Effective January 1, 2026, Equifax increased the cost of employment verifications completed through The Work Number. The new pricing is set by Equifax, not by screening vendors.
If you’ve been in background screening long enough, you’ve seen this cycle before. A third-party data source raises prices or tightens access, and suddenly teams are asking whether a step that’s always been standard still makes sense everywhere. It’s a fair reaction, but stopping there misses the real issue.
Employment verification hasn’t suddenly become less important. In fact, I think it’s more important than some people think. What’s changed is the cost structure around how the data is controlled and sold, and that has real implications for how screening programs are designed.
That’s the context for this update.
Table of Contents
Like other checks, employment verification tends to fade into the background when everything goes smoothly. It becomes visible only when something goes wrong, when a role turns out to be mis-scoped, when a credential was overstated, or when a hiring decision has to be explained months or years later.
The Spectrum case is one of the clearest reminders of why this matters. In 2019, Spectrum was ordered to pay $7 billion following a violent incident involving a contractor who entered a customer’s home. A criminal background check had been completed. Employment verification had not. And it all came down to whether the level of diligence matched the risk of the role.
For positions that involve access to homes, vulnerable populations, or independent work, employment verification isn’t optional in my opinion, it’s foundational. In the same way that regulated roles in healthcare or with the Department of Transportation demand a higher standard of screening, employment verification should scale with the actual risk of the job, not default to a one-size-fits-all rule.
Why The Work Number Exists — and Where It Makes Sense
I think it’s important to pause here and talk about why organizations use The Work Number in the first place. The Work Number exists because it solves a specific problem.
When records are available, it delivers near-instant employment verification, which can be incredibly valuable for high-volume hiring, time-sensitive roles, or situations where speed-to-hire truly matters. For many employers, this speed has been worth the tradeoff, but it may not be necessary every time.
The problem isn’t the tool itself, the verification. The problem is what happens when one data source controls access, raises prices year after year, and creates a system where employers feel boxed into paying whatever it costs — or skipping verification altogether.
That’s the perverse incentive no one talks about enough.
When employment verification becomes expensive enough, organizations start asking the wrong question: Should we stop doing this? For some roles, that hesitation creates more risk than savings. The better question is how verification fits into a broader, risk-based screening strategy, not whether it’s “worth it” as a blanket decision.
There’s another dynamic worth acknowledging, because it’s already showing up in practice. As The Work Number has expanded beyond employment into broader data monetization, more employees are choosing to opt out of having their records shared. If you spend any time on Reddit or HR forums, you’ll see step-by-step guides walking people through how to lock down their data.
From the employee’s perspective, this is about control and privacy. From the employer’s perspective, it creates friction. Verifications that used to come back instantly now stall, not because the role is lower risk, but because the data isn’t available.
This doesn’t make employment verification less important, but makes blind reliance on a single data source riskier.
Why Binary Thinking Breaks Screening
The biggest mistake I see is treating employment verification as all-or-nothing. Either it’s worth any price, or it’s an easy place to cut.
Strong screening programs don’t work this way.
Experienced teams step back and ask:
- Which roles truly require instant confirmation?
- Where does slower, manual verification still meet diligence standards?
- How do we document our choices so they’re consistent across locations and hiring managers?
That’s where cost control actually lives, in program design, not reaction.
5 Practical Ways to Risk-Tier Employment Verification (and Control Cost)
These aren’t shortcuts. They’re design choices strong screening programs already make.
1. Match Verification Depth to Role Exposure
Again, roles that involve going into customer homes, vulnerable populations, financial authority, and/or independent work require a higher standard of verification. Other roles don’t carry the same exposure and shouldn’t be treated the same way.
2. Use Instant Verification Where Delays Create Real Risk
If time-to-hire affects safety, compliance, or operational continuity, instant verification may be justified. If delays don’t materially change outcomes, alternative methods may be appropriate.
3. Break Away from Inherited “Standard Packages”
Most organizations are still using screening packages designed years ago for very different hiring realities. Revisiting them often reduces both cost and inconsistency. It’s something worth looking into.
4. Document Why a Method was Chosen, Not Just That it was Used
When decisions are questioned later, clarity around business necessity matters more than the tool itself. Consistent documentation protects both the organization and the hiring team.
5. Work with Partners who Explain Limits, Not Just Capabilities
The most defensible screening programs are built on transparency. Understanding what a verification can and can’t confirm is as important as running it.
Where This Leaves Employers in 2026
Sure, employment verification costs have changed, but the responsibility to hire thoughtfully hasn’t.
Pricing updates tend to trigger tactical questions: Should we keep doing this? Should we stop? Is there a cheaper option?
Those are natural reactions, but they’re rarely the most useful place to start.
The more productive conversation is about how employment verification fits into your overall risk model, role by role, and whether your current approach still reflects how your organization actually operates.
That’s the work my team and I do with clients every day. Sometimes the answer is to keep things exactly as they are. Other times it’s to make targeted adjustments, not across-the-board cuts; choices that preserve safety, fairness, and defensibility.
These are program-level decisions, not line items. They’re easier, and safer, to make with a broader view.
If you want to talk through how this update affects your current screening packages, or simply sanity-check whether your program still aligns with your roles and risk exposure in 2026, my team and I are happy to have that conversation. I love this stuff, I’m passionate about it. You’re also more than welcome to reach out to me on LinkedIn.
