How might Checkr streamline its adverse action process to make it more efficient for both employers and candidates?

Introduction

To streamline Checkr's adverse action process for both employers and candidates, we need to focus on improving efficiency, transparency, and user experience. I'll analyze the current process, identify pain points, and propose solutions that balance compliance requirements with user needs. Let's explore how we can optimize this critical aspect of Checkr's background check service.

Step 1

Clarifying Questions (5 mins)

• Looking at Checkr's position in the background check industry, I'm curious about the scale of adverse action cases. Could you share what percentage of background checks typically result in adverse action notices?

Why it matters: This helps us understand the scope of the problem and potential impact of improvements. Expected answer: Around 10-15% of checks result in adverse action notices. Impact on approach: A higher percentage would prioritize automation and scalability, while a lower percentage might focus on high-touch, personalized solutions.

• Considering the compliance-heavy nature of background checks, I'm wondering about the current balance between automation and human review in the adverse action process. Can you describe the current workflow and where human intervention is required?

Why it matters: This informs where we can introduce efficiencies without compromising compliance. Expected answer: The process is partially automated, with human review for complex cases or disputes. Impact on approach: More automation would lead us to focus on AI and machine learning solutions, while more human involvement might prioritize tools to support decision-making.

• Given the dual-sided nature of the platform, I'm interested in understanding the current communication channels between employers, candidates, and Checkr during the adverse action process. How are notifications and updates currently handled?

Why it matters: This helps identify potential bottlenecks in information flow and areas for improved transparency. Expected answer: Communication is primarily through email, with some integrations into employer ATS systems. Impact on approach: Limited channels would suggest exploring multi-channel communication strategies, while existing integrations might focus on deepening those connections.

• Considering recent changes in employment laws and privacy regulations, I'm curious about how frequently Checkr needs to update its adverse action process. How often do you typically revise the workflow to ensure compliance?

Why it matters: This informs the flexibility needed in any proposed solution. Expected answer: Major updates occur annually, with minor adjustments quarterly. Impact on approach: Frequent changes would prioritize a modular, easily updatable system, while less frequent updates might allow for more comprehensive overhauls.