A nationwide criminal record search can be aggravating and time-consuming, and the results are not always complete or consistent. Here are some issues that make the process such a challenge for CRAs.
There’s growing sentiment in the U.S. that convicts who have completed their sentences should be allowed to move on without being permanently haunted by their pasts. Many state legislatures have enacted laws that limit what arrest and conviction information is made available to the public in their states.
Several states have chosen to expunge criminal records for certain offenses, particularly those involving marijuana. In most of these cases, CRAs will not be able to learn about past arrests and convictions at all.
A few states, such as California and Michigan, have established regulations that make it more difficult to retrieve information about crimes that are still on the books. They’ve mandated the redaction of personally identifiable information (PII) from databases that are available online to the public. The most common keys to be redacted are date of birth and social security number. When a CRA is doing a search on someone with a common name, these restrictions magnify the difficulty of determining whether a criminal record belongs to the specific individual.
In these cases, a CRA may have to rely on secondary information about the person or even send a runner to the courthouse to request paper records.
Criminal records are maintained in thousands of jurisdictions throughout the U.S., and record-keeping is not always reliable. Data vendors are not always transparent about where they get their information and how accurate it is. As a result, CRAs may feel compelled to follow up and validate records. They find themselves chasing down records that are inaccurate or otherwise of no use to their clients. They may not even learn about records that exist only in a remote county court.
Transparency from a wholesale screener is critical. CRAs need to be confident that the
data is current, accurate and has been thoroughly vetted by the data vendor.
As a country, the U.S. doesn’t maintain a centralized repository of criminal records. They are scattered throughout the country in federal, state and local courts. In addition to 50 states, there are over 3,000 counties, and there’s no consistency about how criminal records are documented, stored and published.
Online access and the ability to search by PII vary by jurisdiction. Some information is readily retrievable from public databases, but other data requires either multiple searches or sending court runners to physical locations where records are stored. Many local record-keeping systems are outdated or technologically awkward, and the information isn’t always up to date.
Records from multiple jurisdictions might be in multiple formats, and the meanings of the data fields may not be entirely clear. Retrieving all of these records and making sense of the results is beyond the means of a small or medium-sized CRA.
The ideal solution is a national criminal database that serves as a one-stop repository for criminal records. That requires a wholesale screening service that is experienced at finding all the records and organizing them into a clear and understandable format.
Employers are demanding not only more background checks but also more thorough ones. Employee turnover has accelerated in the past few years, and that implies the need to conduct these checks quickly. If there were a common data source that a CRA could turn to, it would be easy to turn around each request, but of course that’s not the case.
Quite often, the information from an initial search is not on target, or it’s not in a format that’s useful to an employer. That may require additional searches, either online or conducted through court runners. It may require the CRA to employ people who have expertise in screening research, and the availability of such individuals can be a bottleneck.
The better the data a CRA can get from its wholesaler, the less time of its own it will have to spend following up. It will be in a better position to provide the turnaround that clients demand.
Background search data is sensitive data, and federal and state laws require that CRAs protect it. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is charged with examining the cybersecurity practices of nationwide CRAs. CRAs are also subject to data breach notification laws and to requirements that come into play because they do business with financial institutions.
A data security incident can subject a CRA to financial penalties and also inflict the kind of reputational damage that may cause it to lose clients.
CRAs should ask themselves and their data vendors about security practices such as use of encryption protocols, regular security audits and compliance with data protection laws.
A serious commitment to data security is critical to every CRA, and they should demand that their wholesalers are transparent about cybersecurity practices.
Access to criminal records is not as easy as most CRAs would like it to be. Records are fragmented across thousands of jurisdictions with varying degrees of completeness and accuracy. New regulations in some states hide PII in online data sources. A single screening may require multiple searches including physical visits by court runners. Small CRAs don’t have the resources to conduct thorough nationwide searches in the time frame demeaned by their clients.
Eagle Eye Screening Solutions is a wholesale screening vendor that can conduct the complete and accurate searches that CRAs require. Our nationwide scope and veteran research team can provide a CRA with the accurate, reliable and timely background information that clients demand.