
Background checks pay for Checkr, which just raised $100M - cfadvan
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/12/background-checks-pay-for-checkr-which-just-rang-up-100-million-in-new-funding/
======
mschuster91
This kind of company deserves to die, and the public record laws for highly
personal data also. The obsession with "background checks" is a really huge
part of why the US has extremely high recidivism rate.

When people can't find a job even flipping burgers or distributing newspapers,
they have no choice other than to go back to the criminal life.

edit: as I got private feedback: it is _not_ my intention to disrespect people
flipping burgers or doing other "low level" jobs. My post was meant to
illustrate that these two jobs usually do not require education and especially
not a "background check", so it is entirely pointless to do these (or to not
hire people with a... shady past).

~~~
gringoDan
I 95% agree with you. We have a huge problem in the US with recidivism and
once someone has paid their debt to society, their past shouldn't be held
against them.

However, Checkr is the _result_ of a strong demand for this type of service,
not the cause of it. If Checkr didn't exist then companies would use someone
else to conduct their background checks.

Sadly, I don't think we'll see a change in this mentality & practice until
there is legislation against it. Background checks are just too easy of a way
to filter applicants (from an effort perspective), especially for minimum-
wage/high turnover jobs.

Also, just to play devil's advocate - would you get into an Uber if you knew
the driver had 5 previous DUIs? What happens if/when this person drives drunk
again and kills a passenger or a pedestrian?

The ethical decision becomes more nuanced, Uber has a responsibility to do
everything it can to ensure the safety of its passengers. You have to draw a
line somewhere.

~~~
jstarfish
> just to play devil's advocate - would you get into an Uber if you knew the
> driver had 5 previous DUIs?

See, this is the very problem with using criminal history as a form of
profiling.

What about his history indicates that he drinks on the job, or will be drunk
when you get into his car? If those DUIs all occurred off-the-clock, involving
no passengers or collisions, after long shifts of driving stone sober, what's
it to Uber?

The irony is, if we deny him employment opportunities based on past behavior
unrelated to his job performance, he's going to have plenty of free time to
indulge such vices. Being unemployed sucks.

Meanwhile take a 20-something with a habit of getting high behind the wheel.
He's still young so he's got a clean record and few (if any) reviews. You'd
get into his deathmobile simply because you don't know any better.

~~~
jjeaff
Point is, there are lots of options as an employer. Might as well pick the one
without a criminal record, all else being equal. And just imagine the lawsuit
when someone sues you because of an accident and you hired the driver even
though he had 5 DUIs.

------
luckydata
Whatever they do, they can't do worse than HireRight, the company with the
most hilariously bad reviews I've ever seen in my life.

[https://background-check-websites.no1reviews.com/user-
review...](https://background-check-websites.no1reviews.com/user-
reviews/hireright.html)

and

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hireright-
to...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/hireright-to-
pay-26million-accused-of-failing-to-verify-background-
checks/2012/08/08/5c80b654-e18a-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html?utm_term=.d342add0245e)

and

[https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2012/08/emplo...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2012/08/employment-background-screening-company-pay-26-million-
penalty)

They are the fucking worst.

~~~
justherefortart
Wow, that's comical and sad at the same time.

I have a few friends that would always pass background checks in spite of
having some issues in their past. Maybe this is how they lucked out.

~~~
FilterSweep
It's quite sad that we (collectively) consider this "lucking out" \- I don't
want to assume your friends situations, but our collective consciousness
leaves a permanent mark on their life for past mistakes.

And checkr is even more help in the saturated background check industry.

~~~
luckydata
Actually, they did luck out. Usually, those companies report inaccuracies that
tend to lose people jobs they completely deserve.

------
gringoDan
Checkr is minting money. I doubt they needed this cash infusion, but it could
make sense to drive even more growth.

Almost all of the on-demand companies (Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, etc.) use the
service to screen independent contractors. The kicker is that independent
contractors often sign up for many of these services, so Checkr can turn
around and sell the same data that they pull for 1 individual to 3+ companies
at ~$15+ a pop.

~~~
orange_county
Depending on regulations of this, I doubt they can resell. Especially if each
background check is done days apart from each other. You may run into a
scenario where a felony case was recorded in between background checks.

~~~
erichurkman
I'd love if they could re-use data to temporary supplement checks that take a
long time. Some background checks can take _ages_ for certain counties,
especially if they were a city/county employee, a police officer, or lived in
some rural county that only does background checks via paper or fax and their
city office is only open 10am to 3pm two days per week.

If Checkr could tell me immediately, "We submitted the requests, but they may
take a long time, so here's Bob's clear background check as of 2 years ago
while you wait."

(I've had a few background checks via Checkr take many weeks or more,
meanwhile the employee is left in limbo. 98% were quick, but those 2% were
painful; not Checkr's fault of course.)

~~~
RoboErectus
Here's the process to find criminal records in San Francisco:

1) Walk into the courthouse

2) Go find which binder has the first letter of the last name of the applicant

3) Flip through the dot-matrix printed green/white reams of printed papers to
see if someone with a first and last name has a court record

4) Write down the case number on a form with a bunch of other info

5) Go wait in line and hand it to the clerk

6a) If it's a record they have, you can go into the back and view it with a
clerk watching to make sure you don't steal or adulterate the record. It's the
only copy.

6b) If it's not in the courthouse, they'll tell you to come back in a few days
while they pull it from the archive.

7) If you had many records to pull, some courts will restrict you to a max of
1-2 per day. So you either have to send lots of people, or just wait. Some
courts like Santa Barbra can take 120+ days.

This is true for lots of counties in the US, and it takes getting involved in
local politics to fix it. A lot of Americans can't make rent if they don't get
their next paycheck, and a long background check can be really stressful.

It's a hard problem, but it's getting better. I could go on :)

------
maaaats
I find it quite scary that whether you can get employed or not is decided on
the whim of some company.

What if your record is wrong, and they won't fix it? And what value do you get
of the screening? What can you find, that really would matter to a hiring
decision, other than extreme cases?

~~~
twothamendment
What if they dig up dirt on someone with the same or similar name? My mom
can't give blood because of some guy with a name that is one letter different
than hers. You'd think a different gender would make it easy to fix - but no,
she finally gave up.

~~~
vhost-
I got served a court summons for someone who shares my name that was being
sued for not paying 100k in medical debt to MY WORK. it was super embarrassing
and they walked in and threw papers at me.

It took me months to get it figured out because the people responsible for
serving me just ignored me. They refused to believe they made a pretty massive
research mistake. We had different middle names and birth dates.

~~~
djrogers
> It took me months to get it figured out

Either way this would be a PITA, but it seems the easiest thing to do would be
to just go ahead and show up in court. The judge would have you there for
about 2 minutes before smacking down the lawyer for the side that summoned
you, and sent you home. No reason to spend months working it all out...

------
exhilaration
I'm surprised to see that property rentals isn't listed under their
"Industries" tab. I guess "Checkr is for every business" except that one.

If anyone's curious, I use
[https://www.e-renter.com/](https://www.e-renter.com/) for background checks
on prospective tenants and
[https://connect.experian.com/](https://connect.experian.com/) for credit
checks.

~~~
alehul
Though I could be mistaken, I believe it's different as it's enterprise-
focused and aimed at checking potential employees rather than tenants.

~~~
mooreds
Yes. I talked to them about an adjacent vertical but they were super focused
on the potential employees/contractors market. (This was about a year ago, so
maybe they've changed their focus a bit.)

------
owenversteeg
The demo on the website is pretty interesting, especially with the amount of
information they can get. The "previous salary" was pretty interesting - is
that something that companies actually check?

Also, is there a risk of abusing this? What information does Checkr need to
run a report, and how do they verify that the person they are running the
report on is actually applying for the relevant position?

~~~
lawnchair_larry
They try to get salary, but often don’t get it. I’ve been asked for salary
info on former employees. Equifax also owns a company called theworknumber,
which your employer voluntarily provides with salary information.

The standard language in background checks gives them permission to obtain it
through any means, including asking your bank how much your direct deposit is,
or asking your credit card company what your stated income was. I haven’t
heard of anyone attempting to use those means, but technically they could.

~~~
justherefortart
If you're paid through ADP or any of the big payroll companies, they're
sharing your information. It's wonderful.

~~~
learc83
ADP's privacy policy says this.

>Unless directed by our clients, we do not share employee information provided
by our clients with third parties. When directed by our clients, we
communicate company employee information to third party service providers such
as payroll service bureaus, insurance companies and third party
administrators, among others.

According to that, they'll only do it if directed by your employer.

~~~
rhizome
It doesn't say whether it's opt-in or opt-out, that is: I don't trust their
use of the word "directed."

------
orange_county
I used to work in the background screening company before switching careers.
The background screening process is very tedious, each state and sometimes
counties keep records in their own way. If you are lucky, you can easily just
search for the person’s case online, however many times they only allow case
searches over the phone. I’m wondering how Checkr handles that since it’s not
an easy thing to scale. Even looking at their careers page, they are not even
hiring any data entry folks to handle that.

~~~
owenversteeg
Maybe that's outsourced to another company that does a ton of calling? I
agree, I'm also very curious the various ways they obtain data.

~~~
leahcim
Are they using Upcall for calling?

------
baldfat
I work in education with children and background checks in PA is as follows.

1) State Child Line background check (Mail in a form $15)

2) State Police Background check (Online Access $20 I get this back
immediately)

3) FBI Finger Prints (UPS Store $50)

So frustrating that we don't have a national registry with state police and
national agencies. I Don't have to do the finger prints as much but the other
clearances are every three years.

The issue for driving is I have to get my driving record. Some agencies ask
for multiple of years so this could mean multiple of states and many states
have outsourced the work.

------
rusbus
Maybe now they can buy a vowel. I say this only half as a joke. I recently had
to use checkr. The first thing they ask you for is your social security
number. Typing your social into a box below a misspelled URL isn't a super
comforting experience

~~~
josefresco
Founded in 2014, which makes the choice of name even more peculiar. Didn't the
"dropping vowels" naming convention die with "Web 2.0"?

~~~
hobofan
With a lot of good brand and domain names already taken, it is alive and well.

------
siruncledrew
This is a pretty divisive issue with regards to recidivism and personal
rights. As I see it:

For employers:

\- They are looking out for their own asses. That's the reason why these
background check companies exist in the first place. If there wasn't a
liability that could potentially fall on the business from someone they hired,
then this industry wouldn't be as big as it is.

\- If everything was 100% transparent in the hiring process, there would
probably be way more criticism from lots of other things. Prior crime
convictions aside, there's many reasons a candidate might be arbitrarily
overlooked. Maybe the business searched for their social media accounts and
didn't like what they saw. Maybe the person is ugly. Maybe the hiring manager
has a negative opinion about their education history or what part of town they
live in. Who knows. If they know what the laws are, they can also figure out
how to get around them while still seeming compliant.

\- They do not give a shit about giving someone a second chance. They are not
Make a Wish and thinking they are doing a solid to someone out of prison
trying to get back on their feet. I would believe it if most applications
submitted with the "prior criminal convictions" box checked are automatically
filtered out of the applicant pool. The potential risk is just not worth the
reward for the employers, which is why they choose to use services like
checkr.

\- If the employer does keep applicants with prior convictions, they are
probably going to lowball the candidate to hire them at a discount for the
position, knowing the candidate has slim options with little leverage.

\- I don't see small businesses (outside of ones working with children, the
government, or similar such instances) using a background check service as
much as larger corporations that make lots of hires. The cost of multiple
candidate background checks mounts quickly, so the business will likely only a
background check on 1-2 people at most, probably after multiple interviews and
at least 1 in-person communication.

For employees/candidates:

\- It's like a shitty butterfly effect, where a mistake you paid for
continually rains on your parade the rest of your life. There are no "fresh
starts".

\- Knowing that most employers will throw your application in the trash if you
have a criminal record, therefore limiting your own chances to try to improve
yourself and be a contributing member of society, there is basically an
incentive to lie on the application for the sake of just hoping the business
won't find out. Essentially, by lying you reason to yourself you have more to
gain than to lose. (Aside: Perhaps this is not the best kind of behavior to
enforce for a person that just had to reconcile with their shitty behavior in
prison).

\- Can we trust the companies behind the background checks? Their incentive is
to profit, so they are not looking out for the people their services impact as
much as the services their customers are buying.

\- How can peoples' rights to privacy and confidentiality be restored? This
requires a lot of discussion and legislation to make a meaningful impact.
These background check companies will not go down without putting up a
lobbying fight.

------
greatamerican
This company exists solely to extend the punishment of people who have ALREADY
BEEN PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM.

If there is any justice in the world, this company will go out of business.

~~~
jaredhansen
First, that's completely the wrong framing. Maybe checkr doesn't "care enough"
about the people who have been punished, but it's not like the company exists
out of spite. It exists to serve the legitimate business interests of people
who are scared of the impact that a person with a prior record of doing bad
things may have on their business, if hired. (Including: our customers are in
enterprise/gov/edu and require us to commit to background checks on everyone
we hire).

Secondly:

I don't understand all the hatred here. Who, exactly, is this going to prevent
from getting a job? People who were honest in their application when asked
about prior convictions/etc, or people who lied?

Why should businesses be forced to hire people who lie about past misdeeds?
There's a perfectly reasonable way for people who have done bad things, and
been "PUNISHED BY THE COURT SYSTEM") to handle it: you tell the employer "x
years ago I was convicted of X bad thing. I was guilty, but I learned from the
experience and changed. Here are three character references who have known me
both before and after, and I'm happy to tell you more about this if you want
to know".

If you are honest in your application, a background check will only
corroborate your truthfulness. And if you're not, why should we as a society
object to someone taking that into account when considering whether to trust
you?

~~~
optimuspaul
I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the past
is none of the potential employers business.

The problem though isn't that liars are getting jobs but also the honest
people. Valuable skills are overlooked because a past mistake has sullied
their appearance.

~~~
jaredhansen
_> I think the problem is the "bad" things I may or may not have done in the
past is none of the potential employers business._

But that's simply not true. Peoples' past behavior has a predictive value over
their probable future behavior _and we all know this, and it applies in
positive directions as well as negative_. I mean, this is why we ask about
"experience": because we think that if you did X competently in the past, you
are more likely to be able to do X competently in the future.

This predictive power is not _perfect_ , of course, but it's silly to claim
that it's "none of the bank's business that I stole $1M from the last bank I
worked at", or "none of the kindergarten's business that I previously molested
15 children".

People who get turned down for jobs because they did bad things years ago (1)
didn't have to have done those things, and (2) have ample opportunity to
demonstrate that they have improved/moved on/"are a different person now"/etc.
Companies may lose out by failing to hire some of the best of that group, but
it's not insane or evil for companies as a group to be hesitant.

