It is obvious that the FBI is beginning to realize the dire situation in which it has placed itself.  Its reliance on the polygraph as a hiring "tool" has likely caused more trouble than it's worth.  As you pointed out, they revamped their job site to appeal to more applicants, and it seems they have started a more aggressive advertising campaign than in recent years.  As I understand it, not all "support" positions require a polygraph examination.  But I hear that they still don't have enough analysts or applicants.  Do you have any insight on that?

In the DC area recently there was a Law Enforcement only job fair (the first annual, expect another next year) featuring many local and federal organizations; and the FBI appeared to be the most popular booth.  So many eager, unwitting applicants in line to talk to a recruiter about a possible future as an agent or "professional."  Part of me wished I had a handful of Antipolygraph.org pamphlets to distribute. 

Fair Chance,

The position I'm speaking of is intel analyst, specifically in C-T.  This person works at the Hoove with a TS only.  No polygraph.  Many of this person's counterparts have not taken a polygraph.  So am I correct in assuming that only SAs and other "special" support positions require the polygraph?   

From what I have heard, your comments about certain groups of employees being treated like second-class citizens is spot on.  Undervalued, underappreciated, understaffed, and overworked.   

I "failed" two FBI polygraphs, leaving me somewhat bitter but still eager to pursue a career in defending and serving this country in a LE capacity.  So when/if there is a third time for me, I hope it's a charm, but it will not be with the FBI.  Are/were you FBI, if you don't mind me asking?  It sounds like you speak from experience.

Take care

I have to believe that, at the policy-making level of the FBI, at least some of the administrators are well aware of the problems with the polygraph with regards to false-positives, inability to defeat countermeasures, and overall lack of accuracy in diagnosing deception.  Having said that, I would also have to believe that part of their reasoning for not wishing to admit the polygraph is useless as a screening tool or as anything other than an interrogation intimidator is the possible negative consequences were they to do so.

In today’s litigious society, I can easily imagine the large number of lawsuits filed by people who had been denied employment because of a polygraph examination.  Add to that total the number of employees who were disciplined or terminated because of a polygraph, or a refusal to take a polygraph.  While I agree with the sentiment posted by many polygraph supporters that no one has a “right” to federal employment, I would think that every applicant should be able to expect that their application will not be frivolously cast aside for no other reason than a failed “test” that has no scientific basis and is as diagnostically accurate as a coin toss.

As cynical as it sounds, I can imagine that, from the FBI’s standpoint, it is vastly preferable to continue unfairly turning away qualified applicants based on polygraph examinations that have no merit whatsoever than it would be to admit the polygraph is worthless and have to face the lawsuits and the public criticism.