While I have often been critical of the American Polygraph Association (APA) over the years, I must congratulate it for the progressive stance it has taken in its new Model Policy for Law Enforcement Pre-Employment Screening Examinations. In defiance of law enforcement agencies across the country that disqualify applicants based on nothing more than failure to "pass" a pre-employment polygraph examination, the APA holds, at para. 3.12.1.3, "The decision to hire, or not to hire an applicant, should never be based solely on the results of the polygraph examination" (emphasis added).

The FBI, U.S. Secret Service, DEA, and countless other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that are currently in violation of this model policy should adopt it without delay.

Also significantly, the APA model policy advises at para. 3.12.5.1: "It is recommended that all pre-employment examinations be electronically recorded.  Audio/video is preferred, but audio-only is acceptable" (emphasis added).

The FBI, most notoriously, has a deliberate policy of not recording polygraph examinations to avoid creating an objective record of what transpires. There is no good faith explanation for such a policy, and I again congratulate the APA for its progressive position on this important policy question. For past discussion of the importance of recording (not only in pre-employment screening but in all interrogations as well), see Audio/Video Taping of Polygraph Examinations.

There remain points within the APA's model policy with which I would take serious issue, and which I may address at a later date, but for now, I say congratulations and thank you to the APA!

retcopper wrote on Aug 30^th, 2006 at 3:25pm:



would it be fair to say that you have ultimately hired candidates who did bust the polygraph exam?

The idea, policy or recommendation to not use the results of a polygraph examination as the "sole" reason to deny employment is certainly not new.  To suggest it is some kind of revelation, is either misleading, intellectually dishonest or based upon ignorance.  In fact, I have never known of any agency that has a written or verbal policy to deny employment for "solely" being deemed deceptive on a premployment polygraph test.  Agencies that I am familiar with have written policies similar to the APA.  I would like to see a written policy that does disqualify based "solely" on a deceptive pre-employment polygraph test.  Keep in mind, in almost all cases where there is a deceptive pre-employment polygraph test, there is something else that can be used as a disqualifier.  It may be minor, but a disqualifier nontheless.  Recording the process is, in my opinion, recommended.  I have had situations where an examinee has denied that they made reported disqualifying statements.  Once they listen to the tape, that's the end of that complaint.  And it also becomes a lifetime disqualifier!

Quote:


Perhaps someone can post a link to an FBI form rejection letter with his name and address redacted. We may actually have one uploaded to the site already.

The letter unequivocally informs the recipient that he was denied employments because the results of the polygraph examination "were not within acceptable parameters."

The Secret Service also denies employment solely on polygraph results alone. The rejection letter they send, however, states only that they have "better qualified applicants."

Whether the above policies are written or unwritten, they exist. Moreover, they are quite common.

The APA is to be applauded for taking this position. If they had done so ten years ago, this Website might not exist right now.

It will be interesting to see what develops, because the FBI, Secret Service and many other agencies are now in a bad spot, legally and otherwise.

yankeedog wrote on Aug 31^st, 2006 at 3:17am:


See the FBI Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines, Section 67-7.10, Polygraph Examinations of FBI Applicants. Under these written guidelines, the decision not to hire applicants is indeed made based upon polygraph results alone when the applicant "fails."

In 2001, the Los Angeles Police Department's hiring policy was amended to include the following language: "A candidate shall be considered for disqualification on the basis of the results of the polygraph examination if the candidate's polygraph examination results were...deceptive..."

Both of these written policies clearly fail to conform with the APA's model policy.

Quote:


How can you possibly know this to be true? In the case of FBI applicants, for example, typically no background investigation has been conducted by the time the applicant is rejected based on polygraph results. And if non-polygraphic disqualifying information is known before the applicant in polygraphed, then there is no need to polygraph the applicant in the first place.

Agencies that wish to comply with the APA's model law enforcement pre-employment polygraph policy should be on guard against magnifying minor issues "to use as a disqualifier," as you put it, simply to mask rejections actually made based on uncorroborated polygraph results.

Quote:


Indeed, recording protects both examiner and examinee alike from false allegations about what was said and done in the polygraph suite.

Wow, this is a surprising development. Even the APA is trying to distance itself from this insane practice. It will be interesting to see how the agencies respond. Of course, that response is probably years away.... 

Yankeedog,

Do a little research next time before opening your mouth and making yourself look stupid.

yankeedog wrote on Sep 4^th, 2006 at 12:18am:


I can't imagine any Judge anywhere issuing an arrest warrant based solely on polygraph results.  Ours don't, nor do I even know any that would.  And if they did, it would not survive even the most cursory suppression.  The one **possible** exception may be a stipulated polygraph, but I really can't even imagine that

Stay safe

EosJupiter wrote on Sep 4^th, 2006 at 7:45pm:


I think you would see even the most vocal opponents here become less strident, because the only other purpose of the polygraph would be to catch criminals, which, hoodoo or not, it can sometimes be helpful.  I would reiterate what I have said in the past.  I know too many people who had nothing to hide be made out to be not acceptable by the polygraph.  I think even George thinks that guilty knowledge testing has a place, though I certainly can't speak for him.