The UK government has recently updated guidelines for employers regarding Right to Work digital identity checks, focusing on the use of digital identity service providers (IDSPs).
Since April 2022, IDSPs have been permitted to conduct additional checks beyond standard verifications for passports and specific ID cards held by British and Irish workers.
However, this flexibility posed challenges for employers as they lacked protection in this arrangement, according to Shara Pledger, a senior associate at Pinsent Masons law firm.
The newly issued guidelines, released last Friday, reiterate the risks employers may face when relying on IDSPs for verifying documents other than those expressly permitted for right-to-work checks of British or Irish citizens with valid passports or Irish passport cards.
Pledger highlights the recent Home Office guidance, emphasizing that using IDSPs for manual document-based checks or online service right-to-work checks may not provide a statutory excuse against liability for civil penalties.
Right to Work operates within the Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework (DIATF), which also encompasses Right to Rent and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) initiatives.
Employers have increasingly turned to digital identity service providers (IDSPs) for pre-employment checks, aiming to enhance fraud prevention measures.
The updated guidelines introduce heightened penalties for hiring illegal workers and outline additional steps for checking various worker categories, including sponsored workers engaged in “supplementary work.”
Biometric Data:Optimal choice for background Screening says US Study
A recent study, published in the Criminology journal in February, conducted by researchers from the University of Maryland and Rutgers University, reveals significant inaccuracies and mistakes in background check services used by employers and landlords.
The study, which involved 101 participants in New Jersey, compared data obtained from both regulated and unregulated background check providers, including “people search” websites, against official records linked to the participants’ names and fingerprints.
Results indicate that approximately 90 percent of participants experienced at least one false-negative error, where criminal records or case depositions were either not recorded or incomplete. Moreover, over half of the participants encountered at least one false positive error, resulting in incorrect data.
University of Maryland Assistant Professor Robert Stewart highlights the prevalence of inaccuracies in background checks, underscoring the reliance on imperfect data aggregation techniques that prioritize names and birth dates over unique identifiers like fingerprints.
Stewart and co-author Associate Professor Sarah Lageson of Rutgers University identify various reasons for the errors, including mismatched, incorrect, or incomplete criminal records, as well as misspelled names, inaccurate birth dates, and confused aliases.
These inaccuracies pose a threat to fairness in access to employment and housing, prompting calls for reform within the industry. Stewart suggests exploring alternative methods, such as utilizing biometric data through state or federal agencies like the FBI, to improve the accuracy and reliability of background checks.
The study emphasizes the importance of recognizing the high stakes involved in background checks and the need for comprehensive reform to address the systemic issues affecting their reliability and fairness.
