Feb 16 2026
It's often said that background checks are used as a foundational control mechanism whenever there's a candidate for a job, especially if we're talking about a profession.
As they are treated as definitive indicators of safety and suitability, however, in practice these checks are limited to the data marked in the past.
Ongoing information may be delayed or stored in disconnected systems, and that makes critical information overlooked.
These structural data limitations put institutional trust at risk as vital data can remain undetected despite formal procedures. Eventually, situations like this can cause more harm to everyone, as consequences are shown over time, not through the papers.
While analyzing standard background checks, it's important to understand what they are really designed for. Moreover, data points that are included are professional licenses, certifications, and any finalized regulatory or criminal actions.
The issue that arises is that systems are designed to meet requirements rather than to analyze behaviour.
For instance, an employment situation that's mainly concerned with identity and qualification may be a leading example of how crucial information may be covered. When potential employees (candidates) apply for the position, their background checks are designed to validate formal eligibility. Where they won't help is in predictive assessment.
When it comes to background checks, there are only two possibilities – either a record exists, or it does not. If there's no record (if there are no disqualifying markers), then the results are labeled as 'clear'.
But the problem with records is that they provide only evidence of things that have happened in the past. If there are internal complaints or there are any unresolved or even ongoing issues, these might not be visible on the background check, which would allow the candidate to slip under the radar.
So while background checks are effective when you want to get quick or (in some cases) surface-level validation, they're still limited when it comes to any future risks.
When you're performing background checks, even if you do everything correctly, some data you will only get after months, once they're finalized.
This means you could have an employee on a permanent contract working for a month or two, only for you to get informed about an assault ruling at their previous job. And because the employee is now on a permanent contract, you might have trouble doing anything about it.
This basically means that you now have a potentially aggressive employee on payroll who's protected.
So the issue that's often tied to background checks isn't about them being accurate or not, but rather about whether the checks lack any current information.
Background checks reflect past results, not real-time (active) situations.
There are often situations where there could be a complaint or an incident that happened without it, yet being visible on record; the keyword being 'YET'.
Sure, if you did the background check a year from now, you'd see it, but you'd run into the same issue of not knowing 100% whether there's something that happened but still hasn't been processed.
In bigger systems and organizations, such as healthcare, patients' complaints or internal reports might take months or even years to be resolved. During that period, there is no formal record. By analyzing this delayed procedure, it's easy to conclude that time lag creates a risk that is not reflected in the systems but may contain vital information.
Among states, agencies, and institutions, records lack visibility beyond one organization.
Wanting to maintain reputation, or privacy policy – records, as complaints and internal investigations, will be limited to the original organization. Without access to the earlier issues, it makes it difficult for employers to make decisions.
As these kinds of records aren't usually shared between the systems, it makes it impossible for the single screening procedure to put together a full picture.
On the one hand, criminal cases include high standards of proof and contain a small percentage of felonies, and administrative cases can be limited in time lag, nature, and based on non-public processes.
However, civil cases bring patterns and concerns that are not yet reflected or recorded in databases.
When you do an official screening, you'll find that there are lots of details that can't be found in common databases. This presents us with a challenge. How do you legally find out everything there is to find out?
The answer? Public records.
Or, more precisely, you'd want to look at civil court filings as well as investigative reporting. These can show incidents that may seem isolated from the system and/or any cases that are interconnected.
Public records are an amalgamation of all the information that's collected over time. Common databases don't do that, which is also why you (sometimes) won't find any unfinished cases or internal reports – all of which could contain critical information.
When official screening breaks down, as many details can't be found in the common databases, the next option is to find relevant information in public records.
If you go back to that healthcare example, you can easily see why that's the case:
Whenever you're trying to hire a licensed medical professional, you don't want to go JUST through the license database. Since these professionals work with real patients, it's almost mandatory to make sure your clients (the patients) are in a safe environment.
This is why you should also check civil filings, such as sexual abuse lawsuits involving a medical doctor, medical malpractice/neglect lawsuits, wrongful death actions, etc. You could even go deeper outside work-related filings, such as assault/battery claims, abuse/harassment claims, coercion, and similar things that would point to the candidate being a (potential) risk.
Of course, there's no reason to make assumptions, but people often get surprised by who has broken the law and/or crossed boundaries. So you can't really go off by looks, charisma, and how well the candidate has handled an interview.
What we do is we make sure that everything is ACTUALLY clear.
When we add the tone 'extra' layer of information (and properly integrate it), we help eliminate all those issues that come from things like delayed reports, institutional silos, limited screening models, and all other systemic/structural limitations.
Background checks remain an indispensable part of baseline verification and compliance, but they aren't really designed to show 'everything'.
Regulated professions shouldn't hold one-time screenings responsible for not reflecting delayed reporting or potential risks that could develop gradually.
This is why it's important to look at civil (and other) records before finishing up the screening process.
Will this show 'everything'? No, not necessarily.
But you sure will get as close to 100%, which is where you want to be.
Tell me what you need and I'll get back to you right away.