Background verification is one of the most widely practised and least well understood functions in modern human resources. Ninety-four percent of employers conduct some form of background screening. Yet the assumptions that underpin those programmes the beliefs about what a background check does, what it covers, and what it means are frequently wrong.
These aren’t obscure technical misunderstandings. They are fundamental misconceptions about what screening can and cannot do and they lead directly to verification programmes that are more expensive, less effective, and less legally defensible than they need to be.
Here are seven myths that AMS Inform encounters regularly in conversations with clients, prospects, and industry peers and the reality behind each.
Myth 1: “We Ran a Background Check We’re Covered”
This is the single most pervasive myth in background verification. The assumption is that a background check provides comprehensive, permanent clearance that once the check is done, the employer has discharged their duty of care and can move on.
The reality is that a background check is a point-in-time snapshot. It tells you what was found (or not found) on a specific date, using specific sources, in specific jurisdictions. It does not tell you what happened before that date in jurisdictions that were not searched. It does not tell you what happens after that date. And it does not cover every source of information that might be relevant.
The practical consequence is that an employer who conducted a clean background check two years ago and has not monitored the employee since has no current assurance of that employee’s status. If the employee has been convicted of a relevant offence, lost a professional licence, or been placed on a sanctions list in the interim, the original check provides no protection either practically or legally.
What to believe instead: a background check provides assurance at the time it is conducted, for the sources and jurisdictions it covers. To maintain assurance over time, continuous monitoring is required. To ensure comprehensive coverage, the check must be designed to cover the candidate’s full jurisdictional footprint.
Myth 2: “A Criminal Check Covers Everywhere the Candidate Has Lived”
Many employers assume that a “criminal background check” searches some form of universal database that contains records from every jurisdiction where the candidate has lived or worked. This assumption is incorrect in virtually every market.
In the United Kingdom, a DBS check covers offences recorded in England, Wales, Scotland (through Disclosure Scotland), and Northern Ireland (through AccessNI). It does not cover offences committed in other countries. In the United States, a national criminal database search is not comprehensive it contains only records that have been voluntarily submitted by state and local agencies, and is widely acknowledged within the industry to be incomplete. County-level searches in each jurisdiction where the candidate has resided are the only method that approaches comprehensive coverage.
In India, criminal record checks are conducted at the district court level, and a check in one district will not return results from another. A candidate who has lived in multiple Indian states requires checks in each jurisdiction. Across the Middle East, criminal records from one country are generally not accessible from another a candidate with a clean record in the UAE may have an undisclosed history in another country.
What to believe instead: a criminal check covers the specific jurisdictions that are searched, and only those jurisdictions. For candidates with multi-jurisdictional backgrounds, separate checks are required in each relevant jurisdiction. The more countries and regions a candidate has lived or worked in, the more checks are needed.
Myth 3: “If Nothing Came Up, There’s Nothing to Find”
This myth conflates the absence of results with the absence of history. In reality, a “clean” background check result means only that the specific sources consulted did not return any relevant records. It does not mean that no relevant records exist.
There are several reasons why relevant information might not appear in a background check result. The offence may have occurred in a jurisdiction that was not searched. The record may not yet have been entered into the database at the time of the search (court records are frequently backlogged). The record may be maintained in a system that is not electronically accessible and therefore was not included in the search. Or the record may exist under a different name or identity particularly relevant in the context of increasing synthetic identity fraud.
HireRight’s 2025 Global Benchmark Report found that more than three-quarters of employers uncovered candidate discrepancies during screening in the past year. This means that in at least 75% of organisations, the screening process identified information that the candidate had not disclosed, misrepresented, or concealed. A clean result is useful information but it is not the same as comprehensive assurance.
What to believe instead: a clean result means that the specific sources checked did not return relevant records. It is one data point, not a guarantee. The confidence level of the result is directly related to the comprehensiveness of the search how many jurisdictions were covered, how many databases were consulted, and whether primary source verification was used.
Myth 4: “Background Checks Are Basically the Same Regardless of Provider”
This is perhaps the most commercially consequential myth. The assumption is that background verification is a commoditised service that one provider’s check is essentially equivalent to another’s, and that the primary differentiator is price.
The reality is that the quality, scope, and reliability of background checks varies enormously between providers. A provider with genuine in-country operational capability local teams, court system access, institutional relationships, regulatory expertise will produce fundamentally different results from a provider that relies on automated database queries or subcontracts to agents in markets where they have no direct presence.
Consider education verification. A provider that confirms a qualification by contacting the issuing institution directly, verifying the record against the institution’s own database, and confirming the specific qualification, dates, and grade will produce a verification result that is categorically more reliable than a provider that inspects a copy of the candidate’s certificate and compares it to a template.
Consider criminal record checks. A provider with operational teams conducting court record searches at the district level in India reviewing physical court records in the relevant jurisdictions will produce results that are meaningfully more comprehensive than a provider that relies solely on electronic database queries, which in many Indian jurisdictions do not capture the full scope of court records.
What to believe instead: background verification is a service where quality varies dramatically. The cheapest check is almost never the most thorough. When evaluating providers, ask specifically how checks are conducted in each jurisdiction what sources are accessed, who performs the work, and how anomalies are resolved.
Myth 5: “Reference Checks Are a Waste of Time”
This myth has gained traction in recent years, driven by the perception that former employers provide only anodyne confirmations of dates and titles and that meaningful information is never shared. While it is true that many employers have adopted restrictive reference policies, the conclusion that reference checks are therefore valueless is wrong.
The value of a reference check depends entirely on how it is conducted. An automated reference check that sends a form to an HR department and receives a confirmation of dates and title is, indeed, of limited value beyond verifying employment dates. A structured reference interview conducted by a skilled professional asking open-ended questions about performance, conduct, reason for leaving, and suitability for rehire frequently surfaces information that changes the hiring decision.
The key is that reference checks should be conducted by people who know what questions to ask and how to interpret the answers. A former manager who says “I can confirm they worked here” may be providing all they are authorised to say but a skilled interviewer can identify the difference between a restricted policy response and a reluctant one. The specific wording used, the information volunteered versus withheld, and the tone of the response all carry signal that an experienced reference checker can interpret.
What to believe instead: reference checks are valuable when conducted properly by skilled professionals. Automated form-based references are useful for confirming employment dates but limited beyond that. Structured reference interviews, conducted with appropriate consent and by experienced personnel, remain one of the most cost-effective verification tools available.
Myth 6: “Background Checks Are Only Necessary for Senior Roles”
Many organisations apply rigorous verification to senior hires but conduct minimal or no checks on junior employees, interns, or temporary workers. The assumption is that the risk associated with junior roles is proportionally lower.
This assumption is partially correct a junior employee typically has less access to financial assets, strategic information, and decision-making authority than a senior one. But it ignores several important realities.
First, junior employees frequently have access to systems, data, and physical premises that represent meaningful risk if exploited. An entry-level IT support worker has system-level access. A junior accounts clerk has access to payment systems. A temporary receptionist has access to the building.
Second, the data on credential fraud does not support the assumption that misrepresentation is concentrated at the senior level. Education credential discrepancies inflated grades, fabricated degrees, unearned qualifications are distributed across all levels of seniority. Nearly half of Gen Z candidates in recent surveys admitted to lying on job applications. The fraudulent credential is as likely to appear at entry level as at executive level.
Third, the legal and regulatory obligation to verify is often not tiered by seniority. In healthcare, every patient-facing worker from the consultant surgeon to the care assistant must be verified to the same regulatory standard. In financial services, regulatory requirements apply to all individuals performing regulated activities, regardless of their level.
What to believe instead: the scope and depth of verification should be calibrated to the risk profile of the role, not the seniority. A risk-tiered approach where checks are proportionate to the access, authority, and regulatory requirements of each role is more effective and more defensible than a seniority-based approach.
Myth 7: “We Can Handle Background Checks In-House It’s Just Calling a Few Numbers”
Some organisations particularly smaller ones or those with limited HR infrastructure attempt to conduct background checks internally, on the assumption that verification is a straightforward administrative task that doesn’t require specialist expertise.
In practice, effective background verification requires several categories of expertise that are rarely available in-house. Legal expertise understanding the data protection, consent, and disclosure requirements in each jurisdiction where checks are conducted. Source access direct relationships with courts, educational institutions, professional regulatory bodies, and government agencies that are not available to individual employers. Interpretation expertise the ability to understand what a result means in context, including the significance of different record types, the limitations of specific databases, and the red flags that indicate potential fabrication. And operational capacity the ability to conduct checks at scale, across jurisdictions, within timeframes that don’t delay hiring.
The risks of poorly conducted in-house checks are significant. A check conducted without proper consent may violate data protection law. A check that misses a relevant jurisdiction creates a false sense of security. A check that misinterprets a result concluding that a record is disqualifying when it is not, or that a clear result is comprehensive when it is not leads to either discrimination or undetected risk.
What to believe instead: background verification is a specialist function that benefits significantly from professional execution. The cost of professional verification is modest relative to the cost of getting it wrong. Organisations that value the integrity of their hiring decisions and their legal defensibility invest in professional verification as a standard operating cost, not an optional extra.
Conclusion
Myths persist because they are convenient. They simplify decision-making, reduce costs, and provide a comfortable sense of security. But in background verification, myths are expensive because they lead to programmes that check boxes without managing risk, that provide documentation without providing assurance, and that create a false confidence that collapses the moment it is tested.
The organisations that verify effectively are those that understand both the power and the limitations of the tools they use. A background check is genuinely valuable but only when it is understood for what it is, designed for the risk it is meant to address, and executed by people who know how to do it well.
