CREDENCE SCREENING ENTERPRISE

BUILDING TRUST - ONE VERIFICATION AT A TIME

Background Checks: The Evolution

Part 3 — The Digital Leap

Last time, we left off with a promise: the moment “reasonable care” stopped being something employers could only deliver in limited ways, and became something technology could increasingly help them deliver.

Here’s how that happened — and it took longer to get going than you might think.

When Checking Became Possible

The negligent hiring standard from Part 2 dates back to 1908. The Fair Credit Reporting Act, which helped establish the rules for third-party consumer reporting, came in 1970.

And yet, well into the 1980s, professional background screening was still considered a fairly new idea — one plenty of employers hadn’t fully bought into.

Interviews, references and gut feel were still doing most of the work.

Word of mouth hadn’t disappeared. It had just got slower and less reliable in a much bigger world — and for a long while, nothing had come along to properly replace it.

Then, in roughly one decade, almost everything changed.

The Decade Everything Sped Up

Through the 1990s, two things happened at the same time: personal computers became standard in offices, and the internet arrived.

Criminal justice agencies began putting their records online. Private companies started buying and aggregating those public databases, then reselling access to employers, landlords and anyone else who needed to check.

What used to mean phone calls, letters and waiting increasingly meant a search box.

The shift was fast. A 1996 study by the Society for Human Resource Management found that over half of large U.S. corporations were already running some form of digital background check — a striking jump for an industry that had been considered niche barely a decade earlier.

Government was pushing in the same direction.

The Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996 explicitly encouraged public agencies to use new technology to make their records more accessible.

And in 1998, an entirely different piece of American legislation — the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act — resulted in something culturally telling: a live, national system that could return a background-check result in minutes rather than weeks.

That wasn’t a background check for employment.

But it demonstrated something important.

“Checking someone” no longer had to mean starting a process and then waiting for an answer. It could mean something much closer to instant.

And once that became technically possible, the question of what employers should be doing began to change too.

Reasonable Care Gets a New Meaning

This is where Part 2’s story and this one meet.

Courts had already established that employers had a duty to know — that “I didn’t know” wasn’t always a good enough defence if you should have known.

For most of the 20th century, that standard existed alongside a very real practical limit: even a careful employer often had no fast way to check.

Now that limit was beginning to disappear.

The legal standard didn’t necessarily change its wording. But what counted as “reasonable” could shift along with what was possible.

Something that took weeks in 1985 could take minutes by the late 1990s — and once something can be done quickly, doing it slowly starts to look less like an unavoidable limitation and more like a choice.

That was the real digital leap.

It wasn’t simply that background checks became faster.

The technology changed the standard against which the process could be judged.

Accuracy still mattered.

But increasingly, so did time.

From Local to Global

The pace didn’t let up in the 2000s.

As companies increasingly hired across borders, background checks had to follow — pulling together records from multiple countries, multiple legal systems and multiple definitions of “official.”

What had once been a local, almost neighbourly matter of asking around became a genuinely international undertaking.

South Africa’s own courts and record-keeping systems went through their own version of this shift, on their own timeline. The direction of travel was much the same, even where the pace and starting point looked different.

Qualification verification moved online, allowing employers to verify certain educational records electronically rather than relying entirely on paper certificates and phone calls.

Criminal record checks didn’t make quite the same jump. The official route still runs on fingerprints, through a process that can take weeks.

So the “digital leap” wasn’t one clean shift.

It was — and still is — a patchwork.

Some things became searchable. Some became almost instant. Others remained stubbornly dependent on old-fashioned processes.

And then there was another problem.

Not everything you want to know about a person exists in a database.

The Things a Database Can’t Tell You

A criminal record can live in a database. A qualification can live in a database.

But whether someone was reliable, easy to work with, or worth rehiring — that’s not a record sitting anywhere.

It only exists as long as someone who was actually there is willing to say it.

For a long time, getting that answer meant a phone call: an HR administrator dialling a previous employer, hoping someone picked up, hoping they had time, hoping they’d actually say something useful instead of the bare minimum.

That part has been digitised too — just not in quite the same way.

Tools now send a structured request straight to a former employer or referee, who answers in their own time through an online form instead of an unplanned phone call.

It’s faster to send, easier to track, and referees may be more inclined to give fuller answers when they’re not put on the spot in the middle of a workday.

But notice what actually changed there.

The asking got faster. The answering didn’t get automated.

It still depends on a specific person choosing to tell the truth about someone they once worked with.

No database, however fast, can hand you that.

Someone has to remember, and someone has to be willing to say it.

And that matters, because the more we automate the things that can be checked, the more obvious the things that still require human judgement become.

Which raises the next question.

If checking can be this fast, this automated and this far-reaching, how long before the checking itself stops being done by a person at all?

That’s where we’re headed in the final chapter: a world where, in some places, you can be hired — and fired — by an AI, with no human ever in the loop.

What Hasn’t Changed

The goal, again, hasn’t moved.

An employer still wants to know, with reasonable confidence, who they’re bringing in.

What’s changed is how long “reasonable” is willing to wait for the answer — and how much information can now be gathered before making the decision.

Credence’s flagship criminal background check reflects exactly that shift.

No fingerprints. No waiting around for a manual records search. Just an ID number, consent, and a result that’s typically back in hours, not days.

It’s the same underlying question people were asking with two phone calls in Part 1.

Just answered at the speed the world now expects.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Recent Posts

Background Checks: The Evolution — Enter AI

24 September 2026

“The algorithm decided” turns out to be about as strong a defence as “I didn’t know” ever was. In 2023, a company paid out for teaching its hiring software to automatically reject applicants over a certain age. In South African law, there’s already a rule about exactly this. Part 4 looks at what happens when the checking itself stops being done by a person at all — and whether that’s a problem worth worrying about, or one we’ve quietly already solved.

Read More »

Background Checks: The Evolution — The Liability Question

21 September 2026

In 1908, a court held an employer responsible for a death at work — not for what an employee did, but for what the employer already knew and chose to ignore. That idea, that you’re responsible for what you should have known, turns out to be older than the background check industry itself. Here’s where it began.

Read More »

Share your thoughts

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x