The_Breeze wrote on Oct 26^th, 2002 at 12:05am:


I disagree with this.  You may go over the questions one by one and define them, but the questions are still open-ended and (undoubtably) emotionally charged.  Or do you ask, "Have you ever illegally killed someone?  Have you ever illegally taken a car? Have you ever illegally taken a computer? Did you ever defraud someone of more than $250 in Maine?" etc., etc.  (I actually have no idea at what level Maine law defines fraud as a "felony", but I hope you get what I'm driving at.)

Even these questions are somewhat vague, and moreso because of the fact that most applicants are probably not legal experts.  What if they don't realize something they've done qualifies as a specific crime or (more ludicrously) a "felony" vs. a "misdemeanor"?  You'd be surprised how few people know the legal definitions of "fraud", "stealing", "voyeurism", "theft", etc. much less at what level these crimes constitute "felonies" (that's why we have lawyers, of course).

No matter how you slice it, a pre-employment screening poly is a fishing expedition, and due to the low rates of guilt present in your applicant pool, false positives are happening -- in fact, statistics say they're happening a lot more often than your polygraph screen is finding people with real problems.

Skeptic

Dear The Breeze,

You answered that you are doing the following items:

1. In-depth background check, last chance to change applicant information, and then a polygraph.

2.  The polygraph proceedure is videotaped.

3.  You make records of the event easily available to the applicant in cases of dispute (or just general information).

This is so far a superior method than what I went through.

Are there cases where their are no negative findings which would not need any type of polygraph to "clear" them?

 I have discussed the fact if their are negative findings or absence of fact necessary to clear application discrepancies, a specific incident polygraph option could be given to the applicant.  The applicant should have the option to say no and their application stopped without any negative comments on their personel file.  This would have to be appealable to a group who can make security decisions concerning the position needing to be filled.  Extreme legal wrangling would be avoided in a vast majority of cases.

There should be many applications which need no polygraph intervention because everything fits and falls into place.  As you stated, someone who has traveled alot might have some blank spaces.  Unless you have a specific concern during this period,  that history should not be adjudicated by only polygraph.  This adjudication process could also lead to a security breach due to over confidence in the polygraph outcome.

The polygraph is going to lose its placebo effect as information is disseminated from people like myself and reports such as the NAS.  The amount of confessions are going to drop and its utility as a method to obtain confessions will become extremely poor.  

My legal rancor statement was in reference that if an employment decision is made with only polygraph results being used, the NAS report is opening the door to lawsuits based on its conclusion that pre-screening and screening polygraphs in themselves (minus confessions and admissions) are poor indicators of security risk.

Thanks for the discussion.

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 25^th, 2002 at 5:50pm:

 
Breeze,
 
There simply is no reliable way to prevent an ethically unsuitable candidate from being hired if the background investigation fails to turn up disqualifying information. As the National Academy of Sciences has made abundantly clear, polygraph screening is completely invalid.

Nonetheless, so long as people still believe that the polygraph can detect lies, polygraph screening can have some utility as a means of obtaining admissions that might not otherwise be made, as illustrated in the cases you cited. Considering that polygraph screening itself is without validity, and that some unknown number of deceptive persons can be expected to pass, it is likely that your agency's polygraphers would obtain even more disqualifying admissions if they were to routinely accuse all examinees of deception and to follow up with a full-blown "post-test" interrogation, regardless of how the charts are scored. However, this bluffery cannot go on indefinitely. As more and more people discover "the lie behind the lie detector" (i.e., that polygraph "testing" is a fraud), polygraph-induced admissions will inevitably dry up.

I think that your agency's use of polygraph screening only after a background investigation has been completed is commendable. Also commendable is your agency's practice of videotaping all polygraph examinations, which you mentioned in a separate post.

With regard to "good candidates being falsely turned away" you note that "all DI charts (this year) were supported by confessions/explanations and then sent back out to background." It is not surprising that there were confessions or explanations associated with all DI ("deception indicated") polygraph charts. Polygraphers routinely ask those who "fail" what they were thinking of when answering one or more questions. So, even where no confession is obtained, there is at least an "explanation."

A better way to assess the extent to which your agency may be falsely accusing the innocent and denying them employment based on polygraph chart readings is to candidly answer the following questions:

1) What percentage of applicants polygraphed "fail?"

2) What percentage of those who "fail" make no disqualifying admission(s) and are referred for further background investigation?

3) What percentage of these are ultimately hired?

4) Is passing a polygraph "test" a requirement for employment, either de jure or de facto?

Fair chance, others
I do not have time to direct a comment to every question since my last post so I will come back to the issue.
Assume with me for a minute that the polygraph has some value in weeding out the unsuitable (naive or not)
Since I have seen this occur with frequency, please do not tell me that I am seeing a chance event, random act or blind luck. Im going to believe my experience more than a sincere, committed person with a failed polygraph under thier belt.
Now, we remove polygraph from the employment process and rely only on the background check.  Forgive me if I generalize, but this is where the LAPD and FBI were until recently.  This approach clearly does not have great success either.
Is it better to give someone a polygraph in a preapplication setting and have a chance of eliciting disqualifying information or trust to the background check and call the process finished when nothing is unearthed?  Both approaches are filled with the potential for error. (I realize that a knowledgable or manipulative applicant will not make admissions, but we will not likely find negative background information either).  Most large depts. and agencies have already answered this question, because results have been obtained not otherwise available (with background alone)
No one needs to write and let me know that a polygraph/background approach is eliminating qualified applicants since I have allready spoken of my agencies approach relative this issue. So George, large case, I dont know what the % of applicants are that fail, I would have to research it on a slow day.  But it is small, and retests are routinely given on specific issues of concern after a DI. The specific issue re-test has been effective in resolving problem applications.
Fair chance, you have too much honorable service to dwell on this issue long. If I had failed one of my several polygraphs over the years, I might feel like you do now.  As a former fed myself who went local for personal reasons, I understand that you have been embarrased by a "total numbers" process.
I respect your drive to post here with thoughtfullness, since you lack the venom of other especially unqualified posters.  Will you be in the calendar as well??

The_Breeze wrote on Oct 29^th, 2002 at 7:15pm:


Breeze,
To put it bluntly, all you're seeing is the effects of a good interrogation prop.  As George rightly observed, you can "weed out the unsuitable" with greater effectiveness if you accuse and interrogate everyone, not just those the polygraph "flags".

I am glad, though, that you don't use polygraph "results" as the deciding factor in your hiring process.

Skeptic

Anonymous
Your sweeping statements and wishful thinking say to me that you are not in government service and do not understand its mysterious ways.
Polygraph screening did not, and will not die as a result of the NAS report.  If you would care to wager, lets meet back here in a year and check status. Nothing too extravagant, Im just a local deputy. You may send me a gift certificate for dinner. (Drew, start the clock)
When you officially declare something as stupid, we may be talking about two different things. What you and other like minded folk think is stupid, others such as myself see as a regrettable necessity. (until something better comes along)
I think all will agree that the polygraph has been controversial for decades, and will continue to be so regardless of what happens on these pages.
Legal claims as the result of not being accepted for employment? dont hold your breath.  Waivers are standard practice, and besides if a person feels strongly about it, they should not apply to any wrong headed organization that requires such a foolish process to occur. Each step requires a statement of "voluntary" on the applicant's part.
Your comment about the polygraph profession needing to somehow distance itself from "polygraph screeners" is a classic. I think most do both as the need arises.
An animal rights activist will try to ban lion or bear hunting before getting to the point, no hunting at all. You dont attack the center, you attack the fringe and hope the center in time collapses.
A anti gun activist will talk about assault weapons and how no one needs them, (knowing not many own them) final goal of course is that no one needs any personal weapons.  The long term strategy of this site is clear, dont insult the readership with divide and conquer platitudes.
What is the slogan for this site again?
There is no more liability attached to polygraph than already exists in backgrounds (where a staff officer must make a judgement call) or to a psychological screen.  Did you know that if you are the VICTIM of certain acts, you cannot make it past the good Dr. of psychology?  So think about this for a moment....something unspeakable happens to you as a juvenile, no fault of your own, and as a result even as a completely qualified applicant you may not realize your dream of becoming a LE officer.
Gentlemen, where is the outrage?

Skeptic
As I understand the thought here, a "prop" is a misrepresented device used by LE to hopefully persuade a naive subject to be forthcoming. When I speak of polygraph results, I do not speak of some amount of fear generating a confession, using the "prop", but rather observable reactions as described in polygraph literature which could indicate deceptiveness.  I am actually surprised sometimes when I see this, with what looks to be a squared away candidate.  Even more surprised when the drug use goes from 3 to 53.  I would like to state the obvious again, knowing the scorn it will bring.
MANY PEOPLE LIE ON JOB APPLICATIONS.
Give me some ideas to solve that problem and I will listen.

Read and weep,

The polygraph is here to stay ladies and gentlemen.  Why are you so scared?  Now tell the truth or I'll request that you submit to a polygraph

Breeze,

That which the NAS panel has concluded is a danger to national security and a blunt instrument not to be trusted is most assuredly dead.  The viability of polygraph screening is no longer an issue; the only guesswork surrounds the burial date.  With regard to the jury being out on organized polygraphy regarding its handling of the aforementioned burial, it is not the pro or anti-polygraph communities (or their goals, desires, strategies, etc) that I refer to but the American public.  Perhaps you did not notice, but every major wire service, every major paper, newscast in America carried reports, op-ed pieces, etc regarding the NAS panel's report.  This is no longer a secret to the American public, and the death sentence to polygraph screening is no secret to your community.  One proponent (Dan Sosnowski) tests the public opinion waters and is badly embarrassed; the rest of your leaders are cowering in the shadows hoping to buy time, but they can dream on.  I would expect to see first changes in the screening program of the NAS panel's host, DOE.  I predict this will be followed by greater changes and likely abandonment with a new Congress.  This will spread amongst the federal polygraph community then to state and local municipalities eventually reaching you.  I do know something about the intransigence and inertia in government and therefore don't pretend to know the exact timing of when polygraph screening goes from dead to seriously dead.  To borrow loosely from a more precise form of human behavior this is no longer a matter of thermodynamics (end products) but of kinetics (rate of getting there).