Something keeps coming up in conversations with HR teams: background checks are broken. Not broken in some abstract, theoretical way. Broken in the very practical sense of costing time, candidates, and patience. I ran a study with six Americans to find out what HR professionals actually think about background screening platforms, and whether the marketing claims from vendors match their lived experience.
The short answer? Not even close.
The Participants
Six participants from across the United States: a logistics coordinator in Arizona, an unemployed HR professional in Ohio, a logistics coordinator in South Dakota, a construction manager in California, an unemployed professional in rural New York, and a healthcare worker in rural Texas. Ages ranged from 31 to 48, with backgrounds spanning operations, construction, and healthcare. What united them? They have all dealt with background screening processes, either as hirers or candidates, and they have all experienced the frustrations firsthand.
What is Actually Frustrating About Background Checks?
I asked participants to walk me through their biggest frustrations with background screening processes. The response was a catalogue of operational pain points that would make any HR director wince.
Larissa from Arizona captured the core issue: "The black box problem. I submit someone, it goes into a portal, and for days or weeks it just says 'in progress' with no breakdown. County courthouse turnarounds are wildcards. Some come back in 48 hours. Others vanish for two weeks because someone is processing paper forms at a rural court."
The pattern was clear across all six participants:
Unpredictable timelines with no visibility into where delays occur
Fragmented systems requiring logins to multiple portals for different check types
Poor candidate experience with forms that do not work on mobile or in languages other than English
Identity false positives from name variations, hyphens, accents, and compound surnames
Hidden fees that appear after the fact or get passed to candidates
Key insight: Background check frustration is not about the checks themselves. It is about opacity. HR teams can live with delays if they can see where the delay is and communicate clearly to candidates.
Does "80% Faster" Actually Mean Anything?
Many background screening vendors lead with speed claims. Certn, for example, positions itself as "80% faster" with a "single dashboard" approach. I asked participants whether this messaging resonated, and what triggered scepticism.
The "single dashboard" part landed well. The speed claim? Not so much.
Amanda from Ohio explained: "Single dashboard, yes, that would be a dream. But 80% faster than what? My slowest county check? The industry average? Their own old product? Without baselines and proof by check type, it reads like marketing fluff."
Participants demanded specific evidence to believe speed claims:
Component-level breakdowns showing speed by check type, not just aggregate averages
County-specific data because Maricopa County is different from rural Wyoming
Timestamped step tracking so they can see where in the process a check sits
SLAs with actual remedies like credits or escalation protocols when timelines miss
Key insight: Blanket speed claims trigger scepticism, not confidence. HR buyers want proof segmented by check type, jurisdiction, and timeframe.
The Magic Wand Question
I asked participants: if you could wave a magic wand and fix one thing about hiring and background checks, what would it be?
The answers converged on a surprisingly consistent set of demands:
SLA-backed predictability with a target of 48-72 hours and real accountability
A unified control tower showing all checks, all vendors, all candidates in one live dashboard
Real-time ETAs that update as external systems provide data
Human escalation paths with a single case owner, not a ticket queue
Key insight: The dream is not just speed. It is predictability with accountability. HR teams want to know exactly when a check will complete and have someone to call when it does not.
What This Means for Background Screening Platforms
If you are building or marketing background screening technology, here is what actually earns trust from HR buyers:
Segment your speed claims. "80% faster" is meaningless without specificity by check type and county.
Build the unified dashboard for real. Not a single login that routes to different systems. One view, all check types, live status.
Surface external bottlenecks honestly. If a county is slow, show it. Transparency builds trust.
Offer SLAs with teeth. Credits, escalation protocols, published miss rates.
The Bottom Line
Background screening is ripe for disruption, but not by making the same speed claims everyone else makes. The opportunity is in transparency, predictability, and proof. HR teams are tired of black boxes and vendor promises that do not match reality.
Want to test your own HR tech positioning? Ditto lets you run studies like this in hours, not weeks. Book a demo at askditto.io.
What the Research Revealed
We asked real consumers to share their thoughts. Here is what they told us:
What are your biggest frustrations with background screening processes?
Larissa Vega, 31, Logistics Coordinator, Avondale, AZ:
The black box problem. I submit someone, it goes into a portal, and for days or weeks it just says 'in progress' with no breakdown. County courthouse turnarounds are wildcards.
Amanda Waite, 45, Unemployed Adult, Akron, OH:
Fragmented systems. I have to log into three different portals depending on whether it is a criminal check, drug screen, or credential verification.
Does "80% faster" messaging resonate?
Devina Cheng, 41, Construction Manager, Sacramento, CA:
Single dashboard would be incredible. But 80% faster than what? Give me a heat map with realistic ETAs. That is what I can use.
John Brenner, 48, Unemployed Adult, Rural, NY:
What I want to know is: what happens when you miss? Do I get credits? If your SLA has no teeth, your speed claim is just marketing.
If you could fix one thing about background checks?
Megan Carter, 34, Healthcare Worker, Rural, TX:
Portable credential wallets for healthcare. My nurses get verified over and over at different facilities. Same license, same certifications.