|
Author
|
Topic: Old Subject-Anew
|
Capstun
Member
|
posted 04-19-2005 04:18 PM
 
This is just a new addendum to the old forum topic on admissible statements and when to report crimal acts disclosed during pre-employment interviews/polygraphs.Last month I had a police applicant from a neighboring state come in for a polygraph. Squeeky clean; choirboy according to his paperwork and background investigation. On the LEPET he was SR on the question regarding ommitting or putting any false information on his applications. He insisted he was not withholding any information and had been completely honest. After a short lunch break, he came back and I ran a clarificaiton CQT on the same issue. He was DI. After a lengthy post-test, he tearfully told me that he had molested his sibling as a teenager (he is now in his very early 20's). The interrogation continued on with this "choirboy" and here is what I found out: He is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent girls, ages 5 - 10. He recently started living with a woman with a target age girl. He originally failed to disclose two daycare centers he worked for, for several years, as a teenager. He denied molesting any of the children, and I of course believe him (not).
How many teenage boys get jobs working in daycare centers? Local police notified in the jurisdiction he is from and prelimanry reports suggest he is a sexual predator. Investigation is continuing. I think this shows: 1. The need for clarification/breakdown tests instead of just disqualifying the applicant and moving on when they will not immediately make admissions. 2. Why we need pre-employment polygraphs! I retired from Oregon law enforcement before coming to an Arizona agency. This guy would have been hired in a heartbeat in Oregon, where state law prohibits any pre-employment screening for any job. Can you imagine what would have happened if this guy was given a gun and badge? FYI IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 04-20-2005 07:58 AM
Great job, and thanks for sharing it. It's a powerful defense of polygraph screening. I'd like to get the numbers on how many people end up DI on follow-up testing and how many are found NDI. From there, I'd like to know how many of the DI make admissions. I suspect more people make it through screening exams than the anti-polygraph people would say, and I suspect the vast majority of those who don't make admissions of at least some type of lie during the post-test interrogation. I'm going to go through the past two years and get my numbers. Anybody interested in doing the same? I could crunch the numbers for something Ralph might be inclined to post somewhere on this site. IP: Logged |
Capstun
Member
|
posted 04-20-2005 10:14 AM
I can get that info for the past year too. Our IT guys set up a data base specifically for me a couple months ago and I just finished entering all the data. When business slows down I'll see what I can pull up. IP: Logged |
polycop569
Member
|
posted 05-05-2005 04:50 PM
I have been doing pre-employment screening for my department for 4 years. We only recently strated using the LEPET examination, so I don't have any numbers for that. Before that we used an MGQT.The most astounding statistic to me has been the number of pre-test disqualifying admissions that I and our other examiners have received. Conducting a solid pre-test netted us a 20% pre-test admission rate in 2004. Our department does not disqualify solely on the basis of a DI test, so an admission is very important. Of all our DI tests, 61% gave disqualifying admissions. Ultimately, pre-employment polygraph testing disqualified 33% of applicants (written admissions either pre or post test). Potential problems were identified in an additional 9% of applicants who were DI but made no admission. Polygraph is responsible for eliminating one in three applicants who may have otherwise been hired. All this is prior to the background investigators getting their shot. I think that speaks for itself. IP: Logged |
Capstun
Member
|
posted 05-05-2005 05:18 PM
I ran the stats last year for the end of year report, and of all applicants sent to polygraph, 70% washed out. Our department policy does DQ for a DI alone without admission, but I always make sure there is at least some other support for the DQ. Most of the DQ's were for prior drug usage. I'm in Arizona and POST standards mandate a maximum allowable amount of drug usage. Go over, even by one drag on a MJ cigarette, and you are DQ'd by law. Being a border town that measures drug busts not my grams, ounces or even pounds, but by hundreds of pounds, many go way over! IP: Logged |
polycop569
Member
|
posted 05-06-2005 08:39 AM
I wish TCLEOSE here in Texas would adopt the same rules. Prior drug use is left up to the individual agency for the most part. Too many Human Resourse Directors are backing of their strict requirements because of decreased interest in the job. They lower the standards to get more applicants, but the applicants that show up are not suitable to work in sanitation, much less the police department.IP: Logged |
Lieguy
Member
|
posted 05-09-2005 12:11 AM
Hi Capstun;I applaud you for taking the time time break down the DI test and find out exactly what the applicant was lying about. This is done far too seldom. I agree with the statements made here about break out (or down) testing, but I have an even more far-reaching proposal: How about sharing the info on a database? Even if we all did this just statewide, we could prevent some jerk from flunking out of our hiring process, only to go to a neighboring town and get hired. I teach at our state POST Basic Academy. I can't tell you the number of times I have washed some loser out during a pre-employment poly with our agency, only to see him in some other agency's uniform sitting there in the next class I teach! We need to share info about failed applicants....as police agencies, we depend on the APPLICANT to tell us if he's ever applied anywhere else. What's wrong with that picture?  Anyway, another vent about a pet peeve of mine.............. ------------------
A Half Truth is a Whole Lie [This message has been edited by Lieguy (edited 05-09-2005).] IP: Logged |
polycop569
Member
|
posted 05-10-2005 09:52 AM
I just read that the Texas legislature is considering a bill to require all agencies to report the reason for termination of an officer to our licensing agency (TCLEOSE). This info is then available to other agencies where this officer might apply. This is to prevent rogue cops from "department hopping" every couple of years. Wouldn't it be great to expand that to new applicants as well (like Lieguy suggested)? We could report the reason for rejection (i.e. failed poly, drug use, etc.) I think it can be done, but we would have to get beyond the fear of lawsuits. IP: Logged | |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
