The investigation makes us different
Credit Reporting Agency and the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency (ICR)
Although we are competing for the same pre-employment screening background report work, we are not a typical “CRA” (Credit Reporting Agency.) The classification CRA was originally established to categorize Credit Bureaus. The CRA method of collection and delivery is supposed to be used as a “tool”. Credit Bureaus collect financial information provided and report it out. If there is an error with the information, unless the individual intervenes, the error will not be corrected. 25% of credit report contains serious enough errors to be incorrectly denied employment. The same is true of any background screening company's “CRA” result. Any consumer report related to pre-employment screening must comply with the FCRA and any agency offering it is a "CRA".
Instead, we are a hybrid of an Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency (ICR) and CRA because we conduct an “investigation” and use research results (like those provided as final reports) as part of our background investigation internal process.
The reason for the distinction is in the value of our service. We infuse the human intelligence into the background investigation resulting in a higher quality report. This method is superior to normal CRA output because we are actively looking for possible candidate deception such as false Identity and omissions of key information for uncovering the truth about a candidate’s history. We flag inconsistencies and ask the pertinent questions to keep deceptive candidates from easily entering an organization.
Our largest competitors in the industry have leveraged technology to integrate and turnaround results faster, but this process structure for information is fundamentally flawed (just like Credit Reports) to be used as a standalone clear answer for the client. Just like Credit Reports the report is only a tool for an analyst. Background reports provided by CRAs are only reports to be used by a security or investigative position but instead the integration is giving the information to “recruiter” positions or “HR” positions which may be biased or not asking the investigation type questions. Areas of concern, inconsistencies and general questions may be left unchecked if no security personnel within an organization has oversight of the CRA output.
Without “human Intelligence” involved in the process of providing a report, the report will be false “clear” assisting the deceptive candidate or showing errors unfairly for other candidates. Not only is it a risk to security but is also a legal liability risk as well.
At Cleves Research we solve this fundamental flaw with our largest competitors by injecting human intelligence into a quality controlled system cross-checking candidate provided information, and offering our clients flagging and overlapping of searches resulting in a higher quality output not available with the conventional CRA.
Although we are “investigative” in design, we only charge for the research conducted [just like our CRA competitors.]
Another key difference with our service, besides our full service investigative approach, is the development of the same USA standards and practices with India research. Our India company was created to ensure high quality result availability to USA corporations hiring Global professionals from India. Only the largest background check companies in the USA have a location in India, and our India data results are an excellent format with quality control and retracing capabilities (seeming not currently available among even our largest competitors.)