Unpacking Background Screening Limitations: Insights into Missing Records

In an increasingly interconnected world where trust and transparency are paramount, background screening has become a critical tool for organizations seeking to make informed hiring decisions. However, the reliance on background checks is not without its limitations, particularly concerning missing records that can obscure a candidate's true history. "Unpacking Background Screening Limitations: Insights into Missing Records" delves into the intricacies of the background screening process, shedding light on the factors that can contribute to incomplete or unavailable information. From discrepancies in public records and data retention policies to variations in state regulations and the sheer volume of information processed, the challenges are multifaceted. Furthermore, the reliance on third-party screening agencies can introduce additional variability, as not all providers maintain the same standards or methodologies.

This article aims to explore these limitations in depth, providing organizations with a clearer understanding of the potential pitfalls in the background screening process. By recognizing the nuances associated with missing records, employers can better navigate the complexities of candidate evaluation, ultimately fostering a more informed and equitable hiring process that aligns with organizational values and legal requirements.

Background screening plays a vital role in the recruitment process, yet it is frequently misinterpreted by employers. Many anticipate a seamless experience: submit a request, obtain a thorough background check, and proceed with an informed hiring choice. However, the actual process is significantly more intricate.

At the 2025 Day with DISA conference, Chad Ascar, Director of Compliance Integrations at DISA, shed light on the reasons why certain records may be absent from background checks, the legal limitations surrounding screening, and strategies for employers to effectively navigate these complexities while ensuring compliance.

Understanding Background Screening: The Complex Reality

Employers often mistakenly believe that background screening is a straightforward procedure. However, various factors determine whether a record is included in a report. The precision and comprehensiveness of background checks are affected by legal restrictions, the intricacies of the court system, and the availability of identifying information.

A thorough background check typically encompasses several key elements, such as name, Social Security number, date of birth, previous addresses, driver's license number, and email address. Despite having access to this data, records may still be missing due to legal constraints, expungement of records, or limitations within the screening system.

Legal Hurdles in Comprehensive Background Checking

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) serves as the federal legislation governing background checks and consumer reports, outlining regulations for the collection, storage, and dissemination of information by consumer reporting agencies. Under the FCRA, certain information is subject to time limits for reporting, including:

• - Bankruptcies (reportable for ten years)

• - Civil suits, judgments, and arrest records (reportable for seven years)

• - Paid tax liens (reportable for seven years)

• - Debts sent to collections or charged off (reportable for seven years)

• - Any other adverse information (reportable for seven years)

• - Criminal convictions (reportable indefinitely unless state law imposes restrictions)

Individuals have the right to challenge inaccuracies in their reports, and consumer reporting agencies are obligated to investigate and rectify errors. Consequently, employers may conduct background checks with the expectation of specific information, only to discover that it has been legally expunged or removed.

State-Specific Regulations on Background Checks

While the FCRA provides a national framework, individual state and local laws impose further limitations on what can be included in background checks. Some states, referred to as “seven-year states,” restrict reporting non-conviction information that is older than seven years. These states include California, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, and Washington.

Certain states also have restrictions on specific types of records, such as:

• - California limits reporting non-felony marijuana convictions older than two years.

• - Georgia restricts first offender discharge or treatment cases.

• - Kentucky and Louisiana prohibit reporting open or pending cases.

• - Virginia limits reporting personal marijuana consumption records that are not classified as criminal.

Salary-related thresholds also impact background screening practices in states like New York, Maryland, and Washington, where information returned may be restricted if the candidate’s expected salary does not meet a certain level.

Ban the Box and Fair Chance Hiring Legislation

Ban the Box and Fair Chance laws aim to provide individuals with criminal records a fair chance in the hiring process by postponing inquiries about criminal history until later stages. These regulations vary significantly across jurisdictions, imposing different rules for public and private employers.

Some areas limit inquiries about criminal history only during initial hiring stages, while others mandate additional procedures, such as individualized evaluations of criminal records in relation to the job.

For instance, in unincorporated Los Angeles County, employers cannot consider convictions that have been decriminalized or minor infractions unless driving is a job requirement. In Prince George’s County, Maryland, employers cannot consider non-violent felonies if the sentence was completed over five years ago. Massachusetts prohibits inquiries about misdemeanors older than three years.

Employers operating in multiple states must adeptly navigate these varying laws to maintain compliance while effectively conducting background checks.

The Impact of Expunged, Sealed, and Pardoned Records

Another significant factor that may contribute to the absence of a record in a background check is if it has been expunged, sealed, or pardoned. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, they have distinct legal implications.

An expunged record is completely erased from public and private records. A sealed record is no longer publicly accessible but can still be reviewed by law enforcement or government agencies. A pardoned record indicates that the conviction's penalty has been lifted or reduced, although it remains part of the record.

Several states have enacted Clean Slate Laws that automatically seal certain convictions after a defined period. For example, in New York, misdemeanors are sealed three years after the last conviction and felonies after eight years, provided there are no pending charges. California’s Clean Slate Law seals misdemeanor convictions one year after case resolution and felony convictions four years post-resolution.

Due to these legal provisions, employers may anticipate a conviction appearing on a background check, only to find that it has been legally sealed or expunged from public records.

Challenges Arising from Redacted Identifiers

Another reason for potential gaps in a background check is the removal of personal identifiers from public records. Many jurisdictions have started redacting identifying information such as dates of birth and Social Security numbers.

In the absence of these identifiers, accurately matching records to individuals becomes significantly more challenging, especially for candidates with common names. Employers may incorrectly assume that a background check is incomplete when, in fact, the information is simply inaccessible due to court-imposed restrictions.

Essential Takeaways for Employers

It is crucial for employers to understand that background screening is not an infallible process. Various factors, including legal constraints, limitations within court records, and privacy laws, significantly influence whether a record is included in a background check.

To ensure compliance while maintaining an effective screening process, employers should:

1. - Familiarize themselves with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and state-specific regulations governing reportability and timelines for background checks.

2. - Keep abreast of Ban the Box and Fair Chance laws to align hiring practices with local and state regulations.

3. - Recognize the effects of Clean Slate Laws, expungements, and sealed records that may prevent past convictions from appearing in reports.

4. - Partner with a reliable background screening provider to effectively navigate the complexities of compliance, both domestically and internationally.

5. - Establish policies that balance compliance in hiring with workplace safety, ensuring that all screening decisions are based on legally reportable information.

READI COLLECT: Your Partner for Post-Accident Drug and Alcohol Testing

Post-accident drug tests can increase workplace safety while protecting you against liability and higher insurance costs.

Readi Collect App, is the Fastest and Most Reliable Onsite Drug and Alcohol Test Collections. They use a patented technology to connect your employees to a nationwide network of professional collectors with our mobile app. Making this the best way to meet impossible deadlines for critical testing like DOT post-accident.

If you are required to comply with Department of Transportation regulations, this app offers unprecedented collector response time and real-time reporting, making it easier than ever for employers to conduct post-accident testing within the DOT regulation timelines.

If you are interested to know more about Readi Collect, reach out to them here.

Tags: natural language processing, informed decisions, systematic review, Statistical significance, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Information Exchange, clinical trials, English language, hiring process, standard deviation, popular choice, Electronic Health Records, American Journal of Public Health, Health Research Authority, Office of the National Coordinator for Health, Perspectives in Health Information Management, electronic health record implementation, senior trial manager, Trial Forge, future trials, natural language processing tasks, conduct of intervention reviews, extraction process, EHR-based registries, external registries, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, challenge for researchers, choice for researchers, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Disease Control and Prevention, Social Sciences, Social Science for Social