Dive Brief:

• Employers could be placing too much stock in fingerprints as a foolproof way to screen job candidates, according to a new report by SterlingBackcheck, a background screening company.
• The firm's report, "Fingerprints vs. Name-Based Background Checks: And the Winner Is…," found serious flaws with fingerprint background checks, which negatively affect both applicants and employers. Not only are they not foolproof, the report found, but using them as the sole method for identifying whether job applicants have criminal records is shaky, at best. 
• According to the report, the negative impact is meaningful and widespread. The National Employment Law Project (NELP) says nearly 600,000 job applicants each year are hobbled by incomplete FBI and state fingerprint data.

Dive Insight:

Findings note that the FBI database is missing as many as 50% of all criminal records and that fingerprint-based records are updated irregularly, so they are often weeks or even months out of date. Arrest records are often included, but EEOC guidance says arrests that don't result in a conviction should not be considered in hiring decisions due to its disproportionate impact on minority communities. 

Finally, FBI reports don't allow subjects to challenge the results, unlike name-based checks from consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), which are regulated by federal and state laws that protect job applicants from unfair employment actions.

Angela Preston, SterlingBackcheck's senior vice president and counsel, Corporate Ethics and Compliance, says fingerprint background checks are popular because they are well known, and legislators may not be aware of their limitations. Preston added that fingerprint checks have value, but it's important to remember that the source databases are designed for law enforcement, not employment screening.