Quote:


I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I don't see how this saves time.  I mean, mine was scheduled & completed a few days after I got the offer letter, but the background investigation would take months.  What am I missing?

The U.S. Department of Justice's report, "Use of Polygraph Examinations in the Department of Justice," (1 mb PDF) dated September 2006, states at p. 45 (emphasis added):

Quote:

So if the FBI is now administering pre-employment polygraph screening examinations only after completion of the background investigation, it is a quite recent change.

I didn't find any mention of the polygraph being the last stage of the FBI special agent hiring process on the Bureau's website, which lists seven steps, the last of which is a medical examination:

1. Online Application
2. Phase I Testing
3. Phase II Testing
4. Conditional Letter of Appointment
5. Physical Fitness Test
6. FBI Background Investigation [including polygraph]
7. Medical Examination

The following description is provided for step 6, the FBI Background Investigation:
Quote:

Note that the polygraph is the first component of the background investigation to be listed, though the web page does not state in what order these components are necessarily done.

nonombre wrote on Apr 12^th, 2007 at 2:23am:


How about one case that resulted in an indictment? Since indictments are public record, this will not compromise sensitive data. Specifically show a case in which the background investigation failed but the heroic polygrapher saved the day...

nonombre wrote on Apr 12^th, 2007 at 2:23am:


Nonombre,

Be inventive, think outside the box, use another departments data, use data from a known polygraph resource. I am sure there are other places to look besides your own department. Hiring and testing reports are usually public knowlege after a certain amount of time has passed. Use years older reports if you have too.  I would never ask you to risk your job, It would be nice to see some real data. Get some of your fellow polygraphers to cough up some reports. Some is always better than none. Valid data proves all,

Regards ....

EosJupiter wrote on Apr 12^th, 2007 at 1:39am:


Eos,

Just how do you suggest I present my data in such a way as to:

1.  Prove to you and others the data is in fact real and actual?
2.  Protect the privacy of my applicants and the sources and methods of my department?
3.  Not compromise ongoing investigations and prosecutions which may have arisen from some of these cases?
4.  Keep my job after disclosing "Law Enforcement Sensitive" statistics and associated materials on the internet?  

Like others before you who have previously raised these same demands, you know it is impossible to report specifics without compromise.  THAT is exactly why you feel so comfortable making such demands..

Good day...

Nonombre

nonombre wrote on Apr 11^th, 2007 at 10:21pm:


Nonombre,

As surely as the sun sets and rises, your back just waiting for opportunities such as this. I won't bore you with the semantics of pro vs. anti rhetoric, I would like you to post your data showing the actual number of felonies and adverse information that you have found as of the result of your polygraph efforts. As usual actual data goes along way to backing your position. Or the short of it is, no data, no proof, no valid position with which to base your comment.

Regards ... 

nonombre wrote on Apr 11^th, 2007 at 10:21pm:

Just out of curiosity, how many people who have first been determined to be squeaky clean lie about an undisclosed felony during the polygraph and get away with it?

Also, just out of curiosity, how many people who have first been determined to be squeaky clean are disqualified by the polygraph even though they made no damaging admissions and told the truth about everything?

I know polygraph examiners are generally willing to believe that screwing an unknown percentage of innocent, truthful applicants is worth it if an unknown percertage of other people make a disqualifying admission.

I think that until the number of liars who pass is zero, and until the number of truthful applicants who fail is zero, the utility of the polygraph is an illusion.

I don't know anything about where in the hiring process the FBI places the polygraph.  I can tell you that it is the last step in the process for my department.  I really like the fact that we save it for last, because that means in EVERY case where a polygraph examination reveals disqualifying information (in some cases major felonies), the applicant had first been determined to be "squeeky clean" by a detailed and in depth background investigation.

That is what we call "utility" and that is why police applicant polygraph screening will be around for a long time to come.

Regards,

Nonombre

In an interview with Los Angeles radio station KNX 1070 on 10 April 2007, retired FBI polygraph examiner Jack Trimarco stated that the polygraph is the last step of the FBI's hiring process, and that after it, those who pass get on the plane and go to Quantico. This is news to me. Although I am aware of cases where the Bureau has begun background investigations before administering pre-employment polygraph screening examinations, I heard anything about it necessarily being the last step in the hiring process. Can anyone confirm this?