Outsourcing screening doesn’t outsource responsibility, writes Alice Jeffries, Head of Marketing and Communications, Secure Screening Services.
Pre-employment screening can look relatively straightforward on paper: establish identity, understand employment history, verify the necessary information and resolve anything that needs further investigation. Real employment histories are rarely so neat.
People work through agencies, become self-employed, take career breaks, spend time overseas or work for businesses that later close. Previous employers don’t always respond, and dates don’t always align perfectly. That’s where screening becomes less about collecting information and more about establishing whether there’s sufficient reliable evidence to make a decision.
BS 7858:2019 is the code of practice for screening individuals working in secure environments. Although closely associated with the security sector, its scope extends to other environments where the security or safety of people, information, data or assets requires an appropriate level of workforce assurance. For security organisations, there’s another important consideration: screening can be carried out externally, but responsibility for it cannot simply be handed over with the contract.
Outsourcing the process does not outsource the responsibility
For organisations within the SIA Approved Contractor Scheme, pre-employment screening must conform to BS 7858. SIA guidance makes clear that where an approved contractor uses an external screening provider, responsibility for ensuring that conformity remains with the approved contractor. Some elements of the standard also cannot be outsourced. A specialist screening provider can remove considerable administration by carrying out verification, pursuing information, maintaining records and flagging inconsistencies.
“Outsourcing screening does not mean outsourcing responsibility. The employer still owns the decision-making, the policy, and the standards applied to every hire. A good screening partner should provide expertise, evidence and challenge, but operational ownership must remain clear internally. Without that, gaps in governance, consistency and accountability can quickly emerge.” – Martin Price, Chief Operating Officer, Secure Screening Services
Where screening becomes difficult
A five-year employment history entered on an application form isn’t the same as five years that have been properly accounted for. A candidate may provide accurate dates but have worked for an employer that no longer exists. They may have moved between agency assignments, been self-employed or have dates that differ slightly from those provided by a previous employer.
None of those things necessarily indicates a problem, but they certainly need to be resolved appropriately. Employment gaps need similar judgement. Real careers include study, unemployment, caring responsibilities, parental leave, travel, freelance work and time overseas. The existence of a gap isn’t necessarily significant; what matters is whether the relevant period has been identified and accounted for appropriately.
Candidate communication becomes important here. Vague requests for “further information” often result in the wrong evidence being supplied and another round of back-and-forth correspondence. Clear requirements at the outset can prevent avoidable delays later in the process.
Screening properly without slowing deployment
Security employers may have shifts to cover, contracts to mobilise and clients waiting for new recruits to become operational, so speed is a clear priority. Many avoidable screening delays arise from the process rather than the checks themselves: incomplete information at the outset, unclear candidate requirements, complexity identified too late or exceptions waiting for a decision. A well-designed process identifies those issues earlier.
Technology can help by removing repetitive administration, providing visibility and managing large volumes of information. BS 7858 itself recognises the role of automation, but automation doesn’t remove the need for competent judgement or organisational responsibility.
“Screening is fastest when candidates have a complete history and the right documents to hand. Across tens of thousands of screenings each year, we see the same challenges in countless combinations. Technology helps us recognise those patterns and improve the process, but the difficult judgements should stay with people. Automating judgement can add risk rather than remove it.” – James Matlock, Chief Performance Officer, Secure Screening Services
A completion status is not an audit trail
This is particularly important when screening is outsourced. SIA guidance for Approved Contractors recommends auditing outsourced screening and obtaining a screening file accounting for every stage of the process, rather than relying simply on confirmation that screening has been completed.
Its guidance on electronic references makes the same principle clear; the source needs to be verified, and evidence of that verification needs to be retained. Screening is ultimately about evidence: what information was obtained, how it was verified and how material inconsistencies or exceptions were resolved.
The purpose isn’t to produce candidates with flawless employment histories. The British Standards Institution (BSI) defines the objective of screening as obtaining sufficient information to enable an organisation to make an informed employment decision in a secure environment. A good outsourced provider should therefore make the process easier to manage without making it harder to see. Employers should have visibility of outstanding information, exceptions and the evidence supporting the eventual decision, with access to competent people when a case cannot be resolved through the standard workflow.
From screening completion to workforce assurance
As screening becomes increasingly digital, the mechanics of the process will continue to change. The underlying requirement won’t. Organisations still need reliable information, a clear understanding of where it came from and an effective way to resolve uncertainty. For security employers under pressure to recruit and deploy people quickly, that doesn’t need to conflict with operational efficiency. A well-run process should identify uncertainty earlier, resolve it faster and leave the organisation with evidence it can stand behind.
The better question, then, isn’t simply, “Has the screening been completed?” It’s, “Do we have enough reliable evidence to put this person to work with confidence?”
