Pretty sure phone would win for the Subjects… investigators may choose in person
4 Likes
I actually believe most Subjects would prefer an in person interview.
Most Sources for sure are always going to prefer a telephone interview for matters of convenience.
Record providers for employment records in my opinion prefer in person in most scenarios so they don’t have to go through the entire personnel file and they just hand the file over to us to review if there is a physical personnel file.
But the real question is if these are national security investigations, what is the most appropriate method to conduct interviews that also provides the highest quality and thorough product? Telephone or in person?
Anyone that has been in this industry for more than three years knows the answer to my question.
1 Like
We were being assigned DHS cases all over and told to do them by vtc. All horrible cases by the way and I desperately wanted subjects to NOT agree to doing the interview by vtc so I wouldn’t have to work the cases that weren’t in my area. Unfortunately they were always overly happy to do vtc so I was stuck doing crap cases. They love doing vtc.
I think people (SUBJECTS) with serious issues in their backgrounds would always prefer phone/VTC because it’s harder to lie, evade, embellish, etc. your story when you are in the same room with the person questioning you. Subject’s should not get to control in person or vtc decisions. Investigators who brief the case should make the decision as to whether or not the interview is done in person or vtc. Don’t be forced or manipulated by management into something different. Management and/or the “company” you work for will NEVER have your best interest at heart.
This is a DCSA decision, not a company decision. Certainly not here to defend any of the company’s, but the idea that telephone interviews are going to lead to a less thorough investigation at our end is ridiculous. We aren’t “investigating” anything. We are pre-employment security screeners, and hopefully somewhere down the line the information we report contributes to a greater process. But disclaiming why Subject spelled their street name wrong isn’t doing anything for National Security.
8 Likes
I prefer to not say but it’s one of the big 2.
1 Like
I think most would choose VTC/Phone. It’s so much easier.
If anyone asks what I do for a living I tell them I’m a messenger. All we really do is relay information back and forth. If someone thinks they’re an Investigator they’re delusional with a sprinkle of grandiosity. Once in a great while things are developed but generally it’s mechanical messenger for the wizard of oz, say this, don’t say that, etc.
2 Likes
I think we are a little more than just screeners and messengers. I get it. There are some days the tasks we do are pretty monotonous, boring, and menial. We do have to clarify some pretty inconsequential things on people’s paperwork and ask what appears to be some rather inconsequential questions at times that doesn’t always feel like it relates to national security. But I think anyone that has worked in this industry for several years has dealt with some pretty awful, issue laden, and sensitive background investigations over the years. I’ve had dozens of investigations that require a lot of time and 80-90 page reports due to the things going on. Surely, I would be considered more than a security screener or messenger for writing up this kind of report on so many adverse actions. To minimize the roles and duties we have or the difficulty of this job and minimize what we do, it’s not helping our cause as Investigators or how these companies, vendors, and agencies view us.
Magnify the job a little bit and magnify your own job duties if you are struggling with feeling what you do is making an impact. The background Investigator is the most important role in a federal background investigation. We do about 75% of all of the heavy lifting and are responsible for obtaining all of the necessary details and issue resolution and putting everything into a readable report for adjudication. We do play a major role in the security clearance process that I believe is the most important and critical role in the entire process.
This is a tough job that goes above and beyond the difficult of obtaining and conducting interviews. There are long days behind the computer monitor, long days behind the wheel, reopens from arbitrary policies and procedures, and an overall uncooperative public that requires us to meet them on their time line and not ours. We get to deal with sources and record providers that don’t return calls, screen our calls, and overall are rude and disrespectful at times. The list goes on and on. This isn’t an easy job. If it was, I’d find more people that have been doing this for 20+ years. Instead, this industry just spits up and churns people out like a cog in the wheel. Anyone that remains in this industry as an Investigator for over five years and is effective and earning a salary over $70K per year, I salute you.
If you are dissatisfied and think you aren’t an Investigator and only a screener or a messenger, then I recommend you look for a new job or profession. Don’t waste your time here. We need Investigators in this profession that actually care about what they do and are interested in making the profession better with higher wages, compensation, and quality of work life/balance.
8 Likes
What’s going to provide a more through investigation? Asking a record provider to verbally confirm a record on the phone and fax back a pre-canned list of requested information you are asking from a record or you going there in person and reviewing the record yourself and looking over a resume and job application that results in the development of two employments within scope in which two of those employments Subject was terminated for adverse actions?
You really think a record provider is going to be thorough and get you everything from a record by fax or phone and spend 15-20 minutes looking through an entire personnel file? Good luck with that.
Or the EFI reference by phone is really going to give you all of the issue resolution you desire when they don’t even know who the hell you are on the other end of the phone. You really think people will be completely honest and forthright by phone vs. in person when they can actually see you are representing a government agency. I concede that even in person, I’ve had sources lie to me about information or not providing information they are aware of but it’s more rare than common. Telephone interviews are a total joke! They will overall provide poorer quality than in person in the final product to the adjudicator.
I am not saying we shouldn’t pick up the phone on an occasion and conduct an interview instead of driving 5 hours round trip to interview a non issue laden reference interview but we should error on the side of caution for in person Subject Interviews, references, and records we know are likely to provide us adverse information.
1 Like
If you are writing 80-90 page reports, you are doing something wrong.
There is zero “investigating” in this job, at least as a contractor.
If you interview a neighbor, and they give you an off vibe, and you feel the need to expand on something they said or alluded to, and you feel they are withholding information, can you obtain additional neighbors to flesh things out? Nope…1 neighbor Source…anything else is overworking the case.
If you’ve already interviewed a SUPV, and the 2nd employment Source provides information that makes you think something isn’t right with Subject and SUPV, and maybe SUPV misled you, can you expand upon that with additional Sources. Nope, overwork.
We are Investigators in the way a security guard is law enforcement. Not saying the job isn’t important, but it isn’t what some try to present it as.
2 Likes
The long reports I have written used to be the SSBI’s when we interviewed 16-20 people back in the day for a normal and routine BI and I had to interview another ten references for issue resolution about various matters that I kept developing and had to be discussed and resolved. Those were the requirements.
As far as what we do now, I’ve worked a case with six different flags that were met and interviewed a total of 16 people on a T5 case and the report was lengthy. Close to 75 pages.
If you ask all of the questions in a Subject, Source, and record interview and do your job thoroughly, you’ll actually be surprised at what you develop from time to time. I have to laugh when I hear Investigators say they get through an ESI in 45 minutes. No way they are asking all of the questions. Source interviews for clean cases takes 25 minutes minimum. Maybe a neighbor interview may take ten minutes for contact in passing between neighbors but Investigators need to do their job. I can’t begin to tell you how many times I develop issues, omissions, and discrepancies by simply asking all of the questions and being thorough.
If you feel you aren’t investigating and more of a security screener or security guard, maybe this job isn’t for you bud.
6 Likes
I can get through an ESI in 45 minutes easy and I ask all the questions every single time, if the subject has no issues then I do not get how it would take longer. Additionally, my source interviews take 10-15 minutes, again I ask every single question….sure sometimes a subject interview takes over 2 hours and a source interview might take 30-45 minutes but I feel like those are the exceptions.
4 Likes
If this was solely about national security there wouldn’t be private contractors involved. It’s about making money
5 Likes
In most scenarios, this is not possible. You are not asking all of the required questions. You are skimming through the paperwork.
2 Likes
I’ve done it many times. I don’t skim. I don’t skip.
5 Likes
A BIG THANK YOU to all of you who are over working cases to the enth degree because if it weren’t for you there wouldn’t be a backlog and we wouldn’t be asked/allowed to do phone interviews. AGAIN THANK YOU from the bottom of my comfy chair that I’m going to sit in for six months. You’re an amazing “Investigator” for National Security, keep up the good work!!
8 Likes
If anyone is still conducting a TESI or ESI and doing a line by line regurgitation of the 86P or 85P, you are wasting your time and the subject’s time. It is possible to conduct an ESI or TESI in two hours with issues and ask all the questions required. In my almost 22 years doing this job, i can tell you i have had less than five TESIs or ESIs, SSBIs, or PRs that took more than two hours and still resolved listed and developed issues as well.
6 Likes
Are you inferring that anyone that spends two to three hours as a routine for an ESI or TESI is overworking cases? Looks like we have some real dynamite investigators that are conducting interviews in record time. I can’t even get through the CI/CT questions in five minutes but glad to hear people are resolving issue laden interviews in less than two hours. I am sure you make the agencies proud of your work.
4 Likes
Wow. You must be working some real clean cases over those 22 years to only have less than five go over 2 hours. I call BS. I’ve worked 19 years doing BI’s and I routinely am spending two hours and sometimes four to five hours on TESI and ESI’s with various issues.
No way on God’s green earth you are getting through a TESI or SPIN with 25+ financial derog accounts, two DUI’s, two law suits, and drug usage in under two hours. Surely in your 22 year career you’ve had more than five cases that were burning barrels of trash.
You aren’t credible and I don’t believe a word you are saying. Total nonsense!
4 Likes