I had to ask a subject if she had any future intent to commit suicide…
It’s not a bad question . . . I might word it differently though . . . “How have your thoughts on suicide changed?”
Review training isn’t the easiest thing if you were never an FI or had any review experience. The guidance material is scattered all over the place yet you’re expected to be able to remember and recall all of it and alot of it is vague in how it is written.
The lattitude to let things go, our “discretion” has largely gone away since DCSA took over, we get a lot more stuff kicked back or quick fixes now. And yes, as someone else stated, a DCSA reopen doesn’t count against the FI.
Review staff is also now under more scrutiny to release more reports per day, juggling between units of work and cases per day to meet metrics that seem to make less sense than before.
It’s difficult and I personally am not sure how much longer i’ll be doing this but the larger percentage of reviewers really don’t want to RZ anything because we get less metric points when we have to go back to something but as I stated, we’re getting kick backs for tons of stuff now.
Just my .02
While, I understand you are trying to make sense of a sensitive question/topic - these questions are not the same. Unfortunately, review has a check list of questions that have to be answered and if you do not ask and report in their wording, you will get reopened. It is unfortunate and sad…but the truth. Long gone are the days where you could get a story and resolve an issue without asking 20 stupid box check questions (Is there any reason any person would question your financial responsibility? Is there any reason any person would question your ability to live within your means and pay your bills on time? How long have you been in this financial state?..the list goes on…)
I’ve had them come back from that one where the guy clearly states even in the case papers that he attended strictly online, and they had me canvas the school in person anyway
That is a supervisor error - they need to talk to the reviewer’s supervisor as the process is clear - no personnel for on-line only education. Mind you, one in residence class and…
Yep . . . I spent a lot of time looking at online masters programs and most required a few weeks a year on campus or a longer residency before graduation. Of course, even online students have interaction with instructors, staff and other students so I can see this being more like case to case.
But, a campus visit doesn’t seem to be required in that case anyway.
ED, just out of curiosity, are you a background investigator?
Nope . . . And when I said “a campus visit doesn’t seem to be required in that case anyway” I was speaking logically, without concern for the rules.
I’m getting an uptick in fresh refiles on old cases. Cases with fieldwork I performed three or four months ago. Cases that have already been handled by two or three reviewers are now getting a fresh working over from a third or fourth reviewer. So I have a new full set of inane, insignificant questions to answer. “What kind of employment was the military duty station?” Good lord.
Reminds me of an interaction actor Tommy Lee Jones had at a conference some years ago.
Audience member: “What kind of English did you study [in college]?
TLJ: “The kind we’re using now.”
GIRARD CASE 123456789
– Please explain if subject’s employment with the U.S. Marshals is non-government employment, federal government employment, other government employment or U.S. Public Health Service.
– Please confront subject with record stating subject’s title is deputy marshal. Subject reported on case papers that his title is deputy, U.S. Marshal’s Service. Conduct full issue resolution. Add issue code XX.
– Confront subject with information regarding 1993 train derailment. Source Newman stated subject demanded a hard target search of every gas station, residence, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Why did Subject omit the henhouse from his questionnaire?
– Subject reported losing his firearm at a dam in 1993. Confront. Locate and review security record as well as person with knowledge of the incident, Dr. Richard Kimble.
I believe this type of behavior from review is agency generated.
This is exactly correct.
One of the biggest things that I like about my new, non BI career is the lack of working with reviewers.
PseudoFed- I too have left the industry ( after spending 12 years as a background investigator). My only regret is not leaving the industry earlier. And yes, one of the many, many, many, things I enjoy about no longer being in that industry is NO Reviewers and NO RZ’s. Plus I leave work at work. No more bringing work home with me.
They don’t want to pay for common sense.
LOL Crazy!!!1 That’s funny!
“Why did Subject not list a home phone number on her questionnaire? Please mark as discrepant and say why.”
Happy President’s Day, everyone.
I don’t understand the confusion with this. It’s required to be listed. If it wasn’t, explain why. Pretty much every report I write disclaims that the person doesn’t have a home phone number.
I once has a female subject with a very common last name (think Smith, Jones, Williams, etc) who married someone with the exact same last name. I disclaimed that her maiden and married name are the same. Still got re-opened for not explaining which dates she used the name Jessica Smith and which dates she used the name Jessica Smith.