OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2018 TRENDS REPORT · • In 2016 at 11.1 percent and in 2017 it averaged at...

TRENDS REPORT

Quantifying the trends and Qualifying the nature of hiring discrepancy in India

INDIA

BACKGROUNDSCREENING

2018OCTOBER TO DECEMBER

01

VIVEK KHANNAManaging Director, India RegionFirst Advantage

We have successfully deployed robotics and

process automation aligning Indian pre-employment

screening practices with the best in the world.

“

“Dear Readers,

As organizations fight 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.

Listing a few highlights from Q4-18 in comparison with Q3-18.

Case level discrepancy in sectors like BFSI, FMCG, Healthcare & Pharma, Retail and Telecom have been persistently trending at a much higher discrepancy percentage as compared to the overall Industry average.

Case level discrepancy in FMCG sector has shown an increase in the weighted averages of 2018 [ 15%] as compared to 2017 [ 12%].

The number of case level completions [FR sent] weighted averages have gone up by 22% in 2018 as compared to 2017.

Sectors like BFSI, Healthcare & Pharma, IT, Manufacturing, Telecom and Travel & Hospitality have contributed to this steep rise of outflow.

Components like Employment, Document Investigation, Database, Criminal and Company Investigation have shown a hike in discrepancies in 2018 as compared to 2017.

For a deep dive, please refer to the detailed report inside.

We have successfully deployed robotics and process automation aligning Indian pre-employment screening practices with the best in the world.

FOREWORD

7.B.1Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Education[Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

7.B.2 Discrepancies - By Education Level [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

7.CCategorization of Discrepancies - By Component Address [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

8.A Discrepancies - By Employee Category [Q1-18 to Q4-18]

8.B Discrepancies - By Employee Category by Age [Q4-18]

8.CDiscrepancies - By Employee Category by Industry [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

9 Verification Success% Vs. Unable to Verify% [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

7.ACategorization of Discrepancies - By Component Employment [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

6.A Employment Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

6.B Education Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

6.C Address Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

5 Discrepancies - By Top 6 States [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

3.BDiscrepancy Percentage - By Component by Gender [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

4Discrepancies - By Component across Zones in India and Abroad [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

CONTENTS

2.CDiscrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Component [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

2.B Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Age [Q4-18]

1.A Discrepancy Percentage - By Quarter [Q1-11 to Q4-18]

1.B Discrepancy Percentage - By Gender [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

1.C Discrepancy Percentage - By Age [Q4-18]

2.A Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

3.A Discrepancy Percentage - By Component [Q1-18 to Q4-18]

BACKGROUND SCREENING TRENDS - INDIA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [Q4-18]Talent occupies the most important position in any organization 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 organizations aswell 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-efficient in such cases, knowing a candidate's background becomes all the more important. It helps mitigate risk and saves time and money involved in hiring a candidate with a fraudulent background.

In this regard, First Advantage helps you make the best decision by presenting essential facts about the current workplace scenario through this trends report. Here are some of the findings that might prove beneficial in the process of a talent search by any organization.

Employment component has had the highest number of discrepancies at 60.1%. [which means out of every 100 discrepancies identified, 60 are of the employment component].

Education discrepancies at the graduate level is the highest at 64% [which means 64 out of every 100 education discrepancies identified were from the graduate level].

Discrepancy trend in the address component has increased from 31% inQ3-18 to 38% in Q4-18 in the south zone.

In Q4-18, the total percentage of discrepant cases by gender are 10% males and 8% females. [which means of every 100 cases verified 10% males & 8% female cases were discrepant.

In the BFSI sector the total number of discrepancy cases is at 44% which is the highest, followed by IT at 26 %. [i.e. out of every 100 discrepancy cases, 44 were from BFSI sector and 26 were from IT].

City-wise Bengaluru leads in employment related discrepancies at 16 %;Mumbai leads in education related discrepancies at 14%.

In the employee category by age maximum discrepancies have been observed at the associate level at 45.1% [which means out of every 100 discrepant cases, 45 are from the associate level in the > = 22 to 30 years’ age bracket].

0

100

01


01

10% 8%

Beng

alur

u

Mum

bai

FOREWORD


GLOSSARY OF TERMSComponent(s)

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

Checks

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

Employee Category

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

Possible Suspect

Any organization or company whose credentials might not be genuine.

Cases

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

Client

The organization which authorizes First Advantage to conduct the verification.

Industry

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.

Fake

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


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

The check is authorized by a [Client] say XYZ Corp. This client belongs to the BFSI sector [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 [Components ] & there are a total of three Checks - one Education and two Employment [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, [Possible Suspect], etc.

02

Q1Q2Q3Q4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

9.6% 9.3% 8.7% 10.6% 12.3% 11.0% 10.6% 9.3%

11.0% 9.9% 10.2% 11.0% 11.5% 10.6% 11.5% 9.4%

8.1% 9.8% 10.0% 10.7% 11.4% 11.0% 10.4% 9.6%DISC

REPA

NCY

PER

CEN

TAGE

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Cases

• The discrepancy versus verified percentage for 2011,2012 and 2013 was at 10 percent.• In 2014 it had risen to 10.5 percent and in 2015 it has further risen to 11.6 percent.• In 2016 at 11.1 percent and in 2017 it averaged at 10.8 percent. • In 2018 discrepancy rate has averaged at 9.6 percent.

03

OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2018

OVERALL DISCREPANCY


10.9% 9.5% 10.2% 9.6% 11.4% 12.0% 10.7% 10.3%

03

Discrepancy Percentage - By Quarter [Q1-11 vs. Q4-18]

1.A

CASE LEVEL TREND


OVERALL DISCREPANCY


Discrepancy Percentage - By Gender [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

1.B

CASE LEVEL TREND

04

In Q4-18, 10% of the male verified cases were discrepant [which means of every 100 cases verified of the male gender 10 were found to be discrepant]. Likewise, 08% of the female gender verified cases were discrepant.

The trends of the male and female discrepancy cases have remained constant.

Discrepancy Based on Gender

GENDER WISE DISCREPANCY%

Q4-18

10% 8%

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

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

The discrepancy versus verified percentage is highest in the > = 31 to 40 years [age bracket] candidates at 13.6% [which means 14 out every 100 cases verified were discrepant in the > = 31 to 40 years [age bracket]], followed by > = 51 years [age bracket] candidates at 13.3%.

Please note: Cases wherein the date of birth is not mentioned have been excluded from the analysis. These cases have a 07 % discrepancy.

VER

IFIE

D C

ASE

S%D

ISC

REPA

NC

Y C

ASE

S%D

ISC

REPA

NC

Y V

s. V

ERIF

IED

%

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

6.9%

1.9%

2.6%

65.8%

60.3%

8.8%

23.4%

33.1%

13.6%

3.5%

4.2%

11.6%

0.4%

100.

0%10

0.0%

0.6%

13.3%

AGE BRACKET Grand Total


05

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Discrepancy Percentage - By Age [Q4-18]

1.C

CASE LEVEL TREND

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%

FMCG

TRAVEL &HOSPITALITY

Q3-18

MANUFACTURING

TELECOM

BFSI

ITES/BPO

IT

In Q4-18, total number of cases Verified were highest for the IT sector at 34% [i.e. out of every 100 cases Verified, 34 were from the IT sector] followed by BFSI sector at 31%.

But the highest number of discrepancy cases still continue to be in the BFSI sector at 44 % [i.e. out of every 100 discrepancy cases, 44 were from BFSI sector] followed by IT at 26%.

The discrepancy %, that is the number of cases [Discrepancy Vs. Verified] based on industries, has a totally different story to say, with Telecom leading at 33% [i.e. out of every 100 Telecom cases verified, 33 cases were discrepant], followed by FMCG at 18%. Healthcare & Pharma, BFSI and Retail follows at 13% each. IT follows at 7% and ITES/BPO follows at 6%. Travel & Hospitality trails at 5%. A surprise element in Engineering sector shows a high discrepancy percent at 43% but the percentage can be sort of misleading as the number of cases verified for Engineering sector is pretty less in comparison to other sectors.


HEALTHCARE &PHARMA

ENGINEERING

RETAIL

42

4

9

14

33

3

3

4

26

3

25

34

7

33

0

0

1

11

4

5

320

0

12

24

115

1

1

18

31

26

34

43

42

5

7

3

4

1

2

13

13

4

6

26

4

7

13

11

0

0

0

1

33

06

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


In Q4-18, the discrepancy vs. verified trend in Telecom, FMCG, Healthcare & Pharma, BFSI and Travel & Hospitality sector has shown an increase in comparison to the previous quarter.

44 44

Q4-18

Discrepancy Percentage - Top 10 By Industry [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

2.A

CASE LEVEL TREND


07

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


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

BFSI

5.30% 12.40% 17.40% 14.40% 8.50% 7.10% 13.50%

AGE BRACKETNot considered

in Analysis Grand Total

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

0.00% 47.10% 41.70% 37.50% 0.00% 0.00% 42.90%

OV

ERA

LL

2.60% 8.80% 13.60% 11.60% 13.30% 6.90% 9.60%

Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry [Q4-18]

2.B

CASE LEVEL TREND

FMC

G14.30% 17.10% 22.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17.90%


08

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


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


ITES

/BP

O

1.40% 4.90% 7.70% 11.30% 0.00% 27.30% 5.60%

IT

1.30% 6.80% 10.10% 9.30% 1.40% 6.30% 7.30%Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry [Q4-18]

2.B

HEA

LTH

CA

RE

3.00% 14.20% 16.00% 12.20% 2.70% 3.30% 13.50%

MA

NU

FAC

TURI

NG

0.10% 2.40% 11.60% 8.20% 0.00% 0.00% 2.60%

CASE LEVEL TREND

09


09

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


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


RETA

IL

9.70% 14.00% 17.60% 11.10% 0.00% 25.00% 13.40%

TELE

CO

M

9.50% 29.70% 42.60% 50.70% 5.30% 0.00% 32.60%

TRA

VEL

&

HO

SPIT

ALI

TY

2.40% 5.00% 7.60% 4.20% 0.00% 0.00% 4.70%

Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry [Q4-18]

2.B

CASE LEVEL TREND

The overall discrepancy trend shows that the > = 31 to 40 years age bracket is the highest at 13.6% [which means of every 100 cases verified in this age bracket, 14 cases are discrepant].

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

Industrial sectors like BFSI, FMCG, Healthcare & Pharma, IT, Manufacturing, Retail and Travel & Hospitality show a high discrepancy trend in > = 31 to 40 years age bracket.

ITES/BPO and Telecom shows a high discrepancy trend in > = 41 to 50 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.

BFSI

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks Employment Address Education

Q4-18 Q3-18

ENGINEERING

IT

ITES / BPO

12.6%

1.9%

1.6%

16.0%

0.0%

8.7%

13.3%

3.4%

2.2%

12.7%

0.2%

0.7%

4.5%

1.3%

0.5%

5.7%

0.0%

0.5%

FMCG

HEALTHCARE &PHARMA


10

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


11.9%

1.9%

1.7%

15.2%

0.0%

4.1%

11.8%

5.7%

1.9%

10.7%

0.3%

0.8%

5.3%

1.1%

0.5%

7.3%

0.5%

0.7%

Discrepancy Percentage - By Top 10 Industry By Component [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

2.C

CHECK LEVEL TREND

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Employment Address Education

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks

Q4-18 Q3-1811.9%

0.6%

0.6%

15.6%

13.3%

5.9%

8.0%

14.5%

0.5%

9.8%

0.2%

2.6%

11.2%

0.1%

0.8%

19.1%

11.0%

3.2%

8.0%

16.0%

0.5%

9.6%

0.1%

1.9%

MANUFACTURING

RETAIL

TELECOM

TRAVEL & HOSPITALITY

Employment discrepancies versus verifications have increased significantly from 15.6% in Q3-18 to 19.1% in Q4-18 in the Retail sector. ITES/BPO has witnessed a drop in discrepancy rates from 7.3% in Q3-18 to 5.7% in Q4-18. Employment discrepancies trends are the highest in most of the sectors.

The discrepancy rates for Address component has shown an increase in the Telecom sector from 14.5% in Q3-18 to 16.0% in Q4-18.

Education discrepancies versus verifications have remained consistent in almost all the sectors except for the Retail sector where it has witnessed a fall from 5.9% in Q3-18 to 3.2 in Q4-18.


11

CHECK LEVEL TREND

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Q1-18 Q2-18 Q3-18 Q4-18

In Q4-18, discrepancies related to Employment, Address and Education components were at 60.1%, 6.0% and 5.4% respectively.

The remaining [Others] discrepancies of 28.6%, were related to Criminal, Document Investigation, Database, Reference, etc. clubbed under others.

The Employment related discrepancies have increased slightly from 58.3% in Q3-18 to 60.1% in Q4-18.

The Address and Education related discrepancies have remained consistent in both the quarters.

Based on Discrepancy checks only

58.4% 58.2% 58.3%

10.2% 5.7% 6.0%

EMPLOYMENT

ADDRESS

4.5% 5.6% 5.3%

26.9% 30.5% 30.4%

60.1%

6.0%

5.4%

28.6%


OTHERS

EDUCATION

Employment component has always had the highest number of discrepancies in comparison to other components. 60.1% discrepancies are formed by it in this quarter [which means out of every 100 discrepancies identified, 60 are of the Employment Component].

12

Discrepancy Percentage - By Component [Q1-18 to Q4-18]

3.A

CHECK LEVEL TREND

Q4-18 Trends: In the Employment discrepancy checks, Males form the biggest chunk at 79% [which means out of every 100 Employment discrepancy checks, 79 are Males and 21 are Females].

In Address discrepancy checks, Males are at 75% and Females are at 25%.

In the Education discrepancy checks, Males form 87% and the remaining 13% are Females.

In the Criminal discrepancy checks, Males form 92% and the remaining 8% are Females.

EMPLOYMENT

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

EMPLOYMENT

ADDRESS

EDUCATION

79% 21%

74% 26%

81% 19%

93% 07%

78% 22%

84% 16%

76% 24%

Q3-18

79% 21%

75% 25%

87% 13%

92% 08%

80% 20%

73% 27%

79% 21%

Q4-18

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks.


13

* DATABASE

* DOCUMENT INVESTIGATION

* REFERENCE

* CRIMINAL

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Discrepancy Percentage - By Component By Gender [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

3.B

CHECK LEVEL TREND

Q3-

18Q

4-18

Discrepancy trend is consistent in the employment and education component across zones in both the third and fourth quarter of 2018.

Discrepancy trend in the address component has increased from 31% in Q3-18 to 38% in Q4-18 in the South Zone and has decreased in the west & north zone in Q4-18 as compared to previous quarter.

The highlighting factors [Q4-18]:

Discrepancy rates for employment & address checks are very high in the southern zone.

Discrepancy rate for education checks is the highest in the northern zone.

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:

SOUTH

WEST

NORTH

EAST

ABROAD

39%

22%

5%

7% 0% 10%

27%

38%

26%

13%

23%

27%

34%

9%

19%

EMPLOYMENT ADDRESS EDUCATION


14

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


SOUTH

WEST

NORTH

EAST

ABROAD

41%

20%

5%

7% 1% 9%

27%

31%

28%

12%

28%

24%

35%

13%

18%

Discrepancies - By Componentacross Zones in India and Abroad [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

4

CHECK LEVEL TREND

KARNATAKA UTTAR PRADESHTAMIL NADUANDHRA PRADESH NEW DELHI

KARNATAKA UTTAR PRADESHTAMIL NADUANDHRA PRADESHMAHARASHTRA

MAHARASHTRA

NEW DELHI

In Q4-18, State-wise discrepancies, Karnataka state leads at 21% [which means out of every 100 discrepant checks, 21 were from Karnataka State]

Maharashtra closely follows at 20%. Andhra Pradesh is at 12% followed by Tamil Nadu at 9%. Uttar Pradesh follows at 6% and New Delhi is at 5%.


13% 9% 7% 5%20% 21%

Q3-

18

12% 9% 6% 5%21% 20%

Q4-

18


15

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Discrepancies - By Top 6 States [Q3-18 Vs. Q4-18]

5

CHECK LEVEL TREND


16

DISCREPANCYTRENDS



Bengaluru, Mumbai and Hyderabad are the metro cities which have topped in employment related discrepancies in Q4-18.

EMPLOYMENT Q3-18Q4-18

Pune6% 7%Gurgaon5% 5%

New Delhi5% 4%

Noida3% 3%

Kolkata3% 3%

Bengaluru16% 17%

Ahmedabad2% 1%

13% 12%Mumbai

9% 11%Hyderabad

Chennai8% 8%

Employment Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q3-18 Vs. Q4-18]

6.A

CHECK LEVEL TREND


17

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Mumbai, New Delhi, and Bengaluru are the cities topping the education related discrepancies in Q4-18.Based on Discrepancy checks only.

Q4-18 EDUCATION

Namchi5% 7%Kanpur5% 4%

Chennai4% 5%

Pune3% 4%

Pilani2% 2%

Jhansi2% 3%

Mumbai14% 10%9% 11%New Delhi

7% 7%Bengaluru

Hyderabad5% 5%

Q3-18

Education Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q3-18 Vs. Q4-18]

6.B

CHECK LEVEL TREND


18

DISCREPANCYTRENDS



Bengaluru, Pune and Hyderabad are the metro cities which have topped in address related discrepancies in Q4-18.

Q3-18Q4-18 ADDRESS

Kolkata3% 3%Visakhapatnam3% 5%

Thane2% 2%

Gurgaon2% 1%

Coimbatore2% 0.3%

Bengaluru10% 5%10% 14%Pune

5% 5%Hyderabad

New Delhi5% 6%Mumbai4% 6%

Address Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q3-18 Vs. Q4-18]

6.C

CHECK LEVEL TREND

Based on Discrepancy checks only.Other False Employment includes Active Employee, Not a Direct Employee, Inflated Compensation, Not eligible for rehire, etc.

In Q4-18, as usual, 'Incorrect Tenure' has topped the graph at 25%. It is followed by ‘Exit Formalities Not Completed/Absconding' at 19%, ‘Inflated Designation ‘at 17% and ‘Other False Employment‘ at 14%.

INCORRECT SUPERVISORDETAILS

EXIT FORMALITIES NOT COMPLETED/ABSCONDING

OTHER FALSE EMPLOYMENT

FAKE DOCUMENTS/NOT AN EMPLOYEE

NEGATIVE HR/ SUPERVISORFEEDBACK

POSSIBLE SUSPECTCOMPANY

INCORRECT TENURE

INFLATED DESIGNATION

Q4-18

25%

17%

8%

6%

Q4-18

19%

14%

7%

3%


19

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


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 documentary proof (i.e. copy of salary slip, relieving letter, experienceletter, 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.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.

Q3-18

27%

17%

10%

6%

Q3-18

16%

14%

7%

3%

Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Employment [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

7.A

CHECK LEVEL TREND


20

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Q3-18


Abbreviations:

[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

[UGC] University Grants Commission

Suspect University/Institute/Board

49%Q4-18 40%

Fake Document

28%39%

Other false education

22%20%

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

1%1%

Fake University/Institute/Board

1%0.4%

A study of education discrepancies shows a very interesting spectrum in the Q3-18 vs. Q4-18 trends. Suspect Institution forms the biggest chunk in this quarter but has decreased from 49 % in Q3-18 to 40 % in Q4-18. Fake document has increased significantly from 28% in Q3-18 to 39% in Q4-18. Discrepancies like ‘Other False Education ‘have remained consistent. Other False Education includes ‘Did not officially complete the course, Registration or Credential or membership expired, etc.’

Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Education [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

7.B.1

CHECK LEVEL TREND

Based on Education Discrepancy checks only.

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

The discrepancy percentage in the graduate level has increased from 61% in Q3-18 to 64% in Q4-18 [which means 64 out of every 100 education discrepancies identified in Q4-18 were from the graduate level].

The discrepancy trend for post graduate level has decreased from 36% in Q3-18 to 32% in Q4-18.

The discrepancy trend for under graduate level has remained constant at 4%.


21

DISCREPANCYTRENDS

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.


Q3-

18

UNDER GRADUATE

4%GRADUATE

61%POST GRADUATE

36%

Q4-

18

UNDER GRADUATE

4%GRADUATE

64%POST GRADUATE

32%Q4-

18

UNDER GRADUATE

4%GRADUATE

64%POST GRADUATE

32%

Discrepancies - By Education Level [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

7.B.2

CHECK LEVEL TREND

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’].


NOT RESIDING AT ADDRESS

Q4-18

1%


22

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Address checks are conducted based on the supporting documents and addresses shared by the candidate inhis/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 residentof 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 more concrete and precise.

DISCREPANCY IN PERIOD OF STAY

Q3-18

2%

99% 98%Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Address [Q3-18 vs. Q4-18]

7.C

CHECK LEVEL TREND

In Q4-18 - 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 18% and First Level Supervisor at 13%.

The graph depicts the Senior Management level discrepancies at 2%.

Based on Discrepancy cases only.

Q2-18

Q3-18

Q4-18

Q1-18


23

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


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.

64%

ASSOCIATE

65%

66%

65%

MIDDLEMANAGEMENT

19%

18%

18%

18%

FIRST LEVELSUPERVISOR

12%

12%

12%

13%

SENIORMANAGEMENT

3%

3%

2%

2%

APPRENTICETRAINEE/ INTERN

2%

2%

2%

2%

Discrepancies - By Employee Category [Q1-18 to Q4-18]

8.A

CASE LEVEL TREND

<= 21 years

>= 22 to 30 years

>= 31 to 40 years

>= 41 to 50 years


>= 51 years

0.1%

1.4%

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

6.6%

5.4%

0.5%

0.1%

0.1%

0.8%45.1%

17.4%

1.6%

0.3%

0.0%0.3%

1.1%

0.6%

0.1%

0.0%6.9%

10.1%

1.3%

0.1%

AGE WISE BYEMPLOYEE CATEGORY

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 45.1% [which means out of every 100 discrepant cases, 45 are from the Associate level in the > = 22 to 30 years age bracket].

The First Level Supervisor too 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.


ASSOCIATE FIRST LEVELSUPERVISOR

MIDDLEMANAGEMENT

SENIORMANAGEMENT


24

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Age [Q4-18]

8.B

CASE LEVEL TREND


INDUSTRY

ENGINEERING

FMCG

HEALTHCARE & PHARMA

IT

ITES/BPO

MANUFACTURING

RETAIL

TELECOM

TRAVEL & HOSPITALITY

BFSI

Q4-18

3.19%

0.00%

1.54%

1.13%

0.92%

2.36%

0.76%

0.00%

0.75%

1.31%

Q4-18

28.09%

38.10%

27.69%

20.34%

6.51%

5.91%

25.00%

23.64%

10.24%

14.41%

Q4-18

16.10%

9.52%

21.54%

14.83%

9.02%

9.06%

15.15%

18.18%

11.74%

7.42%

Q4-18

50.94%

47.62%

49.23%

61.02%

81.85%

81.89%

58.33%

58.18%

76.90%

74.67%

Q4-18

1.68%

4.76%

0.00%

2.68%

1.70%

0.79%

0.76%

0.00%

0.37%

2.18%

ASSOCIATE MIDDLEMANAGEMENT

FIRST LEVELSUPERVISOR

SENIORMANAGEMENT



25

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


2.30%

0.00%

4.26%

5.29%

1.60%

2.84%

2.46%

0.00%

0.97%

3.52%

Q3-18

53.76%

51.85%

57.45%

64.13%

80.39%

73.93%

57.38%

65.63%

78.24%

74.89%

Q3-18

13.19%

11.11%

12.77%

15.37%

9.07%

11.85%

17.21%

6.25%

11.01%

9.25%

Q3-18

27.04%

33.33%

25.53%

14.71%

7.47%

10.43%

20.49%

28.13%

8.72%

10.13%

Q3-18

3.72%

3.70%

0.00%

0.50%

1.47%

0.95%

2.46%

0.00%

1.06%

2.20%

Q3-18Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Industry [Q3-18 Vs. Q4-18]

8.C

CASE LEVEL TREND

Based on Checks completed.

First Advantage's Verifications success percentage is as high as 99% approximately [98.83% in Q4-18].

Only a miniscule 1% of the checks are tagged as Unable to verify wherein the Verifying authorities refuse to provide verifications in spite of several requests.

Success Percentage

Q3-18

98.96%

Q4-18

98.83%


26

DISCREPANCYTRENDS


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. 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.

The Q4-18 success percentage is trending as usual, only 1% of the checks have been 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.

Checks Completed

Pure Verifications

Cannot be verified

Inaccessible for verification

Information to proceed notreceived from client

Stop Check

Verification not required

Unable to verify

Inactive

Q4-18

97.86%

0.34%

0.40%

0.23%

1.17%

Q3-18

98.04%

0.35%

0.35%

0.22%

1.04%Verification Success vs. Unable to Verify% [ Q3-18 Vs. Q4-18 ]

9

CHECK LEVEL TREND

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.

The inflow of cases in sectors like FMCG, ITES/BPO, Manufacturing and Retail has shown a huge jump in the fourth quarter of 2018 as compared to the third quarter. Sectors like Conglomerate and Services too have shown a spurt in volumes.

A comparative study also shows that there has been a hike in volumes in Advertising, PR & Marketing, Conglomerate, Consulting, Data Analytics, Legal Services, Logistics, Media & Entertainment and Recruitment sectors.

A quarter on quarter [QoQ] study i.e. the fourth quarter of 2017 and 2018 has shown 29% increase in the overall inflow of cases. Sectors like BFSI, FMCG, IT, ITES/BPO, Healthcare & Pharma, Manufacturing, Travel & Hospitality, Consulting, Data Analytics, Media & Entertainment and Services have led to the jump in volumes.

Only 1% 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 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.

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.

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 hold ex-employee records/Organization/Institute has ceased its operation so records are not available for verification.

ETHICAL VERIFICATIONS & VALUES

NO BLOATING NUMBERS


27

HIGHLIGHTS DISCREPANCY ANALYSIS [Q4-18]

CONCLUSION


BACKGROUND SCREENING TRENDS - INDIA OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2018

28

45% of Fortune 100 use FADV

45%

4000+employees

4K

12 yearsaverage customer tenure

66+ millionscreens annually

55M

35k+active customers

35K

1/3of Global 500 trust FADV

1/3

ABOUT USFirst Advantage provides comprehensive background screening solutions including employee screening, vendor screening, consumer screening and ‘know your customer offering. First Advantage supports thousands of clients globally featuring quality products and business practices, configurable technology, helpful compliance and managed services, and highly responsive client support allowing for faster decisions with dramatically better insights. With an advanced global technology platform, superior customer service and compliance expertise delivered by experts who understand local markets, First Advantage helps customers around the world build fully scalable, configurable screening programs that meet their unique needs.



29

OUR VISION AND MISSION

Be Loud, Be Proud

The journey for First Advantage 3.0 is just beginning! The new Vision statement is at the core of FADV 3.0.

Our Vision

“ Deliver innovative solutions and insights that help our clients manage risk and hire the best talent ”

30

Verify Direct powered by First Advantage 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 any other legitimate business purpose.

VerifyDirectTM is simplified leading portal offering a full spectrum of premium quality online background screening and risk mitigation solutions to businesses as well as individuals, also offers robust services to small and mid-sized businesses (SMB) and consumers.

In India, First Advantage & Verify Direct operate out of state-of-the-art offices in Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi & Chennai.

For more information contact us at: 1800.103.5563 [email protected] www.verifydirectintl.com

OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2018BACKGROUND SCREENING TRENDS - INDIA

VERIFY DIRECT INTERNATIONAL


31

EXECUTIVE ADVANTAGE™

Leadership Screening Solutions

The Power Of A Few Can Influence The Behaviour Of Many!

The Companies Act 2013 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs lays on us on the Directors of theBoard of a Company to ensure that Independent Directors & Key Managerial Personnel appointed arepersons of integrity and possess relevant expertise and experience.

Verifications OfferedAssessments Health AddressEducation Financial Creditability IdentityEmployment CV Validation DatabaseCriminal Global Checks Social Media ChecksOwner\Proprietor

The Risks We Help You Mitigate

RegulatoryCompliance Issues

Negative media

Brand Integrity & Goodwill

Financial Risk Data / Ip Theft

Assault / Harassment

damages

Loss of customers &

business

Poor organizational

climate

Here Is Our OfferingA far-reaching

background check

Led by specialists

Via expert research

methodologies

In a fully compliant manner, abiding by

existing laws

Presented in a comprehensive Dossier

Report

Choose The Leaders Your Organization Deserves. Choose The Best!

Get TheExecutive Advantage!



32

First Advantage, a talent acquisition solutions provider, offers companies around theglobe solutions to improve their decision making and process for talent acquisitionacross the employment continuum. Custom tailored for each client, the solutions addressrecruiting, screening and assessment, on-boarding and re-screening. As employers tacklethe challenges of recruitment and talent management, they turn to First Advantage forintegrated solutions. We adhere to and practice a ‘no tolerance for non-compliance'policy ensuring complete authenticity and auditability, and are compliant with FCPA,FCRA and other local and international regulations.

Trusted Knowledge. Exceptional People.

OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2018 TRENDS REPORT · • In 2016 at 11.1 percent and in 2017 it averaged at...

Documents

Transcript of OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2018 TRENDS REPORT · • In 2016 at 11.1 percent and in 2017 it averaged at...