CUSTOMER RESOURCES

Government

An Overview of the Government Employee Background Check

government building with columns

The federal government is a vast organization overseeing a civilian workforce that numbers more than 2.1 million people. From individuals working directly for the executive branch as White House staffers to the hundreds of thousands of people working in dozens of minor sub-agencies, these people keep the wheels of government turning. Yet the government does not and cannot hire anyone that walks in off the street looking for a job—this is no "mom and pop" fast food restaurant. To become a government employee, a background check is a vital part of the hiring process.

Government jobs can expose individual employees to a wide range of potentially sensitive information, and opportunities for fraud abound. Misusing government funds, mishandling taxpayer information, exposing private data, and even creating potential national security risks are possible consequences of hiring the wrong people to work in the government. 

Unlike a regular background check, vetting for government work goes much further. For a rank-and-file employee working a desk job in the Commerce Department, the experience can be straightforward—with a few steps beyond employment in the private sector. However, these checks go deeper than others for other positions, especially those requiring a security clearance. The good news is that if you're asked to submit to the background check process, you've already received a conditional offer of employment because of the federal Fair Chance Act.

The federal background check looks at far more than your criminal history. What the procedure involves can even vary between departments. Understanding what government agencies will consider and what you should expect can simplify the process. These painstaking efforts can initially seem daunting, from citizenship requirements to individual assessments of past crimes or drug abuse. Let's break down what you need to know about what the government looks for when hiring new employees.

Assessments of Applicant Suitability

Let's begin with a broad overview of how government agencies determine suitability. This is not a measure of how qualified you are to perform the job; those assessments take place separately. Instead, suitability revolves around determining whether someone can act with the level of integrity and responsibility the job role demands. Suitability assessments categorize applicants into more specific background check processes based on those demands.

The first question the government asks itself after offering you a job is simple: is this position designated sensitive or non-sensitive? In other words, will it involve potentially privileged access to systems, data, or controlled processes where misuse could cause harm? Or is the job in question a more average, perhaps clerical role?

Non-sensitive roles fall into one of three boxes: Low, Moderate, or High-Risk roles. Risk levels relate to the level of damage malfeasance by an employee could cause to the agency's work and reputation. Wrongdoing in high-risk roles, for example, can negatively impact the agency's ability to serve the public safely. The classification of your non-sensitive job role will determine the type of background procedure you'll experience.

  • Low-risk roles must submit to a National Agency Check with Inquiries (NACI). An NACI looks at criminal records, involves credit checks, and sends written inquiries for information to prior employers, educators, landlords, and personal references. 

  • Moderate risk roles undergo an MBI (Minimum Background Investigation). This includes the basic elements of the NACI but also mandates an in-person interview between the background investigator and the job applicant. Instead of written letters to employers and references, investigators may make phone calls instead.

  • High-risk positions receive a complete BI or Background Investigation. The lookback period for all records extends to five years, includes an in-depth review of prior employment and education, and transitions to in-person interviews for references. 

If you intend to work in a position classified as sensitive, there is a separate process for obtaining the necessary security clearances.

Determining Security Clearance

Some jobs in the government necessarily involve using classified information as a part of the work. If this information were to leak to the public or foreign adversaries, it could represent a risk to national security. The exposure of classified information can do irreparable harm to the way the government operates in many ways. 

Therefore, applicants under consideration for sensitive roles must undergo a separate and even more thorough vetting process. Once you receive a conditional offer and submit your Standard Forms, this process begins. How does it work?

The agency hiring the applicant called the "sponsoring agency," reviews the position in question and determines what level of clearance the applicant must have to work in that role. Higher clearance requirements demand a more in-depth background check. The three clearance levels to know include:

  • Confidential, when disclosure could cause potential harm to US national security.

  • Secret, when disclosure would cause serious harm.

  • Top Secret, when disclosure would result in "exceptionally grave" harm.

At the highest levels of government secrecy, there are additional subsets of the Top-Secret classification, such as Sensitive Compartmented Information. Access to TS-SCI information requires additional vetting beyond regular Top-Secret clearance.

Once the sponsoring agency classifies the role, they refer the investigation to the relevant government agency. Most often, that is the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, or DCSA.

The Process for Adjudicating Security Clearances

When evaluating an individual for a security clearance, the government examines an individual's history over years. A Top-Secret investigation will look further back into an applicant's life than a Confidential investigation. 

Confidential and Secret investigations have a lookback period of five years and use the National Agency Check with Law and Credit. Top Secret clearances require the Single Scope Background Investigation, which looks at the most recent ten years of an individual's life. Ultimately, the goal of these investigations is simple: determine if someone is trustworthy and stable enough to preserve government secrecy. 

These reviews are highly subjective, far more so than private sector background checks, and what disqualifies individuals for clearance may vary from case to case. Currently, the law spells out 13 distinct areas of investigation when granting clearances. These include:

  • Loyalty and allegiance to the United States

  • Impact of foreign influences

  • Existence of any foreign preferences

  • Sexual behavior

  • Manner of personal conduct

  • Finances and debts

  • Consumption of alcohol

  • Misuse of substances and drugs

  • Mental health concerns and psychological conditions

  • Past criminal conduct

  • Conduct when handling protected information

  • Evaluation of activities outside of work

  • Consideration of any prior misuse of information technology.

Honesty and a forthright attitude towards disclosing information can make the path to clearance simpler, but there are no definitive rules to guarantee who will or won't pass this type of background check. Without clearance, an applicant’s conditional offer be revoked.

Which Agencies Conduct Background Checks for a Government Employee?

Who has the responsibility for completing a government employee background check? The answer has changed recently. For many years, the Office of Personnel Management was primarily responsible for executing background checks through its sub-department, the National Background Investigations Bureau. 

However, OPM no longer oversees this duty as of 2019. Since that year, the task of background checks has fallen to the newly-created Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, operated as a part of the Department of Defense. The additional DOD resources contributed to deploying a faster system to reduce staffing shortfalls. 

Although the DCSA performs most government background checks, there are exceptions. For example, if you apply to work within the Executive Branch in a position either classed as "sensitive" or with the need for a security clearance, DCSA does not have jurisdiction. Instead, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) carries out these investigations. Similarly, agencies such as the FBI and the CIA typically directly handle background checks for prospective employees.

Standard Forms To Expect

When you receive a conditional job offer from the government, the background check and security clearance adjudication processes can begin once you provide the government with answers to a wide range of questions. The government calls these questionnaires Standard Forms. Depending on the role you seek, you will need to complete one of the following:

  • SF-85. Formally known as the Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions. This short document initiates a NACI background check. Used only for Low Risk, non-sensitive positions.

  • SF-85P. Formally known as the Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions. This initiates the Minimum Background Investigation for Moderate Risk positions. A supplementary form with additional questions, SF-85P-S, may be necessary in some departments.

  • SF-86. Formally known as the Questionnaire for National Security Positions. Initiates a full Background Investigation for High-Risk positions and Confidential, Secret, and Top-Secret clearances.

These questionnaires ask you to voluntarily disclose a wide range of information the investigating agent will use for follow-ups.

Assessing Potential Drug Use or Burdensome Personal Debt

When applicants fill out the SF-85 or the SF-86, they will encounter questions far more probing and personal than any private sector job might ask. Some find it surprising to be asked directly about their past illegal drug usage or to disclose their personal debt burden. This information can be critical in determining trustworthiness for the most sensitive positions. 

Applicants can expect questions about whether they have used illegal drugs in the past year or longer or supplied or possessed such drugs. A history of shirking debts or poor financial management may also play into the consideration process, and a credit check may occur. Past drug use and prior bankruptcy are not automatic disqualifiers for a government job. Background investigators consider individual circumstances and can discuss the information with applicants to learn more about each reported incident. 

The Importance of Honesty in Your Application

Being forthcoming on the Standard Forms can be intimidating, even for those applying to low-risk positions. However, being as open and honest as possible is essential. Although applicants may worry that the outcome will be disqualifying on its own, dishonesty will undoubtedly result in a rejection. When applying for high-level security clearances, lying during the process or falsifying records could even be grounds for criminal charges.

Government background checks are thorough, and investigators will look for inconsistencies between the facts and what you reported on your Standard Forms. Often, an event's omission is more likely grounds for rejection than the event itself. Demonstrating your honesty and integrity through openness to this process is a credit in itself. 

Citizenship Requirements for Government Work

You will need to verify your citizenship status as part of the application and background check process. In nearly every case of federal employment, United States citizenship is a mandatory requirement. Naturalized citizenship is acceptable. Non-citizens typically may only apply when no other qualified applicants exist and must obtain separate work authorization. 

What About Individuals With Dual Citizenship?

Many people hold dual citizenship, with legal status in the United States and a foreign country. Dual citizenship creates unique considerations during the vetting process, and as such, all dual citizens applying for federal employment undergo an individualized review, which can cause delays. Considerations often include:

  • Whether you have a foreign nation's passport.

  • Whether you've served in a foreign nation's armed forces.

  • Whether you have been living in another country as a condition of citizenship.

  • What kind of ties you have to the other nation.

If you are a dual citizen preparing to apply to work with the federal government, be aware that you may need to renounce your non-US citizenship or surrender your passport as part of the process.

The Impacts of Prior Foreign Residency

If an applicant has spent more than two of the last five years living outside the United States, the federal government will not consider them for most job opportunities. Some agencies impose even stricter requirements of up to three out of the five preceding years. There are exceptions for individuals serving in the armed forces, government contractors, and study abroad programs.

How Long Does a Government Employee Background Check Typically Take?

The government prefers to be thorough rather than swift when selecting candidates, especially for more sensitive positions. As such, the federal vetting process can take a long time, especially in comparison to private sector background checks. In private employment, the process takes only a few weeks for very thorough checks except in cases of organizational backlog. In the federal government, the timelines often stretch to months.

Even low-level, non-sensitive positions requiring only a NACI check can take up to three months. For someone seeking a Top-Secret clearance, the process may last as long as nine months and rarely fewer than two. Inaccuracies and discrepancies can add even more time to the process. A government contractor employee background check may take less time since the contracting business may conduct its own vetting, with some exceptions for sensitive work.

Be as accurate as possible when completing your Standard Forms. Know what you expect the government to find and be ready to explain any unusual circumstances. Choose your references carefully. When possible, connect with local law enforcement to have a fingerprint card taken and submit this to your sponsoring agency. Ultimately, your only action to speed up the process is to be thorough in your responses.

Navigating Conflicts of Interest for Lawyers

The government employs and hires lawyers at an incredible rate. Nearly every agency has extensive legal teams assembled to help with litigation, interpretation of agency responsibilities, and more. For legal professionals applying to work with the government, disclosing potential conflicts of interest early in the vetting process may help you avoid delays. 

For example, someone with experience representing a significant beef producer could have potential conflicts if they intend to work with the USDA. Lawyers must carefully consider these possibilities before applying. Raising a flag early ensures the agency can determine if it will impact your suitability.

Policies Specific to the US Department of Justice (DOJ)

Applying to work with the Department of Justice involves submitting to a suitability and security review similar to the one used by other agencies. However, because the DOJ sees many interns and temporary employees, a complete Background Investigation only becomes mandatory after completing six months of work. Instead, a less intensive background check involving criminal history, drug testing, and other elements serves as a stopgap.

Understanding Additional Steps for Working With the US Attorney's Office (UAO)

As a part of the Department of Justice, the US Attorney's Office uses the same procedures as the DOJ but goes further in some cases. Each US Attorney's Office may choose how stringent to be when hiring individuals. This may include using one of the more in-depth Standard Forms during the vetting process, or a USAO may create their own background questionnaire. If you intend to apply to work in this government area, be prepared to encounter these extra measures.

What To Expect From Other Government Agencies

Some government agencies, such as the CIA, have additional specific vetting procedures. This may include polygraph tests, private interviews, and follow-ups for more information about answers provided on Standard Forms. Completing these extra steps quickly contributes to expediting the vetting process.

At times, delays may occur that are beyond the individual's control. This was the case in 2015 when a major hack hit the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and millions of individual applicant questionnaires were leaked to the hackers. In responding to the hack, the OPM put all background checks on hold. Nearly 90% of all federal background check work came to a sudden halt, and it took weeks to restore service to an acceptable level. 

The security risks revealed in this 2016 incident, and the subsequent cascading backlog of background checks ultimately led to the disestablishment of the National Background Check Investigation Bureau. Established in 2015, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency took over in 2019. Since then, the DCSA has handled most federal vetting, including for other agencies such as the FBI.

Checks Using Terrorist and Sanctions Watch Lists

The government checks your name and known aliases against terror watch lists, sanctions watch lists, and international fugitive registries as part of the vetting. 

Some private sector workers may wonder if they must submit to a government background check because of a required watch list check. Although this type of investigation is uncommon in the private sector, it is not entirely unusual. As part of post-9/11 security measures, the government already requires watch list checks on employees regulated by the Department of Transportation. 

These regulations apply to many of those who work with airlines and commercial aviation. Efforts to extend these checks to other mass transit workers have so far not succeeded. However, this type of vetting differs from the pipeline to government work.

What About Government Contractors?

The vetting of employees of government contractors has historically been the responsibility of the contractors themselves. In most cases, such individuals do not require security clearances and thus do not submit to the same formal process as direct employees of the federal government. When an individual does need clearance to work as a contractor, the usual Standard Forms questionnaire and procedure will apply.

Even outside the federal process, government contractor background checks should be rigorous and thorough regardless of the applicable regulations. Failing to do so can still create risks, such as when thousands of contractor records fell into the hands of hackers because of a third-party data breach. Contractors must also now abide by the federal Fair Chance Act, which requires the provision of a conditional job offer before any background investigation can occur.

Background Screening FAQs

Read on for answers to many of the most frequently asked questions about vetting employees with help from background screening companies.


Many elements make up the government background check. In an average case, this process will include scrutiny of your criminal records, checking your credit, submitting to a drug test, filling out extensive personal questionnaires, answering questions about your forms, and waiting for investigators to contact your references. A separate investigatory process takes place if you must qualify for a security clearance.


The government decides on disqualifications on a case-by-case basis. Some of the most common ways applicants can disqualify themselves include carrying a substantial amount of bad debt, recent habitual abuse of illegal drugs, mental instability, and recent severe or violent felonies. Concerns about your allegiance to a foreign nation, including dual citizenship, can also disqualify you.


No, the majority of federal jobs do not require a security clearance. You are more likely to need clearance for employment in the intelligence community or at the Departments of Energy, State, and Defense. In most other cases, you will only need to undergo the suitability review.


One question frequently discussed in the real estate world is whether tenant background checks will always be allowed. Some locales, such as Seattle, Washington and Oakland, California, have prohibited landlords from running criminal background checks on tenants. The idea is to reduce barriers to housing wherever possible to end rampant poverty, criminal recidivism, and other social problems. However, these bans place landlords in a challenging position by giving them less awareness and control over whom they let into their property. Currently, proposed tenant background check bans are far from the norm, but all landlords should pay attention to legislative trends in the coming years. Local, state and even federal governments could continue to restrict landlords’ use of background information in the future.


Because of the federal Fair Chance Act, every applicant has the opportunity to demonstrate their suitability for an open position in the government before submitting to a background check. A misdemeanor on your criminal record is not an instant barrier to employment with the government. In most cases, it is unlikely to be a serious issue, especially if the crime occurred many years ago and bears no relation to the position you seek today. It is even possible to obtain a security clearance with a simple misdemeanor. Specific policies vary. For example, positions involving firearms cannot hire someone with a domestic violence misdemeanor.


A NACI background check or National Agency Check with Inquiries, is the type of vetting process used for non-sensitive, low-risk roles in the government. In other words, it is the average or "generic" process for going through a federal background check. A NACI check involves checking the FBI criminal database, government lists, and other sources of criminal history information. NACIs also involve letters of inquiry sent to law enforcement in your local community, prior employers, and educational institutions you've attended. Some NACI checks, such as for the Department of Defense, may include a credit check.


State, county, and local law enforcement agencies use background check processes of their own design. Typically, these are quite different from a federal government employee background check, but some elements remain the same. One such similarity is connecting with references, prior employers, and others who know you to develop a clear understanding of your suitability. Like the government, these agencies seek to understand whether you can be responsible and trustworthy in a position of authority. Expect thorough criminal background checks, a credit check, and a drug test.

Additional Resources


Plaintiff need not proof that defendant is a CRA under the FCRA to survive a motion to dismiss

Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54102 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2011) Facts: On January 27, 2011 , the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of standing and gave Plaintiff twenty days to amend to meet the standing requirements. On February 16, 2011 , Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and alleged that Defendant operated its website, Spokeo.com, in violation of the FCRA. Specifically, Plaintiff claimed that reports generated by Defendant contained inaccurate consumer information that was marketed to entities performing background checks. As a result of Defendant's FCRA violations, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant caused him actual and/or imminent harm by creating, displaying, and marketing inaccurate consumer reporting information about Plaintiff. In response to Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Defendant brought a second Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (12(b)(6) arguing that it could not be sued for FCRA violations because it was not a consumer reporting agency (“ CRA ”). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied. · Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Defendant argued that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's claims. The Court disagreed. A plaintiff has Article III standing to sue where the plaintiff alleges facts showing that (1) it has suffered an injury in fact; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. In light of Plaintiff's amended complaint, the Court found that Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to confer Article III standing. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant marketed inaccurate consumer reporting information about Plaintiff in violation of the FCRA, which was likely to be redressed by a favorable decision from this Court. Thus, Plaintiff established the requisite standing to sue and the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. · Motion to Dismiss . Alternatively, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, asserting, among other things, that Defendant was not a CRA under the FCRA. · Consumer Reporting Agency. Defendant contended that it was not a CRA as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f) because it did not regularly engage in providing consumer credit information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports. Conversely, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant fell within the scope of FCRA because Defendant collected and created consumer information consisting of consumers’ economic wealth and creditworthiness for the purpose of furnishing it to paid subscribers who regularly provide monetary fees in exchange for Defendants s reports. The Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FCRA claims holding that Plaintiff’s complaint needed only to contain sufficient factual matters that, if accepted as true, would state a claim to relief that was plausible on its face. Plaintiff did not need to prove that Defendant was in fact a CRA at the initial dismissal phase of the litigation. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant regularly accepted money in exchange for reports that contained data and evaluations regarding consumers’ economic wealth and creditworthiness were sufficient to support a plausible inference that Defendant’s conduct fell within the scope of the FCRA. About Strasburger & Price Attorneys from Strasburger & Price, LLP involved in FCRA litigation have been monitoring and analyzing the legislative and caselaw developments related to this area of the law. This group of lawyers will continue to follow these developments throughout the coming months to help you understand how it impacts your business as well as to help you make the necessary decisions to succeed under this ever changing area of credit reporting and employment screening/criminal and credit background check compliance. Click here to find out about our authors.

Federal Trade Commission Issues New Guidance on the Fair Credit Reporting Act

 

In 1990, the FTC issued a commentary on the FCRA (published as an appendix to 16 CFR part 600). Between 1997 and 2001, it issued informal opinion letters in response to selected questions that it received. Changes to the FCRA, primarily in 1996 and 2003, rendered much of the prior commentary obsolete. The new guidance reflects the FTC’s most up-to-date guidance.

Additionally, the FTC has formally withdrawn its prior commentary. In a press release, the FTC notes that the reason for this is that the recent financial reform legislation transferred the FTC’s authority to issue this kind of guidance to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The FTC says that the new guidance mostly codifies its prior positions, but that it modifies some of its prior interpretations. Therefore,.

Please see below for links to the documents referenced in this update:

For more information on this update may affect your program and how backgroundchecks.com can help, please contact client services.

FTC Says Screening of Volunteers is for Employment Purposes Under the FCRA

 

In its newly issued staff report that updates its guidance under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) says that the term employment purposes includes “a nonprofit organization staffed in whole or in part by volunteers.” (See page 32 of the report.)

The sources cited in the footnote for this assertion do not support it. The first source cited there is Hoke v. Retail Credit Corp. in that case, the court construed the words employment, promotion, and reassignment in the definition of “employment purposes” have “specific meanings in the area of activities for the production of income.” By definition, volunteering is not an activity for the production of income. The other two sources that the footnote cites, the Allison and Solomon information staff opinion letters, both deal with cases in which the activity in question was income-producing (independent truck drivers in Allison and title insurance agents in Solomon).

However, courts often defer to the FTC’s guidance on matters under the FCRA. Therefore, , including disclosure, authorization, and pre-adverse-action notices.

 

North & South Carolina and Oklahoma Enacts E-Verify Bill

 

On June 23, 2011, Governor Perdue signed HB 36, requiring employers and local governments to begin using E-Verify.

Some exceptions do exist, including exceptions regarding who must be screened.

On June 28, 2011, Governor Haley signed SB 20 which requires in part that employers use E-Verify to check employment eligibility for all employees.

Under HB 440, all SC employers have been required to perform some form of employment eligibility verification since July 2010. Click here for more details on SB 20.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has upheld the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen’s Protection Act of 2007 (HB 1804).

If you would like more information about how these updates may affect your program and how backgroundchecks.com can help, please contact customer service.

 

Employers Settle FCRA Documentation Class Actions for $5.9 Million

First Transit and First Student are apparently related companies that provide transportation services to school. They recently settled class action claims against them for three alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act:

One important lesson from this case is in how to make the required disclosure. The FCRA requires an employer to present the disclosure to the consumer “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure,” but allows the employer to include the required authorization in that document. For example, the disclosure must not be in the employment application. According to one of the pleadings in the case, the document included a release of liability for the consumer reporting agency. Since the case was settled, we can’t know whether the plaintiffs would have won, but drafting to the most extreme possible interpretation of the FCRA could have avoided the claim. 

Another important lesson is the impact of big, disruptive events. The websites of First Transit and First Student both reflect that they acquired Laidlaw in 2007. Large acquisitions like this one are usually followed by rapid consolidation, including the acquiring company’s application its pre-existing policies to the employees of the acquired company. According to a pleading in this case, the companies ran background checks on thousands of employees acquired in the acquisition without first obtaining authorizations. One can guess that the acquiring companies thought that the employees’ files would have everything needed to run a new background check. 

In the resulting settlement, class members received a total of $1.2 million for the first claim and $2.1 million for the second claim. To collect these amounts, they did not have to show that any adverse action was taken or that the reports were inaccurate. These were simply claims of a technical failure to have the right documentation.

District Court Allows Class Action Suit Based On Technical Failures to Comply with FCRA

In the case, the employer obtained and used background reports for employment purposes. The employer allegedly did two things wrong.

The court found that the plaintiff could win based on these claims if she proved them. On the first claim, this means the court found that the plaintiff can win by proving that the disclosure was included in a general employment application. On the second claim, the court found that the plaintiff can win by showing that the period of time between the two notices was not reasonable.

Employers should review their current practices. To avoid expensive class actions like this one, employers should not include FCRA-required disclosures in the same document as a general employment application and should wait at least five days after sending a pre-adverse-action notice before sending an adverse-action notice.

Get Started!

Create an Account Now