what is it costing in $$

[suethem]

George,

I would be interested to know what some of the big city police departments and Fed Agencies are spending for their polygraph programs.

In this economy everybody is looking to cut programs.  Education, city services,...all get cut, eventhough society knows that they have real value.

I think that a chart of govt waste on the poly would be an interesting graphic to send out to city budget cutters and other government waste organizations.  I know it always tickles citizens to see how private business and government stupidity screw them out of their hard earned dollars.

I wonder what the city of philadelpia is saving since they abandoned their pre-screening polygraph testing?

I also wonder why the pro-polygraph crowd never talks about Philadelphia dropping the pre-employment poly?  I guess their reply will be that the foresic scientists in Philadelphia are all wrong- just like you, Dr. Drew and the National Academy of Sciences.


You could make the chart with different categories such as cost per test, cost of equipment, cost per polygrapher-in relation to the real officers salary...  

What do you think?

[George W. Maschke]

I have very little data regarding the costs of municipal and federal polygraph programs. I do know that in 2001, the LAPD awarded a $615,000 non-competive contract to U.S. Investigation Services, Inc. to conduct pre-employment polygraph examinations at a cost of $395 per examination.

However, it's important to note that polygraph screening is generally seen as a cost-cutting measure. It's much cheaper to conduct a polygraph examination than a background investigation, and when a seemingly qualified applicant makes disqualifying admissions during a polygraph screening session, it saves the agency the cost of a background investigation.

I don't have the data to make the chart that you suggest, but I think the main costs of polygraph screening are not quantifiable in dollars. The main costs are the injustice done to those who are falsely branded as liars and the opportunity cost to the relevant agency of losing qualified applicants for no good reason. Another hazard of reliance on polygraph screening is that liars who beat the polygraph may receive less scrutiny during any background investigation because they bear the polygraph seal-of-approval.

[suethem]

George,

Thanks for the reply.  If I were in charge, I would rather get responses from many different sources (background investigation) to help me make my determination rather than from the one source (polygraph) that has been proven faulty.

To me, the polygraph sticks out like a witness that has a history of un-realiability.

That money could be used to actually have people sift through the applicant pool and pick and choose based on useful criteria.  

Thats interesting that LAPD awarded a non-competative contract to USIS.  Tote the polygraph line and when your retire you can come and consult with us.  I wonder who is really making policy at LAPD?

[billybob1234]

As far as cost goes I had one polygraph examiner tell me that the company he works for charges $350 per hour of polygraph testing for the private sector. I have no idea what they charge when they do pre-employment for law enforcement.

I hope this gives you and idea of what these parasites suck from the unsuspecting public.

Billybob

[Poly-Killer]

I have to agree with the views here, I have had 3 polygraph ...ahem..."Tests" at a cost to the taxpayers that is unknown to me. I am sure though, they aren't inexpensive. When it is all said and done, what good were they? I have beaten 3 pre-employment polys rather easily and have never even been asked about anything bothering me (see my earlier posts). Granted, I only lied about marijuana use many years ago, but it just goes to point out that THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE.

Interestingly, my polys always took place after the initial part of the background investigation, which mine is pretty much spotless (Except for a few traffic cites). It makes me wonder though, what if, in my past, I had a minor run-in or two with police, would my polys have gone differently? Perhaps agencies should consider relying more on sound investigative techniques, psychologolical exams, references, PAST WORK/SCHOOL history, etc. Wouldn't this make more sense?

"KILL" the poly and save everyone time, frustration, AND MONEY. Not to mention bringing a stop to the false sense of security the poly community has duped the public into.



Take care
PK

[PapaBlueMarlin]

Keep in mind that this form of testing also requires equipment.  With equipment, there must be maintenance issues, upkeep, and validation studies in order to maintain ASCLD standards.  Of course, this is presuming that polygraph testing is required to meet ASCLD standards.

[billybob1234]

I think if law enforcement wishes to continue using polygraphs in the pre-employment phase of testing, they should use the polygraph as away to direct and focus the background investigation oppose to the end all be all for your employment process.
But either way the polygraph is nothing more than a load of B.S.

Billybob

[no_sugar_coating]

Actually, more agencies are using polygraphs as pre-employment screening tools.

Can you imagine the # of crooks that would lie their way into police jobs if there were no polygraph or CVSA tests?

Just b/c you never got caught doing something doesn't mean you have never done anything.

The cost to the community by matching hiring practices with McDonalds would be far more expensive in the long run than paying for a poly test at taxpayer expense.

[suethem]

The polygraph has not stopped polygraphers (liars) from getting into LE!

The whole polygraph industry is based on deceptive practices.  You sell your device as a machine that can distiguish truth from lies, when you know it can't.  It has failed scientific testing, but you still want us to believe its works.  Why?  -$$$$$  You don't see lying to the American public as a crime, as long as you get paid.

Your are the 'crooks' that need to be removed from LE.  What you do is a fraud and taxpayers have to pay the cost.

Is the National Academy of Sciences wrong?

Is Dr. Drew Richardson of the FBI crime Lab wrong?

Is Doug Williams (former Police Polygrapher) wrong too?

You've lied your way into a postion that has been exposed and discredited as a fraud and you want us to believe you?  I think not.

This is the cost; The community cannot trust law enforcement to tell them the truth.  If we cant trust the police on the polygraph issue where does it stop?  

 

[orolan]

no_sugar,
Let's see here; Chicago PD Chief of Detectives gets busted for running the biggest jewel theft ring in Chicago history, Tallahassee Florida SWAT Commander gets busted for video voyeurism in Wal-Mart, Denver PD officers busted for running theft ring by stealing and selling confiscated evidence including cars.....shall I continue? Crooks in law enforcement? Sorry dude, they're already there.
And will you tell us what you did that you haven't been caught for, since we've all done such things?

[triple x]

no_sugar_coating,

You wrote:

Just b/c you never got caught doing something doesn't mean you have never done anything.

Your above quote also applies to you as well...


triple x

[Poly-Killer]

no_sugar_coating,

My response to your ridiculous reasoning is this; How many honest individuals are being kept out of law enforcement and falsely branded as liars? What is the cost to the public then? In my time as a LEO, I have personally known of several individuals who had this happen to them...and these are people that would most likely have made fine officers. The true cost to the public, because of that contraption (and those who operate them), will probably never be known.

The polygraph is not the way to keep out those who do not belong, good background and reference checks, psychological testing, work history, etc. You know, REAL police work, unlike what polygraphers do.

I do have one sure-fire way to rid the law enforcement community of a large number of it's dishonest, deviant types...GET RID OF THE POLYGRAPH!!!(Which says "bye bye" to the examiners)

PK

[Fair Chance]

The  pre-screening polygraph is being pushed upon many Federal Law Enforcement organizations by Congress "trying to get tough" on security.  Congress as usual believes that "appearing to do something" is more important than "doing it right."

My current agency does not use the polygraph for employment purposes.  We have our fair share of officers who go bad but I do not think that the polygraph would have predicted or found out anything in their past which would have stopped their illegal activities.

As far as the government is concerned, the polygraph pre-screening saves them money in background checks compared to full fledged investigations.  There are a surplus of applicants and this is an easy prop to use in disqualifying any body who does not meet the "good-ole-boy" test.  

I just get very upset by the fact that they ruin people's lives (by taking away possible career choices) by pretending that this test is so reliable and place it in your permanent security file that your are a security risk.  The test itself is subject to operator prejudice and is rarely videotaped.  There is no computerized tracking of the strips and an operator can edit which tapes he wants to submit according to his/her personal preference.

Regards.

[no_sugar_coating]

First of all, for all you paranoid polygraph haters out there, I AM NOT A POLYGRAPH EXAMINER!!!

I AM A CERTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO HAD TO ENDURE A THREE HOUR POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION IN ORDER TO BE EVEN CONSIDERED FOR A POSITION AND I HATED EVERY MINUTE OF IT!!!!!!!!!!

But since I had nothing to hide and told the truth, my results were favorable and showed no deception. I must have been asked several hundered questions, not once, but TWICE!!!!!!!

Looking back, I understand the neccessity of asking all those questions in order to get an understanding of what my character consisted of. It is my "personal" opinion that past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

So for all you who don't like the polygraph, too bad. You have your right to think it is a "voodoo science". The rest of us have a right to think it is a good tool. I don't think it is foolproof, but neither is any other part of the background investigation for police officer.

So open your eyes and look at the whole picture.

[George W. Maschke]

no sugar coating,

You write:

The cost to the community by matching hiring practices with McDonalds would be far more expensive in the long run than paying for a poly test at taxpayer expense.

You provide a false dilemma here. The choice that law enforcement agencies face in setting hiring policies is not one of either relying on polygraphs (or CVSA) or matching McDonalds' hiring practices. The choice for such agencies is whether to rely on methodologies that are known to be completely invalid, cause injustice to individuals, and are readily susceptible to countermeasures, or to abandon them.

But since I had nothing to hide and told the truth, my results were favorable and showed no deception.

Whether one passes or fails a polygraph "test" has no clear relationship with whether one has anything to hide or has told the truth. As explained in Chapter 1 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, polygraphy has no scientific basis whatsoever. That you passed your pre-employment polygraph examination is more attributable to good luck than to your honesty.

So for all you who don't like the polygraph, too bad. You have your right to think it is a "voodoo science".

That polygraphy is voodoo science is, in fact, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

The rest of us have a right to think it is a good tool.

You also have the right to believe in other popular delusions such as astrology,  tarot cards, and psychic detectives. But your belief, however sincere, does not make such things "good tools."

I don't think it is foolproof, but neither is any other part of the background investigation for police officer.

That no part of police officer background investigations is foolproof does not in any way confer any validity to polygraphy, or justify reliance on such nonsense. The argument against polygraph screening is not merely that it is "not foolproof," but that it has no validity whatsoever.