- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 01, 2003, 06:11 PMGeorge,
Your clarification is correct. I did mean to relate my experience to the conclusion that "prescreening polygraph examinations" did not "accelerate" the application process; instead, the "polygraph exams" postponed and added undue cost to the final result.
Regards.
Your clarification is correct. I did mean to relate my experience to the conclusion that "prescreening polygraph examinations" did not "accelerate" the application process; instead, the "polygraph exams" postponed and added undue cost to the final result.
Regards.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 01, 2003, 05:30 PMFair Chance,
For the benefit of those who are new to this message board and may be unfamiliar with your experience, it's worth noting that your application was not with the LAPD (the original topic of this message thread), but with the FBI. Of course, the points you raise are quite germane to the topic of polygraph screening in general. Interestingly, both the LAPD and the FBI (as far as special agent applicants are concerned) have a pre-employment polygraph failure rate on the order of 50%.
For the benefit of those who are new to this message board and may be unfamiliar with your experience, it's worth noting that your application was not with the LAPD (the original topic of this message thread), but with the FBI. Of course, the points you raise are quite germane to the topic of polygraph screening in general. Interestingly, both the LAPD and the FBI (as far as special agent applicants are concerned) have a pre-employment polygraph failure rate on the order of 50%.
Posted by Fair Chance
- Feb 01, 2003, 12:26 PMTo all,
In my case, the whole application process was delayed more than seven months.
This does not include the time wasted on paying Special Agents who are getting at least GS-12 salary (averaging $68,000 dollars per year not including benefits) for three sessions requiring four hours per session on average with time needed to set-up, interpret, and breakdown the equipment. I believe that two of my examiners were senior special agents who were GS-13 (salary averaging $76,000 per year).
Two special agents were not from my local region and had to be paid additional time and expense to travel.
My appeal letter to Washington, D.C., used valuable resources as it was read and passed up the chain of command until it arrived at my local field office. Once there, it required additional attention.
These cost to not reflect the cost of the "hidden Washington, D.C., polygraph gurus" who must give it the official blessing before it is acted upon in all three exams."
The final result, I was inconclusive, deceptive, and now not deceptive.
I am currently in background.
I am exactly the same person I was before I started all this mess except that I have been educated on the uselessness of the polygraph as a pre-screening tool without investigation first or videotaping.
Where is common sense during all of the above? I have had a spotless military record with "Secret" clearance. I have been employed by the Department of Justice in sensitive positions as a law enforcement officer for over a decade. I have been an outstanding employee in my agency.
The only person to ever accuse my integrity during this whole process was a special agent polygraph examiner who just met me and in a period of two hours or so condemned my integrity and honesty on a machine which claims to be able to "tell the difference between truth and deception."
Where is the common sense?
Regards.
In my case, the whole application process was delayed more than seven months.
This does not include the time wasted on paying Special Agents who are getting at least GS-12 salary (averaging $68,000 dollars per year not including benefits) for three sessions requiring four hours per session on average with time needed to set-up, interpret, and breakdown the equipment. I believe that two of my examiners were senior special agents who were GS-13 (salary averaging $76,000 per year).
Two special agents were not from my local region and had to be paid additional time and expense to travel.
My appeal letter to Washington, D.C., used valuable resources as it was read and passed up the chain of command until it arrived at my local field office. Once there, it required additional attention.
These cost to not reflect the cost of the "hidden Washington, D.C., polygraph gurus" who must give it the official blessing before it is acted upon in all three exams."
The final result, I was inconclusive, deceptive, and now not deceptive.
I am currently in background.
I am exactly the same person I was before I started all this mess except that I have been educated on the uselessness of the polygraph as a pre-screening tool without investigation first or videotaping.
Where is common sense during all of the above? I have had a spotless military record with "Secret" clearance. I have been employed by the Department of Justice in sensitive positions as a law enforcement officer for over a decade. I have been an outstanding employee in my agency.
The only person to ever accuse my integrity during this whole process was a special agent polygraph examiner who just met me and in a period of two hours or so condemned my integrity and honesty on a machine which claims to be able to "tell the difference between truth and deception."
Where is the common sense?
Regards.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 01, 2003, 07:18 AMGuest,
Although you titled your post "Interesting perspective on poly screening benefits," I note that the article you cite doesn't mention any benefits of polygraph screening.
Moreover, I think that The Beat's commentary is misleading to the extent that it suggests that front-ending the polygraph has streamlined the hiring process.
The LAPD began routine polygraph screening of all applicants only in February 2001. To the best of my knowledge, ever since this policy was adopted, pre-employment polygraph interrogations have been conducted before any background investigation.
Prior to February 2001, LAPD applicants were not routinely polygraphed. Only in certain cases, where questions were raised during the background investigation, were applicants required to submit to a polygraph interrogation. I believe that these were specific-incident (and not screening) examinations limited in scope to concerns raised in the background investigation.
When routine polygraph screening began in February 2001, it created a huge slowdown in the hiring process. The LAPD had too few polygraphers, and the new policy created a massive backlog of applicants (about 800) waiting to be polygraphed. The city addressed this problem by awarding a generous non-competitive contract for polygraph services to a company called U.S. Investigative Services. (For details, see the message thread, "L.A. City Council Mtg. Monday, 24 Sep. (2001)."
The LAPD hiring process would be better streamlined by eliminating polygraph screening altogether.
Although you titled your post "Interesting perspective on poly screening benefits," I note that the article you cite doesn't mention any benefits of polygraph screening.
Moreover, I think that The Beat's commentary is misleading to the extent that it suggests that front-ending the polygraph has streamlined the hiring process.
The LAPD began routine polygraph screening of all applicants only in February 2001. To the best of my knowledge, ever since this policy was adopted, pre-employment polygraph interrogations have been conducted before any background investigation.
Prior to February 2001, LAPD applicants were not routinely polygraphed. Only in certain cases, where questions were raised during the background investigation, were applicants required to submit to a polygraph interrogation. I believe that these were specific-incident (and not screening) examinations limited in scope to concerns raised in the background investigation.
When routine polygraph screening began in February 2001, it created a huge slowdown in the hiring process. The LAPD had too few polygraphers, and the new policy created a massive backlog of applicants (about 800) waiting to be polygraphed. The city addressed this problem by awarding a generous non-competitive contract for polygraph services to a company called U.S. Investigative Services. (For details, see the message thread, "L.A. City Council Mtg. Monday, 24 Sep. (2001)."
The LAPD hiring process would be better streamlined by eliminating polygraph screening altogether.
Posted by Fred F.
- Jan 31, 2003, 10:55 PMQuote from: Marty on Jan 31, 2003, 10:00 PM
One hopes not. There would be no excuse for using the Poly to shortcut a BI. Not to say that they wouldn't. The fact they use the poly at all in screening suggests a certain sloppiness.
-Marty
Marty,
I agree with your statement. The other drawback is that many of these DI candidates will return and retest and miraculously "pass". I work for the LASD in a civilian job and have talked with many deputies who were "DI" on two polys, only to "pass" on the third.
I don't know what the costs to process a candidate are, but when candidates repeat the testing process until they succeed, what is the cost effectiveness of pre-polygraphing before backgrounding a candidate when they simply wait the allotted timeframe and reapply?
Guest wrote
QuoteBut isn't this a dangerous way to save resources? The "passing score" on the polygraph would give the department an (unwarranted) sense of being insulated from critisism, liability, etc.
Not really. Remember that you MUST sign a release of liability before you are polygraphed. This gives the polygrapher carte blanche to say or do whatever they want without fear of reprisal
Fred F.
Posted by Marty
- Jan 31, 2003, 10:00 PMQuote from: guest on Jan 31, 2003, 09:06 PMOne hopes not. There would be no excuse for using the Poly to shortcut a BI. Not to say that they wouldn't. The fact they use the poly at all in screening suggests a certain sloppiness.
But isn't this a dangerous way to save resources? The "passing score" on the polygraph would give the department an (unwarranted) sense of being insulated from critisism, liability, etc., should a "passing" candidate later turn out to be a spy or whatever. With that kind of security, there is much less incentive to conduct a thorough BI from scratch. Wouldn't it? It's almost as if the candidate is cleared before the BI ever begins.
-Marty
Posted by guest
- Jan 31, 2003, 09:06 PMBut isn't this a dangerous way to save resources? The "passing score" on the polygraph would give the department an (unwarranted) sense of being insulated from critisism, liability, etc., should a "passing" candidate later turn out to be a spy or whatever. With that kind of security, there is much less incentive to conduct a thorough BI from scratch. Wouldn't it? It's almost as if the candidate is cleared before the BI ever begins. With that kind of reliance on the poly, I think it would be natural for the BI to "slack" at least a little - after all the mind-reading, magical poly has already spoken. Would a possible result not be that "undesireable" candidates who are saavy enough to learn to defeat the poly through counter-measures now have a much better chance of slipping through the cracks and into a LEO position?
Posted by Marty
- Jan 31, 2003, 06:15 PMGuest,
Assuming they are going to use a polygraph for screening, then it seems more fair to do it at the front end than the back end. It not only reduces some waste (as batman pointed out) but it reduces the psychological and monetary toll on the applicant since she isn't kept on the hook for months. Back ending it makes being one of those false positives a lot harder to take. It would also be nice if polygraphers that fail an examinee would explain the high false positive rate of screening exams, perhaps by quoting the NAS screening survey findings, so that those that are or know false positives don't personalize the failure .
-Marty
Quote from: Guest on Jan 31, 2003, 03:54 PM
Here's a quote from the LAPD's "Beat" Magazine. Available online at www.lapdonline.com. It's from, I believe, the October 2002 issue.
It seems Bassackwards to me. They are willing to rely on some imperfect machine, rather than on traditional background investigation techniques. Their concern is more with getting the job done quickly than with getting it done accurately.
Assuming they are going to use a polygraph for screening, then it seems more fair to do it at the front end than the back end. It not only reduces some waste (as batman pointed out) but it reduces the psychological and monetary toll on the applicant since she isn't kept on the hook for months. Back ending it makes being one of those false positives a lot harder to take. It would also be nice if polygraphers that fail an examinee would explain the high false positive rate of screening exams, perhaps by quoting the NAS screening survey findings, so that those that are or know false positives don't personalize the failure .
-Marty
Posted by Batman
- Jan 31, 2003, 05:47 PMIt's called acceptable risk. If it takes a year to process an applicant and then add training on to that, you're looking at probably 18 months to put a cop on the street. Who can blame a department for being willing to possibly lose a few good candidates in an attempt to cut that time by 75%. It puts cops on job much faster, and saves the department a bundle of money to boot. Can't have ones cake and eat it too. Something has to give. If we want to cut costs and be safer at the same time then it sounds like the LAPD is working toward that end.
Batman
Batman
Posted by Guest
- Jan 31, 2003, 03:54 PMHere's a quote from the LAPD's "Beat" Magazine. Available online at www.lapdonline.com. It's from, I believe, the October 2002 issue.
"Formerly, the amount of time that was required to process the average police candidate was approximately one year. Many candidates who had applied for the LAPD also applied elsewhere and accepted positions with other agencies that were able to complete their hiring process before the LAPD. The current time for processing has been reduced to an average of 120 days. Previously, a candidate could literally consume hours, days or even months of an investigator's time before being disqualified by the polygraph. Now, a candidate must pass a polygraph before a background investigation begins."
It seems Bassackwards to me. They are willing to rely on some imperfect machine, rather than on traditional background investigation techniques. Their concern is more with getting the job done quickly than with getting it done accurately.
"Formerly, the amount of time that was required to process the average police candidate was approximately one year. Many candidates who had applied for the LAPD also applied elsewhere and accepted positions with other agencies that were able to complete their hiring process before the LAPD. The current time for processing has been reduced to an average of 120 days. Previously, a candidate could literally consume hours, days or even months of an investigator's time before being disqualified by the polygraph. Now, a candidate must pass a polygraph before a background investigation begins."
It seems Bassackwards to me. They are willing to rely on some imperfect machine, rather than on traditional background investigation techniques. Their concern is more with getting the job done quickly than with getting it done accurately.