‍Calgary, Alberta — August 4, 2022 — Integrity Advocate today announced the completion of their integration with Canvas LMS, one of the world's leading learning management systems.

Integrity Advocate's services include the verification of learner identity, monitoring of training participation, and the proctoring and invigilation of online examinations across all devices and browsers, without the requirement of end user installation or a high speed internet connection.

What the Canvas Integration Means for Your Institution

The Canvas integration extends Integrity Advocate's reach to institutions and organizations already operating within the Canvas ecosystem, allowing them to deploy identity verification and proctoring directly within their existing LMS environment without additional technical overhead.

Integrity Advocate supports Higher Education, K-12, Associations, Designation Providers, and Corporate Training organizations in ensuring the integrity of their online events through the verification of learner identity, participation, and rule compliance.

"We're committed to making online learning the best experience it can possibly be," says Integrity Advocate's CTO. "We've developed an incredibly powerful suite of digital tools that support the integrity of online learning. We're incredibly excited to integrate with Canvas LMS."

For more information on remote proctoring for Canvas, visit our integrations page.

{{post-cta}}

If your organization is a university, college, hospital, or designated agency in Ontario, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applies to every vendor you work with that handles personal information, including your online proctoring platform.

FIPPA has governed Ontario institutions since June 10, 2006. It establishes a uniform regulatory framework for how personal information is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and destroyed. For online proctoring, which collects identity data, session recordings, and behavioral information from learners, FIPPA compliance is not optional. It is a condition of operating within Ontario's public sector ecosystem.

This guide walks through FIPPA's seven key principles and explains exactly how Integrity Advocate meets each one.

What Is FIPPA and Who Does It Apply To?

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act serves two purposes. First, it gives individuals the right to access information held by Ontario government institutions. Second, and more relevant to online proctoring, it protects the privacy of individuals by limiting how institutions and their service providers collect, use, and disclose personal information.

FIPPA applies to all Ontario government ministries and any agency, board, commission, corporation, or other body designated as an institution under the regulations. In practice, this includes Ontario universities, colleges, hospitals, and a broad range of publicly designated organizations.

When an Ontario institution uses an online proctoring platform, the vendor handling learner data becomes accountable to FIPPA standards. Choosing a vendor that does not meet those standards creates compliance risk for your institution.

Why FIPPA Compliance Matters for Online Proctoring

FIPPA places emphasis on Privacy by Design, meaning privacy protections must be built into information systems from the ground up, not layered on after the fact. For proctoring platforms, this means the architecture itself must reflect the principles of collection limitation, purpose restriction, and timely data destruction.

Organizations using proctoring vendors that collect more data than necessary, retain it longer than required, or share it without appropriate controls are exposed to FIPPA investigations, Information and Privacy Commissioner findings, and reputational risk with learners who have a right to know how their data is handled.

FIPPA's Seven Key Principles and How Integrity Advocate Meets Each One

1. Authority to Collect and Manner of Collection

FIPPA limits the collection of personal information to authorized activities and requires that collection come directly from the individual except in limited circumstances.

Integrity Advocate collects only what is required to verify a learner's identity and monitor their session. If a learner is not permitted to access other browser tabs during their assessment, Integrity Advocate monitors exactly that and nothing more. Other proctoring providers routinely collect browsing history, desktop file lists, and program inventories that go well beyond what any assessment requires.

The only data Integrity Advocate receives from sources other than the learner directly is the learner's first name, last name, and email address, which comes from the Learning Management System solely for the purposes of identity verification and session communication.

2. Notice Requirements

FIPPA requires that individuals be informed of the collection of their personal information before it occurs.

Integrity Advocate presents its privacy policy to every user at the start of every session. Users must actively accept the policy before any personal information is collected. The privacy policy and session instructions are available in dozens of languages to ensure that consent is genuinely informed, regardless of the learner's primary language.

3. Proper Use and Disclosure

FIPPA limits the use and controls the sharing of personal information to authorized activities only.

Integrity Advocate provides a full human review service specifically designed to limit what gets shared with client organizations. When a session produces no violations, no session media is shared. When a session is flagged, only the minimum information required to document the specific concern is shared, with unrelated personal information redacted. This is the opposite of how most proctoring platforms operate, where full session recordings are routinely handed over to institutions regardless of whether a violation occurred.

4. Accuracy

FIPPA requires that processes be in place to keep personal information accurate.

Integrity Advocate session findings represent a documented snapshot of what occurred during a specific assessment. Because findings are based on human review rather than automated algorithmic flags, the information recorded is assessed for accuracy before it becomes part of any record. Session data does not change over time, which eliminates the risk of drift or corruption that can affect systems relying on ongoing data updates.

5. Retention

FIPPA requires that individuals be able to obtain access to their own personal information for a defined period.

Integrity Advocate eliminates the need for learners to submit formal access requests by proactively notifying every user by email after their session is completed and reviewed. The notification details what information was retained beyond the session and what conclusions were drawn. Learners know exactly what is on file about them without having to ask.

6. Security

FIPPA requires that personal information be kept secure and confidential.

Integrity Advocate uses 256-bit encryption for all data in transit and at rest, stores data on AWS infrastructure in Montreal by default, and has maintained zero data breaches across 12 or more years of operation. The platform holds SOC 2 certification, providing independent third-party verification of security controls. Compliant user identification images and session media are deleted within 24 hours of session completion. Personal data that does not exist cannot be breached.

7. Disposal and Destruction

FIPPA requires that the disposal and destruction of personal information be authorized and secure.

Every piece of personal data collected by Integrity Advocate carries a programmatically applied time-to-live setting. When a session is complete, deletion occurs automatically and exactly as communicated to the learner. There is no manual process, no exception handling, and no risk of data persisting beyond its intended retention period.

Built for Ontario Institutions

FIPPA is one of several privacy frameworks that Ontario institutions need to navigate. Depending on the nature of your program and the location of your learners, PIPEDA, PIPA, GDPR, and FERPA may also apply. Integrity Advocate is built to support compliance across multiple frameworks simultaneously, with the same foundational Privacy by Design architecture underlying each.

For Ontario institutions specifically, Integrity Advocate provides the documentation, audit trail, and data handling practices your compliance and legal teams need to demonstrate that your proctoring vendor meets FIPPA's standards.

‍

{{post-cta}}

A student surgically implanted a Bluetooth device into their own ear to receive answers during a final exam. It made headlines. It was extreme, it was alarming, and it completely missed the more important question.

Why was the exam so easy to cheat on in the first place?

The conversation around academic integrity almost always focuses on the student: what they did, how they did it, and how to stop them next time. The assessment itself rarely comes under the same scrutiny. That's a problem. Because in many cases, the design of the exam is the vulnerability, and fixing it does more for integrity than any monitoring technology can.

The Variable Most Organizations Overlook

When an organization moves assessment online, two things typically happen. First, they worry about cheating. Second, they look for proctoring technology to solve it. What often gets skipped is the question that should come first: is this assessment actually designed for an online environment?

The method of assessment is a variable entirely within the organization's control. When that variable is addressed, the result is better academic integrity, a less stressful experience for test takers, and lower proctoring costs. All three, at once.

How Bloom's Taxonomy Changes the Integrity Equation

Bloom's Taxonomy is a framework for categorizing educational objectives by cognitive complexity. Developed by Benjamin Bloom in collaboration with other education experts and published in 1956, it has been refined over decades into six levels of learning:

1. Remember - recall of facts and basic concepts
2. Understand - explanation of ideas or concepts
3. Apply - use of information in new situations
4. Analyze - drawing connections and comparisons
5. Evaluate - justifying a decision or course of action
6. Create- producing something new from learned knowledge

Each level requires a greater degree of cognitive processing than the one before it. And crucially, each level also changes how much a proctoring system needs to do.

Why Lower-Order Questions Create Higher-Stakes Monitoring Needs

Remember

A question like "define representative democracy" or "spell rutabaga" can be answered in seconds with a quick search, a phone, or a note. Monitoring this type of question requires tracking browser activity, device use, eye movement, and the presence of others in the room. The proctoring burden is high. The assessment value is low.

Understand

Questions at this level, such as "explain the role of citizens in a representative democracy," carry the same risks. The answer can be found, copied, and paraphrased quickly enough that standard monitoring is the only safeguard.

Apply

Here the dynamic starts to shift. Application questions require a test taker to work through a problem, not just retrieve an answer. When combined with time limits, large question banks, and randomized question and answer combinations, the advantage of external resources is significantly reduced. Proctoring at this level can focus on identity verification and confirming sole participation, which is lower cost and far less invasive.

Analyze, Evaluate, and Create

At these levels, the integrity risk drops substantially. A question like "compare and contrast the economic motivations of..." or "explain the effect of X on a country's economy" requires original reasoning that cannot be copied. No search result, no friend in an earpiece, and no surgically implanted Bluetooth device provides a meaningful advantage when the question demands genuine synthesis and judgment.

The Practical Implication

Higher-order assessments don't eliminate the need for proctoring. Identity still needs to be verified. Sole participation still matters. But they do change what proctoring needs to accomplish, and that changes what it costs and how intrusive it has to be.

For organizations running online assessments, this is worth reviewing before adding monitoring layers. If your questions can be answered by someone with a phone and thirty seconds, the proctoring challenge is structural, not technological.

A More Useful Question Than "How Do We Catch Cheaters?"

The default response to academic integrity concerns is tighter controls and more invasive monitoring. That response treats the symptom. Reviewing the assessment design treats the cause.

Integrity Advocate works with organizations to look at the full assessment process, not just the monitoring window. When the exam itself is designed to require genuine knowledge and reasoning, the monitoring becomes simpler, the experience becomes fairer, and the outcomes become more defensible.

That's a better result for everyone, including the test taker who never has to wonder if an algorithm flagged them unfairly.

{{post-cta}}

If your organization uses online proctoring and operates in Illinois, or serves Illinois residents, the Biometric Information Privacy Act applies to you. And unlike most privacy legislation, BIPA has teeth. Private individuals can sue directly, without needing to prove actual harm, and statutory damages start at $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional one.

This is not a checkbox compliance exercise. It is a legal and reputational risk that organizations need to address before they deploy any technology that touches biometric data.

This guide explains what BIPA requires, how it applies to online proctoring specifically, and how Integrity Advocate is built to support your organization's compliance obligations.

What Is BIPA?

The Biometric Information Privacy Act is an Illinois state law that establishes standards for how companies must collect, store, use, and disclose biometric information. It was enacted in 2008 and remains one of the strictest biometric privacy laws in the United States.

BIPA covers any information based on an individual's biometric identifiers, including:

• Retina and iris scans
• Fingerprints
• Voiceprints
• Face geometry and facial recognition data
• Hand geometry

For online proctoring, the most relevant category is facial geometry. Any platform that uses facial recognition or AI-based facial monitoring to verify identity or flag behavior is collecting biometric data under BIPA's definition.

What BIPA Requires

BIPA places four core obligations on organizations that collect biometric data:

1. Written Policy and Retention Schedule

Organizations must have a publicly available written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data. Data must not be retained beyond the purpose for which it was collected, or beyond three years, whichever comes first.

2. Informed Written Consent

Before collecting biometric data, organizations must inform individuals in writing that biometric data is being collected, state the specific purpose and length of time for which it will be used, and obtain a written release. Consent cannot be buried in general terms and conditions.

3. No Commercial Benefit from Biometric Data

Organizations are prohibited from selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting from an individual's biometric data. This applies to vendors and service providers as well.

4. Data Security Standards

Biometric data must be stored, transmitted, and protected using the same standard of care as other sensitive and confidential information, and in a manner consistent with the reasonable standard of care within the organization's industry.

Why Online Proctoring Is a BIPA Risk Area

Most online proctoring platforms collect biometric data as a core function. Facial recognition for identity verification, AI monitoring of facial expressions and eye movement, and behavioral biometric analysis all fall within BIPA's scope when delivered to Illinois residents.

The risk isn't hypothetical. Courts have consistently ruled that BIPA applies broadly, and class action litigation against organizations using biometric technology without proper consent frameworks has resulted in significant settlements.

The question isn't whether your proctoring platform uses biometric data. It almost certainly does. The question is whether it handles that data in a way that protects your organization.

How Integrity Advocate Supports BIPA Compliance

Integrity Advocate's identity verification and proctoring services are designed with biometric privacy obligations in mind.

Informed consent is built into the process. Test takers are informed of what data is collected, why it is collected, and how it will be used before any session begins. Consent is obtained as a documented step in the onboarding process, not assumed through general terms.

Data is not sold or used for commercial benefit. Integrity Advocate does not sell, lease, or repurpose biometric or session data for any secondary use. Data collected during a proctoring session is used solely for the purpose of that assessment.

Sensitive data is deleted promptly. Facial images and identity verification data are deleted within 24 hours of session completion, unless retention is required for a specific dispute resolution purpose. This supports compliance with BIPA's retention requirements.

Security standards are robust. Integrity Advocate uses 256-bit encryption in transit and at rest, stores data on AWS infrastructure in Montreal by default, and has maintained zero data breaches across 12+ years of operation.

Human review replaces over-reliance on facial AI. Rather than making automated decisions based on facial monitoring alone, every flagged session is reviewed by a trained person before any outcome is recorded. This reduces the risk of inaccurate findings and limits the extent to which facial geometry data drives decisions.

BIPA Is Part of a Broader Privacy Picture

BIPA is one of several privacy frameworks that organizations using online proctoring need to consider. Depending on where your test takers are located, GDPR, PIPEDA, FERPA, and other state-level legislation may also apply. Integrity Advocate is built to operate across jurisdictions, with privacy-first architecture that supports compliance across multiple frameworks simultaneously.

The Risk of Getting This Wrong

BIPA litigation is active and growing. Organizations that collect biometric data without proper consent frameworks, retain it beyond its purpose, or work with vendors who repurpose it commercially are exposed. Statutory damages per violation, multiplied across a class of test takers, add up quickly.

Choosing a proctoring partner that takes biometric privacy seriously is not just a compliance decision. It is a risk management decision.

{{post-cta}}

Every proctoring tool that requires a download, an extension, or a compatibility check has a hidden line item: the help desk. It rarely shows up in a vendor's pricing page, and it almost never gets factored into a buying decision. But it shows up every semester, every testing window, every audit season, in the form of support tickets, IT hours, and test takers who never make it into the exam.

If you're budgeting online proctoring as a software expense instead of an operational expense, you're probably overlooking one of its biggest costs: IT support.

What "IT support required" actually costs

Most proctoring tools that rely on downloaded software or browser extensions, create a predictable chain of costs that has nothing to do with the exam itself:

• Pre-exam support tickets. Test takers on locked-down work laptops, older devices, or unfamiliar browsers can't install what the tool requires, so they contact support before they've even started the exam.
• IT staff time. Someone has to triage those tickets, walk people through installation, or approve exceptions for devices that can't run the software at all.
• Delayed or missed exams. Every minute spent troubleshooting a download is a minute test takers aren't spending on the assessment, and some never get past the install screen.
• Compounding cost at scale. A support rate that looks manageable at 200 exams becomes a real operational burden at 20,000.

None of this is a one-time setup cost. It repeats every testing cycle, for as long as the tool requires local installation to function. IT budgets in higher education are already stretched, with EDUCAUSE's most recent benchmarking data putting median central IT spend at roughly $1,600 per student FTE. A proctoring tool that quietly adds to that load is a cost worth naming, not absorbing.

The number that should be in your budget: support contact rate

Support contact rate, the percentage of test takers who need to reach out for help before or during an exam, is one of the most under-used numbers in vendor evaluation. It's a direct proxy for how much of your team's time a proctoring tool will quietly absorb.

A platform with nothing to install has nothing to break, misconfigure, or get blocked by a firewall, and that shows up consistently in how programs actually run at scale:

• BCIT proctored more than 13,000 remote exams in five months and kept student support requests under 1%.
• NPI reduced its academic integrity incident rate by more than half after removing the technical friction that was generating false flags in the first place.
• Smart Serve Ontario trains 150,000 people annually with a completion rate above 99.9% without support intervention.

Those aren't outcomes you get from a better help article. They're outcomes you get from removing the reason people needed help in the first place.

Why no-install isn't just a convenience feature

It's easy to file "no downloads required" under user experience and move on. In practice, it's an operational and financial decision that affects three groups at once.

Test takers launch directly from their LMS, on any device or browser, with identity verification completed automatically at check-in. There's no plug-in to find, no extension to approve, no compatibility check to fail. (For a closer look at how this compares across the market, see Top No-Download, Browser-Based Proctoring Tools.)

Administrators and IT teams stop being the first line of defense for a vendor's technical requirements. Rollouts move faster because there's no local software to deploy, license, or troubleshoot across a fleet of devices your team doesn't fully control, especially when test takers are using their own laptops. That's also what makes integration directly with your existing LMS possible without a parallel IT project.

Programs avoid the credibility problem that comes with technical friction: when a meaningful share of test takers can't complete an exam because of a download issue, that's not a security event, but it is a program integrity event. It raises fair, hard questions about whether every test taker had equal access to demonstrate what they know.

The connection to defensibility

Complete assessment security depends on more than catching irregular behavior. It depends on every test taker having a fair, equal path into the exam, and on every flagged session being reviewed by a trained person before any outcome is issued, not just processed by an algorithm.

A tool that quietly filters out test takers who couldn't install its software isn't more secure. It's excluding people before the exam even starts, and that's a fairness problem your program will eventually have to explain. A no-install platform backed by human review removes that exclusion at the front door and gives every reviewed outcome a record your program can actually stand behind.

What to ask before your next renewal

The next time a proctoring vendor's pricing page crosses your desk, the software cost isn't the full picture. Ask for the support contact rate. Ask what happens when a test taker's device can't run the required software. Ask how many IT hours your team spent last testing cycle on issues that had nothing to do with academic integrity.

If the answer involves a help desk queue, that's not a technology problem. It's a design choice, and it's one your program is paying for every single testing window.

{{post-cta}}

Online proctoring is foundational to how assessments are delivered today. But as adoption has grown, so has the complexity of protecting exam integrity. AI misuse, organized cheating, rising privacy expectations, and increased scrutiny around fairness and defensibility are reshaping what effective assessment security really looks like.

As we look ahead, programs face a critical question: Is your assessment security strategy keeping pace with today’s risks?

The evolving role of online proctoring in assessment security

Early online proctoring solutions focused heavily on surveillance and rule enforcement. While monitoring still plays a role, it’s no longer sufficient on its own.

Modern remote proctoring must support a broader goal: assessment protection that is fair, proportional, and defensible, for both programs and exam-takers. That means balancing security and privacy, automation and human review, scalability and accuracy.

Assessment security today isn’t just about catching misconduct. It’s about protecting the credibility of the assessment itself.

Assessment security as a strategy.

Leading programs are moving beyond one-size-fits-all online proctoring tools and adopting more intentional assessment protection strategies. Here’s what that shift looks like.

1. Designing Integrity Into the Remote Assessment Experience

Strong assessment protection starts long before an exam begins. Programs are increasingly designing integrity into their assessments, aligning exam structure, delivery methods, and proctoring configurations to the level of risk involved. Thoughtful design reduces opportunities for misconduct and allows online proctoring to function as part of a cohesive security framework, rather than a reactive safeguard.

2. Strengthening assessment security without sacrificing privacy

As remote proctoring becomes more prevalent, privacy expectations continue to rise. Assessment security that relies on invasive monitoring can undermine trust and damage the credibility of a program. In 2026, effective online proctoring must protect exam integrity without over-collecting data or creating unnecessary friction for exam-takers.

Privacy-first assessment protection is a requirement.

3. Combining technology and human judgment in online proctoring

Automation is essential for scale, but it can’t replace context. AI-powered online proctoring tools are effective at identifying anomalies and potential risks. Human review, however, remains critical for interpreting behavior, applying policy consistently, and ensuring fair outcomes.

The most defensible assessment security models in 2026 will continue to rely on a hybrid approach, where technology flags risk and humans make informed decisions.

4. Delivering defensible, trusted assessment outcomes

Assessment protection doesn’t end when the exam is submitted.

Programs must be able to stand behind their results, whether responding to learner appeals, audits, or regulatory inquiries. Transparent workflows, documented review processes, and consistent decisioning are essential components of modern assessment security. Online proctoring is only effective if the outcomes it supports are trusted.

Questions to ask as you plan your 2026 assessment security strategy

As online and remote proctoring continue to evolve, programs should be asking:

• Are our assessment security controls aligned to real risk, or legacy practices?
• Does our online proctoring approach protect exam-taker privacy as well as exam integrity?
• Are we relying too heavily on automation, or do we have meaningful human oversight?
• Can we confidently defend our assessment outcomes if they’re challenged?

Assessment protection is no longer a checkbox. It’s an ongoing strategy, one that must evolve alongside technology, expectations, and the future of remote assessment.

See how Integrity Advocate can help

Across education, credentialing, and workforce training, organizations are rethinking how online proctoring and assessment security fit into their long-term plans. How can Integrity Advocate help shape your assessment security strategy this year? Schedule a Demo today!

{{post-cta}}

Proctoring isn’t just about catching cheaters, it’s about creating an experience that preserves trust, reduces barriers, and supports learners as they engage with assessments. As remote and hybrid testing become standard across education and workforce programs, one trend stands out: ease of use has become a competitive advantage in proctoring.

Proctoring works best when it’s almost invisible. It should quietly protect the integrity of an assessment while blending into the systems learners already know and trust. Proctoring should feel familiar, launching learners into their exams in the same environments they already use every day rather than pushing them into unfamiliar tools or workflows. When that doesn’t happen, friction shows up fast.

Technical friction, like downloads, extra logins, and multi-step setup flows, doesn’t just slow learners down. It reduces confidence, increases support needs, and indirectly becomes one of the biggest hidden costs of remote assessment.

In this post, we unpack why ease of use, especially no-install proctoring, matters in the new year and beyond, and how it impacts learners, administrators, and institutional outcomes.

Friction Isn’t Just an Annoyance, It’s a Barrier

For many test-takers, the first interaction with a proctoring tool sets the tone for the entire assessment. When that interaction involves:

• downloading a launcher
• requesting elevated permissions
• or troubleshooting unexpected errors…

…it introduces friction before a single question is answered.

That friction can lead to:

• Increased anxiety and distraction
• Failed assessment starts
• Elevated support tickets
• Accessibility barriers
• Lower perceived fairness

And while traditional proctoring vendors often treat installations and extensions as standard, learners often do not.

A privacy-first, no-install approach eliminates these barriers at the source, protecting not just the exam, but the experience. That mindset aligns directly with our philosophy of integrity without intrusion, where security and user respect coexist.

"The service itself is easy to use and is popular among our students. The implementation process went smoothly." - Verified G2 review

Where Ease Meets Respect: The Privacy Equation

As institutions invest in stronger security, a natural tension arises: how do you ensure integrity without breaching privacy? Many legacy solutions err on the side of surveillance, using broad access and extensive permissions to “cover every angle.” But in doing so, they often end up collecting data that goes well beyond what’s necessary for integrity, raising concerns that many programs simply don’t want to inherit.

That’s a central theme in discussions around where secure proctoring ends and privacy invasion begins.

A no-install experience helps resolve this tension by minimizing the data surface area, collecting only what’s essential for validating identity and behavior, and doing so in a way that feels transparent, logical, and fair to learners.

What the Market Is Actually Asking For

There’s a misconception in proctoring that more technology equals better security. But feedback from educators, training leaders, and certification bodies tells a different story: they want tools that are secure and intuitive.

In fact, recent industry thought leadership underscores how the expectations for remote assessment are shifting, away from invasive, heavy-tech tools and toward solutions that balance trust, simplicity, and integrity.

Ease of use is not just a “nice-to-have" it’s becoming a requirement for programs that care about candidate satisfaction, equity, and outcomes.

Lessons from 2025: What We’re Seeing in Adoption

In our 2025 Year in Review, one clear trend emerged: programs that reduce friction for learners are better positioned for success. That doesn’t mean sacrificing security, it means rethinking how proctoring integrates into existing workflows.

Simpler start flows mean fewer abandoned exams, fewer escalations to support teams, and a better overall test-taker experience. When learners feel respected, not surveilled, institutions see:

• Higher completion rates
• Fewer pre-exam failures
• Less demand on support staff
• More positive perceptions of assessment fairness

This has real implications for retention, reputation, and operational efficiency.

Ease of Use Is Security, Too

Security and ease of use are not opposites. In fact, when done right, they reinforce each other:

• A calm, confident test-taker is easier to assess fairly.
• Fewer tech barriers means fewer false positives in behavior analysis.
• Intuitive workflows reduce administrative overhead.
• Transparent experiences build trust.

In 2026 and beyond, proctoring will be defined not just by what it protects, but by how it protects it, and that starts with the experience learners have from the moment they click “Start.”

See How “Invisible” Proctoring Could Work in Your Program

If you’re rethinking your proctoring approach for the next year, this is a great time to evaluate whether your current tools are adding unnecessary friction.

• Are learners installing separate apps just to start an exam?
• Are support tickets piling up around exam launch?
• Are privacy questions slowing down adoption?

We’d be happy to walk through how a privacy-first, no-install model could fit your environment and security requirements.

Book a demo to see what invisible, easy-to-use proctoring can look like in practice.

{{post-cta}}

Date
Originally aired: June 24, 2025

How Integrity Advocate Transformed Online Proctoring for the National Payroll Institute

Solution: Integrity Advocate E-Proctoring Platform

{{post-stat-highlight}}

Before implementing Integrity Advocate in 2020, the National Payroll Institute (NPI) faced significant challenges with its existing online proctoring solution. With over 15,000 course registrations annually and a growing need for remote assessment integrity, NPI was eager to ensure a seamless experience for users and administrators. 

The COVID-19 pandemic forced NPI to rapidly pivot from its honor-based supervisor proctoring system to a fully online solution. Technical issues, compatibility problems, and frustrated students plagued their first attempt at online proctoring. The situation became critical as NPI's membership had grown from 4,000 members decades ago to over 17,000 PCP designation holders and 4,000 PLP designation holders, all requiring reliable assessment integrity.

Christopher Pacella, Manager of Professional Accreditation and Standards, knew there had to be a better way. The previous system required plugin downloads, only worked on specific browsers, lacked French language support for their 12% francophone membership, and caused technical headaches for students and administrators. With integrity being one of NPI's four core values, the technical barriers undermined their fundamental mission.

{{post-block-quote}}

The reality was apparent - their proctoring system needed a complete overhaul to support NPI's mission of maintaining the highest standards of professional payroll excellence.

A Complete Transformation in User Experience

Fast-forward to today using Integrity Advocate, and the transformation has been remarkable. What used to be a source of constant technical support tickets has become virtually invisible to users. The seamless integration with D2L Brightspace meant students could focus on their assessments rather than troubleshooting technology. This transformation was particularly crucial for NPI's diverse student population, which includes many professionals who returned to education later in their careers and may not be as comfortable with complex technical systems.

"We're getting very little [feedback]. And that's amazing. That speaks volumes. That's exactly what we want. You don't hear about software that works well typically... But if it didn't work, you better believe we're going to hear about it a lot. And that was the big difference between the system that we previously had, where we heard all sorts of feedback, and Integrity Advocate, where it just works." - Christopher Pacella, Manager of Professional Accreditation and Standards

The implementation process was remarkably smooth, requiring only a 45-minute setup meeting compared to the weeks of troubleshooting that characterized their previous solution. This efficiency allowed NPI's technical team to redirect their efforts from crisis management to strategic educational initiatives that better serve their members.

Dramatic Improvement in Academic Integrity

One of the most significant improvements was in academic integrity incident management. NPI saw remarkable results after implementing a comprehensive academic integrity education module combined with Integrity Advocate's seamless proctoring. The institute's proactive approach to education and reliable technology created an environment where students understood expectations and could meet them without technical barriers.

"We went from an average of 86 incidents per month, and it dropped more than in half, down to 37. And that's been very consistent since we implemented some of these resources and things for people to understand what academic integrity means." - Christopher Pacella, Manager of Professional Accreditation and Standards

The reduction wasn't just about fewer incidents - it was about quality. The remaining incidents were genuine violations rather than accidental technical issues or misunderstandings about proctoring protocols. This improvement meant that NPI's review committees could focus their time on legitimate concerns rather than sorting through technical false positives, leading to more consistent and fair decision-making processes.

Seamless Student Experience

The transformation was equally dramatic for students. Daniela Kwiatkowski, Manager of Learning and Professional Development, experienced the system firsthand when she took one of NPI's courses. Her experience highlighted how the technology disappeared into the background, allowing students to concentrate on demonstrating their professional competency. This was particularly important for NPI's student population, many of whom are working professionals balancing career responsibilities with continuing education requirements.

"Before you do it for the first time, you're thinking, how am I going to do this? I've to write this exam that's stressful enough, and somebody will be watching me... I moved the camera to one corner and then I forgot about it, and it was easy to forget about it. It wasn't constantly there. [Like] oh, it's watching you. It was put in a corner, now [I could] focus on the exam, which is what we want people to do." - Daniela Kwiatkowski, Manager of Learning and Professional Development

This improvement in user experience had cascading effects throughout the organization. Students could focus on demonstrating their payroll expertise rather than wrestling with technology. The reduced anxiety around the proctoring process meant that assessment results better reflected actual knowledge and competency. This directly supported NPI's goal of ensuring that designation holders truly possess the skills they represent to employers.

Scaling Success Across the Organization

The partnership with Integrity Advocate enabled NPI to scale its proctoring operations dramatically while maintaining quality and integrity. This scalability proved crucial during the pandemic when remote learning accelerated rapidly, but it continues to support NPI's growing membership and expanding course offerings. The ability to handle volume without compromising academic integrity standards has become a competitive advantage for the organization.

"We were able to scale that up dramatically through our move to D2L Brightspace and the integration with Integrity Advocate. There was a point at which we maybe had a few thousand students being e-proctored, to the point now where every one of our students is e-proctored through the payroll compliance professional designation... And that ramp-up happened in less than three months." - Steven Van Alstine, Vice President of Professional Standards and Education

The rapid scaling capability also supported NPI's diverse delivery methods, including partnerships with public and private academic institutions alongside their direct-to-student programs. This flexibility has allowed NPI to expand its reach while maintaining consistent standards across all delivery channels.

Administrative Efficiency and Confidence

From an administrative perspective, the transformation was equally impressive. Decision-making that previously took weeks now happens within 48 hours, with clear evidence and streamlined processes. The administrative team developed communication templates and tracking systems that ensure consistent and fair handling of all incidents. This systematic approach has created a defensible process that stands up to appeals and maintains the organization's reputation for fairness and integrity.

"Giving someone a zero on an exam or failing a course is a big deal. I cannot emphasize it enough... Having the peace of mind to know this is an incident [that was] flagged for the right reasons. We can see that this is a violation, [it] gives us the peace of mind to say, okay, we know that if we're going to give them a zero or fail them or whatever the consequences are, we are very confident that this is legitimate." - Daniela Kwiatkowski, Manager of Learning and Professional Development

The administrative experience became so streamlined that what used to consume significant staff time troubleshooting technical issues now allows the team to focus on genuine student support and educational excellence. This shift has improved job satisfaction for staff members who can now concentrate on meaningful educational work rather than technical crisis management.

Advice for Other Organizations

Having experienced both the challenges of problematic proctoring solutions and the success of the right partnership, the NPI team offers clear guidance for other organizations. Their journey from a 50% student issue rate to virtually zero technical problems provides valuable lessons for any organization considering e-proctoring solutions. The team emphasizes the importance of thorough due diligence and learning from organizations that have successfully navigated similar transformations.

"There are a lot of products out there. And you're going to reach out to them, and the sales team will talk a big game about all the wonderful things they can do. Take your time and understand the technical aspects of implementation before making a decision. And if you want to save yourself a lot of time, start with Integrity Advocate, because we've already done that research for you and know that it works." - Christopher Pacella, Manager of Professional Accreditation and Standards

The NPI team's recommendation reflects their comprehensive experience with multiple solutions and their understanding of the actual costs of implementation challenges. Their advice emphasizes that the initial technology decision impacts not just technical performance but also student experience, administrative efficiency, and ultimately the organization's ability to fulfill its educational mission.

{{download-resource-cta}}

{{post-cta}}

Maintaining food safety across restaurants, processing plants, grocery stores, and other food handling environments is a complex, multi-layered challenge. Workers handle food directly. Managers set policies, define processes, and own the day-to-day culture of operations. Different roles require different training, and the stakes at the management level are particularly high.

When food manager certification programs fall short, the consequences are not abstract. In 2020, Chipotle incurred a $25 million fine because it failed to ensure that employees understood and complied with its food safety protocols. The fine followed a series of foodborne illness outbreaks between 2015 and 2018 that affected more than 1,100 people.

As Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt stated at the time, the case highlights why it is important for restaurants and members of the food services industry to ensure that managers and employees consistently follow food safety policies.

Training is the first line of defense. And for online food manager certification specifically, there are four areas where most programs fall short.

Background: Food Handler vs. Food Manager Certification

In the US, state-level agencies determine training requirements for food handlers, generally following standards defined by the American National Accreditation Board's Conference for Food Protection Standards, which is based on American National Standards Institute guidelines.

Food safety manager certification applies to managers and team leads, the people responsible for those with food handler certification. It requires a deeper understanding of foodborne illness prevention, HACCP principles, sanitation practices, and regulatory requirements. ANAB/ANSI standards require that food manager certification exams are proctored and that test takers verify their identity before starting.

1. Verification and Proctoring

For certification to be meaningful, the person taking the exam must be who they say they are and must follow the rules throughout the session. ANAB/ANSI standards are explicit about this requirement.

The problem is that many proctoring services claim to check participant IDs without applying any meaningful standard of scrutiny. In many cases, a library card or gym card is accepted without question. When the identity check is that superficial, the system is open to abuse and the certification it produces is vulnerable to challenge.

Integrity Advocate's identity verification process confirms that the person completing the exam matches a government-issued photo ID, with human review of flagged sessions before any outcome is recorded. That is the standard that ANAB/ANSI compliance actually requires.

2. Scheduling

Food service workers often work long, unpredictable hours. Unless proctored certification exams are available on demand, finding time to complete them is genuinely difficult. When workers can find the time, some proctoring systems make them wait, with reported wait times of 45 minutes or longer before a session can begin.

On-demand proctoring that is available at any time, on any device, eliminates this barrier entirely. A food service manager working a split shift should be able to complete a proctored certification exam during their break, not schedule around a proctoring provider's availability.

3. Participant Security and Provider Liability

Most proctoring services require participants to install software, browser plugins, or extensions to enable remote monitoring. This can involve bypassing standard security restrictions, changing system settings, or disabling antivirus software. Participants typically receive no follow-up support, no instructions for re-enabling security features, and no help uninstalling the proctoring software after the exam.

For certifying organizations, this creates practical and legal exposure. Installation requirements increase participant support demands significantly and introduce security risks that the organization then shares responsibility for.

Integrity Advocate requires no installation. The platform is browser-based and works on any device without changing security settings, disabling protections, or leaving software behind after the session ends.

4. Equity

Online proctoring systems that require specific devices, operating systems, or browser configurations create disadvantages for participants who do not have access to the required setup. Food service and related industries are diverse workplaces. A certification system that privileges certain technological configurations over others introduces inequity into a process that is supposed to be objective.

AI-based proctoring compounds this problem. Systems that rely on automated behavioral monitoring without human oversight leave no room for context, nuance, or accommodation. A participant with a disability that affects eye movement could be flagged for a violation they did not commit, with no meaningful review process to catch the error.

Integrity Advocate's browser-based platform works on any device without configuration requirements, and every automated flag is reviewed by a trained person before any finding is recorded. That combination addresses both the access and the fairness dimension of equity in online certification.

Building a Food Manager Certification Program That Holds Up

Solving for these four challenges starts at the design and implementation stage. An online food manager certification program built on a foundation of proper identity verification, on-demand availability, no installation requirements, and human-reviewed proctoring produces certifications that mean what they are supposed to mean and hold up to regulatory scrutiny.

Integrity Advocate's identity verification and participation monitoring tools are built for assessments in high-stakes industries, with a seamless, installation-free experience that works for anyone, at any time, from any device.

For a real-world example of how this works in practice, read our case study with Smart Serve Ontario.

{{post-cta}}