posted 10-14-2005 07:27 AM            

We kind of found out how well this works by accident last year when one of the examiners was on vacation. The PCSOT clients were apprehensive about going to the other examiners...and you know what? Several disclosed things they had been hiding.

Any thoughts out there? I now APA talks about habituation and suggests limiting testing to twice each year, but I've never seen the "same examiner" situation discussed in this forum.

posted 10-14-2005 01:45 PM            

It is a good idea.

Jack

posted 10-15-2005 01:35 AM         

Based upon your post- I think you answered your own question, and I even agree changing examiners every 3rd test would be “preferable.”

However, ‘small businesses’ operated in smaller cities\counties by a single examiner, who solely specializes in polygraph and no other business pursuit to diversify their business, will have difficulties. A single examiner in a ‘small business’ who maintains an office space, has ‘overhead’ to be concerned with just for day-to-day operations, saving some profit for expenditures toward continued education seminars and\ or new equipment, and trying to make enough profit for a living as well, will be ‘hard-pressed’ to refer “a money paying client” to another examiner- particularly if the ‘small business’ is barely meeting the overhead.

Once you ‘trade off’ a client after the 3rd test to another examiner, how is the original examiner going to be assured the ‘trade off’ client will be returned, so to speak? Or even be referred a new client by another ‘larger business’ who has more than one examiner ? For example, in my adjoining counties there are two polygraph businesses- one has two examiners, and the other has three examiners. Those two businesses, could easily comply with a ‘different examiner’ every 3rd test simply within their own business with no loss of profit- and not have to make an outside referral. Add in “test fee” differences- the ‘referred client’ may protest to the Court-Probation being ‘forced’ to return to the ‘original examiner.’ If you charge $250 for a maintenance test- and an adjoining examiner will do the same test for $150- and you were the offender who is financially strapped with probation fees, therapy fees, court fees, community service fees etc.- where would you want to go for your ‘test’ ?

Add in ‘other issues,’ if you use up-to-date computerized equipment complete with motion sensors, voice countermeasure detection, video recordings, and “The Other” examiner still utilizes analog systems; Where would you want to go if you were the Offender ?

If ‘standards’ were set by APA\ ASTM who is going to be the ‘watchdog’ for the small business person ? and how do you deal with those examiners who are not members of APA\ ASTM ? (Same problem the APA has always had dealing with non-members- which is nothing they can do).

[As a side bar note on ‘fees’: Personally, I think there should be some national comprehensive published data (possibly based on examiner surveys conducted by the APA) which describes the “usual and customary” fees for various types of testing. This will help ‘new’ and ‘old’ examiners to stay current and determine if their fees are off base and ‘way above’ or ‘way below’ the “the usual and customary.” I’m sure some examiners will argue this idea is tantamount to ‘price fixing,’ I disagree. What I suggest is not unlike medical insurance companies that utilize guidelines for the ‘usual and customary’ costs associated with an MRI (or any other medical test), and that is what they pay out- the patient pays the rest above the ‘usual and customary’ if the Physician\Hospital declines to ‘write it off’.

The ‘usual and customary’ fee data could also be helpful for examiners to present to Judges, and other interested parties who are in the process of establishing PCSOT Programs, individual clients and\ or attorneys who think polygraph tests are 20 minutes long and $50.]

posted 10-20-2005 08:08 AM            

I appreciate your remarks and your comments about the business aspect of being a polygrapher.

posted 10-20-2005 12:58 PM            

I think that these types of examinations should be regulated by the entity required to conduct them and the one vested with the authority to enforce compliance. These are public examinations that are meant to monitor individuals whom have violated the trust of society and ensure that the individual is not still doing such unwanted or dangerous behavior or participating in such activities that may lend to them re-offending. Inasmuch as this is the case, I would think there should be a way that the aforementioned entity could create a list of qualified examiners of which they may rotate clients to.

I would not agree with the hundred dollar scenario. Now you have examiners making money off of other examiners conducting examinations that are public. Now if this was an issue of office space or some other tangible cost, then the compensation required to recover such a cost would make perfect sense. However if not, these are captive clients who belong to someone else, parole/probation, until otherwise released from obligation and deemed "safe" to their standards.

Let me give you a good scenario of why this should not be a business venture. Jacko (no relationship to Jack O.) bids with the DOC successfully to conduct their PCSOT examinations. Now Jacko also has a prominent private practice and regularly conducts examinations for high priced and high paying attorneys. Jacko’s business is booming, so he asks Jim Bob if he would like to make some extra money on the side by conducting these examinations. Jim Bob agrees. Jim Bob finds out what Jacko is making and decides he could make more money by outbidding him for the contract the next year. Jacko, being the good examiner and smart business man, learns of Jim Bob’s plan, underbids him, and discontinues using him as a supplemental examiner. Now Jacko’s business is still booming but he cannot find a decent examiner to conduct his examinations for the amount he could pay them. So now he can choose to select an undesirable examiner and continue to make money from his other lucrative examinations, loose money and conduct the exams himself, or squeeze the examinations into his busy schedule when they don’t inconvenience the higher paying examinations. I would argue that whatever the choice might be it would most likely compromise the quality of the examination.

I am not pointing fingers here but I have said this before and I would be amiss if I did not say it again. PCSOT is gravely paralleling pre-employment testing pre-EPPA. From what I can surmise, polygraph took a significant hit the last reform. I would expect no less in the wake of another reform and we just might see very undesirable results, if put to task.

posted 10-20-2005 01:09 PM            

It might be a good idea to contact probation departments as a state association and make arrangements to have a set fee within your or my state, a specific format for testing with standardized questions and quality control review.

If we regulate ourselves in this manner we all benefit. Big question is how do we start such an undertaking?

posted 10-21-2005 02:13 PM         

After writing this post- I came to realize I obviously have too much time on my hands :-)

As I stated in my earlier post, changing examiners every 3rd test, I too believe would be “preferable;” and I certainly agree financial considerations should not override effective examinations (effective having the meaning of ‘proper’ examinations)- regardless whether you charge a client $75 per test or $1,000 a test (or in the infamous case of DeLorean $10,000).
I only question the ‘mechanics’ of making it work ‘fairly to all examiners’ who operate either a big (lucrative) business or a small (non-lucrative) business.

Bill2E, unfortunately we do need regulation- at State Board Level (a Government body). You commented “It might be a good idea to contact probation departments as a state association and make arrangements to have a set fee within your or my state, a specific format for testing with standardized questions and quality control review.” I have approached our Judges, Probation Dept, and Therapists providing them with copies of our State Polygraph Association PCSOT Guidelines- as well as provided copies and discussed Colorado’s Sex Offender Management Board Polygrapher Guidelines, both of which describes testing formats, question types, rotation, etc. Frankly- they are not “listening,” and appears it IS about money- the cost to the Offender. I would not have a client if I charged $750 for a Sex Hx Disclosure here (and is a reason why I suggest a published National level ‘Usual and Customary Fee’ Database) The Judges, Probation Dept, and Therapists here Do Not Seem to Care if the exam is done on antiquated analog system versus the most advanced computerized system or whether or not movement sensors are used to thwart countermeasures. If you are using the latest computer system with the latest countermeasure sensors ‘up-the-ying-yang’ and want to charge $400 for a maintenance test- Offenders will be ‘referred’ to another examiner for $175- regardless of the equipment he uses- for ‘cost value.’ Add into the mix ASTM recommendations of conducting follow-up specific issue exams when a screening exam shows Sig.Responses. If a client ‘hits’ on 3 out 4 questions on a Screening Exam- three more tests need to be done, and what is the charge, if any ? (Personally, I have issues with telling a client he is showing a Sig Resp. in a Screening test- and then immediately conduct a Specific Issue Test regarding that question on the same day. I understand other examiners have no problem with it, but I just ‘feel’ its like saying “don’t think of a green cow” and may have a tendancy to go against the truthful person.) Furthermore, if there is No Specific Examiner Referral- meaning Offenders select an examiner from a list of qualified examiners- it won’t take them long to figure out which examiner is doing it “cheaper” as they discuss ‘how to beat the test’ after their Group session.

Bill, you suggested as a possible solution to the rotation ‘pitfalls’ I discussed in the earlier post, that other examiners could be solicited to aid in testing and the test could be conducted in your office and on your equipment under your supervision The idea sounds plausible (as surely some LE examiners ‘moonlight’ with private business), although I will have to add a ‘but’- and that is ‘What about liability?- It seems to me a significant liability risk door is opened. If the secondary examiner gets ‘sued’ by the examinee for any Real or Imagined wrongdoing- I assure you and your office will be named in that suit and have to defend itself. Now I recognize an answer is carry liability-malpractice insurance. Here again though, I’m not so assured it’s that ‘simple.’ If I carry liability-malpractice insurance, and you are not listed on my policy, but yet you conduct business in my office by administering tests and using my equipment - Is my insurance company going to protect me- I don’t think so. If the examinee claims he received some damaging outlandish electrical shock from my equipment- Is your insurance company going to cover you?- again I don’t think so- they will await the outcome of the suit against me and my equipment. Even if the ‘solicited examiner’ is adquately insured himself,- I would still argue your office will be in the midst- and you will have a major headache lasting several years, not to mention out-of-the-pocket expenses, while your insurance company awaits the outcome of the lawsuit involving the ‘solicited examiner.’ (None of which I would personally want or need)

I have no problem with the concept of making money with out having to ‘work’ (wouldn’t we all); your statement “your fees are your fees and you pay the other examiner his fee,you just made $100.00 for letting the other examiner conduct your exam.” The concept will work, if liability issues are resolved, but it is soley dependent on what the ‘solicited examiner’ would charge; and ‘why’ would he want to charge any less than his ‘normal’ fee, whatever that would be- he would be better off staying in his own office for income if he charged less. Fees charged for various tests, very so widely Nationally let alone across the State lines (which again is why I discussed a National published database of an examiner agreed ‘Usual and Customary” Fees) as a Guide. As an example, for a PCSOT maintenance exam- the “usual and customary fee’ in your area might be $325, my area might be $175- and in the Northwest- maybe they’re going for $75 (smells of pre-EPPA here). Now if my area is $175- and I ‘solicit’ an examiner within a 100 mile range, would the solicited examiner ‘travel’ and conduct a ‘proper’ test of two hours or longer for a $100? I wouldn’t invest 3 hrs drive time (to and from) plus 2-4 hours exam time for $100, let alone $175.

JB, You are absoulutely on-target these types of examinations are not private money making ventures, meaning your not going to get rich- unless your willing to cut corners, or do significant travel, or charge outlandish fees. However, a polygraph business must make ‘some kind’ of profit- to ‘keep the office door open and groceries on the table’ or go bankrupt.

I agree with you JB that PCSOT examinations should be regulated “by an entity”- and the best I’ve seen so far, is Colorado Sex Offender Management Board- a State Level Board, and the Texas Sex Offender Board- again a State Level Board. These two Boards do maintain required qualifications and listings of qualified examiners to which clients may rotate. Colorado recommends rotation of examiners, but does nothing to enforce compliance that I know of. (My question is ‘who’ specifically is responsible for monitoring and refering the client to another examiner after the 3rd test for rotation? The Probation Officer- The therapist- or the Examiner? And, the responsibility of monitoring that rotation be ‘fixed’ to one person, so when it is not done ‘fairly’ a grievance procedure can be instituted. I would disagree the ‘entity’ regulating rotation of PCSOT examinations be the APA, as they do not seem to have the ‘power’ to enforce it.

I also agree with you JB in that PCSOT exams are “ meant to monitor individuals whom have violated the trust of society and ensure that the individual is not still doing such unwanted or dangerous behavior or participating in such activities that may lend to them re-offending,” However I am not sure I understand your intent and meaning when you say “they are ‘public examinations’ and ‘ is why this should not be a business venture .” The underlying message I am reading is- you are suggesting PCSOT are ‘Public Examinations’ and therefore should be completed by government employed Public Safety or Law Enforcement Examiners for the benefit of the public- which frankly I don’t have issue with either (even though I would have to close up ‘shop’ if it came about- although ‘closing up shop’ would make my wife extremely happy.) Now if by “Public Examinations” you mean the ‘referral and rotation of clients,’ to various qualified private examiners, again I don’t have issue with it- so long as the rotation is mandated and regulated through monitoring that fixes responsibilty.

Here is another thought and opinion regarding these “public examinations” and “rotation”; I believe when an Offender is ‘rotated’, the two examiners should be able to discuss the Offender, review the Polygraph Files and make copies if needed, as well as review Videos. If I conduct 3 tests on one Offender and learn some of his countermeasure methods- why wouldn’t I want to pass that on to the new examiner to watch for? Yet current “Confidentiality Forms” may be prohibiting examiners from open discussion- (and yes, my current Confidentiality Form certainly would prohibit me from doing so too).

“PCSOT is gravely paralleling pre-employment testing pre-EPPA” - No arguement here JB, and is why there should be State Board Level Regulation as well as a National Data base of “Usual and Customary Fees” for various test types- including PCSOT. If the “Usual and Customary Fee” for a Specific Issue test ranges $450-$650 on a National Level, then the examiner charging $75-$125- may be cutting corners to test ‘more’ clients which leads to chart rolling which would also give reason for a State Board to make inquiries-

Bob

posted 10-21-2005 05:07 PM            

If the polygraph community could come togethar and establish what is normal for fees, questions, and procedure for rotating we would be in good shape. WE have a problem agreeing on any one methadology of testing, scoring, proper questions and on and on. Until WE resolve this issue it is a dead issue and WE will eventually be eliminated from the treatment process. CVSA is quickly catching up with us and is less expensive to administer. I believe all agree it is not a valid instrument for determining deception, however the manfacturers are quickly convincing more and more LE Agencies as well as therapists it works.

I do understand the delima you have in getting an examienr to travel 100 miles one way. Might think about having the offender travel 100 miles and again adjust your fees in conjunction with the other examiner if possible.

posted 10-21-2005 08:05 PM         

Our thinking is not that far apart. By the way, neither is our fee :-). I too charge $250 for PCSOT maintenance- and would be quite happy with conducting one test a day.

posted 10-24-2005 10:22 AM            

You made a number of comments, much of which I’m in agreement with, and posed some questions. I’ll try to address the questions you had of me.

My main theme of “public” was not meant to suggest that the government or law enforcement personnel need to run these examinations. It was, in part, to add emphasis on both that these are examinations that do not afford the same private consultation protections (i.e. release of information) and that the agencies utilizing this type of monitoring programs should be contracting whomever as an employee (most government agencies federal and state have provisions for private or special contracts). The unfortunate part of the aforementioned is that contracts usually, if not always, entail a bidding process. One way around this would be to create a state review board for PCSOT.

Let us hypothetically say that this board would be made up of five individuals, one polygraph examiner, one psychologist, one probation/parole agent, one DOC representative, and one private citizen. These individuals are appointed by the governor when a vacancy exists and serve a term of six years, with re-appointments occurring at the option of the present governor at such time an individuals term has lapsed. The other provisions could be worked out mirroring other similar type boards but I will get to the meat of this, as it relates to our discussion. The PCSOT board would, among other things, certify a list of qualified examiners to conduct PCSOT and set the yearly acceptable fee based on fair market value of said examinations. The board would also compile a list of quality control examiners whom meet the prescribed requirements of a PCSOT examiner but are not currently on the list to conduct examinations. Both lists of examiners are then divided into geographical regions, with alternates either for those areas that are lacking the prescribed number of examiners needed to conduct the rotating schedule or the purpose of fill-ins when another examiner is unavailable. The PCSOT board prescribes a formula for rotation in each region and based on the examiners pre-disclosed availability.

With the above scenario in place, DOC would set up a PCSOT building in each area. All those involved in the PCSOT program would report to this building to conduct the monitoring activities. All of the necessary facilities and equipment are housed within this building. Among other things, this would allow for examiners to access past exams of individuals prior to examining them to identify areas covered in past exams and/or post examining them for comparative purposes. It would also make the quality control aspects of the program easier, as the regional QC would report to their assigned building to conduct reviews.

As for the APA, I do not think it was me who suggested that they be the regulators in this matter. In fact, I agree that they are a professional organization that represents said professionals and not a regulatory agency by any means. They could however provide a much needed boost by way of lobbying. After all they have at their disposal a plethora of individuals in almost, if not, every aspect and representing entity of polygraph. I know that much has been talked about in the past about the cost factor involved and more specifically that x amount of dollars was needed to meet with so and so. Quite frankly, capitalizing on free media coverage that provides needed pressure and a few well connected individuals whom have influence in the area of concern can help to eliminate said pitfalls. If we ask for regulation and purpose how it could be done, we could help to proactively propel the profession and ensure compliance to standards across the board.

I know that all of this is easier said than done but the dictionary is the only place where success comes before work. Well I have typed enough and hope that my personal opinion and rambling have not bored anyone.