Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hiring standards and "applicant shortage"

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hiring standards and "applicant shortage"

    I am making a separate thread because I am currently ei into non-sworn and don't want to violate the rules about replying in Ask-a-cop

    My question is: I have seen background packets that ask things like "List the full name, date of birth, address, home, cell and email for two coworkers from all jobs you've ever had". I have also seen BIs become downright nasty because an applicant in their 30's or 40's can't remember this information for part time summer jobs at ages 13,14 etc.

    I understand that departments want quality applicants and that LEOs are held to a very high standard, especially after recent events. But it seems that you would be losing a lot of quality applicants essentially because they didn't remember to get a full biographical history on coworkers years before they even knew they wanted a job in LE.

    It almost seems like agencies think longer packet = better BI. Personally I think quality investigators and thorough investigations = better BI. I would rather have an agency do a thorough investigation on a 25 page packet than a 100 page packet that is just an exercise in box checking.

  • #2
    Originally posted by vc859 View Post
    I am making a separate thread because I am currently ei into non-sworn and don't want to violate the rules about replying in Ask-a-cop

    My question is: I have seen background packets that ask things like "List the full name, date of birth, address, home, cell and email for two coworkers from all jobs you've ever had". I have also seen BIs become downright nasty because an applicant in their 30's or 40's can't remember this information for part time summer jobs at ages 13,14 etc.

    I understand that departments want quality applicants and that LEOs are held to a very high standard, especially after recent events. But it seems that you would be losing a lot of quality applicants essentially because they didn't remember to get a full biographical history on coworkers years before they even knew they wanted a job in LE.

    It almost seems like agencies think longer packet = better BI. Personally I think quality investigators and thorough investigations = better BI. I would rather have an agency do a thorough investigation on a 25 page packet than a 100 page packet that is just an exercise in box checking.
    What exactly is your question?

    Comment


    • #3
      I guess my question is why do some agencies seem to choose quantity (amount of questions asked) over quality (actual in depth investigations)

      More information doesn't necessarily mean better information; sometimes it is just noise)
      Last edited by vc859; 01-13-2020, 08:02 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by vc859 View Post
        I am making a separate thread because I am currently ei into non-sworn and don't want to violate the rules about replying in Ask-a-cop

        My question is: I have seen background packets that ask things like "List the full name, date of birth, address, home, cell and email for two coworkers from all jobs you've ever had". I have also seen BIs become downright nasty because an applicant in their 30's or 40's can't remember this information for part time summer jobs at ages 13,14 etc.

        I understand that departments want quality applicants and that LEOs are held to a very high standard, especially after recent events. But it seems that you would be losing a lot of quality applicants essentially because they didn't remember to get a full biographical history on coworkers years before they even knew they wanted a job in LE.

        It almost seems like agencies think longer packet = better BI. Personally I think quality investigators and thorough investigations = better BI. I would rather have an agency do a thorough investigation on a 25 page packet than a 100 page packet that is just an exercise in box checking.
        Become a Law Enforcement administrator so you can change that.
        Some things are just what they are................You will find out that life is not fair

        Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

        My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

        Comment


        • #5
          I had to produce the zip code for my kindergarten, in spite of the fact that it didn't have a zip code when I attended, and it had ceased to exist long before I had to fill out my Statement of Personal History.

          But what are you going to do- you're competing against many other applicants. If you don't put in the extra effort, somebody else will.

          Comment


          • Iowa #1603
            Iowa #1603 commented
            Editing a comment
            Absolutely

        • #6
          You are or aren't sworn? I didn't quite get that.

          There is no answer to your question because the amount of initial information requested of you doesn't have to make sense to the candidates. The rules for each agency and BI are completely different and only matter to that agency. So, no one can really answer your question. I know agencies in California that just use the state PHS and others that use the PHS and an additional 300 question PIQ. Why? Because that's what they want to do. Best to just play the game and get hired.

          Last edited by LA_Backgrounds; 01-14-2020, 12:27 AM.
          Policebackground.net - Background investigation consulting & forums
          http://www.policebackground.net

          Comment


          • #7
            The stack of paper i had to bust out for my current agency was no joke. You bet i was grunting and huffing and puffing over some of the information that was asked of me. But if you really want the job you're gonna have to suck it up and just eyeball the prize at the end if it's important to you. On the flipside agencies are hard pressed to ensure that the person they're looking to hire is as sharp and trustworthy as they come.

            Comment


            • #8
              Originally posted by LA_Backgrounds View Post
              You are or aren't sworn? I didn't quite get that.

              There is no answer to your question because the amount of initial information requested of you doesn't have to make sense to the candidates. The rules for each agency and BI are completely different and only matter to that agency. So, no one can really answer your question. I know agencies in California that just use the state PHS and others that use the PHS and an additional 300 question PIQ. Why? Because that's what they want to do. Best to just play the game and get hired.
              I was sworn as a limited commission officer. Recently accepted a non sworn position for significantly better pay and benefits and more advancement opportunity.

              Comment


              • #9
                Originally posted by vc859 View Post
                I guess my question is why do some agencies seem to choose quantity (amount of questions asked) over quality (actual in depth investigations)

                More information doesn't necessarily mean better information; sometimes it is just noise)
                Because it makes them LOOK like they're awesome, hot stuff, a high standard, the hot ****, etc. It's looks. I've been arguing in other threads about this. It's glamour and glitz over substance.

                Background investigators who don't understand that a job you worked 20 years ago may no longer even have a brick and mortar store, or may be out of business now are going to be pains to deal with. The best advice I can offer is to just do your best.

                A friend of mine switched departments. The first job he worked he has zero contact information for his direct boss. It was also a high turnover job. So he put the store where he worked and tried to remember the name of the manager. The BI for the department he applied for didn't have an issue with it.

                I've done applicant packets for older potential recruits and some things don't exist anymore. Buildings are demolished, businesses go bankrupt, etc.

                A good background investigator will be able to line up what someone is telling them with things that can be found through various databases we have access to. If the investigator isn't be lazy and is good they can distinguish between the lazy applicant who is too lazy to find the information and the legitimate applicant where the information is just not available.

                If you told me you worked at Mom and Pop Coffee Shop but don't know the owners anymore and with Google I can confirm the same people have owned the place for 50 years, then you're being lazy. But if you worked at Radio Shack in 2005 and it's now 2020 I'm gonna trust you probably don't have contact info for anyone, lol.

                So for your Radio Shack gig I'm going to rely on the databases I have access to, your references who hopefully have known you 15+ years, etc. to confirm that you worked there and didn't steal anything or lie on your time sheets (plus people who lie on time sheets and steal from workplaces still keep doing it or admit it during the poly, so...), etc.

                I think some background guys want their job super easy... I like doing it because it's fun to dig through someone's background and find stuff. It's a challenge.
                Last edited by Johnny5678; 01-19-2020, 01:14 PM.

                Comment


                • NC Marine
                  NC Marine commented
                  Editing a comment
                  I agree. If you are 35 and a B.I. is demanding you get them contact info for a high school job you had at a pizza place that doesnt exist anymore......

              MR300x250 Tablet

              Collapse

              What's Going On

              Collapse

              There are currently 13821 users online. 394 members and 13427 guests.

              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

              Welcome Ad

              Collapse
              Working...
              X