background screening trends – india · travel and hospitality 12 3 3 3 14 3 bfsi 35 38 13 35 39...

INFORMATION YOU NEED. PEOPLE YOU CAN TRUST.

Quantifying the trends and Qualifying the nature of Applicant fraud in IndiaApril to June 2016

TRENDS REPORT

Background Screening Trends – India

Trends Report – Q2 – 2016

Table of Contents

Dear Readers,

FOREWORD

As organizations fight for the best talentavailable in the marketplace, it has become anecessity for them to get the insights they needto hire people with the right skills andbackgrounds.

We are very happy that many organizations are utilizing our trends reports to model theirbackground screening programs and establishbest practices. Such a proactive approach tobackground screening is enabling companies tomake informed hiring decision, resulting inimproving the quality of hires.

We remain committed towards aligning Indianrecruitment and pre-employment screeningpractices with the best in the world.

Purushotam SavlaniManaging Director and SVPFirst Advantange

1.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Quarter [Q1-11 to Q2-16]

1.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Gender [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

1.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Age [Q2-16]

2.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

2.B Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Age [Q2-16]

2.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Component [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

3.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Component [Q3-15 to Q2-16]

3.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Component by Gender [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

4. Discrepancies - By Component across Zones in India and Abroad [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

5. Discrepancies - By Top 6 States [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

6.A. Employment Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

6.B. Education Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

6.C. Address Discrepancies - By Top 10 Cities [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

7.A. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Employment [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

7.B.1. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Education [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

7.B.2. Discrepancies - By Education Level [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

7.C. Categorization of Discrepancies - By Component Address [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

8.A. Discrepancies - By Employee Category [Q3-15 to Q2-16]

8.B. Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Age [Q1-16]

8.C. Discrepancies - By Employee Category by Industry [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

9. Verification Success% Vs. Unable to Verify% [Q4-15 Vs. Q1-16]

Case Level Discrepancy across industrial sectors like Retail, Healthcare & Pharma has shown a rise in Q2-16 in comparison to Q1-16

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [Q2-16]

0

255075

100

78% 22%

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 finding that might prove beneficial in the process of a talent search by any organisation:

As organisations 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 the time and money involved in hiring a candidate with a fraudulent background.

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 organisations as well as recruiters when it comes to talent today.

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

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

City-wise Bengaluru leads in Employment & Address related discrepancies & Mumbai leads in Education related discrepancies

Out of every 100 Education Discrepancies identified - 67 are from the Graduate level

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

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 46.6%

BACKGROUND SCREENING TRENDS - INDIA

Beng

alur

u

Nam

chi

4

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

First 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]

FOR EXAMPLE

Case(s)

Client

Industry

Fake

Component(s)

Check(s)

Employee Category

Possible Suspect

One case indicates one candidate. It is denoted by acase reference number which is unique to thatparticular candidate.

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

The organization which authorizes First Advantageto conduct the verification.

The industry sector/segment under which the clientfalls. All abbreviations used are as per Indianstandards of industry bifurcation and are easilyaccessible via the internet.

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

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

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

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

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

Any organization or company - whose credentialsmight not be genuine.


5


DIS

CRE

PAN

CY

PERC

ENTA

GE

OVERALL DISCREPANCY

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

11.0%

9.6%

8.1%

201320122011

Q1

2014Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Cases

Q2

11.0%

10.6%

9.6%

Q3

Case Level Trend from April to June 2016

10.2%

10.2%10.9%

10.0%9.8%

9.9%

9.3%

9.5%

8.7%

Q410.7%

Q111.4%

2015

Q212.3%

Q311.5%

Q411.4%

Q112.0%

2016

A study of the Case Level Quarterly Discrepancy Analysis for Q2-16 shows that the discrepancy percentage is at 11.0% [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]

The discrepancy versus verified percentage for 2011, 2012 and 2013 was at 10 percent. In 2014 it had risen to 10.5 percent. In 2015 it has further risen to 11.6 percent


11.0% Q2

6

OVERALL DISCREPANCY

Discrepancy Based on Gender

OVERALL CASES VERIFIED

76%

24%

OVERALL DISCREPANCY CASES

79%

21%

GENDER WISE DISCREPANCY %

13%

10%

Q1-16

OVERALL CASES VERIFIED

75%

25%

78%

22%

12%

9%

Q2-16



OVERALL DISCREPANCY CASES GENDER WISE DISCREPANCY %

75% of the overall cases verified by First Advantage, in the second quarter of 2016 were Males [which means out of every 100 cases verified - 75 were Males] and the remaining 25% were Females

In Q2-16, 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 Q2-16, 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, 9% of the Female gender verified cases were discrepant

In comparison with Q1-16 – the trend for Q2-16 illustrates that both the Male discrepancy has decrease by 1% and female discrepancy has increase by 1%.


7



VERI

FIED

CA

SES%

DIS

CREP

AN

CY C

ASE

S%D

ISCR

EPA

NCY

Vs.

VERI

FIED

%

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

5.6% 66.6% 24.5% 2.9% 0.4%

2.0% 61.2% 32.1% 3.7% 0.9%

4.1% 10.4% 14.8% 14.4% 24.5%

Please note: Cases wherein the date of birth is not mentioned have been excluded from the analysis. These cases have a 2.0% discrepancy

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 >= 51 years [age bracket] candidates at 24.5%, followed by >= 31 to 40 years [age bracket] candidates at 14.8%.

Discrepancy Trends

PERCENTAGE


8

Today, background screening is notonly restricted to the traditionalsectors like IT, ITES, BFSI,Manufacturing, FMCG sectors, but hasalso shown rapid growth in Retail,Petroleum, Hospitality, Healthcare,Travel, Telecom, Education andEntertainment industries.

In fact, this concept of risk mitigationhas tempted even sectors like NGO,Research, KPO, etc. [basically nonprofit earning sectors] amongstothers, to join the bandwagon andengage in the best practices of duediligence.

Verified Cases% is based on Overall Verified Cases onlyDiscrepancy 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%

Q1-16 Q2-16

2.A. Discrepancy Percentage - Top 10 By Industry [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

Discrepancy Trends



In Q2-16, the Discrepancy Vs. Verified trend in sectors like Retail and Healthcare & Pharma have shown an increase in comparison to the previous quarter.

In Q2-16, total number of cases Verified were highest for the BFSI sector at 35% [i.e. out of every 100 cases Verified – 35 were from the BFSI sector] followed by IT sector at 30%

Likewise highest number of discrepancy cases are in the BFSI sector at 38% [i.e. out of every 100 discrepancy cases – 38 were from BFSI sector] followed by IT at 24%

The discrepancy %, that is the number of cases [Discrepancy Vs. Verified] based on industries, has a totally different story to say, with Retail leading at 27% [i.e. out of every 100 Retail verified – 27 cases were discrepant], Telecom at 22% followed by Healthcare & Pharma at 18%. A surprise element in Engineering sector shows a high discrepancy percent at 14% but the percentage can be sort of misleading as the number of cases verified for Engineering sector is pretty less in comparison

FMCG 0

2

4

ITES/BPO 36

53

5

TELE-COMMUNICATION

105

1534

5

22

RETAIL 1

0

1

1

20 27

TRAVEL ANDHOSPITALITY

1233

3

14

3

BFSI 35

3813

3539

12

4 HEALTHCARE AND

PHARMACEUTICALS 184

4

137

ENGINEERING 0

0 22

0

0

IT30

2228

924

9

2

7

1

2

1

1

13MANUFACTURING

1 2

4

14

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

The overall discrepancy trend shows that the >= 51 years age bracket is the highest at 24.5% [which means of every 100 cases verified in this age bracket - 24 cases are discrepant]

Most of the other industrial sectors like ITES/BPO, Telecom, Healthcare & Pharma, IT and Manufacturing show a high trend in the >= 51 years age bracket

Engineering shows a high discrepancy trend in >= 22 to 30 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

9

Check Level Trend from April to June 2016

2.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Age [Q2-16]

<= 21 years

>= 22 to 30 years

>= 31 to 40 years

>= 41 to 50 years

>= 51 years

Discrepancy Trends

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified%

FMCG shows a high discrepancy trend in >= 41 to 50 years age bracket

OVERALL

4.1%

10.4%

14.8%

14.4%

24.5%

2.0%

11.0%

BFSI

5.3%

10.8%

16.4%

16.1%

20.0%

4.1%

12.2%

ENGINEERING

0.0%

16.7%

15.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

13.7%

FMCG

0.0%

13.8%

15.7%

30.8%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

HEALTHCARE &PHARMA

4.8%

17.6%

17.9%

17.6%

61.5%

38.9%

17.8%

IT

0.3%

7.9%

12.1%

14.7%

30.4%

4.2%

8.6%

ITES /BPO

5.7%

5.2%

7.7%

8.2%

32.1%

0.5%

6.0%

MANUFACTURING

0.7%

3.5%

13.6%

9.7%

16.7%

0.0%

4.1%

RETAIL

27.0%

26.9%

48.4%

44.4%

66.7%

1.6%

27.1%

TELECOMM

7.0%

21.6%

22.6%

26.2%

27.3%

0.0%

21.6%

TRAVEL &HOSPITALITY

5.2%

14.1%

12.9%

12.9%

26.7%

0.0%

12.3%

Not considered in Analysis

Discrepancy Vs. Verified%

DIS

CREP

AN

CY V

s. V

ERIF

IED

%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

90.0%

100.0%


10

2.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Top 10 Industry By Component [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks

BFSI Engineering

FMCG Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals

17.7%

0.4%

0.7%

IT

6.7%

2.1%

0.6% ITES / BPO

Employment Address Education Employment Address Education



Q2-

1610.5%

4.5%

1.6%

22.9%

0.0%

0.0%

8.5%

2.3%

0.9%

11.4%

3.3%

0.8%

11.6%

4.8%

1.6%

24.2%

0.0%

0.0%

12.7%

0.8%

3.9%

10.9%

0.8%

1.0%

5.7%

2.5%

0.6%

11.9%

3.0%

0.8%

Discrepancy Trends



Q1-

16

Q1-

16Q

2-16

Q1-

16

Q2-

16Q

1-16

Q2-

16

Q2-

16Q

1-16

Q1-

16Q

2-16

2.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Top 10 Industry By Component [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

11


Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks

Manufacturing

Employment Address Education

Retail

Employment Address

8.7%

1.4%

0.8%

21.3%

19.5%

2.2%

Education

24.2%

2.6%

3.0%Travel and Hospitality


Telecommunication


7.7%

10.3%

1.5%

Q2-

16Q

1-16

10.1%

7.0%

0.5%

8.3%

11.0%

0.9%

23.9%

15.5%

3.4%

25.6%

3.4%

1.6%

Discrepancy Trends


In Q2-16, Employment discrepancies vs. verifications have recorded an increase in most of the above mentioned sectors in comparison to Q1-16. The maximum increase was recorded in the Healthcare & Pharma sector [from 10.9% in Q1-16 to 17.7% in Q2-16] followed by IT sector [from 5.7% in Q1-16 to 6.7% in Q2-16]. It has shown a fall in FMCG sector [from 12.7% in Q1-16 to 8.5% in Q2-16]

While the maximum increase in Address discrepancies vs. verifications was recorded in the Retail sector [from 15.5% in Q1-16 to 19.5% in Q2-16], the highest drop was observed in the Manufacturing sector [from 7.0% in Q1-16 to 1.4% in Q2-16]

The maximum increase in Education discrepancies vs. verifications was observed in the Travel & Hospitality sector [from 1.6% in Q1-16 to 3.0% in Q2-16], while the highest drop was in the FMCG sector [from 3.9% in Q1-16 to 0.9% in Q2-16]

Q2-

16Q

1-16

Q2-

16Q

1-16

Q2-

16Q

1-16




2.A. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

2.B Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Age [Q2-16]

2.C. Discrepancy Percentage - By Industry by Component [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]


3.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Component by Gender [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

4. Discrepancies - By Component across Zones in India and Abroad [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]











8.C. Discrepancies - By Employee Category by Industry [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

9. Verification Success% Vs. Unable to Verify% [Q4-15 Vs. Q1-16]

12

Based on Discrepancy checks only



ADDRESSEMPLOYMENT

OTHERSEDUCATION

Note:

Q3-15

56.3%

14.3%

4.8%

24.6%

Q2-16

61.5%

10.3%

5.4%

22.8%

Q1-16

59.5%

11.4%

5.3%

23.8%

Q4-15

59.3%

12.3%

5.1%

23.2%

Discrepancy Trends


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

At times, discrepancies tagged byFirst Advantage are used ashighlighters, which may serve astriggers for further investigation andmight not necessarily signify a fraudor discrepancy in the literal sense.

These tags/requirements are purelybased on client criteria.

In Q2-16 - discrepancies related to Employment, Address and Education components were at 61.5%, 10.3% and 5.4% respectively

The remaining discrepancies of 22.8%, were related to Criminal, Document Investigation, Database, Reference, etc. [clubbed under Others] checks

The Employment related discrepancies have increased from 59.5% in Q1-16 to 61.5% in Q2-16

The Address related discrepancies have decreased from 11.4% in Q1-16 to 10.3% in Q2-16

The Education related discrepancies have increased from 5.3% in Q1-16 to 5.4% in Q2-16

13

3.B. Discrepancy Percentage - By Component By Gender [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

*It refers to some of the Components included in the ‘Others’ category.Based on Discrepancy Vs. Verified Checks.

ADDRESSEMPLOYMENT

81%

19%

72%

28%

EDUCATION

86%

14%

61-2Q

CRIMINAL*

92%

8%

REFERENCE*

100%

0%

ADDRESSEMPLOYMENT

81%

19%

76%

24%

EDUCATION

86%

14%

61-1Q

CRIMINAL*

94%

6%

REFERENCE*

64%

36%

Discrepancy Trends


DATABASE*

79%

21%

DATABASE*

88%

12%

92%

8%

DOCUMENTINVESTIGATION*

83%

17%

DOCUMENTINVESTIGATION*

Q2-16 Trends: In the Employment discrepancy checks - Males form the biggest chunk at 81% [which means out of every 100 Employment discrepancy checks - 81 are Males and 19 are Females]

In Address discrepancy checks, Males are at 72% and Females are at 28%

In the Education discrepancy checks - Males form 86% and the remaining 14% are Females

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


61-2Q

61-1Q

14

4. Discrepancies- By Component Across Zones in India and Abroad [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

Based on Discrepancy checks only.

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

Q1-16

Q2-16

Abroad 9% AbroadAbroad 17%

EMPLOYMENT

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

24%

39%

25%EMPLOYMENT

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

23%

38%

26%EDUCATION

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

35%

17% 15%4%

16%SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

28%

46%

15% 10%ADDRESS

0%

Abroad 7% AbroadAbroad 15%

EMPLOYMENT

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

24%

39%

25%EMPLOYMENT

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

25%

38%

25%EDUCATION

SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

34%

15% 21%5%

15%SOUTH

EAST

NORTH

WEST

25%

49%

14% 11%ADDRESS

0%

Discrepancy Trends


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 Zone in comparison to the previous quarter

Address discrepancy trend has increased significantly from 25% in Q1-16 to 28% in Q2-16 in the North

Education discrepancies shows an increase in the South, West & North Zones


TAMIL NADU

6%

TAMIL NADU

7%

KARNATAKA

22%

KARNATAKA

22%


Discrepancy Trends


15


Q2-16

Q1-16

ANDHRA PRADESH

12%

ANDHRA PRADESH

12%

MAHARASHTRA

20%

MAHARASHTRA

19%

NEW DELHI

6%

NEW DELHI

6%

UTTAR PRADESH

7%

UTTAR PRADESH

7%

In Q2-16, 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% and Andhra Pradesh is at 12%.


3%2%

3%3%

4%2%

4%

Hyderabad

Pune

Kanpur

Lucknow

5% Bengaluru


Discrepancy Trends




Mumbai

Chennai

Hyderabad

Bengaluru

New Delhi

Gurgaon

Pune

Noida

Kolkata

Navi Mumbai

16

Bengaluru, Mumbai and Hyderabad are the metro cities which have topped in Employment related discrepancies in Q2-16


Mumbai, Namchi and New Delhi are the cities topping the Education related discrepancies in Q2-16

Mumbai

Namchi

New Delhi

Q2-16

10%

9%

11%

Q1-16

3%

3%

Q2-16

19%

14%

3%

2%

9%

6%

6%

5%

4%

6%

Q1-16

19%

13%

3%

1%

8%

7%

7%

6%

4%

6%

4%

Jhansi

Pilani

15%

8%

10%

3%

4%

2%


2%2%

4%2%

5%5%

6%6%

10%11%

11%9%

Gurgaon

Pune

Mumbai

Vishakhapatnam

Hyderabad

Bengaluru


Discrepancy Trends


17BACKGROUND SCREENING TRENDS - INDIA

Bengaluru, Hyderabad and New Delhi are the metro cities which have topped in Address related discrepancies in Q2-16


Chennai

Kolkata

Secunderabad

Q2-16Q1-16

3%3%

7%6%

New Delhi

3%3%

2%1%

7%INCORRECT

SUPERVISORDETAILS

8%INCORRECT

SUPERVISORDETAILS

Q2-

16Q

1-16


Discrepancy Trends


17BACKGROUND SCREENING TRENDS - INDIA 18

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

20%

19%

EXIT FORMALITIESNOT COMPLETED/

ABSCONDING

29%

INCORRECT TENURE

INCORRECT TENURE

29%

16%

16%

OTHER FALSE EMPLOYMENT

OTHER FALSE EMPLOYMENT

Q2-

16Q

1-16

3%

4%

POSSIBLE SUSPECT COMPANY

POSSIBLE SUSPECT COMPANY

INFLATEDDESIGNATION

11%

13%

INFLATEDDESIGNATION

EXIT FORMALITIESNOT COMPLETED/

ABSCONDING

Employment screening involvesconfirming the accuracy of thecandidate's claims about his/herprevious employment records, withthe HR and/or Supervisor [preferablythe last Reporting Manager] of theprevious employer/s. The verificationsare conducted based on thedocumentary proofs ( i.e. copy ofsalary slip, relieving letter, experienceletter, etc. ) submitted by thecandidate.

The HR verification would ideallyinclude questions about the tenure,designation, salary, reason forleaving, exit formalities, etc.

The Supervisor verification is morefocused on the skills, performance,strengths, weaknesses and areas ofimprovement, etc. of the candidate.

In addition to the above, it alsoinvolves an intensive research on thenet, and/or physical verificationsconducted to ascertain the existenceof the company.

In Q2-16, as usual, 'Incorrect Tenure' has topped the graph at 29%. It is followed by ‘Exit Formalities Not Completed/Absconding' at 19% & ‘Other False Employment' at 16%

Q2-

16Q

1-16

Q2-

16Q

1-16

Q2-

16Q

1-16

6%NEGATIVE HR/SUPERVISOR

FEEDBACK

NEGATIVE HR/SUPERVISOR

FEEDBACK6%

Q2-

16Q

1-16

FAKE DOCUMENT/NOT AN EMPLOYEE

FAKE DOCUMENT/NOT AN EMPLOYEE6%

7%

Q2-

16Q

1-16

Q2-

16Q

1-16


Discrepancy Trends



Based on Discrepancy checks only

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

31%

2%

41%

6%

Fake DocumentsSuspect University/Institute/Board

Fake University/Institute/BoardDid not officially complete the course

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

Q2-16

19%

37%

2%

41%

6%

15%

[UGC] University Grants Commission

A study of Education discrepancies shows a very interesting spectrum in the Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16 trends

The discrepancy trend for:

Fake Document, by far, forms the biggest chunk at 41% in Q2-16 followed by Suspect Institution at 31%

Fake Institution related discrepancies have remained consistent at 6%

Discrepancies like ‘Did not officially complete the course’ has increased significantly

Q1-16

Discrepancy Trends




Based on Education Discrepancy checks only.

GRADUATE POST GRADUATE UNDER GRADUATE

27%

6%Q2-16

67%

28%

7%Q1-16

65%

Education discrepancies at theGraduate level have always beentrending on a very high percentage,quarter on quarter, as compared to thePost Graduate and Under Graduatelevels.

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

In Q2-16, the discrepancy percentage in the Graduate level has increased from 65% in Q1-16 to 67% in Q2-16 [which means out of every 100 Education discrepancies identified – 67 are for the Graduate level]

The discrepancy trend for Post Graduate level has slightly decreased from 28% in Q1-16 to 27% in Q2-16

The discrepancy trend for Under Graduate level has decreased by 1%

Discrepancy Trends





NOT RESIDING AT ADDRESS PERIOD OF STAY

Q2-16

98%

Q1-16

99%

1%

Address discrepancies have shown a consistent trend

‘Period of Stay’ forms the biggest chunk of discrepancies at 98% [which means out of every 100 Address discrepancy checks - 98 are for ‘ Period of Stay’]

2% of the Address discrepancies are for ‘Not residing at Address’ [which goes to say that out of every 100 Address discrepancies – 2 is for ‘Not residing at Address’]

Address checks are conducted basedon the supporting documents andaddresses shared by the candidate inhis/her background verification form.The checks focus on basically twothings - one is the period of stay atthe given address and secondwhether he/she is actually a residentof the given address or not.

Most of these verifications arephysical verifications - conducted byFADV field associates paying a visit to the given address - which makes the verification all the more concreteand precise.

2%

3%

APPRENTICETRAINEE/ INTERN

Discrepancy Trends




Based on Discrepancy cases only.

ASSOCIATE MIDDLEMANAGEMENT

FIRST LEVELSUPERVISOR

Q2-16

11%

68%

17%

2%2%

Q1-16

12%

65%

19%

2%

2%12%

63%

20%

2%

Q4-15

SENIORMANAGEMENT

Q3-15

12%

65%

19%

2%3%

In Q2-16 - Associate level discrepancy continues to top the graph at 68% [which means out of every 100 discrepancy cases - 68 are from the Associate level]

It is followed by Middle Management at 17% and First Level Supervisor at 11%. The graph depicts the Senior Management level discrepancies at 2%

The Hierarchy Matrix graph is a quickinsight into the discrepancy byEmployee category [all levels].

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

Discrepancy Trends




<= 21 years 0.1%

>= 22 to 30 years 2.4%

>= 31 to 40 years 0.2%

>= 41 to 50 years 0.0%

0.8%

46.6% 5.9%

4.6%

0.4%

18.3%

1.4%

0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

0.1%

1.0%

0.5%

5.9%

9.6%

1.4%

APPRENTICETRAINEE/INTERN

ASSOCIATE FIRST LEVELSUPERVISOR

SENIORMANAGEMENT

MIDDLEMANAGEMENT

8.C. Discrepancies - By Employee Category By Industry [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

>= 51 years 0.0% 0.0%0.4% 0.1%0.2%

AGE WISE BYEMPLOYEE CATEGORY



NEW

INDUSTRYApprentice/

Trainee/InternAssociate First-level

SupervisorMiddle

ManagementSenior

Management

Engineering

FMCG

Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals

IT

ITES/BPO

Manufacturing

Retail

Telecommunication

Travel and Hospitality

Q2-16

BFSI

Q2-16 Q2-16 Q2-16 Q2-16

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 46.6% [which means out of every 100 discrepant cases - 47 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

2.88%

0.00%

2.38%

0.51%

0.77%

0.99%

1.64%

1.67%

0.65%

0.59%

Q1-16

3.14%

0.00%

8.06%

0.84%

0.94%

0.57%

3.16%

0.00%

1.33%

0.88%

25.80%

40.00%

23.81%

17.64%

7.96%

7.92%

32.79%

31.67%

13.09%

9.17%

Q1-16

29.93%

35.71%

37.10%

14.44%

8.84%

10.76%

34.74%

40.58%

12.72%

8.50%

12.33%

20.00%

23.81%

17.89%

8.99%

9.90%

4.92%

18.33%

8.57%

6.51%

Q1-16

13.58%

0.00%

27.42%

12.97%

10.68%

10.76%

15.79%

14.49%

11.68%

6.74%

56.06%

40.00%

45.24%

58.76%

80.15%

78.55%

57.38%

46.67%

76.31%

80.47%

Q1-16

51.13%

64.29%

25.81%

68.41%

78.05%

75.35%

44.21%

42.03%

73.45%

80.65%

2.93%

0.00%

4.76%

5.20%

2.13%

2.64%

3.28%

1.67%

1.38%

3.25%

Q1-16

2.21%

0.00%

1.61%

3.35%

1.49%

2.55%

2.11%

2.90%

0.81%

3.23%

Discrepancy Trends



9. Verification Success % Vs. Unable to Verify % [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16]

Checks Completed

Pure Verifications

Cannot be verified

Inaccessible for verification

Information to proceed notreceived from client

Stop Check

Verification not required

Unable to verify

97.23%

0.78%

0.57%

0.15%

Q2-16

Success Percentage

Q2-16

98.73%

Based on Checks completed.

Q1-16

98.56%

Inactive

1.27%

97.04%

0.72%

0.67%

0.12%

Q1-16

1.44%

First Advantage's Verifications success percentage is as high as 99% approximately [98.56% in Q1-16 vs. 98.73% in Q2-16]

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

This success percentage includes 1%of checks which are tagged asCannot be Verified, Inaccessible forVerification, Information to proceednot received from Client, StopCheck, Verification not Required,Inactive, etc

Reasons are varied like Company/University ceased to exist,Company not maintainingex-employee records, Companyshifted years before, Client wouldnot like to continue with thecandidate's verification for reasonsbest known to them, etc

These tagging are based on thesimple logic that if First Advantagecannot verify them then no otherBackground Screening company willbe able to procure the verificationgiven the same scenario

In Q2-16 similar to the Q1-16 trend – 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

Also there are certain clients whowould rather have checks closed as'Unable to Verify' post the requisitenumber of attempts as they are in arush to onboard the candidates.

CONCLUSION Highlights Discrepancy Analysis [Q2-16]

25

ETHICAL VERIFICATIONS & VALUES NO BLOATING NUMBERS


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 [Q1-16 Vs. Q2-16] has shown a slight decrease in discrepancy vis a vis verified percentage from 12.0% in Q1-16 to 11.0% in Q2-16

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 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

Credentials of candidates are not just screened, care is also taken to acquire

verification only from authorized personnel of the HR departments or officially

designated email ids of companies. Rest you can add as it is. Call

recordings in the verification process is aroutine practice to maintain and ensure ourquality. Vendor credentials are scrutinized

and cross verified before engaging in apartnership. First Advantage is incompliance with FCPA and FCRA

regulations. First Advantage also ensuresscreening of its employees in compliance

with the British Standard 7858 guidelines.

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

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

checks which Cannot Be Verified or areInaccessible 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.

ABOUT US

About First Advantage

Verifications Offered:

26

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

First Advantage, a talent acquisition solutions provider, offers companies aroundthe globe solutions to improve their decision making and process for talentacquisition 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 talentmanagement, they turn to First Advantage for integrated solutions

First Advantage provides a comprehensive suite of global talent acquisitionsolutions designed to reduce time, cost and risk associated with candidaterecruiting, applicant tracking, screening, assessments and ongoing retentionprocesses. In India, First Advantage offers Background Screening Servicesand Assessments.


First Advantage combines industryexpertise with information to createproducts and services thatorganizations worldwide use to makesmarter business decisions. FirstAdvantage is a leading provider oftalent acquisition solutions includingemployment background screening,occupational health check-upservices, applicant tracking systems,recruiting solutions, behavioral andskills assessments, and business taxconsulting services. More informationabout First Advantage can be foundat www.FADV.com.

AssessmentsEducationEmploymentCriminalAddressIdentityDatabaseHealthFinancial CredibilityCV ValidationGlobal ChecksSocial Media ChecksOwner / Proprietor

27

45000+Worldwide clients

Screenings

54million

6millionChecks annually

in India

275600+

2500+Customers in

India

Offices in13 countries

Employees

A TALENT ACQUISITION SOLUTION PROVIDER

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

Verify Direct launched in 2009 is the first-ever Asia-Pacific-widecontributory database driven online background screening service.It covers all industries and provides instant verifications throughsecured online transactions 24/7. This online service facilitates fasterverification of facts submitted by candidates seeking employment,loans or for any other legitimate business purpose, with relatively less documentation compared to the current, more conventionalmethods 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 atwww.fadv.com Verifications Offered.


Accountable and

Empowered


Outside In

OUR CULTURE AND BEHAVIOR

OUR VISION AND MISSION

MISSION

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 empoweredprofessionals.

Transparencyand

IntegrityCollaboration

Results Focused

ChangeAgents


VDI SERVICES FOR BUSINESS:BETTER HIRES / BETTER BUSINESS

VDI SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS:KNOW MORE / RISK LESS

Companies: Database:

Pre-Matrimonial Screening: Resume Veri�cation:

Driver/ Maid/Guard Veri�cation: Tenant Veri�cation:

VERIFY DIRECT INTERNATIONALPOWERED BY FIRST ADVANTAGE

For more information contact us at :+1800.103.5563

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Determine the identity of the person who lives in your house. Anessential service for property owners, hostels and real estateagents.

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

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

The power of afew can influence the behaviour of many!Does your organization have a positive Leadership Impact Score?It’s time to find out!

We at First Advantage empowerOrganization to build strong leadership with

Executive Advantage™Leadership Screening Solutions

You Can Choose From Well-Thought-Out Screening Packages That Deliver A Deeper Level Of Background

The Risks We Help You Mitigate

Here Is Our Offering

Risk brand integrity & goodwill

Financial risk Regulatorycompliance issues

Data / IP Theft

Assault / Harassment damages

Negative media Loss of customers & business

Poor organizational climate

A far-reaching background check

Led by senior personnel

Via expert research methodologies

In a fully compliant manner, abiding by existing laws

Presented in a comprehensive Dossier Report

The Companies Act 2013 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs lays onus on the Directors of the Board of a Company to ensure that Indepen-dent Directors & Key Managerial Personnel appointed are persons of integrity and possess relevant expertise and experience.

Screening for leadership by first advantage


Information To Fit Your Specific Needs

Sue Ann Vaz (Head - Leadership Screening Solutions) at +91 9819000777 or

email [email protected] to schedule a complimentary consultation with our experts!

NASSCOM

National Securities Depository Limited

Partnership Indian Association of Professional Background Screeners

Memberships

Organizations With The Highest Quality Leaders Are 13 Times More Likely To Outperform Their Competition In Key Bottom-Line Metrics (source: www.entrepreneur.com)

Integrity

Adverse information

People issues

Philanthropy

Know Your Leaders!

Management style

Litigation history

Body of work

Industry feedback

Criminal records

Social Media activity / alerts

Gap analysis

Embezzlement / Laundering

Compliance & Regulatory check

Academic & Professional Credentials

Why Us?

IAM – InfoSec Assessment Methodology

IEM – InfoSec Evaluation Methodology

RWSP (Real World Security Practitioner) Challenge Winner

Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing – Certified Collector and Breath Alcohol Technician Certified Information Privacy

Professional (including Information Technology CIPP/IT)

ISO/IEC 27001:2005 certification

HR-XML Consortium – Founding Member

DOT Collector Training Instructor

7 Six Sigma Blackbelts

Accuvant Certified Environment (ACE)

American Association of Medical Review Officer Trainer

Privacy Mark – Japan RCSA(Recruitment and Consulting Services Association) – Australia CPP – Certified Protection Professional

Retailers Association of India

FICCI

CII

Certifications


We conduct 6 Million checks annually in India

We have conducted 55+ Million screenings

We are a trusted partner to over 45,000 companies worldwide

We adhere to and practice a ‘tolerance for noncompliance' policy ensuring complete authenticity and auditability.

We are compliant with FCPA, FCRA and other local and international regulations

Choose The Leaders Your Organization Deserves. Choose The Best!

Get TheExecutive Advantage!

Reach

Screening for leadership by first advantage

32

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

First Advantage - IndiaInterface 7, 1st Floor

Link Road, Malad (West)Mumbai 400 064

+91 22 4069 7000

First Advantage Pvt. Ltd.

Inventor Bldg, Ground FloorInternational Tech Park Ltd (ITPL)Whitefield Road, Bangalore - 560066

+91 80 4252 9400


As the trusted partner of over 45,000organizations worldwide, we at FirstAdvantage provide easy-to-understandbackground screening results so you canconfidently make decisions about prospectiveemployees, vendors and renters. Not onlydoes this safeguard your brand, but you alsoarrive at dramatically better backgroundinsights- insights you can rely on

It’s time to partner with First Advantage. Nowin 27 locations, 13 countries and conductingover 54 million international backgroundscreens on 16.8 million applicants annually

Trusted Knowledge. Exceptional People.