{"id":3225,"date":"2001-10-28T15:00:32","date_gmt":"2001-10-28T20:00:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/?p=3225"},"modified":"2021-02-21T05:29:11","modified_gmt":"2021-02-21T10:29:11","slug":"double-charge-for-cop-exams","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/2001\/10\/28\/double-charge-for-cop-exams\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8220;Double Charge for Cop Exams&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"entry\">\n\n\n<p>Beth Barrett of the Los Angeles <em>Daily News<\/em> <a href=\"https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20011117164307\/http:\/\/www.dailynews.com\/news\/articles\/1001\/28\/new01.asp\">reports<\/a> on the non-competitive contract recently awarded to US Investigation Services to provide polygraph support for the Los Angeles Police Department. Excerpt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Without seeking bids, Los Angeles hired an East Coast security firm &#8212; at double the going rate &#8212; to perform lie detector tests on LAPD recruits to speed the hiring of new police officers, the Daily News has learned.<\/p><p>The firm, found through a brochure, has no polygraph examiners of its own and is hiring local lie detector experts who work for about half the fee it is charging the city.<\/p><p>With few questions asked, the City Council approved the $615,000, six-month contract last week, as well as up to $62,000 in travel reimbursements that would have been unnecessary if local examiners were hired directly.<\/p><p>The money for the contract comes from an unexpended fund originally intended to provide each officer who completes the Police Academy with a $2,000 signing bonus, a recruitment incentive city officials said isn&#8217;t effective.<\/p><p>The firm, U.S. Investigation Services Inc. of Vienna, Va., is being paid about $395 a polygraph, even though the local rate is about $200.<\/p><p>&#8220;I don&#8217;t understand how they could use such a stupid system to get an important service,&#8221; said Richard Close, president of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association. &#8220;It seems like a system fraught with potential fraud and one almost guaranteed that you&#8217;ll pay a very high price, because you&#8217;re not exposing it to competition.&#8221;<\/p><p>Edward Gelb, past president of the American Polygraph Association and head of a company that does lie detector work for six local police agencies, called the contract a &#8220;sweetheart deal.&#8221;<\/p><p>&#8230;<\/p><p>City officials who negotiated the deal defended it as a badly needed stopgap after they were caught unprepared for a surge in recruitment that&#8217;s approached all-time highs for the decade. Since the Rampart Division anti-gang unit corruption scandal, those recruits are required to take lie detector tests.<\/p><p>Capt. Paul Enox, commanding officer for the LAPD&#8217;s Scientific Investigation Division, said the department wasn&#8217;t able to hire enough skilled polygraph examiners or train others to meet the demand immediately. He said discussions with the Sheriff&#8217;s Department encountered bureaucratic obstacles.<\/p><p>To respond to the backlog, Enox said he made it &#8220;very clear&#8221; to the city&#8217;s personnel officials they would have to find outside resources to catch up, noting some recruits were being made to wait a couple of months to take the exams.<\/p><p>&#8220;The backlog was big and growing bigger, and recruitment is one of the highest priorities for city government,&#8221; Enox said. &#8220;Personnel was scrambling to find a way to address the backlog quickly and efficiently.&#8221;<\/p><p>Phyllis Lynes, assistant general manager for the Personnel Department&#8217;s Public Safety Bureau, said she knew about U.S. Investigation Services and had obtained a brochure describing their services.<\/p><p>Lynes said she contacted them, and asked whether they could provide the polygraph service as the number of backlogged LAPD tests was approaching 600.<\/p><p>Lynes said she remembers grilling the company about its prices, but said she couldn&#8217;t recall how its officials justified the $395 per exam figure, except that quality control services were included.<\/p><p>&#8230;<\/p><p>Gelb, the past president of the American Polygraph Association, said he was &#8220;astonished&#8221; that as one of the more prominent experts in the field, he was not contacted.<\/p><p>Since U.S. Investigation Services has been hired, the polygraph backlog has dropped from about 600 to 180, Lynes said.<\/p><p>&#8220;The other alternative was not to staff the Police Department, and that&#8217;s not an acceptable alternative,&#8221; she said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><em>A better alternative would have been to scrap the LAPD&#8217;s polygraph program altogether. The $615,000 spent on pseudoscientific polygraph &#8220;testing&#8221; is taxpayer money wasted.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Beth Barrett of the Los Angeles Daily News reports on the non-competitive contract recently awarded to US Investigation Services to provide polygraph support for the Los Angeles Police Department. Excerpt: Without seeking bids, Los Angeles hired an East Coast security firm &#8212; at double the going rate &#8212; to perform lie detector tests on LAPD &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[278,126,361,70],"class_list":{"0":"post-3225","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-polygraph","7":"tag-ed-gelb","8":"tag-lapd","9":"tag-los-angeles","10":"tag-polygraph-screening","11":"anons"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3225"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3225\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3226,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3225\/revisions\/3226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/antipolygraph.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}