

Chennai

New Delhi

Kolkata

Mumbai

Pune

Gurgaon

Hyderabad

Bengaluru

Vishakhapatnam

Q2-15

9%

2%

7%

3%

2%

10%

7%

3%

12%

6%


In Q3-15, as usual, 'Incorrect Tenure' has topped the graph at 27%. It is followed by 'Exit Formalities Not Completed/Absconding' & 'Other False Employment' at 19% each.

Employment screening involves confirming the accuracy of the candidate's claims about his/her previous employment records, with the HR and/or Supervisor [preferably the last Reporting Manager] of the previous employer/s. The verifications are conducted based on the documentary proofs ( i.e. copy of salary slip, relieving letter, experience letter, etc. ) submitted by the candidate. The HR verification would ideally include questions about the tenure, designation, salary, reason for leaving, exit formalities, etc. The Supervisor verification is more focused on the skills, performance, strengths, weaknesses and areas of improvement, etc. of the candidate.

Discrepancy Trends

In addition to the above, it also involves an intensive research on the net, and/or physical verifications conducted to ascertain the existence of the company.

Other False Employment includes Active Employee, Not a Direct Employee, Inflated Compensation, Not eligible for rehire, etc.

7.A. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Employment [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]



INFLATEDDESIGNATION

9%INFLATED

DESIGNATION 7%NEGATIVE HR/SUPERVISOR

FEEDBACK

NEGATIVE HR/SUPERVISOR

FEEDBACK

20%

19%EXIT FORMALITIESNOT COMPLETED/

ABSCONDING

EXIT FORMALITIESNOT COMPLETED/

ABSCONDING

INCORRECT TENURE27%

INCORRECT TENURE27%

9%

INCORRECTSUPERVISOR

DETAILS

INCORRECTSUPERVISOR

DETAILS

9%16%

19%

OTHER FALSE EMPLOYMENT

OTHER FALSE EMPLOYMENT

9% 8%

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

FAKE DOCUMENT/ NOT AN EMPLOYEE

FAKE DOCUMENT/ NOT AN EMPLOYEE7%

5%

3%

7%

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

Q3-1

5Q

2-1

5

POSSIBLE SUSPECT COMPANY

POSSIBLE SUSPECT COMPANY


A study of Education discrepancies shows a very interesting spectrum in the Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15.

The discrepancy trend for :

Fake Document, by far, forms the biggest chunk at 39% in Q3-15 in comparison to 47% in Q2-15.

Suspect Institutions has considerably increased and has jumped from 15% in Q2-15 to 34% in Q3-15

Fake Institutions has also sizeably increased from 5% to 9%.

Did not officially complete the course has decreased from 19% to 16%.

Discrepancy Trends

Based on Discrepancy checks only

7.B.1. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Education [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]


Abbreviations:[UGC] University Grants Commission

[AICTE] All India Council for Technical Education [CHEA] Council for Higher Education Accreditation

[DIUS] Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, UK [PCTIA] Private Career Training Agency of British Columbia

15%

9%2%

39%

0%

34%

Q3-15

15%

1%

13%

47%

5%

19%

Q2-15

34%

2%0%

39%

9%

16%Q3-15

Fake Document

Suspect University/Institute/Board

Distance Education/Study Centre not recognized by UGC and AICTE

Fake University/Institute/BoardDid not officially complete the course

Non Accredited University by CHEA* DIUS** PCTIA***

Discrepancy by Education level of the candidate is another talking point of the Education verifications conducted by First Advantage

In Q3-15, the discrepancy percentage in the Graduate level has scaled up to 71% from 68% in Q2-15. [which means out of every 100 Education discrepancies identified � 71 are for the Graduate level].

The discrepancy trend for Post Graduate level has decreased from 26% in Q2-15 to 23% in Q3-15.

The discrepancy trend for Under Graduate level has remained consistent at 6%.


Education discrepancies at the Graduate level have always been trending on a very high percentage, quarter on quarter, as compared to the Post Graduate and Under Graduate levels.

Discrepancy Trends

7.B.2. Discrepancies - By Education Level [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

Based on Education Discrepancy checks only.

Q2-15

23%

6%

GRADUATE POST GRADUATE

Q3-15


68%

71%

26%

6%


Discrepancy Trends

Address checks are conducted based on the supporting documents and addresses shared by the candidate in his/her background verification form. The checks focus on basically two things - one is the period of stay at the given address and second whether he/she is actually a resident of the given address or not.

Most of these verifications are physical verifications - conducted by FADV field associates paying a visit to the given address - which makes the verification all the more concreteand precise.

7.C. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Address [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]


NOT RESIDING AT ADDRESSPERIOD OF STAY


Q3-15

99%

1%

Address discrepancies have shown a consistent trend.

'Period of Stay' forms the biggest chunk of discrepancies at 99% [which means out of every 100 Address discrepancy checks - 99 are for 'Period of Stay'].

1% of the Address discrepancies are for 'Not residing at Address' [which goes to say that out of every 100 Address discrepancies �1 is for 'Not residing at Address'].

Q2-15

98%

2%


Discrepancy Trends

The Hierarchy Matrix graph is a quick insight into the discrepancy by Employee category [all levels].

The trend has remained consistent for all levels in the last four quarters.

In Q3-15 - Associate level discrepancy continues to top the graph at 65% [which means out of every 100 discrepancy cases - 65 are from the Associate level] it is followed by Middle Management at 19%, First Level Supervisor at 12% and Apprentice/Trainee/Intern at 2%. The graph depicts the Senior Management level discrepant cases at 2%.

8.A. Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Age [ Q4-14 to Q3-15]

Based on Discrepancy cases only.

ASSOCIATE MIDDLEMANAGEMENT

FIRST LEVELSUPERVISOR

APPRENTICETRAINEE/ INTERN

SENIORMANAGEMENT


Q1-15

2%

12%

3%

65%

18%

Q2-15

3%

12%

3%

66%

16%

Q3-15

2%

12%

2%

65%

19%

Q4-14

18%

12%

3%

2%

65%

The discrepancy � by Employee Category by Age Level analysis depicts interesting details which basically links both the candidate's age and designation.

Maximum discrepancies have been observed at the Associate level at 44.1% [which means out of every 100 discrepant cases - 44 are from the Associate level in the >= 22 to 30 years age bracket]. Similarly the First Level Supervisors has the highest number of discrepancies in the > =22 to 30 years age bracket.

Another very interesting permutation and combination of Employee Category and age bracket comes to light in the Senior and Middle Management level and age comparison - the discrepancies are highest in the age >=31 to 40 years age bracket. An obvious reason for this of course could be - the average time span an employee would take to reach the higher rungs of the ladder [levels]in an organization.

8.B. Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Age [Q3-15]

<= 21 years 0.1%

>= 22 to 30 years 2.2%

>= 31 to 40 years 0.2%

>= 41 to 50 years 0.0%

1.6%

44.1% 5.7%

5.3%

0.4%

17.7%

1.1%

0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

0.2%

1.4%

0.7%

6.3%

10.4%

1.8%

APPRENTICETRAINEE/INTERN

ASSOCIATE FIRST LEVELSUPERVISOR

SENIORMANAGEMENT

MIDDLEMANAGEMENT

Discrepancy Trends


8.C. Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Industry [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

>= 51 years 0.0% 0.0%0.1% 0.1%0.1%

AGE WISE BYEMPLOYEE CATEGORY




NEW

INDUSTRYApprentice/

Trainee/Intern Associate First-level Supervisor

Middle Management

Senior Management

Engineering

FMCG

Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals

IT

ITES/BPO

Manufacturing

Retail

Telecommunication

Travel and Hospitality

Q2-15 Q3-15

BFSI

Q2-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q3-15 Q2-15 Q3-15

2.72%

0.00%

0.00%

4.35%

1.98%

2.27%

3.06%

0.00%

1.65%

4.72%

55.40%

20.00%

35.14%

65.87%

75.77%

72.49%

48.98%

41.33%

71.65%

68.24%

12.32%

0.00%

29.73%

14.35%

10.70%

13.27%

7.14%

21.33%

12.23%

6.01%

26.14%

80.00%

27.03%

14.35%

9.98%

10.68%

37.76%

36.00%

12.72%

19.74%

3.42%

0.00%

8.11%1

1.09%

1.56%

1.29%

3.06%

1.33%

1.75%

1.29%

2.06%

7.69%

4.55%

5.20%

2.40%

2.56%

10.00%

0.00%

1.07%

5.61%

60.04%

53.85%

62.12%

61.09%

72.99%

72.22%

43.75%

29.89%

73.70%

65.31%

12.53%

0.00%

15.15%

16.06%

12.46%

10.26%

15.00%

20.69%

12.15%

9.18%

21.60%

30.77%

18.18%

14.25%

9.90%

14.10%

27.50%

45.98%

12.01%

17.35%

3.77%

7.69%

0.00%

3.39%

2.24%

0.85%

3.75%

3.45%

1.07%

2.55%



9. Verification Success % Vs. Unable to Verify % [Q2-15 Vs. Q3-15]

Checks Completed

Pure Verifications

Cannot be verified

Inaccessible for verification

Inactive

Information to proceed not received from client

Stop Check

Verification not required

Unable to verify

96.91%

0.71 %

0.62%

0.07%

1.68%

Q3-15

First Advantage's Verifications success percentage is as high as 98% approximately [98.18% in Q2-15 Vs. 98.32% in Q3-15].

Only a miniscule 2% of the checks are tagged as Unable To Verify wherein the Verifying authorities refuse to provide verifications in spite of several requests.

This success percentage includes 1% of checks which are tagged as Cannot be Verified, Inaccessible for Verification, Information to proceed not received from Client, Stop Check, Verification not Required, Inactive, etc.

Reasons are varied like Company/ University ceased to exist, Company not maintaining ex-employee records, Company shifted years before, Client would not like to continue with the candidate's verification for reasons best known to them, etc.

These tagging are based on the simple logic that if First Advantage cannot verify them then no other Background Screening company will be able to procure the verification given the same scenario.

In both the quarters another 2% approximately [1.82% in Q2-15 and 1.68% in Q3-15] are tagged as Unable to Verify [UTV]. Certain organizations/verifying authorities do not provide verifications [as in their own verbatim] - it is not one of their priorities, what a candidate does after he/she leaves their organization is least of their concerns. Other major reasons for not being able to procure verifications could be time constraints and lack of awareness of due diligence of the verifier, etc.

Also there are certain clients who would rather have checks closed as 'Unable to Verify' post the requisite number of attempts as they are in a rush to onboard the candidates.

Overall Trends

Success Percentage

Q3-15

98.32%

NEW

Based on Checks completed.

97.03%

0.57%

0.52%

0.05%

1.82%

Q2-15

Q2-15

98.18%

Although background screening in India is not a mandate like in the US and other developed countries � the awareness and importance of screening backgrounds is growing at a very fast pace. It is being basically seen as risk mitigating tool which forearms employers and helps weeding out negative resources.

A quarter on quarter [QOQ] study [Q3-14 Vs. Q3-15] has shown an overall rise of 5% in the inflow of cases to First Advantage.

Only 2% of the checks worked upon by First Advantage have ended up as �Unable to Verify�. This gives us more reason to cheer as Verifying Authorities across locations are now more willing to support the concept of background screening by providing verifications.

As the awareness is growing it is also serving as a deterrent for a candidate to fake information and at the same time is encouraging them to be more open with sharing information irrespective of the information being negative or positive.

Employers are feeling a lot more confident � since they are equipped with more inside information of the candidate whom they are planning to take on board and are also happy to have the option of making choices and deciding who would be more apt for their organization.

CONCLUSION Highlights Discrepancy Analysis - Q3-2015


Credentials of not just the Candidate are screened but care is also taken, to acquire

verification only from authorized personnel of the HR department or from officially designated email ids of companies the verification is being sought from. Call

recordings in the verification process is a routine practice to maintain and ensure our quality. Vendor credentials are scrutinized

and cross verified before engaging in a partnership. First Advantage is in compliance with FCPA and FCRA

regulations. First Advantage also ensures screening of its employees in compliance with the British Standard 7858 guidelines.

ETHICAL VERIFICATIONS & VALUES

The First Advantage Trends Report and its study is purely based on discrepancies as per

the Client and First Advantage defined criteria. The data percentages do not include

checks which Cannot Be Verified or are Inaccessible For Verification due to genuine

reasons, where a company does not holdex-employee records/ Organization/Institute

has ceased its operation so records are not available for verification.

NO BLOATING NUMBERS

ABOUT US

About First Advantage

Veri� cations Offered: Assessments Education Employment Criminal Address Identity Database Health Financial Credibility CV Validation Global Checks Social Media Checks Owner / Proprietor


First Advantage provides comprehensive screening solutions including employee screening, vendor screening, consumer screening and �know your customer� offering. First Advantage supports thousands of clients globally, including hundreds of Fortune 1000 companies, by providing integrated, single-source solutions that feature quality products and business practices, con�gurabletechnology, helpful compliance and managed services, and highly responsive client support.

First Advantage, a talent acquisition solutions provider, offers companies around the globe solutions to improve their decision making and process for talent acquisition across the employment continuum. Custom tailored for each client, the solutions address recruiting, screening and assessment, on-boarding, andre-screening. As employers tackle the challenges of recruitment and talent management, they turn to First Advantage for integrated solutions.

First Advantage provides a comprehensive suite of global talent acquisition solutions designed to reduce time, cost and risk associated with candidate recruiting, applicant tracking, screening, assessments and ongoing retention processes. In India, First Advantage offers Background Screening Services and Assessments.

First Advantage combines industry expertise with information to create products and services that organizations worldwide use to make smarter business decisions. First Advantage is a leading provider of talent acquisition solutions including employment background screening, occupational health check-up services, applicant tracking systems, recruiting solutions, behavioral and skills assessments, and business tax consulting services. More information about First Advantage can be found at www.FADV.com.

As part of our growing offering of solutions for the employment continuum in Asia-Pacific, First Advantagehas launched a complete suite of talent acquisition solutions including Behavioral and Skill Assessments, Applicant Tracking System, Candidate Relationship Management, and on-boarding solutions.

Verify Direct launched in 2009 is the first-ever Asia-Pacific-wide contributory database driven online background screening service. It covers all industries and provides instant verifications through secured online transactions 24/7. This online service facilitates faster verification of facts submitted by candidates seeking employment, loans or for any other legitimate business purpose, with relatively less documentation compared to the current, more conventional methods of verifying such facts.

First Advantage combines industry expertise with information to create products and services that organizations worldwide use to make smarter business decisions. First Advantage is a leading provider of talent acquisition solutions, including employment background screening, occupational health check-up services, applicant tracking systems, recruiting solutions, behavioral and

skills assessments, and business tax consulting services. More information about First Advantage can be found at Verifications Offered.www.fadv.com


45,000Worldwide clients

Screenings

54million

6millionChecks annually

in India

275600

2500+Customers in

India

Offices in13 countries

Employees

A TALENT ACQUISITION SOLUTION PROVIDER

Outside In

We will transform our clients, process of determining trustworthiness for employment, residential, social and vendor decisions

We will achieve this by creating innovative, customer centric solutions and a simple, positive applicant experience

Our solutions will be delivered globally, with excellence and high integrity, by engaged, collaborative and empowered professionals

Transparencyand

Integrity

Accountableand

Empowered

OUR CULTURE AND BEHAVIOR

Collaboration

ResultsFocused

ChangeAgents


OUR VISION AND MISSION

MISSION

VerifyDirect� is a leading platform offering a full spectrum of premium quality online background screening and risk mitigation solutions to businesses as well as individuals. A global market leader servicing customers across 150 countries worldwide, First Advantage provides over 54 million checks verifications annually.

Safe, secure, easy to use, quick and affordable, VerifyDirect� is a simplified portal delivering the same value and robust services to small and mid-sized businesses ( SMBs ) and consumers. In India, First Advantage & VerifyDirect� operate out of state-of-the-art offices in Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi & Chennai with about 4500+ employees.

Background screening includes checks on employment, education, criminal history & address amongst others which can be ordered online via value deal packages or a la carte.

Make smart hiring decisions by verifying credentials of candidates and employees. Your workplace gets safer, more productive and you save on replacement cost.

Reduce time and costs associated with candidate veification. Our database gives you quick search access to employment details of thousands of ex-employees from several multinational firms.

Ascertain important information about your future partner. Say no to fake identities. Say no to being duped in marriage.

Protect your family and your belongings. Verify the identity and address of the people that have access to your house and life.

Determine the identity of the person who lives in your house. An essential service for property owners, hostels and real estate agents.

Get an edge over other job-seekers. Get hired faster. Verify your resume and get First Advantage certified.

VDI SERVICES FOR BUSINESS: BETTER HIRES / BETTER BUSINESS

VDI SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS: KNOW MORE / RISK LESS

Companies: Database:

Pre-Matrimonial Screening: Resume Verification:

Driver/ Maid/Guard Verification: Tenant Verification:


VERIFY DIRECT INTERNATIONALPOWERED BY FIRST ADVANTAGE

For more information contact us at :+

1800.103.5563

[email protected]

Your organization is probably 60 times more unsafe than you think!Sure, you might have all your physical security measures in place, but your organization is far from being as safe as you think it is. Risk lurks around; in �les, documents, corners, and cubicles that you cannot even imagine. And this risk is powered by none other than your employees.

Don�t believe us? The numbers and facts speak for themselves!Slowly but steadily, there�s an increasing trend of discrepancies or fraudulent cases in India.

Highest number of discrepancies, 2 out of 3, are found in employment discrepancy reports in the form of false tenure, title, and salary data coupled with fake experience documents.

As much as you would like to believe and wish, there is no way

your organization is immune to these discrepancies. You don�t know what you don�t know. An executive with a discrepant record, adverse professional history or social reputation jeopardizes your organization�s brand and �nancial standing with increased exposure to risks such as:

Leading Retailer Corporate Communications VP - Allegedly exaggerated education credentials. Resigned.

Global Banking Executive - Exaggerated previous job quali�cations, performance and compensation as per media reports. Convicted of larceny and identity theft.

Fund Manager Senior Executive - Allegedly fabricated two degrees from Harvard. Falsi�ed work history per media reports. Charged by SEC of $1.7M fraud.

Federal Court Justice - Fabricated degrees from U.S.-based degree mills. Convicted of perjury and attempting to pervert justice.

Next up on the list are discrepancies found in education ( 5-12% ) and address ( 15-20% ).

Financial liabilityRegulatory complianceData or IP theft

But all�s not lost, just yet; there�s a Solution!Background Veri�cation is the most pragmatic solution to your predicament. It involves identifying the right checks for a certain role, from or for a particular geography; to help organizations take better hiring decisions. And considering that capturing talent earlier on increases recruitment costs,

carrying out background veri�cation to ensure you are getting the right employees on board is the right way to mitigate risks. Because, the cost of Background Veri�cation is only 0.5% of an employee's salary as compared to 15%-25% of recruitment costs.

One good decision; One bad Apple is all it takes!The cost of background veri�cation is only a small fraction of an employee's salary and is much less when compared to recruitment costs. Ideally, background screening and veri�cation should bedone for all hires, all your employees. One bad hire can cause irreparable damage to your organization. The imperative for

executive screening for all the CXOs, Board Members, Directors becomes extremely compelling given the role and responsibilities of the executives, coupled with privileges, information access and most importantly, the face of your brand. It�s about integrity; it�s the ONE good decision you will take - perhaps more important than hiring that ONE candidate.

Executive Screening - What you need to know?

Hiring C-Suite personnel and leaders warrants sensitive handling of candidates with special attention to details. Background screening for executive hiring, a delicate process, demands much higher attention and meticulous handling of such cases. Furthermore, as more executives live, study, and work abroad, it has become increasingly important that the screening provider is able to procure veri�cation from anywhere in the world. Some other things to look for:

Global and localcomplianceInformation technologyand infrastructure

Data security and privacyProcess integrity and authenticity

It is a global practice to retain an external screening service provider for thorough, compliant, and objective executive screening.

Reputational and brandAssault, damage, orharassment

Executive Advantage


Executive Advantage

Why First Advantage?You Decide. We make it Right.

Executive screening based on industry best practices, tailored for leadership and other candidates slated for high-pro�le or high-risk positions, at par with global standards.

Extra special handling by a CXO level personnel of the team managing end-to-end veri�cation process and quality reporting.

Global reach and in-country expertise on screening and culture as well as access to �always-on� service in local time zones and languages.

Complete compliance with local and global regulations, information security, con�dentiality and data protection laws

Global experience and expertise

Executive Screening PackageIt�s about integrity. Comprehensive background screening with a 360 degree perspective on the executive hire is critical for you to make an informed decision.Recommended screening package for India includes following checks:

Education � Two educational checks. Highest Degree check is not enough.

Employment � Past 2-3 employments. Current employment should and will NOT be veri�ed. Professional quali�cations if applicable.

Known References � Minimum of 2 references provided by candidate. Three is desirable.

Database (Global and India) � A must do. It provides information on any negative, criminal or fraudulent reported activity in media, anywhere in the world.

Criminal (eCourt) veri�cation � Court checks based on candidate�s past 2 addresses

Directorship Check � Check if executive holds any director position which has not been declared or poses a con�ict of interest

Income Tax �ling � As permissible by law

Social Media Check � Can be done for India and for Indian citizens only. The �ndings here are for informational purposes only

Shadow References � Additional 2 references provided by recruitment �rm or identi�ed from internal, external or social network

As needed, you may opt to include address, resume, passport, and identity checks (at additional cost).Credit checks require candidates to get their own credit report.

For further details on Executive Screening,please email us at or call us on [email protected] +91 22 4069 7004

FIRST ADVANTAGE�s Executive Screening provides the safety you need.And the best ROI for a tiny fraction (<1%) of Executive Compensation.

For more information contact us at :

First Advantage Private LimitedInventor, Ground Floor, International Tech Park White�eld RoadBangalore 560 066, IndiaP: +91 80 42529400 | F: +91 80 2841 1858

First Advantage Private LimitedInterface Building 7, 1st Floor, Link Road Malad (West)Mumbai 400 064, IndiaP: +91 22 4069 7000 | F: +91 22 4069 7249

[email protected]

+


First Advantage - India

Interface 7, 1st Floor

Link Road, Malad (West)

Mumbai 400 064

+91 22 4069 7000

Call +91 80 4252 9400 email [email protected] fadv.com/apac

First Advantage Pvt. Ltd.

Inventor Bldg, Ground Floor

International Tech Park Ltd (ITPL)

Whitefield Road, Bangalore - 560066

+91 80 4252 9400


BACKGROUND SCREENING TRENDS - INDIA

As the trusted partner of over 45,000 organizations worldwide, we at First Advantage provide easy-to-understand background screening results so you can confidently make decisions about prospective employees, vendors and renters. Not only does this safeguard your brand, but you also arrive at dramatically better background insights � insights you can rely on.

It�s time to partner with First Advantage. Now in 27 locations, 13 countries and conducting over 54 million international background screens on 16.8 million applicants annually.

Trusted Knowledge. Exceptional People.

background screening trends india€¦ · 2.a. discrepancy percentage - top 10 by industry [q2-15...

Documents