Not too long ago, just a few dozen companies offered background-checking services. But the industry mushroomed in size and scope—but not necessarily quality—after post-9/11 security concerns, and ethics scandals drove up the demand for increased
The result: Nearly 1,000 vendors are in the industry now, making it difficult to sort out the top tier from the fly-by-night firms. Many sell cheap but incomplete in minutes. Too often, they simply restate old information bought from private data brokers with no guarantee the data are current or correct.
The top four players in the industry—USIS, First Advantage, ChoicePoint and Kroll—account for about $1.4 billion of the nearly $3 billion industry. What about the others?
Good news: Now you have a new yardstick on which to gauge their quality before you conduct a .
The National Association of Professional Background Screeners (NAPBS), a 650-member industry group, recently unveiled a comprehensive, six-pronged certification and accreditation process. The goal: Identify “gold standard” pre- firms that excel in the areas of consumer protection, legal compliance, client education, data quality, verification and business practices.
The new standards address a longstanding HR concern: the absence of a concrete benchmark to vet and verify the quality of employment background screening firms.
Outlook: Expect this new certification to lead to a shakeout of sorts in the industry, with weaker players losing out to stronger counterparts that earn the certification label.
Advice: When choosing an employment background screening provider or renewing your current one, look for NAPBS certification (www.napbs.com). Then, ask potential screening providers about their accuracy, specifically their error rate and resolution rate. It’s information they don’t always give out, but it’s important criteria to judge diligence, compliance and abilities concerning the background reports they provide.
- Stop violence with strong policy, calm approach
- No job application needed to sue for hiring bias
- Public employers, take note: Appeals court rules on firefighter/Paramedic exemption
- After poor-performing worker complains about e-mail, should we follow through on plans to fire?
- Nuke plant operator fined for sleeping guards