NovDec Associate Magazine.2018.

continued from "Polygraph" page 11

civilian or not, faces a lengthy prison sentence, it is bad for the em- ployee, it is bad for their family and it is bad for both the depart- ment and the community.” As previously stated, the concept of successive hurdles is critical in the pre-employment selection process. By compelling an applicant to successfully complete a series of screening tests, it is hoped that the most qualified candidates will emerge as the clear victors of the process. Arguably themost important hurdle in the hiring process of any new department member is a thorough background investigation. In many respects, the polygraph is an extension of the background investigation, as this assessment can serve to confirm that the information received through the background investigation and the oral interview process is truth- ful. The results of the polygraph examination should be viewed as an investigative tool only and should not be used as the single determinant of whether or not to hire a candidate (Kurz, 2015). CONCLUSION The research concludes that adding a polygraph exami- nation as another successive hurdle to the application pro- cess for all police department applicants will help improve the quality of individuals being hired. Pre-employment poly- graphs for all personnel is the best solution to help propel departments into the new era of public trust where transpar- ency and dedication to accountability are not only sought af- ter but expected. As the agencies move forward, the depart- ment and community members alike will benefit from a more qualified employee. References Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 USC 2001 §646-653. Faber, B. (2011). Pre-employment Polygraph Examinations of Public Safety Applicants. AELE Monthly Law Journal, 201 (7). ISSN 19350007. Garrison, S. (2016, February 15). Former police employee pleads guilty in thefts. The Daily Times. Retrieved from http://www.daily-times.com/story/news/ crime/2016/02/15/former-police-employee-pleads-guilty-thefts/80406312/. Guido, M. and Brooks, M. (2013). Insider Threat Program Best Practices. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1831-1839. DOI:10.1109/ HICSS.2013.279. Handler, M., Honts, C. and Nelson, R. (2013). Information Gain of the Directed Lie Screening Test. Polygraph, 42(4), 192-202. Honts, C. R., and Amato, S. (2007). Automation of a screening polygraph test increases accuracy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 187-19. Kircher, J. C., and Raskin, D. C. (1988). Human versus computerized evaluations of polygraph data in a laboratory setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 291-302. Kurz, D. (2015). Big Ideas for Smaller Law Enforcement Agencies: Back to Basics: Developing a Hiring Process in Smaller Agencies. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Document number 639098. Mark, J. (2014). The consistency of the use of the polygraph exam during the selection process among law enforcement agencies. Theses and Dissertations Submitted to the Department of Psychology College of Science and Mathematics at Rowan University. Paper 551. Meesig, R. and Horvath, F. (1995). A National Survey of Practices, Policies and Evaluative Comments on the Use of Pre-Employment Polygraph Screening in Police Agencies in the United States. Polygraph, 24(2), 57-136. Stone, D. H. (1992). Pre-Employment Inquiries: Drug Testing, Alcohol Screening, Physical Exams, Honesty Testing, Genetics Screening - Do They Discriminate? An Empirical Study. Akron Law Review, 25(2), 367-407. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol25/iss2/4. United States v. The City of Austin, Texas, 1:14-CV-00533 (W.D. Tex. 2014).

tremely important in the hiring process of all employees of a police department. Successive hurdles in the application pro- cess are defined as the amount of separate or independent tests, or hurdles, the applicant has to overcome to be hired. Without the polygraph, one hurdle is effectively eliminated in the pre-employment process for non-sworn candidates. This also eliminates the only step that attempts to detect decep- tion in the application process through a method other than human intuition. The authors of the EPPA were very skeptical of the validity of polygraph testing; however, they conceded that such testing may still be useful in terms of deterring employment applications from potentially poor security risks while increasing public confi- dence in security organizations (Faber, 2011). This skepticism that was displayed by the federal government in the EPPA and other reports are often shared by public sector employers. This should not preclude law enforcement executives from protecting their agencies in any way they can. In order to build trust with the pub- lic, executives should do everything in their power to ensure the best candidates are being hired. Although research has shown there are questions with re- gard to the validity and the reliability of the polygraph exam, improvements in the consistency of use and standardization of practices would raise the validity and reliability of the polygraph exam as a screening device (Kircher and Raskin, 1988; Honts and Amato, 2007; Mark, 2014). While validity can be an issue, use of polygraph examinations are still supported by empirical data, un- like the unassisted efforts of interviews alone (Handler, Honts and Nelson, 2013). Guessing on the truth or deception of an individual would be merely chance, or slightly better, without a polygraph. A background investigation done on a civilian employee is almost solely dependent on answers they provide in the application packet. Thus, determining truth in the answers of the applicant is merely a gesture of chance without further Psychophysiological Detection of Deception tests. BENEFITS A recent study of the ten largest police departments in the United States (New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston, Washington, D.C., Phoenix, Dallas, Miami-Dade, and De- troit) revealed that there is very little consistency in regards to the handling of pre-employment polygraphs in general (Mark, 2014). This is surprising due to the fact that most of the chiefs of police and sheriffs in those agencies attendmany of the same leadership trainings and meetings together (most notably the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Research as long as ago as 1995 (Meesig and Hor- vath) suggested that many of these agencies surveyed agreed that polygraphing civilian employees was acceptable and in fact conducted such examinations. This study showed that although it was a fairly novel idea at the time, subjecting non-sworn em- ployees to a polygraph examination was positively viewed by the executives of these agencies. This positive view may transition to citizens as well. A wide array of citizens, from victims of deviant crimes to citi- zens that commit common traffic violations, can rest assured that the department has taken their security and privacy concerns very seriously and thus have thoroughly scrutinized every orga- nizational member’s background. Garrison (2016) quoted Farm- ington New Mexico Police Chief Hebbe in a recent news story as making the perceptive comment, “When a department member,

12 F B I N A A . O R G | N O V / D E C 2 0 1 8