Staffing agencies carry FCRA compliance duties that most standard employers do not, and the growing complexity of clean slate laws, CFPB enforcement, and local automated decision tool oversight is making the right ATS choice more consequential than ever. We walk through how three different integration models between an ATS and a background screening provider determine whether critical compliance steps are built into the hiring process or left to recruiter follow-through at the worst possible moment. We then score 10 leading ATS platforms across the criteria that matter most for high-volume, multi-jurisdiction staffing operations, and share a practical framework for evaluating any platform before your next contract renewal.
Key Takeaways:
- The FCRA assigns "user of consumer reports" duties to staffing agencies regardless of which party the placed worker ultimately reports to. Adverse action records, consent timing, audit trail quality, and data handling obligations belong to the agency, not the client employer.
- The integration model between an ATS and a background screening provider directly determines whether FCRA compliance steps are automated or manual. For agencies running high-volume, multi-area placements, this is a compliance risk factor, not a minor technical detail.
- Several widely used ATS platforms are built for general recruiting and are not designed around U.S. FCRA requirements. Agencies using those platforms for regulated placements should plan for meaningful added investment in external adverse action management, area-specific screening setup, and data privacy compliance.
- Under the FCRA, each use of a consumer report must be tied to a listed, allowed purpose. Reusing a background check from one placement for a later placement with a different client employer may be a FCRA violation.
- Platform selection is the beginning of a compliance program, not the end of one. Area-specific requirements, privacy duties, and data handling obligations are responsibilities that no ATS vendor can fulfill on behalf of the staffing agency.
Staffing agencies face a core compliance problem that most standard employers do not. Every placement involves three parties: the worker, the agency, and the client employer. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the agency carries "user of consumer reports" duties regardless of which party the worker ultimately reports to. In particular, adverse action records, consent timing, audit trail quality, and data handling duties belong to the agency, not the client.
That responsibility continues to grow. A large and increasing number of states have enacted clean slate laws, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Utah, Connecticut, Delaware, Colorado, New Jersey, and Minnesota, among others. The EEOC's 2012 Enforcement Guidance strongly recommends case-by-case review before ruling out applicants based on criminal history, and multiple states have written this requirement into binding law. The CFPB continues to expand background screening accuracy enforcement, and New York City's Local Law 144 extends oversight of automated employment decision tools directly to employment agencies. In addition, agencies should consult current NCSL tracking data and qualified legal counsel to identify applicable laws in each area where they place workers. The ATS a staffing firm uses determines whether these duties are managed in a set way or pieced together from memory after a complaint arrives. Selecting the right ATS is a compliance support decision, not a compliance solution.
Why Integration Model Matters
The integration model between an ATS and a background screening provider directly determines whether FCRA compliance steps are automated or manual. For staffing agencies running high-volume, multi-area placements, this is a compliance risk factor, not a minor technical detail. Three models exist across the ATS market:
- Native marketplace or partner integration: The ATS maintains a vetted screening partner marketplace. Candidate consent, order placement, and status updates move directly between platforms without recruiter-initiated data transfer. Adverse action records are triggered within the ATS process.
- API or webhook integration: The ATS exposes a structured connection point that a screening provider can build into directly. This model requires development resources but can support full process automation when properly built and maintained.
- Manual export or portal process: The recruiter downloads candidate data from the ATS and uploads it manually into a separate screening portal. No data syncs on its own, and FCRA records depend entirely on recruiter follow-through.
For an agency placing candidates across multiple states and clients at the same time, the difference between these models is the difference between a set compliance support system and reactive damage control.
Data security note: Candidate PII sent between ATS platforms and screening providers must be protected through encryption and secure transfer methods. Agencies should verify that both vendors maintain adequate data security standards, are required by contract to provide breach notice consistent with applicable state laws, and support candidate consent for PII transfer in the disclosure and consent records.
10 ATS Platforms, Assessed by Background Screening Compliance Capability
The following reviews focus on screening integration design, FCRA compliance process support, and fit for staffing agencies. Capability reviews are based on publicly available records as of the publication date and should be verified independently with each vendor.
1. Workday
Workday Marketplace provides pre-vetted, certified screening partners with direct data exchange and status callbacks. Adjustable FCRA disclosure and consent steps are available within the hiring process, along with enterprise-level audit logging. Adverse action process support varies by integration partner and must be verified. Best suited for large-scale staffing operations; smaller firms may find the platform over-built for their scale.
Integration Model: Native Marketplace
2. Zoho Recruit
Screening connections rely on Zoho Flow or Zapier-style connectors; there is no native pre-certified screening marketplace. FCRA-specific adverse action tools are not listed platform features, and all compliance records depend entirely on how the agency sets up its automation. Widely used by small and mid-size staffing firms due to accessible pricing, but this represents a meaningful gap for U.S. FCRA compliance.
Integration Model: Manual Portal / Zapier-style connector
3. iCIMS
iCIMS Marketplace lists verified screening partners with pre-built, two-way integrations supporting consent collection, order triggering, and status return. Adjustable FCRA compliance steps and candidate-level audit logs are available. Pre-adverse action process depth should be confirmed with the specific integration partner. Well-suited to mid-market and enterprise staffing firms running high-volume, parallel placement models.
Integration Model: Native Marketplace
4. Breezy HR
Background check connections are largely portal-based or manual; status updates do not return to the candidate record on their own. FCRA adverse action tools are not listed platform features, and all compliance steps must be built and maintained externally. Effective for general small business recruiting, but this creates a material process gap for compliance-heavy U.S. placements.
Integration Model: Manual Portal
5. Bullhorn
Purpose-built for staffing agencies, Bullhorn Marketplace offers pre-built, two-way screening integrations that fit the three-party placement model. FCRA disclosure and consent steps are adjustable within the placement process, and audit trail features are available at the candidate record level. The dominant ATS among North American commercial staffing firms.
Integration Model: Native Marketplace
6. Ashby
Screening connections are available through API setup but without a pre-certified, compliance-structured marketplace. FCRA-specific adverse action tools and area-aware features are not listed. Designed for internal talent teams at technology companies, not for multi-client staffing operations. As a result, all FCRA compliance setup must be built externally.
Integration Model: API/Webhook
7. Greenhouse
Greenhouse maintains a curated, reviewed screening partner marketplace with direct data transfer, consent handling, and status management within the hiring process. Robust audit logging is available at the candidate and role level. Pre-adverse action process depth should be verified with each partner integration. Growing use among compliance-focused agencies handling skilled and technical placements.
Integration Model: Native Marketplace
8. Manatal
Screening connections are typically manual or basic API, with no native pre-certified marketplace. FCRA process steps, consent capture, and adverse action timing are not embedded in the platform. In fact, Manatal's compliance features are oriented toward APAC and global markets, not U.S. FCRA requirements. Agencies placing workers in U.S. areas must build all compliance processes externally.
Integration Model: Manual Portal / Basic API
9. UKG Pro
UKG Marketplace supports listed partner connections for candidate data transfer, consent management, and status updates within the process. FCRA disclosure and consent steps are included in the HCM hiring process suite, and enterprise-level audit trail features are robust. The strongest choice for agencies already operating within a broader UKG HCM setting.
Integration Model: Native Marketplace / API
10. Teamtailor
Screening connections are manual-portal based or self-set API, with no listed native pre-certified marketplace. Compliance features are oriented toward GDPR rather than U.S. FCRA requirements; adverse action records, pre-adverse notice timing, and waiting period tracking are not platform-supported steps. Teamtailor's GDPR focus also raises data storage questions for U.S. placements that should be reviewed with legal counsel.
Integration Model: Manual Portal / Self-Configured API
Platform Scores
Scores are weighted editorial reviews based on publicly available records. Background screening integration and FCRA process automation account for 60% of the total; staffing agency fit, 25%; multi-area awareness, 15%. These are not certificates of legal compliance. All features must be verified with vendors.
| ATS Platform | Integration Model | FCRA Workflow Support | Adverse Action Automation | Multi-Jurisdiction Awareness | Staffing Agency Fit | Overall Score (/10) |
| Workday | Native Marketplace | High | Partial | Yes | High | 8.5 |
| Zoho Recruit | Manual / Zapier | Low | No | No | Medium | 4.0 |
| iCIMS | Native Marketplace | High | Yes | Partial | High | 8.8 |
| Breezy HR | Manual Portal | Low | No | No | Low | 3.5 |
| Bullhorn | Native Marketplace | High | Yes | Yes | High | 9.2 |
| Ashby | API/Webhook | Medium | No | No | Low | 4.5 |
| Greenhouse | Native Marketplace | High | Partial | Partial | Medium | 8.0 |
| Manatal | Manual / Basic API | Low | No | No | Medium | 4.0 |
| UKG Pro | Native Marketplace / API | High | Partial | Partial | High | 8.3 |
| Teamtailor | Manual / Self-Config | Low | No | No | Low | 3.8 |
In summary, Bullhorn, iCIMS, and Workday score highest. Bullhorn's design is purpose-built for the three-party staffing placement model. iCIMS delivers one of the most structured screening partner marketplaces in the North American ATS market, with listed technical review requirements for integration partners. Workday's enterprise setup supports large-scale operations where audit trail quality and multi-area setup are day-to-day requirements. Furthermore, all three support end-to-end screening compliance records within a single process, which reduces the risk of timing errors, consent gaps, and missing audit items during high-volume placement cycles.
Greenhouse and UKG Pro are strong options. On one hand, Greenhouse suits agencies focused on skilled and technical placements, where structured hiring methods and detailed audit features add value beyond baseline compliance. On the other hand, UKG Pro is the best choice for agencies already within a UKG HCM setting, where merging the screening process into an existing system reduces integration complexity.
Zoho Recruit, Breezy HR, Ashby, Manatal, and Teamtailor each serve valid use cases in general recruiting. However, any U.S. staffing agency using these platforms for FCRA-regulated placements should plan for meaningful investment in added compliance setup, including external adverse action management, area-specific screening setup, and data privacy compliance processes. That added setup brings cost and complexity that native, structured screening integration systems are designed to reduce.
One additional compliance point: under the FCRA, each use of a consumer report must be tied to a listed, allowed purpose. Reusing a background check from one placement for a later placement with a different client employer may be a FCRA violation. Agencies should consult legal counsel before reusing consumer reports across clients or roles, as some state laws impose added consent requirements that further limit reuse.
How to Choose an ATS for Background Screening Compliance
General feature demos rarely surface compliance process depth. To that end, evaluate any platform against these criteria before signing a contract:
- Native vetted screening marketplace. Confirm that the ATS maintains a pre-certified partner marketplace, not just a Zapier connector or an API link. True marketplace status means the screening provider has been technically reviewed and certified by the ATS vendor.
- Candidate consent and FCRA disclosure within the ATS process. The disclosure must be a standalone document under FCRA Section 1681b(b)(2). It cannot be embedded in an employment application or combined with other hiring materials.
- Complete adverse action process support. This includes pre-adverse notice delivery with the consumer report copy and CFPB Summary of Rights, waiting period tracking meeting applicable federal and state minimums, and final adverse action delivery, all recorded with timestamps.
- Area-aware features. Confirm support for ban-the-box compliance, clean slate record filtering, arrest record removal, and lookback period use by area. Given the active legal landscape, these require ongoing updates, not just initial setup.
- Audit trail quality. The platform must produce time-marked records of each FCRA step in a format that can be retrieved during a compliance review or legal inquiry.
- Multi-client process support. Confirm that background check packages can be set up per client or role type without manual changes per open role, and that each use of a consumer report is tied to a separately listed, allowed purpose.
- Data security and access control. Consumer report results should be accessible only to staff with a listed need-to-know. PII transfer between platforms must be encrypted, and the vendor should support compliant data retention and removal steps.
- Data privacy compliance support. For agencies placing workers in California and other states with broad privacy laws, confirm that the ATS can support candidate data rights requests, including access, correction, and deletion, within legally required time frames.
The Bottom Line
ATS platforms vary significantly in background screening integration quality, and for staffing agencies, that variance carries direct compliance and legal consequences. FCRA adverse action failures carry per-violation legal damages and lawsuit exposure. Clean slate law complexity, ban-the-box limits, and case-by-case review requirements across dozens of areas cannot be managed reliably through manual workarounds. Platforms that automate FCRA records within a structured screening integration reduce error exposure and improve your ability to defend your practices when a compliance review occurs.
Platform selection is the beginning of a compliance program, not the end of one. Before your next ATS renewal or review, audit your current platform's screening integration against the criteria above and ensure your compliance program addresses the area-specific, privacy, and data handling duties that no ATS vendor can fulfill on your behalf.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Background check compliance duties under federal, state, and local law are highly area-specific and subject to ongoing legal and regulatory change. Staffing agencies should consult qualified employment law counsel before making compliance decisions. No ATS platform, screening integration, or process automation tool constitutes legal compliance with the FCRA or applicable state and local laws. Legal duties rest with the staffing agency as the user of consumer reports, not with the technology platform.
References
- Federal Trade Commission, "A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act." https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/fair-credit-reporting-act
- New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, "Automated Employment Decision Tools (Local Law 144)." https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decisiontools.page
- Bullhorn, "Bullhorn Marketplace." https://www.bullhorn.com/marketplace/
- Greenhouse, "Greenhouse Integrations." https://www.greenhouse.com/integrations [URL not confirmed â verify before publishing]
- G2, "Bullhorn Reviews."https://www.g2.com/products/bullhorn/reviews
ABOUT THE CREATOR
Charm Paz, CHRP
Recruiter & Editor
Charm Paz is an HR and compliance professional at GCheck, working at the intersection of background screening, fair hiring, and regulatory compliance. She holds both FCRA Core and FCRA Advanced certifications and supports organizations in navigating complex employment regulations with clarity and confidence.
With a background in Industrial and Organizational Psychology and hands-on experience translating policy into practice, Charm focuses on building ethical, compliant, and human-centered hiring systems that strengthen decision-making and support long-term organizational health.
