You're Collecting Screening Data. Are You Learning Anything From It?

Before planning next year's hiring budget or evaluating your screening program, take a closer look at what the information you already have is telling you.

‍Most employers know how many background checks they order and what they typically cost. They may also know how long an average check takes.

But knowing those numbers isn't the same as understanding what they mean.

A screening program generates information throughout the hiring process. Order volumes, turnaround times, verification delays, package utilization, and spending patterns can reveal where a program is working well and where it may need attention.

As organizations begin planning for the year ahead, it's worth asking a different question:

What could your existing screening data tell you about the program you're already running?

Start With Turnaround Time, but Look Beyond the Average

Turnaround time is one of the most familiar screening metrics. It's also one of the easiest to misunderstand.

An average turnaround time may suggest a program is performing well while hiding important differences beneath the surface.

Consider an employer hiring across multiple states. Most checks may be completed quickly, but certain jurisdictions, verification types, or locations could consistently take longer.

The overall average doesn't necessarily reveal those patterns.

A more useful review might examine:

• Which screening components take the longest?
• Are delays concentrated in certain jurisdictions or types of verification?
• How often do orders require additional information?
• Are particular locations experiencing recurring delays?

These questions help distinguish isolated circumstances from repeatable operational challenges.

Not every delay can be eliminated. Some screening requirements depend on third-party record availability and processes outside an employer's or screening provider's control.

The goal is to understand where delays occur and whether the process around them can be improved.

Are Your Screening Packages Still the Right Fit?

Screening packages are often established when a program is first implemented. Over time, organizations add positions, expand into new markets, and adjust hiring requirements.

But the packages themselves may not receive the same attention.

As we discussed in Different Roles. Different Packages. One Standard., screening requirements should reflect the responsibilities of the positions being filled.

A year-end review offers an opportunity to revisit those requirements.

Have job responsibilities changed? Are you hiring for positions that didn't exist when the program was established? Do your current packages still reflect your organization's needs?

This isn't about reducing screening simply to lower costs. It's about making sure the program continues to fit the business it supports.

Understand Where Exceptions Occur

Not every screening order moves directly from submission to completion.

Some require additional candidate information. Others involve verification attempts, record clarification, or disputes about reported information.

These situations don't automatically mean something is wrong. They are part of the realities of background screening.

But recurring patterns may deserve closer attention.

For example, an organization might discover that one department frequently submits incomplete information or that a particular type of verification regularly requires additional follow-up.

Looking at these patterns can help employers identify where clearer instructions, better preparation, or workflow adjustments may reduce unnecessary back-and-forth.

It's important to distinguish between operational exceptions and disputes about the accuracy or completeness of a consumer report. Those are different circumstances with different responsibilities.

The useful question isn't simply how often an exception occurs.

It's whether the organization understands why it occurs and what happens next.

Compare Spending With Hiring Plans

Screening budgets are often developed around anticipated hiring volume and established screening requirements.

Actual spending may look different as hiring needs change throughout the year.

An organization may have hired more people than expected, expanded into additional markets, or filled positions requiring different screening components.

These changes can affect screening expenditures without necessarily indicating a problem.

A year-end review should consider:

• How closely did actual spending track anticipated hiring volume?
• Which screening services accounted for the largest share of spending?
• Did changes in hiring activity affect the types of screening ordered?
• Do current screening packages still align with the positions being filled?

Understanding these patterns can help employers plan more accurately for the year ahead.

The lowest price per background check isn't necessarily the best measure of value. Accuracy, appropriate screening scope, compliance, and dependable support remain essential considerations.

Connect Screening Data to the Hiring Process

A completed screening report is an important milestone. It isn't necessarily the same as a completed hire.

That distinction matters more when hiring is already slow. In an Express Employment Professionals–Harris Poll survey released in August 2026, 43% of U.S. hiring managers said it is taking longer to fill open positions than it did two years ago. When roles take longer to fill, it's worth knowing which part of the process is adding the time.

An employer may know when a screening order was submitted and when the report was returned. Its applicant tracking system or internal hiring records may provide additional information about what happened before or afterward.

Looking at those stages together can provide a more complete view of the hiring process.

For example, if reports are consistently completed within expected timelines but start dates continue to slip, the delay may be occurring somewhere outside screening.

Similarly, if certain hiring teams experience more incomplete submissions or repeated follow-ups, the issue may involve how screening is initiated rather than how quickly the screening provider completes its work.

No single report necessarily tells the whole story.

Understanding performance sometimes requires looking across systems and identifying where responsibility changes hands.

Turn Information Into Better Questions

Reviewing screening data doesn't require building an elaborate dashboard.

It starts with understanding what information is available, identifying what matters to the organization, and looking for patterns that deserve attention.

As you evaluate your program, consider four questions:

1. Performance: Do we understand where screening delays occur, or are we relying on averages?
2. Relevance: Do our screening packages still reflect the roles and responsibilities of the positions we're filling?
3. Exceptions: Do we know which recurring issues create additional work?
4. Planning: Does our screening spending align with our hiring activity and expectations?

Not every employer will have immediate access to every answer. Information may be spread across a screening platform, invoices, an applicant tracking system, and internal records.

Understanding what can be measured today, and where greater visibility may be useful, is part of the review itself.

Your Next Screening Decision Starts With What You Already Know

Year-end planning often brings conversations about new technology, provider contracts, and opportunities to improve efficiency.

Those conversations are worthwhile. But before deciding what needs to change, employers should understand how their existing screening program is performing.

At Liberty Screening Services, we believe effective background screening depends on more than completing checks. It requires clear requirements, consistent processes, and the ability to recognize when a program may need attention.

Because collecting information is only the beginning. The value comes from knowing what to do with it.

‍