posted 10-27-2002 11:33 PM            

quote:

---

Indulge my slightly disjointed post...

I suspect you guys won't agree... But even after my own personal hell-fire of rage after a few PD pre-emp polys, I think that it's a GREAT tool for pre-screening, IF -- and it's a big 'if'...

IF, the actual results of the poly weren't considered by the agency in question.

For instance, after taking the poly and having the department completing a diligent b/g invest, the agency took you into a room and said, "Your background's great. You were a real champ sticking w/ it during your XXX # of polys..."

Everybody's a winner. Gotta be in it to win it, et al...

In other words, I think it's a great tool to weed out flakes and nervous-types that would bury their head if confronted w/ a hairy scene on the streets...

I read somewhere that when LAPD made the poly a mandatory step in the hiring process, out of the 60 plus that were scheduled, something like 25 or 30 canidates simply didn't show up to the poly exam... Dropped out w/o a whimper.

---

I would think if a version of this sort of process was carried out, for some length of time, within a number of agencies using the polygraph as a pre-employment screening tool, one might be able to confirm results of the tests independently.

For example;
Let us suppose that a polygraph is conducted at the beginning of the employment process. The results of the exam are documented and sealed. A through background investigation is then conducted on all issues that would have been covered by the polygraph examination. At the completion of the investigation, the results are compared for agreements and disagreements. A review panel could then makes a determination as to the further employment of an individual based on the total evidence of the investigation or the background investigation only. Next, a random number of cases are tracked throughout those selected employees’ careers. Cases are closed at end of an employee’s gainful employment. The cases are independently reviewed at such a time a file is closed, by maybe a University with a criminal justice masters program, and the data recorded and any substantiated findings reported.

I would think something of this nature would not only prove valuable for research in polygraph but also for the agencies and their human resources departments who are most likely looking for any way of producing substantiated documentation of their hiring procedures. The later uses this information to further improving and defending current practices.

Just another idea for thought and discussion.

posted 10-29-2002 12:02 AM            

My opinion is a method should seek to better itself through evaluating its current best practices and to continually evolve and improve, if it is to weather the storms of time. Although I do not agree with much of what the antipoly persons are doing and saying, I do think we might pull from their over analytical criticisms some sentiment of useful ideas to aid in the advancement of our profession.

I know that my ‘for instance’ was far fetched with regards to a plausible real world assessment. Its just a simple idea for thought and discussion.

posted 10-30-2002 09:41 AM            

I am sure I am off somewhat but I think they figured $300,000.00 + to test everyone and several millions to cover the law suits from people that should never have been hired.

Polygraph screening of potential employee's may be far from perfect but is not nearly as costly as not doing them. So a department gets sued over a pre-employment screening and pays a settlement, is that going to cost as much as the suit against the department for an employee who sells drugs, kills people, rapes women etc.? We might not catch all the potential bad seeds but we definetly eliminate most.

Remember the report said polygraph testing was not perfect but still the best tool available at this time.

There is case law from Colorado upholding the non hiring of an applicant based on his not being the most qualified applicant.
The court saying that the failed Polygraph was a part of the hiring process, using a standard format performed by a competent examiner. Failure to pass a part of the process makes an applicant "not the most qualified".