SJV Connect
SJV Smart

Details Really Matter When Defining Real Continuous Criminal Monitoring

Real Continuous Criminal Monitoring v. Continuous Criminal Monitoring

It’s been a little over a month since we launched the industry’s first Continuous Criminal Monitoring solution for CRAs. Interest has been off the charts. We’re drinking from the firehose and learning a lot about how you’re planning to use this solution with your customers.

As you can imagine, we have had a flurry of activity with background screening companies of all shapes and sizes—after all, the market has been clamoring for a post-hire monitoring solution for years. At this point, we can categorize the interest like this:

  • “Let’s Do This Thing”- This reaction has come from CRAs that represent clients that have specifically asked for the solution, that specialize in highly regulated industries, or are more visionary organizations that want to be on the forefront with the enterprise level CRA’s who have already launched this product.
  • “We Are Interested, but Not Today”- These CRAs realize that there is a market for the product, understand that the largest competitors in the industry have already launched the solution, but haven’t yet seen the demand. Eventually, we’ll win them over!
  • “We Already Have This”- Wait, what?

It’s that last group, that I’d like to focus on; the small group of background screening companies that say they already offer continuous criminal monitoring to their end-user customers. We were shocked to hear this response, honestly, because without real-time, direct-sourced data, how could that possibly be true?

Real Continuous Criminal Monitoring v. Continuous Monitoring against a Nat-Crim

So, it turns out that the version of monitoring that some CRAs are selling consists of running a National Criminal Database search to see if anything pops up over time. Is this application of national criminal records searches continuous? Yes. Is it effective? We’ll let you decide.

Let’s take a real-world example of how this Continuous Monitoring plays out. I’m an organization that has drivers out on the road at all times, and I have a driver that gets incarcerated for a DUI. If I’m only monitoring against a national criminal database, here’s the circumstances under which an alert actually adds value:

  1. The national data file has to include the jurisdiction where my employee was booked. If not, I’ll never know.
  2. The event must have happened relatively recently. If I don’t find out about a risky event for weeks if not months, that leaves me with an extended period of potential exposure.
  3. The alert must be associated with the person I’m monitoring. National data files generally don’t contain enough identifiers to allow me to ensure the hit actually belongs to my candidate. That means slower confirmations and more wild goose chases.
  4. The record has to be up-to-date. If there’s been a delay between the event and the alert, many things could have happened that decrease its relevance—charges dropped, plea bargains, etc.

That’s a lot of gymnastics, energy and effort I’ll need to be sure I have actionable intelligence. So this misapplication of national criminal record searches leaves a CRA and customer with a lot of questions. Are the results relevant? Accurate? Actionable? Someone has to figure it out. The use of national criminal records searches as a post-hire monitoring solution distracts the CRA and customer with either a false sense of security or needless anxiety.

Now, let’s take the same example with SJV’s version of Real Continuous Criminal Monitoring. If the driver was booked in any of the jurisdictions we cover (now over 85% of the country), I would have that “fresh” information in a matter of minutes, limiting the risk that the driver could impose on my organization or to the public. Moreover, I would have the identifiers I needed to know that the alert I’ve received belongs to the employee I’ve been monitoring. So, in a matter of minutes, I have the right data to determine the steps I need to take to protect my business. The CRA and customer have relevant, accurate, actionable information that’s continuous and effective.  

Run the same scenario with a healthcare worker or a home delivery professional who was booked for abuse or theft. You see a clear difference between the national criminal database monitoring and Real Continuous Criminal Monitoring.

To be clear, this is not a hit piece on national criminal record searches. They are highly effective screening tools when used in the proper way. Looking for pre-employment or interval-based post-employment pointers, national record searches can certainly be effective.

Learn More About Continuous Monitoring

How to Determine if You Have a Real Continuous Monitoring Solution

  • Immediacy- When mitigating risk, time is of the essence. How quickly from the time of booking will you be alerted to the booking event?
  • Cleanliness- Is your data “bottled at the source”? If not, how many layers does it have to jump through for you to be alerted?
  • Quality- How much noise does your data create? Are you constantly chasing down identifiers?

If You Are Looking for Real Continuous Criminal Monitoring . . .

It all comes down to the data. The data powering SJV's Continuous Criminal Monitoring solution isn't available through any other wholesale provider in the industry. Because of our partnership with Appriss Insights, the leading provider of real-time booking data, SJV offers CRAs an exclusive and proprietary post-hire monitoring solution unmatched in scope, timeliness, and effectiveness.  

SJV's Continuous Criminal Monitoring solution features:

  • 85% of all U.S. incarceration facilities
  • 2,800+ direct data sources
  • Over 160 million booking records with more than 1 million records added every month
  • Data refreshes as frequently as every 15 minutes

New call-to-action


Nick Fishman is a guest blogger for SJV Data Solutions. Fishman is the president of Fishman Group Consultants and has over 20 years of experience in the background screening industry serving in various executive capacities.