Criminal Monitoring in the Workplace: Why Employers Hesitate — and When It’s Worth It

Hiring lifecycle showing applicant screening, background check, hiring, and post-hire monitoring

For many employers, background screening is treated as a moment in time:run a check at hire, document the results, move forward.

Criminal monitoring challenges that mindset — and that’s precisely why it often stalls during conversations about screening programs. Despite being available for years and advancing significantly with technology, criminal monitoring remains one of the most underutilized risk-management tools in the workplace.

The hesitation isn’t accidental. It’s rooted in cost concerns, uncertainty, and a lack of clarity about what monitoring actually does — and what it doesn’t.

Monitoring Isn’t New — But It’s Still Misunderstood

Criminal monitoring has existed for decades. What has changed is how it operates:

• Automated alerts instead of manual rechecks

• Faster access to public record updates

• Options ranging from local, jurisdiction-based monitoring to broader national coverage

  
  

Yet adoption has lagged.

In many organizations, monitoring is still viewed as either intrusive, unnecessary, or overly complex — often because it’s framed as an extension of pre-employment screening rather than what it truly is: ongoing risk awareness.

Why Most Employers Don’t Adopt Criminal Monitoring

Employers’ objections to monitoring are typically reasonable — and often unaddressed.

Common concerns include:

• “We already ran a background check.”

• “This adds cost without a guaranteed return.”

• “What happens if we get an alert?”

• “Who owns the process internally?”

• “Are we creating more liability by knowing?”

  
  

These aren’t signs of resistance — they’re signs of uncertainty.

Without a clear explanation of purpose, scope, and follow-up, monitoring can feel like a solution looking for a problem.

What Criminal Monitoring Is Actually Designed to Do

A pre-employment background check tells you who someone was at a specific point in time.

Criminal monitoring helps you understand whether something changes after hire.

It does not:

• Constantly “watch” employees

• Automatically trigger disciplinary action

• Replace performance management or supervision

  
  

What it does:

• Identify new, reportable criminal activity

• Provide timely awareness, not assumptions

• Allow employers to respond thoughtfully, not reactively

  
  

Monitoring doesn’t force decisions — it gives employers time and information to make better ones.

When Criminal Monitoring Makes Sense

Criminal monitoring is most effective when applied intentionally, not universally.

It often makes sense for:

• Employees working independently or in the field

• Roles involving vulnerable populations or public interaction

• Positions with access to homes, facilities, or sensitive environments

• Organizations with heightened reputational or contractual risk

  
  

Many employers start with local or state-level monitoring, particularly where they operate most heavily, before considering broader national monitoring.

This targeted approach keeps programs manageable while still closing meaningful gaps.

When Monitoring May Not Be the Right Fit

Monitoring is not appropriate for every organization or every role.

It may not make sense when:

• Employment is short-term or seasonal

• There is no meaningful safety or trust exposure

• The organization has no defined process for reviewing alerts

  
  

Monitoring without ownership or follow-up creates confusion — not protection.

Reframing the Cost Question

The most common question employers ask is:

“Is monitoring worth the cost?”

A better question is:

“What does it cost not to know?”

Monitoring isn’t about predicting behavior or assuming risk. It’s about reducing blind spots between hiring and incident.

For many organizations, the value isn’t measured monthly — it’s measured in avoided surprises, better documentation, and informed decision-making when issues arise.

A Practical Middle Ground

Some employers adopt criminal monitoring broadly. Others apply it narrowly. Both approaches can be effective.

Common starting points include:

• Monitoring specific roles rather than the entire workforce

• Limiting coverage to high-risk jurisdictions

• Evaluating effectiveness before expanding scope

  
  

Criminal monitoring does not need to be all-or-nothing to be valuable.

Where MVR Monitoring Fits

Motor Vehicle Record (MVR) monitoring follows a similar philosophy, particularly for employees who drive as part of their job.

While adoption faces many of the same challenges as criminal monitoring, MVR monitoring often aligns closely with safety programs, insurance requirements, and operational risk — making it a natural complement for certain roles.

Bottom Line

Criminal monitoring isn’t a replacement for pre-employment screening.It’s a bridge between screening and reality.

It’s not right for every employer — but for the right roles, it closes a gap that traditional background checks alone cannot.

Understanding that difference is often the first step toward using monitoring effectively.

If you’d like help evaluating whether criminal or MVR monitoring makes sense for your organization, a targeted review can help identify where monitoring adds value — and where it doesn’t. Contact us today - sales@uniquebackground.com