Employers aren't the only people checking out your references. Landlords, even prospective partners are making sure

Claire, a widow with two young daughters, was going to marry a man she had been dating for a year. But something about him just didn't ring true. A private investigator found he had a history of child molestation.

David needed a night manager for his small retail business. He found the perfect person. He was about to hand over the till, the combination to the safe and the front-door keys, when a background check showed the woman had a history of stealing.

Michelle was desperately looking for an apartment. After pounding the pavement for days, she found a gem. She lost the place after the landlord ran a check and discovered she was to be evicted from her current apartment in three days over unpaid rent.

People are becoming more cautious in picking a nanny or the new office hire. Prospective tenants undergo credit checks and even an intriguing romantic interest faces intense scrutiny.

New teachers now must undergo criminal checks, and volunteer organizations screen those who work closely with kids, the elderly or the disabled.

Media hype is partly at fault, but society has also changed. Blame and liability lawsuits are quickly tossed around when something goes wrong. People now live in anonymity in large urban centres.

That means there's more opportunity to fool and deceive others.

In earlier decades, bosses might hire sons and daughters of employees, providing a sense of family and trust. A woman in a small town might meet her future mate through family connections, often getting the ``he's from a good family'' stamp of approval.

``What were we doing then? We were running background checks. `I know the family. It's a good family.' We just didn't call it a background check,'' says Stan Savara, a psychology professor at Brock University. ``Now we don't have that. So we're looking to technology, to record-keeping and computers to do what we used do at a gut level.''

As a result, Savara says, ``we have to navigate our way through a world that is largely of strangers.''

He estimates 80 per cent of his clients are women who want him to dig into the backgrounds of boyfriends or fiances. While men tell the truth in half the cases, others are married, owe child support or have a checkered past.

``If you're head over heels over someone, you sometimes give him the benefit of the doubt,'' Dolson says, but sometimes ``it's going to cost you later if you don't check now.''

A background search takes a few weeks, and costs between $200 and $500, depending on the amount of work, Dolson says.

Ken Willett of Tattle Tales Surveillance says he has had more requests in the last two years to tail job applicants, and to put hidden cameras in homes to check up on nannies.

``We get it all. . . . There's nothing that surprises us,'' he says.

These days, Willett says he is getting more calls from both men and women wanting to check romantic partners, but the results are very different.

``Women are right almost every time about their suspicions. In actual fact, they don't need us. They already know,'' he says.

``The majority of time, the men are out in left field. Their wife or their girlfriend is not doing anything wrong. We - men - are possessive and non-trusting individuals. And we're paranoid.''

Some searches are more difficult, such as cyber-romances, because often people lie about who they are when chatting on the Internet.

In the United States, Web sites have sprung up with names such as whoishe.com and whoisshe.com, where backgrounds can be checked out with the click of a mouse, thanks to different privacy laws than those in Canada.

San Diego lawyer Linda Alexander started those Web sites nearly two years ago after struggling to learn more about a man she was chatting with on the Internet.

The man had said he was a widower because his wife had died in a car accident, Alexander says. As a lawyer, she was able to do a thorough background check on her own.

``You can be anything you want to be on the Internet, on the other side of a computer screen,'' Alexander says. ``It's amazing if they're planning to meet somebody, they think people wouldn't notice 10 years, a head of hair or things like that.''

Willi Wiesner, an associate professor in human resources and management at McMaster University, believes the screening comes from employers' increasing inability to fire or dismiss people when they don't work out.

``I think that's why organizations are being very cautious about making sure they hire the right person, rather than, after the fact, having to deal with dismissing someone,'' he says.

As well, there is a greater recognition of the costs surrounding hiring the wrong individual. That mistake can have a direct impact on the bottom line.

Years of corporate downsizing also ``makes it all the more crucial that you hire people who are perfect fits for the organization,'' Wiesner says. ``So much more depends on each individual.''

Employers usually want to know about the candidate's personality, if he or she has the necessary skills for the job, the ability to work with others or alone.

But employers must walk a very fine line in terms of checking references. Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, employers cannot discriminate on many grounds such as race, age, colour, ethnic origin, marital status and sexual orientation. That means job interviewers cannot ask specific questions in those areas.

Wiesner adds there is a growing trend to contact people who were not provided as references by the candidate, because of the notion that listed references will naturally be good recommendations.

But some employers are shy of doing this because it carries a risk, Wiesner says. A candidate who didn't get a job based on a poor reference from somebody they didn't provide as a referee might claim the organization invaded his or her privacy.

Richard Lewis, vice-president of Rent Check Credit Bureau, says more landlords are doing credit checks.

Usually, landlords want to see if the potential tenant has high debts, pays bills on time or has been evicted from other apartments for non-payment of rent or damage.

Many people believe they are a good judge of character, but sometimes you just can't tell, Lewis says. ``Unfortunately, it's a $4,000 or $5,000 lesson'' for some landlords.

The tight rental market also means landlords can afford to be choosier when picking tenants.

``It's impersonal for landlords. They want one with five stars. They can get a whole bunch of them out of the pile they've got,'' Lewis says. ``If there's anything suspicious or even, sometimes, it means making an extra phone call, they won't bother.''

More parents are requesting a criminal background check from the nanny or babysitter, says Tamara Wright, owner of Home Childcare Referral Network, though demands and wants vary from parents to parents.

``It's a personal preference. It does depend on how trusting they are,'' says Wright.

``The thing a lot of parents will fall back on is references.''

Volunteer groups are now stepping up their screening processes to ensure abusers or pedophiles are not given access to the vulnerable: children, the disabled and the elderly.

A Supreme Court decision in June raised awareness of the need for more scrutiny. In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled leaders of volunteer groups could be held vicariously liable for sexual attacks on children in their care, even if they did not behave negligently.

Simone Dolan, communications officer for Volunteer Canada, says increased screening began in 1994.

``Many pedophiles, it's been proven, seek out volunteer organizations, because in the past they were welcomed with open arms and very little screening was done,'' Dolan says.

Application forms should be filled out, followed by an interview and references checked, she says. ``If it's a position of risk, then a police records check is appropriate,'' Dolan says, adding the individual must grant permission for the check, which eliminates some candidates.

She adds that it is important to continue supervising and evaluating volunteers, to ensure volunteers are not placed in a position of higher risk without proper scrutiny.

It becomes a balancing act: weighing the right to know against the right to privacy.

Brock University's Savara says it comes down to people wanting to predict the future.

``Past behaviour is a valid predictor of future behaviour,'' he says, but warns some psychological tests may not be valid predictors of the future.

``Be careful of people who claim they can get you information that's going to predict the future. There's a lot of fraud going on.''