It's called acceptable risk.  If it takes a year to process an applicant and then add training on to that, you're looking at probably 18 months to put a cop on the street.  Who can blame a department for being willing to possibly lose a few good candidates in an attempt to cut that time by 75%.  It puts cops on job much faster, and saves the department a bundle of money to boot.  Can't have ones cake and eat it too.  Something has to give.  If we want to cut costs and be safer at the same time then it sounds like the LAPD is working toward that end.

Batman

But isn't this a dangerous way to save resources?  The "passing score" on the polygraph would give the department an (unwarranted) sense of being insulated from critisism, liability, etc., should a "passing" candidate later turn out to be a spy or whatever.  With that kind of security, there is much less incentive to conduct a thorough BI from scratch.  Wouldn't it?   It's almost as if the candidate is cleared before the BI ever begins.  With that kind of reliance on the poly, I think it would be natural for the BI to "slack" at least a little - after all the mind-reading, magical poly has already spoken.  Would a possible result not be that "undesireable" candidates who are saavy enough to learn to defeat the poly through counter-measures now have a much better chance of slipping through the cracks and into a LEO position?

Marty wrote on Feb 1^st, 2003 at 3:00am:


Marty,

I agree with your statement.  The other drawback is that many of these DI candidates will return and retest and miraculously "pass". I work for the LASD in a civilian job and have talked with many deputies who were "DI" on two polys, only to "pass" on the third.  

I don't know what the costs to process a candidate are, but when candidates repeat the testing process until they succeed, what is the cost effectiveness of pre-polygraphing before backgrounding a candidate when they simply wait the allotted timeframe and reapply?

Guest wrote Quote:


Not really. Remember that you MUST sign a release of liability before you are polygraphed. This gives the polygrapher carte blanche to say or do whatever they want without fear of reprisal


Fred F.

To all,

In my case, the whole application process was delayed more than seven months.  

This does not include the time wasted on paying Special Agents who are getting at least GS-12 salary (averaging $68,000 dollars per year not including benefits) for three sessions requiring four hours per session on average with time needed to set-up, interpret, and breakdown the equipment.  I believe that two of my examiners were senior special agents who were GS-13 (salary averaging $76,000 per year).

Two special agents were not from my local region and had to be paid additional time and expense to travel.

My appeal letter to Washington, D.C., used valuable resources as it was read and passed up the chain of command until it arrived at my local field office.  Once there, it required additional attention.

These cost to not reflect the cost of the "hidden Washington, D.C., polygraph gurus" who must give it the official blessing before it is acted upon in all three exams."

The final result, I was inconclusive, deceptive, and now not deceptive.

I am currently in background.  

I am exactly the same person I was before I started all this mess except that I have been educated on the uselessness of the polygraph as a pre-screening tool without investigation first or videotaping.

Where is common sense during all of the above?  I have had a spotless military record with "Secret" clearance.  I have been employed by the Department of Justice in sensitive positions as a law enforcement officer for over a decade.  I have been an outstanding employee in my agency.

The only person to ever accuse my integrity during this whole process was a special agent polygraph examiner who just met me and in a period of two hours or so condemned my integrity and honesty on a machine which claims to be able to "tell the difference between truth and deception."

Where is the common sense?

Regards.  

George,

Your clarification is correct.  I did mean to relate my experience to the conclusion that "prescreening polygraph examinations" did not "accelerate" the application process; instead, the "polygraph exams" postponed and added undue cost to the final result.  

Regards.