A recent study published in the journal Criminology has cast doubt on the reliability of background checks, a tool commonly used by employers to screen potential hires. The research, led by Robert Stewart from the University of Maryland, reveals that private-sector background check companies, which operate with minimal regulation, frequently produce reports marred by inaccuracies. These errors can stem from simple data entry mistakes, such as misspelt names or incorrect birthdates, and the use of common aliases, leading to both false-positive and false-negative results.
The study involved analysing the criminal records of 101 individuals from New Jersey and comparing the official state records of arrests, charges, and case outcomes with the findings from both regulated and unregulated private background check providers. The alarming result was that over half of these individuals had at least one false-positive error in their background checks, and approximately 90% had at least one false-negative error. These inaccuracies have had tangible negative impacts on the subjects’ lives, limiting their access to employment, education, and housing opportunities.
Stewart’s research highlights the potential harm of relying on flawed data aggregation methods that lack the use of unique identifiers, such as fingerprints, which could vastly improve accuracy. The findings also prompt a reconsideration of how background checks are conducted, suggesting that state or federal agencies, or the implementation of biometric data, might offer more reliable alternatives.
This study comes at a time when diversity, equity, and inclusion strategists are urging employers to reconsider the weight they place on a candidate’s criminal history. The recommendation is to focus more on the individual’s current standing and qualifications, conducting background checks only after a job offer has been made, to minimize discrimination.
Further emphasizing the study’s implications, a notable lawsuit against ADP’s background screening division highlighted the severe consequences of these inaccuracies, where a job seeker was wrongly identified as a convicted murderer, illustrating the critical need for more precise and regulated background check processes.
Despite these concerns, a California bill aiming to restrict private employers from conducting background checks and making employment decisions based on conviction history was not passed. However, the ongoing debate suggests that future legislative efforts may still seek to address the balance between safety and fairness in employment practices.
