polyfool wrote on Jul 7
th, 2005 at 2:33am:
Nonombre:
A solid investigator is able to pick up on subtleties and wade through all the bullshit while getting people to talk.
A thorough background investigation virtually covers a person's entire life and involves multiple investigators and corroborating evidence. If the applicant has something to hide, it'll most likley be found or at the very least, there will be clues indicating something should be looked into a little further. Investigators talk with people who haven't seen the applicant in years and may never see them again. Are you saying you don't believe in investigative leg work? Why bother with backgrounds at all then? Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations? I don't think any cop would place more weight on a polygraph than solid detective work. The two don't even come close to being on the same level. You're comparing a couple of hours in a room with a stranger and a faulty SUBJECTIVE test to several independent investigators checking record after record and conducting interviews spanning an applicant's life. There's really no comparison.
Applicants sign releases absolving any possibility of litigation, so interviewees and former employers have nothing to be afraid of. A former employer will at the very least be able to say if the person is eligible for rehire--which says a lot without coming out and saying it.
Nonombre, if you had to weigh a thorough background investigation and a polygraph --how much weight would you give each?
Polyfool,
Thank you for posting. I am afraid that however that I must disagree with you. Not because your vision of a classicially run investigation is not commendable, but because it unfortunately does not jive with the realities of life. I have done background investigations, and I have conducted criminal investigations and in the real world, your description much more closely fits a "textbook" criminal case.
You see, as a criminal investigator, I have managed between a dozen and two dozen felony criminal cases at a time, a managable case load when their are prosecutors and victims relying on you for a solved case and closure to what is usually a horrendus situation.
Conversly, as a background investigator, I have sometimes had 200 to 300 files, stacked on the floor, in piles from three to five feet high, with hirings pending, academy slots needing to be filled, and the other two guys out sick.
And it is not just the overwork. It is the whole dynamic of a criminal case vs. a background investigation. In a criminal case, there is physical evidence, witness interviews, confessions of co-conspirators, a criminal act, a victim, changing stories, and all the tings you have alluded to in your post. Good stuff, the stuff that solves cases.
In a background investigation, all you start with is the word of the applicant and a carefully chosen list of references HE has provided. Sure you do the usual asking of the references what other people know this guy and MAYBE you get lucky. But I hold to my earlier statement that unless you manage to find an arrest record or someone who has a beef with this person, all you are going to get is the usual "He's a really good guy." In most cases, the neighbors who are giving him such a glowing reference have no idea he had been molesting their 12 year old.
Polyfool, at one point you asked me, "Do you have any idea how many applicants are denied clearances based on information obtained during background investigations?"
I am not sure what answer you were looking for, but I can tell you this. From what I know, I would figure that VERY, VERY, few people are denied clearances based purely on a background investigation.
Ahhh, but add a full scope polygraph into the mix...
Nonombre.