Anybody know the Integrity Assurance process?

As the title states, anybody familiar with the Integrity/Quality assurance end of investigations? I know source recontacts are a thing but there’s got to be more besides just talking to sources. And what do these “letters” that I’ve heard about entail? Curious to hear from somebody who may know.

I am not sure about the letters but I have helped out on the integrity assurance side. I know they do the re-contacts and if they find something that is a potential integrity concern then they do samplings. It usually starts off with a 5 case sampling on the investigator in question, a sampling entails just completely re-working the investigators cases. If more concerns are found in the samplings then the sampling case increases to 10, 20, etc.

Can you give me something that would cause concerns? Indicators they’re looking for? And when you say rework the whole case, do you mean reinterview everybody?? Including Subject

High RT-UC rate, lifting information from case papers, not asking all the questions, notes not supporting the ROI…I remember being part of an integrity assurance case that was started because a record provider complained about the investigator harassing her…yes they rework the whole case to include re-interviewing the subject. However all the re-interviews are voluntary, though you can’t tell the source/subject that unless they ask…most sources agree to it but half the subjects do.

Hmmm, very interesting. Any other surprising things you’ve seen working that side of investigations? I suppose they have a lot of work with over 500 investigators and thousands of reports submitted. Is there enough time to tend to all investigators or do they only really dove deep when they receive a complaint or a big indicator?

I don’t know the ins and outs because I am just asked to do the rework but I know they only do the rework if a significant concern pops up during re-contacts…nothing super surprising, other then a majority of the re-work is for independent contractors with the vendor, they seem to cut the most corners.

1 Like

Is there a reason you’re asking? Seems kind of suspicious.


I was offered to help in the IA position and am thinking about it, just wanted a little more information. But re reading it does sound pretty suspicious :skull:

I hate doing recontacts and picking apart another investigator’s work. I much rather work on my own cases.

1 Like

Do you feel bad because of you hate nitpicking a fellow investigator or what? I think it would be interesting to try and confirm that stuff

I didn’t really care about the other investigator, I didn’t like trying to explain why I need to ask all the same questions all over again. People get annoyed because they already did the interview. It really sucks when it’s an ESI because it’s not a quick 10 minute interview, it’s the whole thing all over again. You feel like an idiot because you have to downplay the whole thing because you can’t just come right out and tell them the first investigator was a liar. Just the whole process, I just don’t like doing it.

1 Like

The curious part is being offered an Integrity Assurance position and not having general knowledge about the process. This is normal training during new investigator training.

Friends, please be careful about sharing any internal processes on this or any other forum.


Exactly why I didn’t go into specific detail, this question is definitely suspicious. I didn’t say anything that wasn’t obvious information already. I wonder about how some people answer questions here.

I worked previously in IA as a contractor and as a fed employee…you aren’t permitted to provide any inside info into the process. That is the first thing they tell you when you accept the position. Super suspicious post!



All IA related work is need-to-know. Please reach out to your IA POC for any questions.

1 Like

Regular investigators get asked to temporarily help with IA work and that’s not really an “IA position”. Word of advice to all investigators…put down a correct mailing address for your sources and make sure to not reinterview any sources. Both could trigger a deeper dive into your work habits. IA isn’t always something to fret about. Just because IA is reworking your cases doesn’t make you a “liar” or “bad” investigator. Some of the things I have had IA question about is getting zip codes wrong, apartment numbers wrong, accused of not showing my credentials, accused of not offering an in person interview, etc. etc. etc. Investigators are all human beings just like their Sources and subjects. Sometimes they remember and sometimes they forget. I do agree that this job is so frigging complicated with so many ways to do it, it is even harder to redo it with the exact same results.

1 Like

I’ve noticed a Sources memory is unreliable at best, the rework is always going to have differences.

1 Like

I once had an IA concern because one record provider at a court said no record. They did a recontact and spoke with another record provider and that person found a record.

1 Like

I had something like that once too. IA was actually very helpful with their advice and actually told me to send the court checks to ISB in the future to avoid this problem.

I just had this happen to me. Went to court, told no record and reported it. A recontact was done and court said there is a record. IA had me go back to the court for the record and I was told again there was no record! I told them I wasn’t leaving without something in my hands.

1 Like