PBSA-Accredited Background Screening Provider. Driven by integrity. Built on service. Powered by innovation
If you could change one thing about the background check industry or had a wish list feature enhancement what would it be? I’ll go first: I believe every background check company should give applicants at least 24 hours to review, confirm, and provide additional context for any potentially adverse information before it’s reported to the employer. The benefits? Greater transparency for consumers and a significant reduction in litigation related to inaccurate or incomplete reporting. The industry would be better off as a whole if this was a standard process. But just one persons opinion.
Interesting. I really like this idea. Seems like a win-win for all parties. Here’s the question: why don’t we do this and what pushback would we get if we tried?
Haley Hively
1w
I wish that pre-employment background checks and the work that goes into them would be treated with more respect by both the larger investigations industry and by clients. I think if background checks could be viewed with the amount of respect other risk reports are it could solve multiple industry issues such as CRAs no longer being a race to the bottom in terms of price, etc.
Chris Lemens
6d
Existing law is better than this proposal. FCRA section 604(b) already requires employers to give applicants a copy of any adverse background check and an opportunity to contest it. The delay provides the applicant the opportunity to communicate anything else that the applicant wants to communicate. That is strictly superior to the suggested approach because it only applies if the employer decides that the report may be adverse. Having the background screener delay delivery of every potentially adverse report by a full day would cost workers billions of dollars a year because the number of potentially adverse reports outnumbers actually adverse reports by some multiple. And the full day of lost wages for each person in that category (potentially but not actually adverse report) would generate zero offsetting benefit — in fact, it would just create needless anxiety for the applicant.
Hey, did you know I presented something very similar to this at the mid-year in our Disrupt session? Great thought!
Elly Rader
6d
I would like to see US Verifications come back to the US… So much of a candidates data is outsourced to other countries, to save the CRA $, these coutries don’t protect data rights and the candidates aren’t aware where their information is going.
Derek Hinton
3d
Maybe you could 613 and include the report to every applicant? Yes, the employer might see something under this system the applicant would not under yours, but I think fair. If a genie came out of that lamp and granted me three wishes? 1. State reciprocity/fed supercedes state reporting law. 2. Cities, Counties, States, Feds: If you make something a "public record"it's public, Don't make it public if shouldn't be reported by anyone. Passing laws and regs that fall on the CRA to get out their white out rather than your own state agencies is not right. 3. FCRA Safe Harbor for CRAs that accurately report what they obtained from the public source
Amy Pykiet
1w
Love this. Background checks move fast, and candidates rarely get a chance to provide context before decisions are made — even though the FCRA is built around fairness and accuracy. Allowing a quick review window would make the process more transparent and drastically cut down on disputes, re-investigations, and escalations for both CRAs and employers.
Great post.,This seems like a no-brainer to me.
I love this idea. Anything that brings more transparency and fewer surprises for applicants is a win for everyone involved.
Founder & President, Astute Public Records | Public Records Expert | Helping CRAs Deliver Better Data, Faster | 25+ Years in Background Screening
1wI would make it illegal for employers to make a hiring decision based purely on a database search like a National Crim. Oh wait, that is already in place. Then I guess we should just start enforcing that one.