Background screening is broken. Here’s how to fix it in 36 months.

Roughly 95% of employers in the United States run background checks and most include criminal history reports. We have come to expect this as a normal part of the hiring process, but in fact the proliferation of background screening is a recent phenomenon that is fairly unique to the U.S.  Today, the use of criminal history checks is perhaps the most universally consistent part of hiring across U.S. industries. The ease and pace of collecting records means employers can know every detail of every candidate's criminal history - regardless of its bearing on the job. 

Unsurprisingly, the rapid growth of background screening has extended the long-term impact of conviction records and further complicated the process of rejoining the workforce for people impacted by the justice system. It has contributed to high rates of unemployment for people with conviction records, despite evidence that suggests employees with records have similar or better retention and advancement outcomes in the workplace.  

If we could do it all over again, I believe employers and policymakers would fundamentally rethink how background screening has evolved in the U.S., replacing a blunt instrument with nuanced and targeted reports. But as it stands in 2025, we have a background check industry that includes over 1,000 companies and generates nearly $5 billion in annual revenue, and we have built a culture of risk aversion that encourages employers to overindex on disqualifying candidates with past convictions. To fix background screening – and in turn expand our workforce, effectively manage employer risk, and generate better community outcomes – employers need clear and consistent standards on how to assess background check results for their job categories. 

We have most of the tools to build and implement these standards. We have increasingly common definitions of conviction types, thanks in part to a new database from the University of Michigan and Measures for Justice (UCCS). We have clear definitions of every job category through the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) coding system and derivative products. And we have decades of legal history as well as a growing body of research identifying the risk factors of different convictions to different jobs.  

So here’s what we can do over the next three years to create common standards for background screening: 

1. Establish a rational baseline: On day one our background screening standard should remove all arrest records (which do not lead to conviction), juvenile records, and records dating past seven years.* Many jurisdictions have already normalized these filters, and these steps alone could save millions of candidates from getting unnecessarily flagged, stalled, and perhaps disqualified.  

*Regulated industries, I hear you, we’ll come back to you at step four.  

2. Build consensus: In the first year, using UCCS and BLS data as a foundation, we tag every conviction for its relevance (or non-relevance) to every job. It sounds like a daunting task, but AI tools can help code these large data sets with common risk factors that can lead to employer liability (driving, access to sensitive data, etc). We then bring together leaders in human resources, employment law, research, workforce development, and people impacted by the justice system to review and improve the first draft and build consensus on a common standard for conviction relevance by job category. For each job, all convictions will be sorted into two categories: advance or review (via individualized assessment). 

3. Develop technology & integrations: In the second year, using this common database, we create web-based tools for employers to build custom filters (or “matrices”) based on their own job categories and integrate those filters with background check providers so they can automatically customize reports based on the employers’ requests. When backgrounds are flagged for review, we integrate with existing technologies such as Rezme to conduct high-quality, consistent individualized assessments that gain deeper context and help justify and document final decisions. Normalizing this process will drive the background screening industry to modernize, requiring vendors to shift from maximizing results to curating relevant job-convictions based on employer guidance. 

4. Add overlays: Before releasing the industry standards, we overlay customized look-back periods based on available research. Many employers already choose to tighten their review windows to less than seven years for certain conviction types, and by creating norms and standards for appropriate review periods, we can substantially reduce the long-tail impact of a conviction record. Additionally, we overlay industry regulations to ensure compliance with state and federal policy. Sectors such as finance, healthcare, and transportation have limits to the records that they can pre-qualify and standard guidance will need to be tailored to comply. 

5. Credibly disseminate the new normal: In the third year we partner with credible messengers to endorse and deploy a common standard. We are fortunate to have leadership in our most influential business associations who already advocate for Fair Chance practices. By collectively sharing a revised approach to background screening through membership associations and industry groups, we build confidence and air cover for employers to adopt a new standard and align their own background screening process to a common practice. 

By the end of 36 months, employers can stop guessing what convictions might trigger risk and liability. Jobseekers can stop being labelled “second chance” for a conviction that has no bearing on their ability to do the job. Advocates can push public policy that protects employers from negligent hiring when they use a common framework that includes pre-adjudication and individualized assessments for convictions that require review. 

From Envoy’s decade of experience revising hiring practices at a wide range of large employers, we have found the process of pre-adjudicating and filtering background check results for recency and relevancy is the biggest driver of reducing disqualification rates. On a systemic level, this work could open up millions of job opportunities, while reducing employers’ legal liability and positively affecting the communities where they operate. 

We have employer-led industry standards on processes across our economy that drive safety, consistency, and predictability. Background screening doesn’t have to be any different.