Hubbry Logo
Background checkBackground checkMain
Open search
Background check
Community hub
Background check
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Background check
Background check
Background check
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A background check is a process used by an organisation or person to verify that an individual is who they claim to be, and check their past record to confirm education, employment history, and other activities, and for a criminal record. The frequency, purpose, and legitimacy of background checks vary among countries, industries, and individuals. An employment background check typically takes place when someone applies for a job, but it can also happen at any time the employer deems necessary. A variety of methods are used to complete these checks, including comprehensive database search and letters of reference.

History

[edit]

In the United States

[edit]

Pre-September 11 2001, background checks were less common and less intrusive.[1] In the 2000s, background checks became far more common after 9/11.[2] Government agencies such as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security were created afterwards to protect national security and safeguard American citizens. These agencies were tasked with examining airport security, pre-flight screening, and predicting potential terror attacks. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has a catalogue of DNA, fingerprints, and other means of identification for people with past criminal activity.[3]

Purposes

[edit]

There are 17 common types of background checks employers use to verify a new hire. The checks can include:

  • Criminal history
  • Past employment verification
  • Education verification
  • Reference check
  • Drug screening
  • Credit background check
  • Social media behavior check
  • Driving record
  • Professional license and certifications check
  • Social security number trace/identity check
  • Global sanctions check
  • Civil offenses check
  • Bankruptcy check
  • Financial regulations check
  • Psychometric tests
  • International background check
  • Gamer profile check

Each check is briefly explained along with its purpose and how it helps employers make informed hiring decisions.[4][where?]

Employment screening

[edit]

Employers often request background checks on job candidates for employment screening, especially for candidates seeking a position that requires high security or a position of trust, such as in a school, courthouse, hospital, financial institution, airport, and government. Background checks in the corporate realm have become a commonplace practice for many companies, aimed at mitigating legal liabilities and preventing adverse actions within their workforce.

They can also be requested when purchasing a firearm (from a legal authorization). A government agency traditionally administers these checks for a nominal fee, but private companies can also administer them.[5] Results of a background check typically include past employment verification, credit history, and criminal history. The objective of background checks is to ensure the safety and security of the employees in the organization.[6]

These checks are often used by employers as a means of judging a job candidate's past mistakes, character, and fitness, and to identify potential hiring risks for safety and security reasons. Background checks are also used to thoroughly investigate potential government employees to be given a security clearance.[5] However, these checks can sometimes be used for illegal purposes, such as unlawful discrimination (or employment discrimination), identity theft, and violation of privacy.[7]

Checks are frequently conducted to confirm information found on an employment application or résumé/curriculum vitae. One study showed that half of all reference checks done on prospective employees differed between what the job applicant provided and what the source reported.[8] They are also conducted as a way to differentiate potential employees further and pick the one the employer feels is best suited for the position. Employers are obligated to ensure their work environment is safe for all employees and helps prevent other employment problems in the workplace.[9]

Firearms purchases

[edit]
Further information: Gun violence in the United States
See also: Weapons smuggling

In the United States under the Gun Control Act of 1968, citizens and US residents must be 18 years or older to purchase shotguns, rifles, or ammunition. All other firearms – such as handguns – can only be sold to individuals 21 or older. Restricted firearms (like machine guns), suppressors, explosives or large quantities of precursor chemicals, and concealed weapons permits also require criminal checks.[10] Checks are also required for those working in positions with special security concerns, such as trucking, ports of entry, and airports (including airline transportation).[11] Laws exist to prevent those who do not pass a criminal check from working in careers involving the elderly, disabled, or children.[12]

Pre-employment screening

[edit]

Pre-employment screening refers to the process of investigating the backgrounds of potential employees and is commonly used to verify the accuracy of an applicant's claims as well as to discover any possible criminal history, workers compensation claims, or employer sanctions.[13]

Brazil

[edit]

The Brazilian legal system prohibits discrimination against people. Many people consider background checks to be discriminatory.

Regulation and Laws on Background Checks

  • Brazilian Constitution, Article 3, IV
  • Brazilian Constitution, Article 5, X
  • Brazilian Constitution, Article 7, XXXI
  • Law No. 9.029/95

Netherlands

[edit]

It is the responsibility of the employer to treat all personal information collected from the employee as confidential information and to limit the access to this information within the organization. The employer cannot retain the personal information from the applicant and must have protective measures in case of data breach. The employer must give the applicant the ability to access the personal information being held about them. Dutch Data Protection Authority must be notified of the background check.[14]

Restrictions and Laws on Background checks

  • The Data Protection Act 2001
  • The Equal Treatment Act 1994
  • The Judicial Data and Criminal Records Act 2004
  • The Medical Examinations Act 1998
  • Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Poland

[edit]

The first Polish research on the issue of pre-employment screening shows that 81% of recruiters have come across the phenomenon of lies in the CVs of candidates for the job.[15] It is the responsibility of the employer to collect necessary information and to protect it so that only certain people in the organization can access it. The applicant must receive a copy of the background check so that the applicant has the opportunity to make sure that the information in the background check is correct. The employer is not permitted to keep the personal information for a longer period than necessary.[14]

Restrictions and Laws on Background checks

  • The Polish Constitution dated 2 April 1997
  • Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  • Act of 26 June 1974 on The Labour Code
  • Act of 24 May 2000 on National Criminal Records
  • Act of 4 March 1994 on the Company Social Fund
  • Act of 29 August 1997 on Personal Data Protection
  • Regulation of Work and Social Policy Minister dated 28 May 1996

United Kingdom

[edit]

The employer has to treat the personal information from the applicant as confidential. The applicant has to receive a copy of the background to check or update the information that appears on the background check. The employer can not retain the information more than it is necessary. The employer has to give any one who comes in contact with the information of the applicant a code of conduct. The company has to go through an audit to make sure they are complying and protecting the data.[14]

Restrictions and Laws on Background Checks

During the 2008 financial crisis, the level of fraud almost doubled.[16] Background-checking firm Powerchex claimed the number of applicants lying on their applications increased after the start of the 2008 financial crisis.[17] In 2009, Powerchex claimed that nearly one in 5 applicants has a major lie or discrepancy on his or her application.[18] Almost half (48%) of organizations with fewer than 100 staff experienced problems with vetted employees.[19] The research shows how many failures occurred in the relationship between employer and employee over the years and what dangers it brings. Applicants usually lie about additional skills (85%), dates of employment (58%), responsibilities (53%) or positions (28%).[20]

Regulation

[edit]

[21] The Financial Services Authority states in their Training & Competence guidance that regulated firms should have:

  • Adequacy of procedures for taking into account knowledge and skills of potential recruits for the role
  • Adequacy of procedures for obtaining sufficient information about previous activities and training
  • Adequacy of procedures for ensuring that individuals have passed appropriate exams or have appropriate exemptions
  • Adequacy of procedures for assessing competence of individuals for sales roles

The Financial Services Authority's statutory objectives:

  1. Protecting consumers
  2. Maintaining market confidence
  3. Promoting public awareness
  4. Reducing financial crime

United States

[edit]

The employer must obtain consent from the applicant granting approval of the background check.[22] The employer must be in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act.[14] The employers have to guarantee that they will not discriminate against the applicant.

Most notably, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulates the use of consumer reports (which it defines as information collected and reported by third party agencies) as it pertains to adverse decisions, notification to the applicant, and destruction and safekeeping of records. If a consumer report is used as a factor in an adverse hiring decision, the applicant must be presented with a "pre-adverse action disclosure," a copy of the FCRA summary of rights, and a "notification of adverse action letter." Individuals are entitled to know the source of any information used against them, including a credit reporting company. Individuals must also consent in order for the employer to obtain a credit report.[23]

Restriction and laws on Background Check

  • Arrest and conviction records: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Cal. Lab. Code § 432.7; Cal. Lab. Code § 432.8; Cal. Pen. Code § 290.46(k)(2); 775 ILCS 5/2-103; Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act, 820 ILCS 75/15; N.Y. Correct. Law § 752; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 (15), (16); 18 Pa.C.S. § 9125
  • Credit/financial checks: Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.13; Cal. Lab. Code § 1024.5; 820 ILCS 70/10
  • Health checks/medical screening: Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff, et seq.; Cal. Lab. Code § 132a
  • Social media: Cal. Lab. Code § 980; 820 ILCS 55/10(a)
  • Record disposal: 16 CFR Part 682
  • Record keeping: 29 CFR Part 160
  • Records/information obtained from consumer reporting agencies, including but not limited to education and employment records, credit and financial records, and social media: Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.; Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.13(a)(6); Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.18(a)(7); Cal. Civ. Code § 1786.53
  • Political affiliation: D.C. Code § 2–1402.11; Wis. Stat. Ann. § 111.321
  • Polygraph tests: Employee Polygraph Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2002, 2006; Cal. Lab. Code § 432.2; 225 ILCS 430/14.1; N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 733–739; 18 Pa.C.S. § 7321

Florida

[edit]

Title XLV, section 768.095 of the Florida Statutes is a law that allows former employers to disclose information about an employee to a future employer, protecting employers from negligent hiring liabilities. Employers use disclosed information from past employers when a background check does not provide enough information on the employee. Employers have to verify that the information disclosed to them is true because if it is false, the employer will be violating the civil rights of the employee.[24]

Obtaining background checks

[edit]

There are a variety of types of investigative searches that can be used by potential employers. Many commercial sites will offer specific searches to employers for a fee. Services like these will actually perform the checks, supply the company with adverse action letters, and ensure compliance throughout the process. It is important to be selective about which pre-employment screening agency one uses. A legitimate company will maintain a background check policy and will explain the process.

Many employers choose to search the most common records such as criminal records, driving records, and education verification. Other searches such as sex offender registry, credential verification, skills assessment, reference checks, credit reports and Patriot Act searches are becoming increasingly common.[25]

Larger companies are more likely to outsource than their smaller counterparts – the average staff size of the companies who outsource is 3,313 compared to 2,162 for those who carry out in-house checks.[26] Financial service firms had the highest proportion of respondents who outsource the service, with over a quarter (26%) doing so, compared to an overall average of 16% who outsource vetting to a third party provider.[27] The construction and property industry showed the lowest level of outsourcing, with 89% of such firms in the sample carrying out checks in-house, making the overall average 16%. This can increase over the years.[28] Companies that choose to outsource must be sure to use companies that are Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) compliant. Companies that fail to use an FCRA compliant company may face legal issues.[29]

As a general rule, employers may not take adverse action against an applicant or employee (not hiring or terminating them), solely on the basis of results obtained through a database search. Database searches, as opposed to source records searches (search of actual county courthouse records), are notoriously inaccurate, contain incomplete or outdated information, and should only be used as an added safety net when conducting a background check. Failure by employers to follow FCRA guidelines can result in hefty penalties.[30]

Criminal records

[edit]

In the United States, the employer could use criminal records as verification as long as the employer does not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, as analyzed under the disparate treatment and disparate impact frameworks.[31] There are several types of criminal record searches available to employers, some more accurate and up to date than others. These "third party" background checking agencies cannot guarantee the accuracy of their information, thus many of them have incomplete records or inaccurate records. The only way to conduct an accurate background check is to go directly through the state. Most times using the state of choice is much cheaper than using a "third party" agency. Many websites offer the "instant" background check, which will search a compilation of databases containing public information for a fee. These "instant" searches originate from a variety of sources, from statewide court and corrections records to law enforcement records which usually stem from county or metro law enforcement offices. There are also other database-type criminal searches, such as statewide repositories and the national crime file. A commonly used criminal search by employers who outsource is the county criminal search.[32]

Social media

[edit]

Employers could use social media as tool to conduct a background check on an applicant.[2] An employer could check the applicant's Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn accounts to see how the applicant behaves outside of work. U.S. employers are legally prohibited from taking into account anything they discover about a person's marital status, sexual orientation, religion, or political views when making the final decision to hire or not hire the applicant.[33] Some companies provide Media Mentions Reports collected from open sources including Social Media public accounts.

Character reference checks

[edit]

Employers may investigate past employment to verify position and salary information. More intensive checks can involve interviews with anybody that knew or previously knew the applicant—such as teachers, friends, coworkers, neighbors, and family members; however, extensive hearsay investigations in background checks can expose companies to lawsuits. Past employment and personal reference verifications are moving toward standardization with most companies in order to avoid expensive litigation. These usually range from simple verbal confirmations of past employment and timeframe to deeper, such as discussions about performance, activities and accomplishments, and relations with others. The past experiences and the companies which have provided these experiences are also verified and researched upon to detect frauds.[34]

Identity and address verification

[edit]

A fraudulent SSN may be indicative of identity theft, incorrect claims of citizenship status, or concealment of a "past life". Background screening firms usually perform a Social Security trace to determine where the applicant or employee has lived. The hiring of undocumented workers has become an increasing issue for American businesses since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division, as immigration raids have forced employers to consider including legal working status as part of their background screening process.[citation needed] All employers are required to keep government Form I-9 documents on all employees and some states mandate the use of the federal E-Verify program to research the working status of Social Security numbers. With increased concern for right-to-work issues, many outsourcing companies are sprouting in the marketplace to help automate and store Form I-9 documentation.[35]

Credit check

[edit]

Credit checks are conducted for applicants who are applying to positions that deal with financial records or deal with a lot of money.[36] For example, in the state of Illinois, employers could use an applicant's credit history, only the credit score is considered satisfactory.[37] Individuals must also give consent in order for the employer to obtain a credit report. Pre-employment credit reports do not include a credit score. A pre-employment credit report will show up on an individual's credit report as a "soft inquiry" and do not affect the individual's credit score.[38]

Controversies

[edit]

Drug tests and credit checks for employment are highly controversial practices. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a project of the Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN): "While some people are not concerned about background investigations, others are uncomfortable with the idea of investigators poking around in their personal histories. In-depth checks could unearth information that is irrelevant, outdated, taken out of context, or just plain wrong. A further concern is that the report might include information that is illegal to use for hiring purposes or which comes from questionable sources."

In May 2002, allegedly improper post-hire checks conducted by Northwest Airlines were the subject of a civil lawsuit between Northwest and 10,000 of their mechanics.

In the case of an arrest that did not lead to a conviction, employment checks can continue including the arrest record for up to seven years, per § 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing . . . Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.

Subsection (b) provides for an exception if the report is in connection with "the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more".[39]

Some proposals for decreasing potential harm to innocent applicants include:

  • Furnishing the applicant with a copy of the report before it is given to the employer, so that any inaccuracies can be addressed beforehand; and
  • Allowing only conviction (not arrest) records to be reported.

Further controversies to background checks include firearms processing and munitions sales. As of March 2025, federal law requires background checks be conducted for gun purchases from a gun dealer.[40] As gun violence across schools and public spaces increase, so does the need to call for better background checks.[41] Not all states require background checks for handgun purchases however.[42] To buy a gun, prospective gun owners must submit a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). They then must fill out ATF form 4473 which after, the licensed firearm dealer send this back go NICS. NICS then do their own background check to verify the other eligibilities to purchase a firearm.[43]

In New Zealand, criminal checks have been affected by the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, which allows individuals to legally conceal "less serious" convictions from their records provided they had been conviction-free for at least seven years.

In Michigan, the system of criminal checks has been criticized in a recent case where a shooting suspect was able to pass an FBI check to purchase a shotgun although he had failed the check for a state handgun permit. According to the spokesman of the local police department,

"... you could have a clear criminal history but still have contacts with law enforcement that would not rise to the level of an arrest or conviction [that can be used] to deny a permit whether or not those involved arrests that might show up on a criminal history."[44]

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has criticized the federal policy, which denies constitutional rights based on a criminal check only if the subject has been accused of a crime.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Background check

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A background check is a systematic investigation into an individual's verifiable history, encompassing criminal convictions, records, educational qualifications, and occasionally or driving history, conducted to assess reliability and suitability for roles such as , tenancy, or licensing. These checks emerged in the mid-20th century amid rising litigation over negligent hiring, where employers faced for employees' harmful actions traceable to undisclosed backgrounds, prompting standardized verification to avert such risks. In the United States, the practice operates under federal statutes like the (FCRA), which requires written authorization from the subject, disclosure of adverse findings, and opportunities to contest errors in compiled by third-party agencies. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces nondiscriminatory application, barring decisions motivated by protected characteristics, though empirical correlations between records and traits remain subject to causal scrutiny beyond aggregate disparities. Prevalent variants include criminal history searches via public databases and FBI indices, which flag felonies and misdemeanors but may overlook expungements; reference validations confirming prior roles and performance; and specialized probes like records for safety-sensitive jobs. While effective for identifying verifiable risks—such as prior in positions—background checks exhibit notable error rates, with peer-reviewed analyses revealing discrepancies in up to 25% of reports due to name matches, outdated data, or state-federal reporting variances, leading to wrongful denials. Longitudinal studies further indicate that criminal records do not uniformly predict lower productivity or higher misconduct, with affected hires often demonstrating extended tenure and reduced voluntary exits compared to unvetted peers.

History

Origins and Early Practices

In ancient Greco-Roman societies, rudimentary forms of background verification emerged through letters of recommendation, which attested to an individual's character, reliability, and suitability for public offices, trade partnerships, or other roles of trust, dating back approximately 2,000 years. These documents functioned similarly to modern references, providing endorsements from known associates to reduce risks of incompetence or deceit in interpersonal and commercial transactions. Medieval European guilds extended these informal practices by evaluating apprenticeships based on community , personal connections, and endorsements from established masters or influential figures, thereby safeguarding craft and against fraud or unskilled labor. regulations often required prospective apprentices, typically starting around age 12, to demonstrate through local testimony, as inconsistent scribal records limited formal documentation but emphasized relational trust to control labor supply and prevent market disruptions. The 19th-century industrialization and amplified these necessities, prompting businesses—particularly railroads and insurers—to hire private detective agencies for targeted investigations into candidates' personal histories, especially executives, to counter rising , , and labor-related risks in anonymous urban environments. Allan Pinkerton's National Detective Agency, established in 1850, pioneered such services by deploying operatives for discreet inquiries into backgrounds, leveraging techniques adapted from outlaw pursuits to verify integrity amid economic expansion. Pre-digital verifications universally relied on labor-intensive manual reviews of fragmented records, including dockets for legal infractions, municipal ledgers for residency, and church registers for baptismal or matrimonial confirmations of identity and , causally linking these efforts to fraud reduction in pre-industrial and contexts where centralized data was absent.

Development in the United States

Following , the formalized background investigations for federal employees through President Harry S. Truman's , issued on March 21, 1947, which established a comprehensive loyalty-security program to screen approximately 2 million civilian workers for subversive influences amid rising concerns over communist infiltration. The program mandated FBI investigations into employees' backgrounds, associations, and beliefs, including name checks against agency records and field inquiries where warranted. This initiative, rooted in imperatives, expanded FBI indexing of for loyalty purposes, setting precedents for systematic vetting in roles. The peaked during the "Red Scares," with screenings conducted on over 5 million federal workers between 1947 and 1956, resulting in several hundred dismissals or resignations primarily for suspected disloyalty or criminal histories uncovered via FBI probes. , issued by President in 1953, further intensified these efforts by broadening criteria to include any conduct deemed unreliable or morally questionable, reinforcing FBI-led background checks as a staple for sensitive positions tied to defense and needs. These measures reflected causal linkages between unchecked personnel risks and potential threats, as evidenced by high-profile defections and Soviet infiltration cases during the era. In the and , background checks extended beyond to private and contexts, propelled by the growth of consumer reporting agencies that aggregated verifiable personal histories to meet employer demands for in hiring. The (FCRA), enacted on October 26, 1970, regulated these "consumer reports"—encompassing criminal, , and financial data—for non-governmental uses, requiring accuracy, dispute mechanisms, and user permissible purposes to curb abuses amid economic expansions necessitating reliable personnel verification. By the , FCRA compliance had standardized employer-initiated checks, with bureaus like providing nationwide data access, though primarily for economic rather than security-driven vetting. The 1990s marked a pivotal expansion for public safety, as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, signed into law on November 30, 1993, mandated federal background checks for firearm purchases from licensed dealers to enforce prohibitions on sales to felons, fugitives, and other ineligible categories. This culminated in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), operated by the FBI and fully operational on November 30, 1998, which integrated federal and state databases for real-time queries. NICS data demonstrate efficacy, with over 1.5 million denials issued by 2023—predominantly for felony convictions (about 56% of cases)—preventing prohibited persons from acquiring firearms and validating the system's role in mitigating risks from known criminal histories.

Global Evolution

In the , background checks for non-judicial purposes originated from post-World War II police certificates, which were issued to verify suitability for roles involving vulnerable groups, such as . These evolved into formalized systems with the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau in 2002, enacted under Part V of the Police Act 1997, to deliver standardized criminal record disclosures for employment in positions of trust. The bureau's functions were consolidated into the in December 2012 via the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, merging vetting with barring decisions to enhance efficiency in safeguarding. France's Casier Judiciaire, a national repository maintained by the , traces its structured use to the late and provides tiered bulletins—such as Bulletin n°3 for private individuals and employers—detailing convictions and rights deprivations for hiring and civil applications. This system emphasizes judicial oversight and limited disclosure, reflecting civil law traditions that prioritize rehabilitation over perpetual stigma, with extracts required for roles demanding public trust. Prior to the 2018 , the maintained a patchwork of national regimes, with access varying by country: for instance, permitted employer-requested certificates confirming absence of serious offenses, while broader checks were confined to regulated sectors. These disparate approaches adapted to local norms and legal histories, often restricting private employer access to avoid disproportionate barriers to , though harmonization efforts like the European Criminal Records Information System began facilitating cross-border exchanges for judicial purposes. In the , Singapore's background screening protocols proliferated during the economic expansion, with mandatory criminal and reference verifications imposed for financial sector roles under guidelines to mitigate risks in a high-stakes, low-tolerance environment for misconduct. This adaptation aligned with the nation's emphasis on amid , extending checks to employment history and sanctions screening for regulated industries.

Purposes and Applications

Employment Screening

Employment screening involves the use of background checks to verify candidates' qualifications, past conduct, and potential risks during the hiring process, enabling employers to make informed decisions based on verifiable rather than self-reported alone. This practice supports by identifying discrepancies in resumes and applications, where candidates often exaggerate or fabricate details such as job titles, responsibilities, skills, or academic achievements; for instance, resume is estimated to cost U.S. employers approximately $600 billion annually due to poor hires resulting from undetected lies. By cross-referencing claims against independent records, employers reduce the likelihood of onboarding unqualified or dishonest individuals, which causally contributes to improved workforce quality and operational efficiency. Nearly all U.S. employers—95% according to industry analyses—incorporate background screening into their strategies to assess fit and safeguard organizational interests. This widespread adoption stems from the empirical benefits in liability mitigation, as thorough vetting provides evidence that employers exercised in avoiding foreseeable harms from hires, such as or linked to prior criminality. Negligent hiring lawsuits, which hold employers accountable for employees' post-hire if risks were ignorable through reasonable checks, result in losses for defendants in over 75-79% of adjudicated cases, underscoring the defensive value of documented screening. Such processes have been shown to enhance overall by minimizing disruptions from bad hires and fostering trust in meritocratic advancement. While employment screening must align with (EEO) guidelines to prevent disparate impacts on protected groups, its core utility derives from data-driven rather than deference to equity mandates lacking causal evidence of superior outcomes. Employers prioritizing empirical over unproven inclusivity policies—often amplified by biased institutional sources—achieve lower turnover and higher metrics, as verified hires align more closely with role demands. This approach counters resume , detected in up to 63% of fraudulent applications leading to job offers when unchecked, by enforcing accountability through factual verification.

Firearms Purchases and Security Clearances

In the United States, background checks for firearms purchases are mandated by the and conducted via the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which verifies whether prospective buyers are prohibited under , such as due to felony convictions, fugitive status, unlawful drug use, or adjudicated mental health conditions rendering them a danger to themselves or others. NICS processes tens of millions of queries annually from federal firearms licensees; for instance, in 2022, it handled over 27 million checks, denying approximately 1% based primarily on criminal history (about 60% of denials) and mental health prohibitors (around 10%). These denials prevent access by statutorily ineligible individuals, with empirical analyses from the finding moderate evidence that such checks reduce firearm homicides, particularly through dealer-level requirements, though effects on broader rates are limited and confounded by enforcement variations and illegal trafficking. Security clearances for roles in defense, , and sensitive positions involve comprehensive beyond routine checks, focusing on risks like foreign influence, financial vulnerabilities, or personal conduct that could compromise . Applicants submit the (SF-86), a detailed questionnaire covering 10-year residency history, foreign contacts, financial records, and associations, which triggers investigations including record queries, interviews, and polygraphs for top-secret levels. This system evolved from 1940s wartime screening by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the CIA's predecessor, and post-World War II loyalty programs under in 1947, which expanded to counter threats amid tensions, prioritizing causal links between personal reliability and mission-critical safeguards. Denials or revocations often stem from unresolved foreign ties or criminality, with over 500,000 active clearances adjudicated annually by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, underscoring their role in mitigating insider threats empirically tied to historical breaches like ' 1980s . Internationally, analogous systems apply stringent checks for firearms licensing tied to public safety imperatives. In , the uses the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database for eligibility screening, including criminal records, spousal abuse history, and references, required for possession and acquisition licenses under the Firearms Act of 1995. This results in low criminal misuse rates among over 2.4 million licensed owners as of 2024, with statistical analyses showing licensed firearms involved in less than 10% of gun crimes—predominantly illegal weapons used by prohibited persons—indicating effective screening in correlating with responsible possession and reduced prohibited access.

Tenant Screening and Other Civil Uses

Landlords utilize tenant screening processes that incorporate reports, histories, and prior rental data to assess the likelihood of timely rent payments and responsible tenancy, thereby minimizing financial losses from defaults or . The Financial Protection Bureau's 2022 market analysis of tenant background checks highlights how these tools help providers identify unqualified prospects, leading to reduced delinquency rates and collections efforts. Research on landlord decision-making further indicates that the presentation of such screening data influences rental approvals, with records and scores serving as key predictors of performance. In volunteer roles within youth organizations and child-serving nonprofits, background checks are standard to prevent child exploitation or harm, often including queries against public sex offender registries mandated by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (), enacted in 2006 as Title I of the Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. These screenings, recommended by the U.S. Department of Justice, extend to criminal records and abuse registries to exclude individuals with relevant offenses, fulfilling organizational duties to protect minors entrusted to their care. Federal guidelines emphasize comprehensive checks for roles involving unsupervised contact with children, closing gaps in offender tracking through nationwide standards. Prospective adoptive and foster parents face mandatory background investigations under , including fingerprint-based FBI criminal checks and state child abuse registries, as required by the Adam Walsh Act's provisions for prospective caregivers since 2006. These evaluations aim to detect disqualifying histories of violence or , informing placement decisions to prioritize child safety in out-of-home care arrangements. State implementations, such as Minnesota's adoption process, integrate these with home studies to ensure only vetted individuals assume guardianship roles.

Components

Criminal Records Checks

Criminal records checks entail the systematic review of official government-maintained databases documenting an individual's arrests, prosecutions, convictions, and periods of incarceration, serving as a primary mechanism to evaluate potential risks in contexts such as or licensing. These checks prioritize verifiable entries from and records, distinguishing them from self-reported or unconfirmed allegations by relying on authenticated data like docket numbers and outcomes. In the United States, access typically occurs through state-level repositories housing local and county records, with federal-level inquiries possible via the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division for roles involving or vulnerable populations, though private employers generally lack direct NCIC access and must use authorized channels or state systems; however, these public records searches have limitations, including incomplete digitization of some cases, particularly in smaller jurisdictions, sealed or expunged records not appearing in accessible databases, unreported incidents absent by definition, and mismatches due to name variations, aliases, or typographical errors. Accuracy in matching records to individuals has historically depended on biometric identifiers, particularly fingerprints, following the adoption of the Henry classification system—a method developed by Sir Edward Henry in the late 19th century and implemented in U.S. criminal identification by agencies like the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services as early as 1904, with the FBI establishing its centralized fingerprint bureau in 1924 to standardize national comparisons. This system categorizes prints by ridge patterns (arches, loops, whorls), enabling precise one-to-many searches that minimize misidentification compared to name-based queries alone; modern checks often incorporate digital submissions via the FBI's Next Generation Identification system for real-time verification. Records are stratified by offense severity, encompassing misdemeanors (minor infractions punishable by up to one year in jail, such as simple assault) and felonies (grave crimes like burglary or homicide, carrying longer sentences), both of which appear on comprehensive checks unless subject to expungement or sealing, processes that legally restrict public access and erase records from most civilian databases after eligibility periods determined by jurisdiction—typically 3–10 years post-sentence completion for misdemeanors, longer for felonies—though federal and certain state checks may retain traces for high-risk evaluations. Empirical analyses indicate that documented prior convictions serve as a robust predictor of future offending, with meta-analyses of community-supervised populations showing individuals with criminal histories facing approximately three times the odds of compared to those without (pooled of 3.0 across studies involving over 185,000 participants), a pattern corroborated by tracking of released state prisoners, where 83% rearrested within nine years, escalating with offense history due to factors like diminished deterrence and entrenched behavioral patterns rather than mere correlation. Internationally, frameworks vary to reconcile public safety with offender reintegration; in the , the designates certain convictions as "spent" after rehabilitation periods (e.g., six months for minor sentences, indefinite for life terms), exempting them from disclosure on basic checks and barring routine employer inquiries, though enhanced (DBS) vetting for sensitive roles reveals them to prioritize transparency where causal risks to third parties persist. This approach reflects a trade-off, empirically supported by lower reoffending rates among rehabilitated individuals but critiqued for potentially obscuring persistent threats in unchecked scenarios.

Employment and Education Verification

Employment verification confirms an applicant's prior job titles, employment dates, salary history, and reasons for departure, typically through direct outreach to former employers or third-party databases. Employers may contact departments via phone or email, requesting verification forms, or utilize automated platforms like from , which aggregates payroll data from millions of employers to provide instant access to over 781 million records for tenure and income confirmation. These methods frequently uncover resume discrepancies, with studies indicating that approximately 25% of background checks reveal inconsistencies in claimed work history, such as exaggerated responsibilities or fabricated job stints. Over 50% of applicants misrepresent employment details, prompting 85% of employers to detect lies through such checks. Education verification authenticates claimed degrees, attendance periods, grade point averages, and certifications by liaising with academic institutions or centralized registries. serves as a primary U.S. resource, enabling 24/7 queries against data from over 3,600 colleges to validate enrollments and graduations. This step identifies credentials from unaccredited or operations, which fabricate diplomas for profit without substantive coursework, thereby preventing hires lacking requisite knowledge in skill-dependent roles. International equivalents, such as those from , extend similar scrutiny for foreign qualifications, cross-referencing against official transcripts or accreditation bodies to flag anomalies like mismatched dates or unverifiable institutions. The rigor of these verifications scales with job demands, often incorporating multiple prior employer references for senior positions to gauge performance patterns, while entry-level roles may suffice with basic confirmations. links comprehensive checks to diminished turnover, as mismatched qualifications from unverified claims elevate voluntary exits; analyses attribute up to 80% of turnover to flawed hiring, underscoring verification's role in aligning hires with role competencies and curbing premature departures.

Credit and Financial History

Credit and financial history checks in background screening entail obtaining from major credit bureaus, including , , and , which detail payment histories, outstanding debts, credit utilization, bankruptcies, tax liens, and civil judgments. These reports are regulated under the (FCRA) of 1970, which mandates employer disclosure, candidate consent, and adverse action notices if the information influences hiring decisions. Such vetting is most commonly applied to roles requiring financial oversight, such as banking, , or positions, where financial distress may signal heightened risk of misconduct involving assets. Empirical studies indicate a potential between poor histories and certain counterproductive behaviors in finance-related roles; for instance, one analysis found that job applicants with troubled financial records were nearly twice as likely to engage in workplace theft compared to those without such issues. and lien data, in particular, provide indicators of past financial mismanagement or legal encumbrances, which employers use to evaluate suitability for positions handling sensitive funds, as these records can reflect patterns of irresponsibility relevant to duties. However, while proponents argue these checks mitigate risks like by identifying individuals under economic pressure, direct causal evidence linking their implementation to reduced incidence rates remains limited, with revelations often serving as supplementary red flags rather than definitive predictors. In non-financial occupations, the predictive utility of credit checks diminishes significantly, as multiple empirical reviews have found no substantial relationship between credit scores and overall job performance, turnover, or general . This weaker linkage underscores their targeted application, avoiding overreliance in contexts where financial history bears minimal causal to role demands.

Social Media and Digital Footprint Analysis

Social media and digital footprint analysis examines candidates' public online activity, including posts, shares, and associations on platforms proliferated since the , to identify behavioral indicators such as expressions of , discriminatory attitudes, or that may signal workplace risks. This component of background checks targets digital risks absent in pre-social media eras, like reputational harm from viral content or patterns suggesting poor impulse control, which empirical data links to higher deviance probabilities. Screening methods combine manual reviews by trained analysts with AI algorithms scanning for hate speech, threats, or networked affiliations, shifting in 2025 toward predictive pattern detection—analyzing longitudinal data for recurring themes rather than single posts—to enhance causal forecasting of conduct. For instance, AI tools aggregate footprints across sites like , X, and to flag clusters of risk behaviors, with adoption rising as 73% of U.S. hiring managers reported using for evaluations in recent surveys, often to assess cultural alignment and preempt liabilities. Under U.S. law, employers may access and analyze public digital data without federal prohibition, viewing it as an extension of standard vetting for safety imperatives, though third-party involvement invokes mandates for candidate consent, adverse action notices, and exclusion of protected characteristics to avoid claims. Approximately 35 states impose limits on requesting private account access but permit public footprint scrutiny, prioritizing employer liability mitigation over unfettered privacy when public posts evince verifiable threats. Research affirms partial predictive utility: profiles exhibit adequate with personality traits like , which correlate with job performance (r ≈ 0.20-0.30 in meta-analyses), while red flags such as repeated predict elevated workplace misconduct rates, countering absolutist arguments with data on reduced incident frequencies post-screening. Single-rater reliability lags (ICC < 0.50), underscoring needs for standardized AI protocols, yet aggregate findings support causal realism in linking online patterns to offline behaviors over isolated or anecdotal concerns.

Character References and Interviews

Character references and interviews form a subjective yet essential element of background checks, involving direct contact with a candidate's former supervisors, colleagues, or professional acquaintances to assess personal attributes such as , adaptability, and interpersonal dynamics. These interactions yield qualitative evaluations of behavioral traits that quantitative like criminal records cannot capture, offering employers predictive insights into a candidate's potential cultural fit and reliability in unscripted scenarios. For example, references may highlight strengths in or reveal patterns of not evident in verifications. Structured questioning protocols, including predefined behavioral anchors and numerical ratings, are employed to standardize responses and curb interpretive biases inherent in open-ended inquiries. Human resource studies demonstrate that such formats enhance assessment consistency; a 2022 analysis of over 1 million references across industries found structured methods reduced gender-related disparities in evaluations by prompting fact-based replies over anecdotal praise. This approach counters the tendency for unstructured checks to favor superficial positivity, as referees often hesitate to disclose negatives due to litigation risks. By eliciting firsthand accounts, these checks causally supplement formal records in detecting latent risks, such as unreported instances of or ethical lapses that evade due to internal resolutions or fear of escalation. U.S. Office of Personnel Management guidelines emphasize that thorough probing has prevented negligent hiring claims by surfacing behaviors predictive of future misconduct, with past performance serving as the strongest indicator of recurrence. In practice, inquiries into or have uncovered issues like subtle patterns, which, while not criminal, correlate with higher turnover and liability exposure. To ensure robustness against disputes, documentation protocols mandate contemporaneous notes detailing the referee's identity, contact date, exact questions (e.g., "Describe instances of the candidate's handling of disagreements"), and response summaries, avoiding subjective interpretations. Federal employment law precedents underscore that verifiable records shield employers from suits, as seen in cases where incomplete notes led to invalidated hiring decisions; best practices recommend audio where permissible and cross-verification with multiple sources for contested claims.

Identity and Biometric Verification

Identity verification in background checks entails confirming that the individual presenting credentials is authentically the person they claim to be, thereby mitigating risks of or impersonation during hiring or clearance processes. This step typically involves cross-referencing provided identifiers against databases to detect discrepancies in Social Security numbers (SSNs), dates of birth (DOBs), or associated addresses, distinct from historical record examinations. Such checks are foundational to preventing synthetic , where fabricated personas are used to secure or access sensitive roles. A core method is the SSN trace, which queries public and proprietary databases—including credit bureaus, utility records, and educational institutions—to validate an SSN's issuance, validity, and linkage to the applicant's name and DOB. This process uncovers mismatches, such as SSNs tied to deceased individuals or inconsistent geographic histories, signaling potential . Employers often initiate traces as an initial screening tool before deeper investigations, leveraging services that aggregate data from multiple sources for comprehensive validation. The Social Security Administration's (SSA) verification tools, like the SSN Verification Service, enable direct confirmation of employee SSNs against federal records, while Consent-Based SSN Verification (CBSV) provides enhanced anomaly detection through applicant-authorized queries. In high-stakes scenarios, such as government employment, security clearances, or transportation roles, biometric verification supplements database checks by capturing physiological traits for irrefutable personhood confirmation. Fingerprints, collected via systems like the FBI's (IAFIS), are scanned against national repositories to affirm identity during background , with expansions post-September 11, 2001, integrating into programs like the Department of Homeland Security's IDENT/OBIM for traveler and applicant screening. DNA profiling, though rarer in routine checks due to cost and invasiveness, is employed in forensic or military contexts for ultimate verification, as seen in identity resolutions during operations. These modalities reduce reliance on self-reported data, addressing vulnerabilities in document forgery. Internationally, frameworks like the European Union's regulation facilitate cross-border identity assurance through schemes, enabling verifiable digital credentials for and verification without physical presence. -qualified trust services, including electronic signatures and seals, support attribute confirmation (e.g., name, age, nationality) across member states, aiding multinational employers in fraud-resistant hiring. Updated under 2.0 in 2024, these tools mandate acceptance of digital wallets for high-assurance , promoting standardized, interoperable checks amid rising global mobility.

Processes and Methods

Sources and Data Aggregation

Background checks rely on a combination of public records from government-maintained repositories, such as court documents, vital statistics, and property filings, and private databases curated by consumer reporting agencies that compile data from disparate origins. Public records originate from state and local jurisdictions, including criminal justice systems and civil courts, while private databases often aggregate information from thousands of sources to form national compilations like "nat-crim" files, which draw from federal, state, and local levels without direct primary access to restricted government systems. Data aggregation involves systematically pulling and cross-referencing information across these sources to achieve comprehensiveness, as individual records may be incomplete or fragmented; for instance, national criminal databases serve as pointer tools that identify potential hits for further verification from original jurisdictions. This process typically employs interfaces like APIs to access and integrate data from multiple repositories, enabling a unified view despite variations in format and availability, though empirical assessments highlight that aggregation enhances coverage but requires validation to mitigate inaccuracies from outdated or unverified entries. Under the (FCRA), aggregation for employment or other permissible purposes mandates obtaining the subject's written consent via a clear disclosure of the intent to procure a consumer report, ensuring legal access to credit, criminal, and other while prohibiting unauthorized compilation. Despite these requirements, holistic aggregation remains empirically essential for , as siloed sources often fail to capture full histories, particularly in cases involving relocations or expungements not uniformly propagated. Multi-jurisdictional aggregation faces challenges from inconsistent state reporting standards and access protocols, compounded by the need for interstate mechanisms like the (III) and National Fingerprint File (NFF), which facilitate compact-based sharing of criminal history records among participating states to bridge gaps in decentralized systems. Non-participation or delays in these compacts can result in incomplete pulls, as each maintains control over its records, necessitating manual follow-ups for accuracy across borders.

Third-Party Screening Services

Third-party screening services encompass specialized firms that conduct background checks on behalf of employers, aggregating data from , databases, and verifiers to streamline hiring processes. In 2026, top providers for background check and credentialing solutions include First Advantage, HireRight, Checkr, GoodHire, and Certn, which are frequently ranked highly for employment background screening services encompassing credential verification, education checks, and license verifications; First Advantage and HireRight are particularly noted for broad, integrated screening including credentialing aspects. Major providers such as these, along with Sterling, collectively handle millions of checks annually for businesses worldwide. Consumer-oriented third-party services, such as TruthFinder and BeenVerified, offer Premium Background Reports that typically include criminal records, such as arrest records, convictions, and sex offender information. These services enable rapid turnaround, with some reporting completion rates under 24 hours for standard checks, enhancing recruitment efficiency without requiring in-house expertise. In 2025 benchmarks, accuracy emerged as the paramount concern for screening, surpassing speed in surveys of over 1,100 HR professionals, as discrepancies in results can lead to hiring risks exceeding $4,000 per negligent hire on average. HireRight's span multiple continents, supporting checks in over 190 countries, while GoodHire facilitates international screenings in 223 territories, allowing employers to assess candidates beyond domestic borders efficiently. This global reach addresses the needs of multinational firms, where localized data access varies, yet providers maintain standardized reporting to minimize errors. Outsourcing to these services yields cost benefits through and specialized infrastructure, reducing per-check expenses by up to 30% compared to internal efforts, according to industry analyses. Employers mitigate liability by delegating handling to providers experienced in objective reporting, which helps avoid discriminatory practices and associated legal exposures. Such delegation frees HR teams from administrative burdens, allowing focus on core talent acquisition while leveraging providers' volume-driven efficiencies. Accreditation by the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA) underscores reliability, requiring adherence to rigorous standards for and , with accredited firms demonstrating error rates below 0.1% in peer audits. PBSA status, held by leading providers like , signals commitment to verifiable processes, boosting employer confidence in results' integrity over unaccredited alternatives. This framework ensures consistent performance, particularly in high-volume scenarios where manual checks falter.

Technological Tools and Automation

The transition from manual, paper-based background checks to digital systems began accelerating in the 1990s with the advent of widespread computerization and connectivity, enabling the integration of and reducing reliance on physical records retrieval. This shift markedly improved processing efficiency, with turnaround times dropping from weeks or months in manual eras to days or hours in early digital implementations, as automated querying replaced labor-intensive courthouse visits and mailed inquiries. Modern technological tools for background check execution primarily consist of specialized software platforms that streamline workflows through features such as portals, electronic , and real-time status tracking. Platforms like Checkr and GoodHire facilitate end-to-end , including order initiation, document collection, and result dissemination, often with built-in compliance reminders to flag regulatory requirements during processing. Automated alerts are a core component, notifying administrators instantly upon detection of record hits, such as criminal convictions or verification discrepancies, to expedite without constant manual monitoring. Integration with human resources information systems (HRIS) and applicant tracking systems (ATS) further enhances by embedding checks into existing hiring pipelines, allowing seamless flow from application to screening without redundant . For instance, providers like Verified Credentials and Associates offer API-based connections to popular HRIS platforms, enabling automated triggering of checks upon candidate advancement and direct import of results into personnel files. This , refined since the early 2000s, minimizes errors from manual transcription and supports scalable operations for high-volume employers.

United States Federal Regulations

The (FCRA), enacted in 1970 and codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., serves as the primary federal statute regulating the use of consumer reports—including employment background checks—by employers. It mandates that employers obtain written consent from applicants before procuring such reports from consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), provide a clear disclosure of the intent to do so, and furnish copies of the report along with a summary of rights if adverse action is taken based on its contents. The law emphasizes accuracy by requiring CRAs to follow reasonable procedures to ensure report reliability and allowing consumers to dispute inaccuracies, with employers prohibited from using reports without a permissible purpose such as decisions. Amendments, including the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, have strengthened consumer protections by enhancing dispute mechanisms and limiting reporting of certain outdated information, such as non-conviction arrests after seven years. Under Title VII of the , enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal regulations prohibit employment practices, including background checks, that have a on protected classes unless justified by business necessity. The EEOC's 2012 Enforcement Guidance advises that blanket exclusions based on criminal history may violate Title VII if they disproportionately affect racial or ethnic minorities without individualized assessment linking the record to job risks, recommending employers validate criteria through evidence of reduced workplace harm. However, courts have upheld employer defenses where empirical data demonstrates job-relatedness; in EEOC v. Freeman (decided 2015 by the Fourth Circuit), the EEOC's claims of from uniform criminal and credit checks failed due to flawed statistical analysis and lack of reliable evidence, affirming for the employer on grounds that the practices served legitimate financial integrity needs. Federal drug testing policies, integrated into background checks for safety-sensitive roles, remain stringent post-2020 under Department of Health and Human Services guidelines, classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance and authorizing tests via or oral fluid without deference to state legalization. Updates to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs in 2023 and 2025 refined analyte cutoffs and testing panels but preserved prohibitions on use, requiring federal contractors and agencies to maintain drug-free environments irrespective of state laws. These rules prioritize verifiable impairment risks over evolving social attitudes, with no federal amendments post-2020 easing restrictions for private employers under FCRA or EEOC frameworks.

State Variations in the US

State laws in the United States diverge significantly from the federal baseline under the , with some states adopting permissive policies that allow employers broad discretion in timing criminal history inquiries, while others impose restrictive "ban-the-box" or fair chance hiring requirements that delay such questions until after a conditional job offer. As of 2025, 37 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted ban-the-box policies applicable to employers, and 13 of these extend restrictions to private employers, aiming to reduce barriers for applicants with criminal records. However, empirical analyses indicate these laws yield minimal increases in employment rates for ex-offenders, with one study finding negligible impacts on hiring callbacks in jurisdictions like . Restrictive policies have produced , including statistical where employers, lacking early criminal history , infer higher risk from proxies like age, race, or neighborhood, disproportionately reducing job prospects for young and men. A analysis further links ban-the-box adoption to elevated , as expanded hiring of ex-offenders without prior vetting correlates with a 3.8% rise in rates, heightening employer exposure to risks from undisclosed offenses. In contrast, permissive states enable pre-application screening, potentially mitigating such risks by allowing informed decisions earlier in the process. Florida exemplifies a permissive approach, lacking a statewide ban-the-box for private employers and permitting criminal background checks at any hiring stage without timing restrictions. This facilitates broader access to records, including no limits on look-back periods for convictions, contrasting with California's more restrictive framework under the Fair Chance Act, which prohibits conviction history inquiries before a conditional offer and mandates individualized assessments post-offer, with regulations updated effective October 1, 2023, to impose stricter documentation and notice requirements. Evidence from restrictive environments suggests employers face amplified liabilities, as delayed disclosures can lead to rescinding offers after investments in , compounded by incomplete initial evaluations. Michigan has seen recent adjustments through Public Act 229 of 2024, effective April 2, 2025, which eliminates mandatory fingerprint-based background checks for petitions, shifting to less invasive methods like queries to streamline proceedings while preserving verification integrity. Complementing this, 's expanded Clean Slate laws, including automatic expungement provisions enacted in prior years and implemented progressively, have altered the visibility of certain records in checks, prompting courts and employers to adapt screening protocols amid concerns over delayed processing and accuracy gaps. These changes reflect efforts to balance access with public safety, though they introduce variability in record disclosure that can complicate compliance for multistate employers.

International Differences and Compliance

In the , the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), effective from May 25, 2018, imposes stringent limits on in background checks, including profiling that produces legal effects or significantly affects individuals. Article 22 prohibits decisions based solely on automated processing unless they are necessary for entering or performing a , authorized by Union or with safeguards, or based on explicit , with data subjects retaining rights to human intervention, explanation, and contestation. This framework prioritizes privacy by necessitating transparency, data minimization, and explicit legal bases for processing sensitive like criminal records, often requiring candidate and limiting employer access to aggregated or self-reported information. The operates a tiered system through the (), which provides varying levels of disclosure tailored to job risks, reflecting a balance favoring public safety in regulated sectors. Basic checks reveal only unspent convictions under the , while Standard checks include both spent and unspent convictions and cautions; Enhanced checks add police intelligence and, where applicable, barred list status for roles involving children or vulnerable adults. These levels, mandatory for positions in , healthcare, and childcare, enable detailed vetting but are subject to post-Brexit data rules akin to GDPR, with filtering rules expunging minor, non-relevant offenses after set periods. In the , background checks commonly involve the Verklaring Omtrent het Gedrag (), a certificate of conduct issued by the Ministry of Justice's Justis agency, assessing whether an applicant's criminal history poses a risk to the specific job function. The evaluates offenses against job-specific criteria, such as financial for banking roles, and is required for professions like or transportation; applicants apply directly, with Justis reviewing records from the Judicial . This individualized risk-based approach complies with GDPR by focusing on relevance rather than blanket disclosure, though refusals can be appealed. Poland's Krajowy Rejestr Karny (), the National Criminal Register, facilitates screening via certificates confirming the absence or details of convictions, but access is tightly controlled under GDPR Article 10, which treats criminal data as special category information requiring explicit legal authorization or . Employers cannot directly query the KRK database; instead, candidates must obtain and provide their own certificates, with limited to necessity for the role and subject to data protection impact assessments. This setup curtails proactive employer-led checks, emphasizing candidate privacy over comprehensive pre-hire disclosure. Brazil's Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (LGPD), enforced since September 18, 2020, mirrors GDPR in requiring explicit consent for processing in background checks, including criminal and credit histories, with fines up to 2% of Brazilian revenue for non-compliance. Employers must justify data use as essential to hiring, store it securely, and allow data subjects rights to access, rectification, and deletion; criminal checks often rely on public registries or candidate-provided documents, prohibiting unauthorized or automated inferences without safeguards. These divergent regimes—ranging from EU-wide privacy restrictions to role-specific disclosures in the UK and consent-driven models in and Poland—pose compliance challenges for multinational employers, necessitating localized consent protocols, data transfer agreements, and risk assessments to avoid cross-border violations, often through third-party vendors versed in regional variances.

Legislative Updates Post-2020

In the United States, several states expanded fair chance hiring policies after 2020 to delay or restrict inquiries into criminal history, aiming to broaden applicant pools amid labor shortages. For instance, Washington's Fair Chance Act was updated with enforcement mechanisms, including fines up to $15,000 for repeat violations of restrictions on pre-offer criminal inquiries. Similarly, by 2025, over 35 states and numerous localities enforced ban-the-box laws prohibiting initial criminal history questions on applications, with some mandating individualized assessments post-offer. These measures correlate with modest reductions in some studies, as access lowers reoffense risks, yet empirical data indicate persistent employer vulnerabilities: approximately 25% of individuals with a first reoffend within 10 years, elevating negligent hiring liabilities for unchecked records. California's 2023 SB 809 proposal sought to prohibit most conviction history checks except in legally mandated cases, effectively narrowing employer discretion, but the bill failed to advance beyond committee. Parallel shifts addressed ; AB 2188, effective January 2024, barred employers from discriminating against applicants based on non-psychoactive metabolites in tests, reflecting trends across 24 states by 2025. Evidence on workplace safety remains mixed: recreational legalization linked to a 10% rise in injuries among younger workers, though causal ties to on-duty impairment vary due to off-hours use factors. Internationally, the European Union's AI Act, entering force in August 2024, classified AI-driven background screening tools as high-risk when used in contexts, mandating transparency, audits, and human oversight to mitigate discriminatory outcomes. Exceptions permit AI augmentation of decisions backed by verifiable evidence, such as documented criminal incidents, preserving utility while curbing opaque algorithmic rejections. By 2025, trends toward —blockchain-secured digital proofs of identity and history—gained traction globally, enabling privacy-focused verification without full record disclosures, as piloted in frameworks to streamline compliance amid fragmented regulations. These developments prioritize empirical risk calibration over blanket restrictions, though critics note potential underestimation of hazards in data-scarce implementations.

Integration of AI and Advanced Analytics

AI algorithms in background checks leverage to perform predictive risk assessments by identifying causal patterns in disparate data sources, such as correlating past behaviors with future probabilities rather than relying solely on static records. This approach distinguishes transient incidents from persistent traits, enabling tools to flag ongoing risks like repeated patterns of aggression in interactions over isolated events from years prior. For example, platforms employing recurrent neural networks analyze temporal sequences in digital footprints to prioritize candidates with reformed histories, achieving up to 25% better differentiation in risk categorization compared to rule-based systems. In 2025, via has emerged as a core analytic for social media screening, quantifying emotional tones in posts—such as negativity or —to infer current behavioral stability. Tools like those from specialized vendors process vast public datasets to detect subtle indicators, like escalating , reducing reliance on manual review and minimizing overlooked ongoing threats. Enterprises adopting these methods reported a 40% decrease in verification timelines alongside enhanced precision in identifying active versus historical risks, per a 2024 industry analysis. Advanced mitigates false positives by models on verified outcomes, where algorithms refine thresholds dynamically to avoid conflating common names or outdated records with genuine matches. This yields accuracy gains, with AI-integrated screenings demonstrating 30% improvements in hit rates for relevant risks in benchmark tests against traditional methods. However, such systems require high-quality to prevent propagation of historical biases, underscoring the need for ongoing validation against empirical hiring outcomes. Predictive analytics further integrate causal modeling to forecast or workplace fit by simulating scenarios from multifaceted inputs, outperforming rote aggregation in scenarios involving incomplete records. SHRM's 2024 report notes that 75% of HR professionals using AI analytics observed heightened reliability in predictions, though full depends on transparent algorithmic auditing to align with causal realities over correlative artifacts.

Global Standardization Efforts

Efforts to establish global standards for background checks have been limited and sector-specific, largely due to jurisdictional differences in data privacy laws and national sovereignty over criminal records. Unlike domestic regulations such as the U.S. , no comprehensive international or binding framework mandates uniform background screening practices across borders. Instead, initiatives focus on voluntary guidelines and best practices promoted by industry associations and standards bodies, particularly in high-risk sectors like and . For instance, the Professional Background Screening Association (PBSA), which includes international members, advocates for consistent and compliance in screening processes, though its programs are not universally enforced. A key framework influencing global practices is provided by the (ISO) through ISO/IEC 27001:2022, the standard for security management systems (ISMS). Annex A control 6.1 requires organizations to conduct background verification checks on all employees and selected suppliers prior to , tailored to roles handling sensitive , with verification of , , and criminal records where feasible. This control, updated in the 2022 revision from prior versions like ISO 27001:2013, emphasizes proportionality to legal requirements and risk levels, allowing flexibility across jurisdictions but promoting a baseline for security-conscious entities. Compliance with ISO 27001, achieved by thousands of organizations worldwide as of 2023, indirectly standardizes screening in certified firms, though it does not address non-security roles or mandate criminal database access uniformity. Challenges to broader standardization persist, including restrictions under the European Union's (GDPR), effective 2018, which limits cross-border data transfers for background checks without explicit consent or adequacy decisions, contrasting with more permissive regimes elsewhere. Industry reports highlight multinational employers developing internal "centers of excellence" to harmonize processes, such as centralizing vendor management for global criminal record searches covering up to 195 countries, but these remain proprietary rather than standardized. Emerging trends, including (SSI) technologies piloted since 2023, aim to enable portable, across borders, potentially reducing reliance on disparate national databases, yet adoption lags due to issues and regulatory hurdles. Empirical data from 2023 surveys indicate 93% of global organizations conduct some screening, but variances in scope—e.g., mandatory in versus optional in tech—underscore the absence of enforced uniformity.

Accuracy, Reliability, and Challenges

Empirical Evidence on Error Rates

A 2024 study analyzing criminal for 101 individuals in found significant discrepancies between official state reports and private-sector background used in screening. Regulated private exhibited false-positive errors (reporting convictions absent from state ) in 60% of cases and false-negative errors (omitting state-recorded charges) in 90% of cases, while unregulated showed false positives in 50% and false negatives in 92%. Overall, regulated private missed 50.8% of charges documented in state , and 42% of their reported charges were unsubstantiated "orphan " not matching state data; unregulated performed worse, missing 80.5% of state charges and including 73.5% orphan . These findings align with earlier reports on background checks, where inaccuracies affect a substantial portion of screened applicants. A 2019 National Consumer Law Center documented persistent errors in commercial criminal , including outdated or mismatched leading to wrongful denials, though without population-level rates. Surveys indicate error rates around 25% in some pre- screenings, often involving identity mix-ups or incomplete reporting. In contrast, federal firearm background checks via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) demonstrate higher accuracy, with an immediate determination rate exceeding 91% in 2024 operations, though gaps in state-level reporting contribute to potential underreporting of disqualifying records (false negatives). RAND analyses of NICS highlight effective denial processing but note inconsistencies in prohibitor data completeness across jurisdictions, without quantifying overall error percentages. Despite documented inaccuracies, approximately 95% of U.S. employers conduct some form of background screening, suggesting that perceived benefits in generally outweigh error concerns in practice. This widespread adoption, reported by industry benchmarks, underscores the checks' operational utility even amid variability in precision.

Factors Contributing to Inaccuracies

One primary cause of inaccuracies in background checks stems from the predominant use of name and date-of-birth matching rather than biometric identifiers like fingerprints, which facilitates errors, particularly for individuals with common names or ethnic surnames. This method inherently risks conflating records of unrelated persons, as private screening companies aggregate data from disparate public and commercial databases without uniform verification protocols, leading to false positives where convictions are erroneously attributed. For instance, simple variations in name spelling or aliases can result in mixed files during compilation. Database lags and incomplete updates further exacerbate errors, as systems often delay reporting dispositions to centralized repositories, causing reports to reflect arrests without subsequent acquittals, dismissals, or convictions. Private aggregators, reliant on periodic pulls from state and county sources, may propagate outdated information due to infrequent synchronization or reliance on secondary vendors, creating variances between official and commercial outputs. These discrepancies arise causally from fragmented jurisdictional reporting structures, where local courts or agencies prioritize operational needs over timely data dissemination to external compilers, compounded by inherent limitations of public records searches: not all cases are digitized, particularly in jurisdictions with legacy systems; sealed or expunged records do not appear by legal design; and unreported incidents are absent from databases by definition. Confusion over record status, such as sealed or expunged entries persisting in checks, originates from inconsistent compliance by private databases with court orders, as these entities often retain historical data for commercial reuse without mandatory purging mechanisms. Expungement legally restricts public access, yet aggregator incentives to maintain comprehensive archives—driven by client demand for thoroughness—can lead to residual appearances, especially if notifications of expungement fail to propagate across all networked sources. Human input errors during amplify inaccuracies, particularly in multi-jurisdictional or international searches, where manual transcription from scanned documents or non-standardized foreign records introduces transcription mistakes, translation variances, or overlooked contextual details like jurisdictional nuances. In cross-border pulls, differing legal definitions of reportable offenses and reliance on third-party translators heighten the risk of misinterpretation, as screeners without localized expertise may incorrectly equate or omit equivalents between systems.

Mitigation and Quality Control Measures

To mitigate inaccuracies in background checks, consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and employers employ multi-source cross-verification, drawing from primary records such as court databases, government registries, and direct employer confirmations rather than relying solely on secondary aggregators. This approach involves real-time cross-checking across trusted sources to confirm details like criminal convictions or history, reducing discrepancies from outdated or mismatched . Under the (FCRA), applicants can dispute inaccurate or incomplete information in background reports, triggering a mandatory reinvestigation by the CRA. Employers must provide applicants with a pre-adverse action notice, including a copy of the report and a summary of , allowing at least five business days for response before final decisions. CRAs are required to complete investigations within 30 days of receiving a dispute, often resolving them in 2-3 business days through source re-verification or applicant-provided evidence. Quality control is further enhanced through regular audits and adherence to industry standards, with leading providers prioritizing accuracy as the top criterion in screening programs. HireRight's 2025 Global Benchmark Report, based on surveys of over 1,000 organizations, identifies accuracy of results as the primary global priority for selecting screening partners, surpassing speed or cost, and emphasizes ongoing audits to verify data integrity. Technological integrations, such as biometric identity verification, address identity mismatch errors by confirming applicant details against physiological traits like facial recognition or fingerprints during screening. Partnerships like Data Facts with Cerebrum's vID platform achieve over 99.9% data accuracy in processed checks, minimizing and alias-related inaccuracies through automated biometric matching prior to record pulls.

Controversies and Debates

Privacy Versus Public Safety Trade-offs

The tension between rights and public safety in background checks arises from the need to access sensitive , such as criminal histories, to assess employment risks while safeguarding individuals from unwarranted intrusions or misuse of information. proponents emphasize that unrestricted access to records can perpetuate stigma and violate data minimization principles, as seen in regulatory frameworks like the EU's (GDPR), which mandates explicit legal bases for processing criminal conviction and imposes fines up to 4% of global annual turnover for violations. For instance, GDPR enforcement has scrutinized HR practices involving background screening for lacking proper or necessity, highlighting systemic concerns over and individual autonomy in jurisdictions prioritizing informational . Conversely, public safety arguments rest on causal links between unverified hires and elevated risks, with employer surveys indicating that 60% conduct criminal checks specifically to minimize threats like and , as unchecked backgrounds correlate with negligent hiring liabilities. Empirical data from workplace incident reports reveal that failure to screen can expose employees to harm from individuals with prior violent offenses; for example, U.S. records show nearly 17,000 private industry workers injured by in 2016 alone, many tied to inadequate pre-employment in high-risk sectors. further substantiates that criminal serve as predictors of , with studies estimating that ex-offenders reoffend at rates up to 67% within three years, underscoring the preventive value of checks in averting foreseeable harms without relying on post-incident remedies. This debate pits libertarian views, which subordinate collective safety to inviolable privacy barriers against utilitarian perspectives favoring calibrated disclosures to maximize net welfare where empirical risks are demonstrable. Proponents of the latter argue that subordinating absolute to verifiable aligns with causal prevention of tangible injuries, as evidenced by reduced liability claims in firms adopting routine screening; critics counter that such erodes absent ironclad error-proofing. Overall, disinterested analyses suggest that targeted, lawful checks yield safety gains outweighing privacy costs when confined to relevant convictions and recent , though ongoing empirical scrutiny is needed to refine thresholds.

Claims of Discrimination and Disparate Impact

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has pursued multiple lawsuits alleging that employer policies requiring criminal background checks result in disparate impact discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, primarily affecting African American and Hispanic applicants due to statistically higher conviction rates among these groups. In cases such as EEOC v. Sheetz Inc. (filed April 2024) and earlier actions against Dollar General and BMW Manufacturing, the agency claimed that blanket exclusions based on criminal history screens disproportionately exclude protected classes without individualized assessment. Civil rights organizations, including the National Employment Law Project, echo these critiques, arguing that such checks perpetuate racial disparities rooted in systemic biases within the criminal justice system, effectively importing discrimination into hiring decisions. Courts have frequently rejected EEOC claims where employers demonstrate business necessity, particularly when criminal history serves as a validated predictor of or workplace misconduct relevant to the job. In EEOC v. Freeman (2013), a federal court criticized the agency's methodology and upheld the employer's defense, noting that criminal records correlate with future risks in roles involving financial responsibility or public trust, satisfying Title VII's requirement for job-related criteria. Empirical analyses support this, showing that prior convictions predict higher rates, with meta-analyses indicating effect sizes sufficient to justify targeted exclusions in safety-sensitive positions. While ex-offenders experience elevated rates—estimated at 27-30% post-release compared to the general population's 5-6%—no rigorous causal evidence links background checks themselves to spikes in joblessness beyond the underlying signal of elevated . Instead, employer aversion stems from documented performance differences; a 2018 study using U.S. found that ex-offenders hired despite exhibited longer job tenure and comparable productivity to non-offenders, suggesting selection effects where only low-risk individuals secure positions, but not that checks arbitrarily inflate . Civil rights advocates prioritize group outcome equity by advocating record-blind policies, yet indicate such approaches may undermine accountability by increasing hiring of higher- candidates without reducing or boosting sustained employment.

Efficacy in Risk Reduction and Empirical Critiques

Empirical data demonstrate that background checks effectively reduce risks by blocking access to firearms for prohibited individuals. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), operational since November 1998, has processed over 500 million checks and resulted in more than two million denials, primarily due to convictions, misdemeanors, and other disqualifying factors. Systematic reviews of policies, including dealer background checks, find moderate evidence that they lower homicide rates by preventing transfers to high-risk persons. In contexts, criminal background checks similarly mitigate workplace risks such as and . Employers conduct these checks to reduce negligent hiring liability and minimize threats, with approximately 60% citing prevention as a key rationale. Analyses confirm that such practices lower the incidence of property crimes and other harms in screened workforces, as unvetted hires correlate with higher victimization costs for businesses and employees. Critiques emphasizing employment barriers from checks often overlook these preventive gains, including the tangible costs of alternatives like hiring without verification, which elevate losses and legal exposures as noted in reentry studies. While false negatives—cases where prohibited or high-risk individuals evade detection—represent a limitation due to record discrepancies, their probability remains low relative to successful identifications, yielding net risk reductions. Overall, the empirical balance favors efficacy, with preventive denials and lowered incident rates outweighing isolated misses in peer-assessed outcomes.

Policy Debates: Ban-the-Box and Fair Chance Initiatives

Ban-the-box policies prohibit employers from inquiring about applicants' criminal histories on initial job applications, typically delaying such questions until after a conditional offer or later stages. As of 2024, 37 U.S. states and over 150 cities and counties have enacted such laws, often applying to public employers and sometimes private ones with varying thresholds for employee size. Empirical analyses indicate these policies yield limited or no sustained benefits for ex-offenders. A 2018 study using administrative data from multiple states found that ban-the-box implementation reduced rates among young and men by up to 3.4 percentage points shortly after release, attributing this to employers engaging in statistical by inferring higher criminal risk from demographic proxies when direct record access is delayed. Similarly, a submitting fictitious resumes to job postings in jurisdictions with and without ban-the-box showed callback rates for applicants falling by 4.2 percentage points relative to whites post-policy, widening the racial gap and suggesting employers statistically discriminate against groups with higher average rates. Other research confirms no long-term gains in ex-offender hiring, with initial application surges fading as employers adapt by intensifying later-stage screening. Critics argue ban-the-box undermines employer , potentially increasing workplace hazards without proportional reintegration benefits, as causal links timely criminal checks to lower hiring of high-risk individuals. Proponents, including advocacy groups like the National Employment Law Project, claim it fosters fairer evaluations by focusing first on qualifications, though such views often rely on correlational data rather than randomized controls and overlook disparate impacts on minority applicants. Fair Chance Initiatives extend beyond ban-the-box to include voluntary pledges, certificates of , and mandates for individualized assessments weighing offense severity, rehabilitation evidence, and job relevance against blanket exclusions. Federal efforts, such as the 2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance urging such tailored reviews, aim to balance second-chance opportunities with employer discretion. Empirical data supports individualized approaches over uniform delays, as studies show employers hire ex-offenders when records indicate low risk (e.g., non-violent offenses over five years prior), reducing negligent hiring liabilities while avoiding broad signals. Policy debates pit reintegration advocates—often aligned with left-leaning perspectives emphasizing societal barriers to ex-offender success—against those prioritizing employer and public safety, who cite causal links between unvetted hires and elevated or incident rates. Evidence tilts toward the latter, as randomized audits reveal policies restricting early inquiries amplify proxy-based exclusions without verifiable net lifts for record-holders, favoring reforms enabling precise, evidence-based vetting over procedural hurdles.

Societal Impacts and Evidence

Benefits for Employers and Public Safety

Employers conducting background checks can substantially mitigate legal liabilities arising from negligent hiring claims, in which they may be held responsible for damages inflicted by employees with undisclosed criminal histories that foreseeably posed risks to others. Such checks provide documentation of , which courts have upheld as a defense against or means to reduce liability in these cases. Negligent hiring lawsuits often yield settlements or judgments approaching one million dollars on average, underscoring the financial stakes involved. By screening for criminal records and other red flags, employers enhance workplace safety, a leading rationale for implementing these procedures according to professionals. This practice helps exclude candidates with histories of violence or , thereby diminishing the probability of on-the-job incidents that endanger colleagues or clients. In sectors like healthcare and , organizations report correlations between rigorous screening and reductions in , with one analysis noting a 40 percent decline in incidents over two years following enhanced protocols. For broader public safety, background checks preemptively bar high-risk individuals from positions that could facilitate , such as roles granting access to valuables, transportation, or vulnerable populations, thereby curtailing crimes enabled by opportunities. Empirical assessments affirm that these exclusions minimize threats like or assaults in professional settings, indirectly safeguarding communities reliant on safe service provision. Economically, verified screenings promote by confirming credentials and exposing fabrications, fostering teams of competent, trustworthy personnel that sustain higher levels. Employers leveraging checks report diminished turnover from poor fits and prevention, yielding net savings that outweigh screening costs through stabilized operations and resource allocation.

Effects on Employment Outcomes and Recidivism

Individuals with criminal experience significantly reduced employment prospects due to background checks, with studies demonstrating callback rates approximately 50% lower compared to those without . In field experiments, white applicants with convictions received callbacks at rates of about 15-17%, versus 34% for clean , while the penalty is even steeper for applicants. Longitudinal data confirm this hiring barrier persists, as states expanding online access to criminal histories correlate with worse labor market outcomes for ex-offenders. When ex-offenders are hired despite disclosed records, however, they exhibit greater job stability, with average tenure 19 days longer and lower voluntary quit rates than employees without records. This pattern holds particularly in roles, where those with records show comparable performance and 21 days longer tenure, suggesting self-selection or heightened motivation to retain . Such stability may stem from fewer alternative opportunities, reducing turnover but aiding reintegration for those vetted and employed. Regarding recidivism, employment broadly deters reoffending, with employed ex-offenders rearrested at rates 16 percentage points lower (26% vs. 42%) than the unemployed in cohort studies. Background check denials, however, causally increase recidivism risks, raising one-year rearrest probabilities by up to 2.7 percentage points and three-year by 4%, especially among higher-risk individuals denied provisional jobs. While checks thus erect barriers potentially exacerbating unemployment-driven recidivism, they mitigate unvetted hiring risks—such as workplace recidivism—prioritizing causal protection for employers and colleagues over unmitigated exposure to prior offenders. Empirical critiques note that without checks, innocent parties face elevated victimization odds from undetected high-risk hires, outweighing marginal barrier effects on screened applicants.

Broader Economic and Social Consequences

Background checks facilitate trust in labor and commercial markets by reducing asymmetric about candidates' histories, thereby lowering the incidence of employee-perpetrated and , which contribute to broader economic losses from estimated at 2-5% of global GDP annually. These mechanisms help avert negligent hiring, where undisclosed criminal records could lead to harms or financial misconduct, supporting efficient without excessive regulatory burdens. In the U.S., the background check industry itself generates over $5 billion in annual revenue, reflecting demand driven by risk mitigation needs amid rising cyber and threats. On the social front, such checks enhance community safety by enabling employers and organizations to exclude individuals with records of or predation, thereby protecting potential victims from disproportionate harm inflicted by repeat offenders—a small chronic subset responsible for up to 63% of violent crimes in studied populations. This approach counters claims of overreach by prioritizing empirical patterns of , where rearrest rates exceed 70% within five years for many released prisoners, underscoring the causal link between unchecked access to positions of trust and elevated public risks. Data from victim surveys and affirm that preventive screening aligns with causal realism in vulnerable groups, rather than relying on post-harm interventions. Over the long term, background checks foster societal by tying to demonstrated behavioral , incentivizing desistance from as individuals weigh the persistent costs of prior actions against opportunities in a records-aware . Empirical analyses indicate that sustained crime-free periods—often four to seven years—correlate with risks approaching those of the general population, suggesting checks reinforce this trajectory without mandating perpetual exclusion. This dynamic may contribute to macro-level declines by embedding personal responsibility in market signals, potentially amplifying deterrence effects beyond isolated incidents.

References

  1. https://www.scoutlogicscreening.com/blog/what-does-background-check-consist-of/
  2. https://www.adp.com/resources/articles-and-insights/articles/b/background-screening.aspx
  3. https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/carow/carow-policy/short-history-criminal-background-searches-employment
  4. https://peopletrail.com/history-of-background-checks/
  5. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/employer-background-checks-and-your-rights
  6. https://www.deel.com/blog/employee-background-check-united-states/
  7. https://www.eeoc.gov/background-checks
  8. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/background-checks-what-employers-need-know
  9. https://www.veremark.com/blog/10-different-types-of-employment-background-checks-to-consider-in-your-hiring-process
  10. https://www.scoutlogicscreening.com/blog/types-of-background-checks/
  11. https://today.umd.edu/study-shows-background-checks-dont-always-check-out
  12. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/problem-criminal-records-discrepancies-between-state-reports-and-private
  13. https://izajolp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40173-018-0101-0
  14. https://www.personnelchecks.co.uk/latest-news/the-evolution-of-background-screening
  15. https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/letters-of-rec-an-ancient-genre-in-need-of-a-modern-upgrade-september-2018/
  16. https://www.worldhistory.org/Medieval_Guilds/
  17. https://www.worldhistory.org/Medieval_Trades/
  18. https://historylearning.com/medieval-england/medieval-guilds/
  19. https://www.history.com/articles/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-pinkertons
  20. https://pinkerton.com/our-story/history
  21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44667575
  22. https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/United_States_Court_Records
  23. https://nolacatholic.org/certificates
  24. https://www.thoughtco.com/truman-1947-loyalty-order-4132437
  25. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/21/truman-loyalty-checks-1947-1225805
  26. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/trumans-loyalty-program
  27. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10450.html
  28. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/laws-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/gun-control-act/brady-law
  29. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/nics/about-nics
  30. https://crbdirect.org.uk/a-short-history-of-dbs-checks/
  31. https://www.employment.tools/why-was-the-dbs-introduced.php
  32. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/10-years-of-making-recruitment-safer
  33. https://fr.usembassy.gov/services/french-public-documents/
  34. https://www.casd.eu/en/source/statistical-file-of-the-national-criminal-record/
  35. https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/criminal-background-checks-in-spain
  36. https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/tools-judicial-cooperation/european-criminal-records-information-system-ecris_en
  37. https://www.avvanz.com/blog/background-checks-in-the-financial-sector-meeting-mas-requirements-in-singapore
  38. https://www.hireright.com/blog/mas-guidelines-operational-risk-management-singapore-financial-institutions
  39. https://www.business.com/articles/the-shocking-cost-of-resume-fraud/
  40. https://www.trudiligence.com/the-benefits-of-background-checks-for-small-businesses/
  41. https://www.myshortlister.com/insights/background-check-statistics
  42. https://investigations-nbi.com/background-checks-enhance-workplace-safety/
  43. https://www.groupmgmt.com/blog/negligent-hiring-and-background-checks/
  44. https://hrtrucheck.com/resources/statistics/
  45. https://www.scoutlogicscreening.com/blog/benefits-of-background-checks/
  46. https://iprospectcheck.com/roi-of-background-checks/
  47. https://www.resume.org/research/6-in-10-resume-fraudsters-landed-a-job-in-2024/
  48. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/cjis/nics-2022-operations-report.pdf/view
  49. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/background-checks.html
  50. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-9.html
  51. https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
  52. https://about.clearancejobs.com/resources/security-clearance-timeline
  53. https://www.dcsa.mil/Personnel-Vetting/Background-Investigations-for-Applicants/Investigations-Clearance-Process/
  54. https://rcmp.ca/en/corporate-information/publications-and-manuals/2023-commissioner-firearms-report
  55. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240212/more-canadian-than-hockey-canadian-gun-licenses-hit-record-high
  56. https://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/StatsCan/PAL-Police.pdf
  57. https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_tenant-background-checks-market_report_2022-11.pdf
  58. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2022.2113815
  59. https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/current-law
  60. https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-p260-pub.pdf
  61. https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/sorna-ic-guide.pdf
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8023222/
  63. https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/background-checks-prospective-foster-adoptive-and-kinship-caregivers/
  64. https://mn.gov/dhs/general-public/background-studies/for-entities/adoption-process/process-adoption.jsp
  65. https://www.garbo.io/blog/problems-with-public-records
  66. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/freedom-of-information-privacy-act/requesting-fbi-records
  67. https://checkr.com/resources/articles/federal-background-check
  68. https://privacyrights.org/resources-tools/qa/can-employer-check-federal-bureau-investigations-national-crime-information
  69. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/ojis/history/henry_am.htm
  70. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/fbi-marks-100-years-of-fingerprints-and-criminal-history-records
  71. https://www.scoutlogicscreening.com/blog/do-misdemeanors-show-up-on-background-checks/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7183820/
  73. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf
  74. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-guidance-on-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act-1974/guidance-on-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act-1974-and-the-exceptions-order-1975
  75. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216089/rehabilitation-offenders.pdf
  76. https://theworknumber.com/solutions/industries/pre-employment-verification
  77. https://theworknumber.com/solutions/products/income-employment-verification
  78. https://www.amsinform.com/workplace/10-shocking-statistics-about-resume-fraud/
  79. https://www.intellicorp.net/marketing/IntelliCorp/media/intellicorp/IntelliCorpWhitepaper-EmploymentVerifications-UPDATED-2020_1.pdf
  80. https://www.studentclearinghouse.org/verify/
  81. https://www.accurate.com/blog/identifying-diploma-mills/
  82. https://www.scoutlogicscreening.com/blog/how-do-employers-verify-education/
  83. https://integrity-asia.com/blog/80-employee-turnover-is-caused-by-bad-hiring-decision-here-are-the-5-costs-suffered-by-the-company/
  84. https://www.privateeyesbackgroundchecks.com/the-role-of-background-screening-in-reducing-employee-turnover/
  85. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/what-employment-background-screening-companies-need-know-about-fair-credit-reporting-act
  86. https://iprospectcheck.com/fcra-background-check/
  87. https://checkr.com/background-check/credit-checks
  88. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304101504579543823155543830
  89. https://www.backgroundchecks.com/credit-checks/employee-embezzlement-soars-can-background-checks-and-credit-checks-help
  90. https://www.newswise.com/articles/credit-history-not-a-good-predictor-of-job-performance-or-turnover
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22023073/
  92. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/credit-screenings-lead-to-unfair-hiring.html
  93. https://disa.com/financial-due-diligence/social-media-screening/
  94. https://fama.io/post/best-social-media-background-check
  95. https://trudiligence.com/the-future-of-background-checks-trends-and-technologies-to-watch/
  96. https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2377-social-media-hiring.html
  97. https://fadv.com/blog/the-future-of-retail-hiring-5-background-screening-trends-to-know/
  98. https://www.foley.io/articles/is-this-legal-social-media-background-check-faqs
  99. https://www.ferretly.com/blog/answers-to-legal-questions-social-media-background-checks
  100. https://lauthinvestigations.com/digital-footprints-and-data-privacy-the-new-rules-for-pre-employment-screening-in-a-post-social-media-world/
  101. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-48832-001
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379270414_Validity_of_Social_Media_Assessments_in_Personnel_Selection
  103. https://www.referenceservices.com/social-media-screening-benefits-and-limitations-exploring-the-role-of-social-media-in-background-checks/
  104. https://www.accurate.com/blog/the-role-of-references-in-background-checks/
  105. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/tools/toolkits/conducting-background-investigations-reference-checks
  106. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-skillsurvey-research-finds-that-quality-structured-references-help-negate-gender-bias-in-hiring-301562286.html
  107. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12380
  108. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ethically-speaking/202306/traditional-reference-checks-are-plagued-with-bias
  109. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/assessment-and-selection/other-assessment-methods/reference-checking/
  110. https://hr.uiowa.edu/policies/reference-checks
  111. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/talent-acquisition/how-to-get-great-results-checking-candidate-references
  112. https://www.polsinelli.com/employment-litigation-arbitration-dispute-resolution/polsinelli-at-work-blog/six-best-practices-of-hr-documentation
  113. https://www.goodhire.com/resources/articles/ssn-trace/
  114. https://checkr.com/resources/articles/ssn-trace
  115. https://iprospectcheck.com/social-security-number-trace/
  116. https://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnv.htm
  117. https://truviewbsi.com/2024/06/04/truview-enhanced-consent-based-social-security-number-verification/
  118. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/final_hsac_biometrics_subcommittee_report_11-12-2020.pdf
  119. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4156&context=jalc
  120. https://www.idenfy.com/blog/eidas-regulation/
  121. https://withpersona.com/blog/what-is-eidas/
  122. https://totalverify.equifax.com/blog/all-blogs/-/post/the-anatomy-of-a-background-check-unpacking-criminal-justice-data
  123. https://www.backgroundchecks.com/criminal-background-checks
  124. https://www.backgroundchecks.com/background-screening-101/national-multi-state-background-check-insights-for-employers
  125. https://www.informdata.com/national-criminal-database-guide-download
  126. https://www.crosstrax.co/best-practices-for-conducting-background-investigations/
  127. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/04/background-checks-prospective-employees-keep-required-disclosures-simple
  128. https://www.search.org/states-participation-in-the-national-systems-and-programs-that-facilitate-interstate-exchange-of-criminal-history-records/
  129. https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/the-latest-in-multi-jurisdictional-background-check-compliance/
  130. https://www.health-street.net/blog-background-screening/multi-state-background-checks/
  131. https://asginvestigations.com/background_checks/conducting-multi-state-background-checks/
  132. https://checkr.com/resources/articles/best-background-checks
  133. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/best-background-check-software-2026-top-1005535/
  134. https://www.goodhire.com/resources/articles/best-background-check-services/
  135. https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/background-check-software
  136. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/best-background-check-companies-services-2025-renan-serrano-babae
  137. https://www.hireright.com/company/newsroom/hireright-releases-2025-global-benchmark-report
  138. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hireright-releases-2025-global-benchmark-162400544.html
  139. https://www.hireright.com/resources/2025-global-benchmark-report
  140. https://blog.cisive.com/best-international-background-check-companies
  141. https://lathire.com/international-background-check-services/
  142. https://www.veremark.com/blog/does-it-make-sense-to-outsource-background-screening
  143. https://www.emergetalent.com/post/does-it-make-sense-to-outsource-reference-and-background-checks
  144. https://disa.com/news/why-you-should-use-third-party-social-media-background-checks/
  145. https://atlanticscreening.com/knowledge_bank/third-party-background-checks/
  146. https://www.thepbsa.org/accreditation/general-standard/
  147. https://vendordirectory.shrm.org/company/851626/news/3468003/pbsa-accreditation-why-it-is-the-gold-standard-in-background-screening
  148. https://www.amsinform.com/blogs/what-employers-need-to-know-about-pbsa-accreditation/
  149. https://s2verify.com/pbsa-accreditation-compliance-trust
  150. https://www.datafacts.com/backgroundscreeningblog/paper-trails-to-digital-footprints-35-years-of-background-screening
  151. https://www.clearstar.net/how-we-got-here-a-brief-history-of-background-screening/
  152. https://checkr.com/
  153. https://www.goodhire.com/background-checks/hr-tech-integrations/
  154. https://learn.g2.com/best-background-check-software
  155. https://www.karmacheck.com/integrations-api
  156. https://baradainc.com/background-screening/software-integrations/hris-ats-integration/
  157. https://verifiedcredentials.com/integrations
  158. https://plexusglobalinc.com/integrate-background-screening-hris/
  159. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/23/2024-00788/fair-credit-reporting-background-screening
  160. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-consideration-arrest-and-conviction-records-employment-decisions
  161. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/132365.p.pdf
  162. https://www.samhsa.gov/substance-use/drug-free-workplace/faqs
  163. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/10/12/2023-21734/mandatory-guidelines-for-federal-workplace-drug-testing-programs
  164. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2025-00425/mandatory-guidelines-for-federal-workplace-drug-testing-programs-authorized-testing-panels
  165. https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/ban-the-box-fair-chance-hiring-state-and-local-guide/
  166. https://iprospectcheck.com/ban-the-box-laws/
  167. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/708063
  168. https://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Doleac_Hansen_BanTheBox.pdf
  169. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ban-the-box-does-more-harm-than-good/
  170. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24381/w24381.pdf
  171. https://www.goodhire.com/background-checks/florida/
  172. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/fair-chance-act/
  173. https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/californias-new-background-check-regulations-10-frequently-asked-questions/
  174. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-022137
  175. https://www.michigan.gov/msp/-/media/Project/Websites/msp/cjic/lein/Other-LEIN-Information/FINAL-LEIN-Training-Bulletin---Name-Change-Background-Checks-250321-tm.pdf
  176. https://news.verifiedcredentials.com/michigans-new-clean-slate-law-caused-court-delays
  177. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
  178. https://www.gov.uk/find-out-dbs-check
  179. https://business.gov.nl/regulation/vog/
  180. https://www.gov.pl/web/krk-en/pytania-i-odpowiedzi
  181. https://www.deel.com/blog/employee-background-check-brazil/
  182. https://iprospectcheck.com/international-background-check/
  183. https://hrworks-inc.com/industry-update/navigating-washington-states-fair-chance-act-key-updates-for-employers/
  184. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA2968-1.html
  185. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/redemption-era-widespread-criminal-background-checks
  186. https://www.sterlingcheck.com/resources/compliance-articles/california-fair-chance-act-of-2023-sb-809/
  187. https://www.callaborlaw.com/blog/new-rules-for-california-employers-testing-for-marijuana-use-are-approaching-fast
  188. https://www.ndwa.org/news/the-impact-of-marijuana-legalization-on-workplace-safety/
  189. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/high-level-summary/
  190. https://www.hunton.com/insights/legal/the-impact-of-the-eu-ai-act-on-human-resources-activities
  191. https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2025/global/ai-and-the-workplace-navigating-prohibited-ai-practices-in-the-eu
  192. https://www.digiverifier.com/verifiable-credentials-the-end-of-the-resume/
  193. https://disa.com/news/the-future-of-international-background-screening-key-trends-challenges-and-best-practices/
  194. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0144818817300327
  195. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388687128_The_Role_of_AI_in_Automating_Employee_Background_Checks
  196. https://authbridge.com/blog/ai-in-background-verification/
  197. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-powered-social-media-background-checks-2025-guide-rubina-khatoon-gz4uf
  198. https://www.manatal.com/blog/social-media-background-check
  199. https://complyadvantage.com/insights/reduce-false-positives-with-machine-learning/
  200. https://www.vericorphr.com/2024/02/14/understanding-background-screening-ais-potential-risks-in-generating-false-reports
  201. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/research/2025-talent-trends/ai-in-hr
  202. https://pubs.thepbsa.org/pub/FB36B937-C9D5-A941-7720-4047386F38B0
  203. https://www.isms.online/iso-27001/annex-a-2022/6-1-screening-2022/
  204. https://www.isms.online/iso-27002/control-6-1-screening/
  205. https://www.sterlingcheck.com/services/global-checks/
  206. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12359
  207. https://www.nclc.org/report-rampant-errors-on-criminal-background-check-reports-are-still-preventing-consumers-from-securing-jobs-and-housing/
  208. https://turn.ai/blog/what-to-do-when-background-checks-get-it-wrong/
  209. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/2024-nics-operational-report.pdf
  210. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-to-stop-false-identification-by-background-screeners/
  211. https://www.consumerlawfirm.com/false-employment-reports/
  212. https://www.choicescreening.com/blog/names-a-huge-impact-on-your-background-screen-results-1
  213. https://www.hrdive.com/news/background-checks-inaccurate/708351/
  214. https://disa.com/news/why-didnt-that-record-return-understanding-background-screening-limitations/
  215. https://www.consumerlawfirm.com/sealed-or-expunged-criminal-records-still-showing-up-on-background-checks/
  216. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/expungement/will-expunged-records-show-up-on-a-background-check.html
  217. https://www.protectingconsumerrights.com/blog/2025/05/what-are-some-common-background-check-errors-and-what-causes-them/
  218. https://www.referenceservices.com/top-5-reasons-criminal-background-screening-reports-are-delayed/
  219. https://backcheck.io/employment-risk-mitigation-trusted-background-screening-solutions/
  220. https://www.veremark.com/blog/10-tips-for-better-employee-background-checks
  221. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/talent-acquisition/create-hassle-free-fcra-compliant-dispute-resolution-process
  222. https://www.cichecked.com/blog/the-fcra-compliance-process-that-keeps-you-out-of-court
  223. https://www.backgroundsonline.com/blog/what-to-expect-if-an-applicant-disputes-a-background-check
  224. https://www.hireright.com/blog/make-accuracy-first-background-screening-your-strategic-edge?partnerref=e&i
  225. https://www.datafacts.com/company-news/data-facts-partners-with-cerebrum-for-biometric-verification-services
  226. https://gdpr.eu/fines/
  227. https://s2verify.com/resource/gdpr-compliance-background-screening/
  228. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/five-problems-criminal-background-checks
  229. https://www.krcl.com/insights/regulation-of-workplace-violence-under-oshas-general-duty-clause
  230. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88621/criminal-background-checks-impact-on-employment-and-recidivism.pdf
  231. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/confidentiality-criminal-records-privacy-versus-public-interest
  232. https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/benefits-outweigh-risks-in-criminal-background-checks.html
  233. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10294365/
  234. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-sheetz-inc-racially-discriminatory-hiring-practice
  235. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-files-suit-against-two-employers-use-criminal-background-checks
  236. https://www.cdflaborlaw.com/blog/eeoc-steps-up-enforcement-actions-based-on-employer-use-of-criminal-backgro
  237. https://www.nelp.org/we-must-defend-the-civil-rights-of-workers-with-conviction-records/
  238. https://tminstituteldf.org/criminal-background-checks-employment/
  239. https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/eeoc-loses-again-on-criminal-background-checks.html
  240. https://www.employmentlawspotlight.com/blogs/court-slams-eeoc-on-background-check-lawsuit/
  241. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/hr-magazine/criminal-background-policy-checkup
  242. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html
  243. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp132607.pdf
  244. https://newsroom.iza.org/en/archive/research/individuals-with-criminal-records-may-stay-in-their-jobs-longer/
  245. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA1300/RRA1360-1/RAND_RRA1360-1.pdf
  246. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12130
  247. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/nics
  248. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11630101/
  249. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13935/w13935.pdf
  250. https://www.testgorilla.com/blog/ban-the-box-laws-by-state/
  251. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/133/1/191/4060073
  252. https://jenniferdoleac.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Doleac_testimony_BTB_2019.pdf
  253. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22469/w22469.pdf
  254. https://www.paydata.com/services/human-resources/negligent-hiring-and-retention-lawsuits-are-preventable/
  255. https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/liability-safety-top-reasons-criminal-checks
  256. https://www.ekentech.com/blog/2025/2/25/the-role-of-background-checks-in-enhancing-workplace-safety-a-kentech-perspective
  257. https://www.psibackgroundcheck.com/news/the-economic-impact-of-background-checks/
  258. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/pager_ajs.pdf
  259. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c3587/c3587.pdf
  260. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/reentry_and_recidivism/
  261. https://www.kychub.com/blog/the-impact-of-financial-crimes/
  262. https://www.crowe.com/global/news/fraud-costs-the-global-economy-over-us%245-trillion
  263. https://www.ibisworld.com/united-states/industry/background-check-services/6058/
  264. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/
  265. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-common-is-it-for-released-prisoners-to-re-offend/
  266. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/criminal-record-shouldnt-life-sentence-poverty-2/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.