The Hidden Cost of Employment Verification: It's Not Just the Fee

‍Most employers know what an employment verification costs. Fewer consider whether they're paying for information they actually need.

‍Employment verification is a standard part of many background screening programs. It helps employers confirm a candidate's work history, identify discrepancies and make informed hiring decisions.

But not all employment verification methods provide the same information, take the same amount of time or carry the same cost.

For organizations hiring across multiple locations or managing high volumes of candidates, those differences matter. The question isn't simply whether to verify employment. It's whether the verification method matches the information required for the position.

The Cost Goes Beyond the Verification Fee

Employment verification costs can add up quickly, particularly when candidates have worked for multiple employers.

Consider an organization hiring 400 employees annually. If each candidate has three previous employers to verify, that could represent 1,200 individual employment verifications.

When third-party verification fees apply, the total expense can become significant.

The Work Number, for example, is a widely used employment verification source. While it can provide valuable employment information, its fees can represent a substantial expense for employers processing large numbers of verifications.

And the fee itself is only part of the equation.

Traditional employment verification may also involve waiting for employer responses, following up on incomplete information and managing delays before a screening can be completed.

Those delays can affect start dates, staffing coverage and the ability to fill open positions.

Does Every Position Need the Same Information?

Not every position requires the same level of employment history detail.

Some roles may require verification of specific employment dates, positions held or other details. For others, confirming employment history through an alternative method may satisfy the organization's established screening requirements.

The distinction matters because a more detailed verification is not automatically a more appropriate one.

Employers should consider what information is necessary for the role, what their screening policies require and whether their current verification process is delivering value proportional to its cost.

A consistent screening program does not necessarily mean using an identical verification method for every position. It means applying clear, defensible standards that align with the organization's hiring requirements.

An Alternative Worth Considering: IVES

Traditional employment verification is not the only option.

For employers looking to manage verification costs, IVES offers an alternative to relying on The Work Number.

The primary advantage is cost. When IVES meets an employer's screening requirements, it can eliminate the need to pay The Work Number's employment verification fee.

There are important differences in the information provided. IVES does not currently include month-level employment dates or positions held. For roles that require those details, a more comprehensive verification method may still be necessary.

The opportunity is not to replace every employment verification with IVES. It is to match the verification method to the information the employer actually needs, avoiding unnecessary costs while maintaining appropriate screening standards.

What High-Volume Employers Should Evaluate

For employers managing ongoing hiring across locations, departments or job categories, employment verification deserves a closer look.

Four questions can help identify opportunities to improve the process:

1. What information do we actually need? Are specific dates and positions held required for every role, or only certain positions?
2. Where are we paying third-party verification fees? How frequently does the screening process rely on sources such as The Work Number?
3. Could an alternative method meet our requirements? Are there roles or hiring categories where IVES would provide sufficient information?
4. Are our verification standards aligned with our hiring needs? Have we reviewed those requirements as our organization, workforce and hiring volume have changed?

These questions aren't about reducing screening standards. They're about making sure the process is appropriate for the position and that employers understand the options available to them.

A Better Approach to Employment Verification

Employment verification should support confident hiring decisions without introducing unnecessary expense.

For some positions, detailed employment history remains essential. For others, an alternative such as IVES may provide the information needed while eliminating The Work Number fee.

The difference comes down to understanding what the organization needs to verify and choosing the right method to do it.

‍Liberty Screening Services helps employers evaluate their employment verification options and align screening methods with their hiring requirements.

‍[Contact Liberty Screening Services](https://www.libertyscreening.com/contact) to discuss whether IVES could be a fit for your screening program.

‍