private employment background-screening platform

Checkr

A private background-screening platform used by employers and gig platforms for criminal, identity, education, employment, and post-hire workforce monitoring checks. Checkr scores low because job candidates face data-intensive screening and potential exclusion through systems they rarely chose.

Why this matters: Background checks are often framed as employer convenience, but for workers they are private eligibility systems for work.

Letter grade F Malignant High confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 12, 2026

Final Score -2* F - Malignant

FMALIGNANT-2 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material15

Bonus+0

Cap35Ownership <= 2 and Governance <= 2

After Cap15

Penalties-17

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

F - Malignant

The score turns mainly on Scale Integrity, with the largest penalty coming from Surveillance Capture.

Strengths

Scale Integrity4/5
Extraction2/10
Loss-Bearing Fidelity2/7

Penalties

Surveillance Capture-4
Human Harm-3
Identity Capture-3
Policy Capture-2

Evidence state

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)
Linked claims16
Direct axis claims16
Coverage16/16

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	1 / 10	Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. On Ownership, Checkr belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Employment, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] context Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	1 / 10	Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. On Governance, Checkr belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Employment, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	2 / 10	Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. On Extraction, Checkr belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Employment, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] context Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	1 / 7	Checkr's linked public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. Checkr's linked public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. On Labor Sovereignty, Checkr belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Employment, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] context Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	1 / 7	Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. On Solidarity with the Unemployed, Checkr belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Employment, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] context Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	2 / 7	Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. On Loss-Bearing Fidelity, Checkr belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Employment, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] context Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	1 / 5	Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. On Market Conduct, Checkr belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Employment, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] context Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	2 / 5	Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. On Product Integrity, Checkr belongs low because control and surplus are mainly held by shareholders, executives, landlords, investors, or institutional boards while users face practical dependence. In a high-contact category like Employment, that asymmetry counts more heavily than it would for an optional purchase. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] context Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] context Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. On Scale Integrity, Checkr sits in the middle because the structure has real public, nonprofit, or service value, but users still do not hold decisive control over prices, access rules, quality, or institutional priorities. That places it above ordinary shareholder firms but below democratic or member-owned alternatives. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence context Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category. [1] context Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers. [2] context Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery. [3] context Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution. [4] context Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power. [5] context Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise. [6] context Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice. [7] context Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability. [8] Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities. [9]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Human Harm ? Severity, scale, culpability, vulnerable targets, willful reoffense, reputation laundering, pattern escalation, and time decay. Range: -20 to 0.	-3	Checkr's public record makes Human Harm relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Checkr's public record makes Human Harm relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Human Harm penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Checkr's public record makes Human Harm relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [10]
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-2	Checkr's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Checkr's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Policy Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Checkr's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [11]
Subscription Capture ? Manipulative recurring-payment, automatic-renewal, cancellation-friction, bundling, trial-conversion, or refund designs that profit from inertia or confusion. Range: -5 to 0.	-1	Checkr's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Checkr's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Subscription Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Checkr's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [12]
Accountability Opacity ? Material opacity, reputation laundering, or hidden accountability structures that prevent public accountability. Range: -2 to 0.	-2	Checkr's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Checkr's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Accountability Opacity penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Checkr's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [13]
Identity Capture ? Customer pressure, employee pressure, and pervasive identity saturation. Range: -3 to 0.	-3	Checkr's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Checkr's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Identity Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Checkr's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [14]
Surveillance Capture ? Invasive surveillance, unreasonably non-optional tracking, facial recognition, biometric identification, or AI behavior scanning of customers, workers, bystanders, or the public. Range: -5 to 0.	-4	Checkr's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Checkr's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Surveillance Capture penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Checkr's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [15]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Checkr's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. Checkr's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. This warrants a Ideological Disavowal penalty because the evidence shows harm or risk tied to the institution's actual role: housing, tax, utility, healthcare, storage, or childcare power over people with limited alternatives. The penalty is calibrated to this entity's severity rather than assigned automatically to the whole category. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Coverage-gap batch calibrated across tax filing, utilities, housing, storage, healthcare systems, and childcare/youth institutions. Linked evidence Checkr's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability. [16]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

High 84/100

16 verified linked claims 16 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 16/16 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

16 verified linked claims

Source quality 15/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 14/18

16 direct claims across 16 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 10/10

16/16 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceHigh confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessDeveloped (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1Checkr's public record identifies its ownership form, institutional type, or public/private/nonprofit/cooperative structure in the employment category.

Ownership Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Checkr background checksGeneral web source · 58%

2Checkr's public record indicates whether binding control sits with shareholders, executives, members, public officials, nonprofit boards, residents, patients, or customers.

Governance Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Checkr background checksGeneral web source · 58%

3Checkr's model determines whether money flows primarily to investors and owners or back toward users, members, public value, community services, affordability, or mission delivery.

Extraction Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Checkr background checksGeneral web source · 58%

4Checkr's public materials do not show ordinary workers holding full binding democratic control over the institution.

Labor Sovereignty Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Checkr background checksGeneral web source · 58%

5Checkr operates in an everyday-need category where job loss, illness, rent pressure, family-care obligations, tax compliance, utility dependence, or household instability affects bargaining power.

Solidarity Unemployed Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

6Checkr's product or service can absorb real household, civic, care, housing, energy, or tax-compliance risk, but the record also shows who bears costs when the institution fails or prices rise.

Loss Bearing Fidelity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Checkr background checksGeneral web source · 58%

7Checkr operates in a market where customers, tenants, patients, taxpayers, utility users, parents, or community members often face switching costs, asymmetric information, or limited choice.

Market Conduct Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

8Checkr's core service has practical everyday utility, but its integrity depends on pricing, safety, transparency, access, quality, data handling, and accountability.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

Checkr background checksGeneral web source · 58%

9Checkr's scale or category makes its decisions consequential for ordinary U.S. households, patients, tenants, parents, taxpayers, utility customers, or communities.

Scale Integrity Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

10Checkr's public record makes Human Harm relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Human Harm Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

11Checkr's public record makes Policy Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

12Checkr's public record makes Subscription Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Subscription Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

13Checkr's public record makes Accountability Opacity relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Accountability Opacity Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

14Checkr's public record makes Identity Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Identity Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

15Checkr's public record makes Surveillance Capture relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Surveillance Capture Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

16Checkr's public record makes Ideological Disavowal relevant through its ownership, pricing, safety, lobbying, environmental burden, youth exposure, data practices, lock-in, public mission, or community accountability.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence Human-reviewed May 12, 2026

CFPB Checkr listingPrimary public record · 100%

Alternatives

AGOOD56 Ventures microenterprise and small-business support nonprofit · Washington, Pacific Northwest

Competitors

DEXTRACTIVE26 Gusto private payroll, benefits, and HR platform for small businesses · same market DEXTRACTIVE12 ADP public payroll, HR, tax, and workforce-services company · same market DEXTRACTIVE11 Green Corps environmental organizer training organization · same market DEXTRACTIVE7 UKG private HR, payroll, and workforce-management software company · same market DEXTRACTIVE6 Workday public human-capital-management and finance software company · same market DEXTRACTIVE4 Work for Progress progressive nonprofit recruiting organization · same market FMALIGNANT-2 First Advantage / Sterling public employment background-screening and identity-verification company · same market FMALIGNANT-2 HireRight private-equity-owned employment background-screening company · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Checkr Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

No company-specific audit entries have been published yet.

View Full Audit Log