Accuracy Regains Top Spot as Crucial Factor in Background Screenings

Following a notable drop last year, accuracy of results has returned to its position as the most important consideration when choosing an employment background screening provider, ahead of both cost and speed, according to an annual survey from HireRight, a global background screening company. HireRight conducted the survey among 1,275 respondents in March.

Speed is a critical factor when performing employment background checks, but employers are realizing that it is not worth cutting corners on screening just to get faster results, said Alonzo Martinez, associate general counsel at HireRight.

“Accuracy in screening results is fundamental—it’s the cornerstone of effective risk management and informed decision-making,” he said. “When employers work with a screening provider that prioritizes accuracy, they are better positioned to make decisions that contribute to a safer, more secure work environment.”

Kevin Bachman, an industry veteran and partner at IQubed Advisors in Cleveland, an advisory firm to background check companies and employers, said accuracy retaking the top spot in importance is not a surprise.

“It has been at or near the top of every industry survey for the last 20 years,” he said. “But I don’t think it’s really the reason one screener was selected over another. I don’t hear enterprise clients choose one provider because they’re 99.5% accurate and the competitor was 99.4% accurate. Instead, accuracy is often cited as a reason employers leave their screening partner.”

Accuracy is considered table stakes, he said: “It’s not a strong marketing message. Background screeners are much more likely to tout their technology, their ATS [applicant tracking system] integrations, and their global capabilities.”

Risk Mitigation

Workplace safety and security is the most common reason why employers in North America use background screenings, followed by saving the cost of a bad hire and regulatory compliance. Criminal record checks remain the top screening service used by employers, according to HireRight.

“Workplace safety and security are rightly top priorities for employers, and it’s reassuring to see this reflected in the data,” Martinez said. “While the financial implications of a bad hire—such as increased turnover and reduced productivity—are significant, the responsibility to ensure the safety of employees and customers is even more crucial.”

Bachman added that it’s increasingly evident that employers view background screenings as a safety and security solution, not as a primary tool to help identify the most qualified candidate.

“Employers rarely rely on the screening company to help them choose between two equally qualified candidates,” he said. “Instead, they use the background check to validate the hiring decision they’ve already made.”

Undisclosed Convictions

In North America, previously undisclosed criminal convictions were cited as the most frequently found type of candidate discrepancy, with 40% of respondents saying it is among the areas for which they most often find discrepancies, a percentage that has been steadily rising over the last three years.

“The consistent identification of undisclosed criminal convictions as a top candidate discrepancy underscores the ongoing challenges employers face,” Martinez said. “We’ve seen a slight increase over the past few years, which reflects the complexities of the evolving legal landscape in the U.S., particularly with state-level regulations such as clean slate laws and ban-the-box initiatives. These changes can create uncertainty for both employers and applicants. That’s why it’s essential for employers to engage in a comprehensive, individualized assessment process when reviewing criminal history. This approach helps ensure that decisions are fair, compliant, and aligned with the organization’s risk management objectives.”

Rise in Sex Offender Registry Checks

National Sex Offender Registry checks have seen a marked increase in usage, particularly in industries that serve vulnerable populations, such as education, health care, and child care.

“The rise in these checks, up by 12 percentage points from 2023, highlights a growing awareness of the potential reputational risks that organizations face,” Martinez said. “By conducting thorough Sex Offender Registry checks, companies not only protect those who are most vulnerable but also safeguard their reputations, which are invaluable assets in any industry.”

Drug Testing

About 4 in 10 employers (40%) said they conduct drug testing for both regulated and nonregulated roles. An additional 14% only perform drug screening for regulated roles.

Just 10% of respondents said they are considering changes to their drug screening programs in 2024. Stopping testing for marijuana unless required by law or regulation and adding alternate specimens for testing, such as saliva or hair, were the top responses for those making changes.

“As marijuana legalization sweeps across the United States, employers face a complex legal landscape regarding its use among employees,” Martinez said. “What was once a clear-cut issue of termination for positive drug tests has evolved into a complex assessment, with federal, state, and local laws offering conflicting guidance on how to navigate marijuana use in the workplace.”

Employers must differentiate between medical and recreational marijuana use and update their policies to reflect evolving regulations. Maintaining zero-tolerance drug policies may prove impractical, necessitating a focus on targeting cannabis use and impairment specifically in the workplace, Martinez said.

At the federal level, marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, classified as a Schedule I controlled substance. The Biden administration has proposed reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III drug.

However, at the state level, the landscape is less straightforward, Martinez said.

“Presently, 39 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and 23 states plus the District of Columbia have also legalized recreational use,” he said. “This dichotomy between federal and state laws leaves employers grappling with how to handle instances of marijuana use detected through drug screenings.”

Employers Are OK with AI

Most respondents to the survey said they would be comfortable with artificial intelligence or automation being used to speed up the screening process or to reduce the risk of human error. Improving candidate experience and cost savings were among the other top benefits of using AI or automation. However, 25% of respondents from North America said they would prefer that their screening provider not use AI or automation.

“It’s easy to understand their concerns,” Bachman said. “But I can’t think of a screening company that doesn’t utilize some form of automation. Automation and AI isn’t unique to the screening industry. Many HR and business functions use some combination of AI and automation in their day-to-day business processes.”

Whether a process is manual or automated, it’s the guardrails that determine success or failure, Bachman said.

“A technology solution absent some human oversight might not detect the nuance in a criminal case that a professional might,” he said. “But a fully manual process? I’m willing to bet some of those employers would change their minds about automation if their background checks took twice as long and cost twice as much.” 

Martinez added that AI and machine learning are tools that enhance, not replace, human judgment.

“These technologies are used to automate time-consuming tasks, allowing our team to focus on validation and thorough review,” he said. “The ultimate hiring decisions remain with the employer, ensuring that the process is both efficient and accurate, without compromising the critical human oversight that is so essential in making informed hiring decisions.”

Social Media Screening and Continuous Monitoring

Third-party social media screens conducted by screening firms fell from 10% in 2023 to 9% in 2024. The most common reasons given for not conducting social media checks included not being required by regulation, not knowing enough about it, and social media activity not being a hiring concern.

About 57% of employers in North America with screening programs do not conduct post-hire screenings, which might include periodic employee rescreening and/or continuous monitoring. The absence of regulations requiring rescreening and monitoring was the most cited reason why employers don’t conduct any post-hire screenings in their organizations.

“Despite nonstop marketing for over a decade, social media screening and continuous monitoring are still struggling to gain traction with employers,” Bachman said. “In each case, the reason is clear. For many, social media screening is still an in-house function, despite very compelling reasons to engage an outside partner, such as bias and disparate treatment. As for continuous monitoring, despite its enormous value, it remains too expensive for most employers.”