The State of Play - A Tangible Reality
By Jason Atkinson - Quest Assessing & Investigations
Warren Mallard's most recent article - "We have earned it and we deserve it" raises some pertinent points, as an indication of the way forward for our industry in terms of business diversification, namely promoting our services to corporate, government and other private clients. Certainly, such already exits, i.e. - the Centrelink contracts. And, I will explore this issue in further depth later in this article. However, again, Mr. Mallard seems to have provided some misinformed comment about the current state of play generally, which does not provide a tangible reality of the civil investigation industry in Australia today. Thus, the primary purpose of this article is an informed attempt at illustrating the true and correct picture of our industry 'as is' and options moving forward.
The above said; I further refer to Michael Hessenthaler's article 'The wonderful Federal Police'. How appropriate and timely his informative and apt article is when considering the competency levels of investigators generally; and specifically, those ex law enforcement practitioners who enter the field of civil and commercial investigation. Moreover, his comments are also relevant to Warren Mallard's vision of promoting the services of the private sector investigator and forming strategic partnerships with state law enforcement entities, as a value add and mutually beneficial enterprise.
Let's tackle the issues this way:
RTO's, Competency Standards & Investigator Training Generally:
With the exception of a few RTO's - the process of training investigators is akin to putting a dummy in one end and spitting a dummy out at the other end. It's embarrassing to the industry as a whole, it's extremely unfair to the prospective investigator whose Certificate 3 in Investigative Services is only slightly more valuable than a dunny roll; and it does absolutely nothing to address the chronic lack of investigators Australia wide.
The proliferation of RTO's who provide the Certificate 3 in Investigative Services, do so in conjunction with the Certificates 2 & 3 in Security Guarding/Operations and Certificate 4/Diploma in Security & Risk Management (part of the wider asset security training package). Whilst risk management, in particular fraud risk management, is beneficial to the investigator, these 'security' and investigation course/s do absolutely nothing to provide a potential operative with the theory and practical skills necessary to effectively work in the civil/commercial investigation field. How on earth can a security guard provider/security training provider truly hope to provide the essential requisite skills, which skills to work as a civil investigation professional are more than just competencies? They can't, because for the most part they do not have the background or knowledge to provide the requisite training. Certificate 3 in Investigative Services, as provided by the many security training providers is nothing more than a basic investigation qualification, which is an adjunct to a security officer's competency training. That is, a qualification which provides nothing more than a basic ability to investigate minor security matters in the course providing security services. i.e. - a shoplifting report, in the course of undertaking guard duties at a shopping centre.
These are the shysters that Warren Mallard refers to. These are the organizations who take money off people; people who honestly believe that at the end of their Certificate 3 training, they will succeed in securing a position as an investigator, and the truth of the situation is never said. These people, armed with Certificate 3 in Investigative Services don't have much of a chance at all in obtaining work. Very rarely, if at all, have I seen investigation companies taking on the raw recruit with a genuine commitment to training and development. Why? Because the insurance companies, financial institutions generally and wider corporate clients do not pay hourly rates sufficient for investigation companies to incur a training cost, with a view as a long term human resource investment. And, many principals of investigation companies are purely profit driven, especially the largest players in the industry, whose fat cats continue to reap the benefits at the cost of the field operative, and exacerbated and compounded by the pathetic rates paid by corporate clients and in particular insurance companies - 'Champagne expectations on beer rates'.
Until such time that this industry, as a united front, rallies against the abhorrent and insulting rates that the civil investigation professional is restricted to, then investigation companies do not have the sufficient margin to employ say three or four trainees at a time; those with the Certificate 3 in Investigative Services (as the starting point) and provide them with the applicable and appropriate training in house. How many advertisements do we see in the weekend papers seeking 'experienced investigator/s' - heaps? How often do we see advertisements offering a structured investigative career path - through a paid traineeship and study opportunities - none? And, it's a damned crime and a massive blight on our industry. Sorry - it will continue until such time that clients pay rates that allow companies to put a bit aside to train in house, to offer a structured career with real opportunities for development. Therefore, the proliferation of RTO's identified thus far, and so strongly pointed out by Warren Mallard as being pretenders - rightly so, they will continue to profit and turnout persons with a qualification that is next to useless.
Okay - what training (in an ideal world where there was a bit of money available to train in house) should be provided, for one to truly be considered 'competent'? Well - the training should never end and continuous professional development is the ultimate goal. However, in the very least, in the context of a factual investigator, the following in part as a non exhaustive example should apply:
- Evidence
- Contract law
- Tort Law - especially negligence and negligence defence
- Statute Law - especially those acts and regulations relating to statutory insurance schemes
- Insurance law
- Common Law generally - subrogation, estoppel, et al
- Communication - interpersonal, paralinguistic, neurolinguistic, et al
- Interviewing skills - cognitive, conversation management and accusatorial
- Psychology and sociology as it applies to people and investigation
- Fraud - the legal context of fraud and investigation methods and processes
I could keep writing, and I have only touched upon the areas needed to be competent, if that is what we should even be calling it. Can we really run the risk of having investigations botched by incompetence - of course not? So, obviously, we certainly can't diversify and expand/promote our services to non insurance organizations when we have nothing but a pool of incompetent investigators to call upon. In terms of risk management - a reputation risk (to our business) it's as about as bad as it gets - having a so called investigator attempt to undertake an internal theft/corporate fraud investigation armed with only a Certificate 3 qualification. Try if you wish, however, I hope your professional indemnity insurance does not have too many exclusions and/or underwriting provisions! So, there is the problem with expanding, diversifying, marketing, promoting or whatever to commercial/corporate and government clients - how can you possibly service them when there is a serious lack of appropriately skilled and knowledgeable investigators - you can't? See, it's not so much the wheel reinventing itself - it is more the case of the vicious cycle. The cycle can only be broken by banding together and promoting our industry as a true profession, by being seen to not be so dam concerned about profit margins and market share, and be prepared to invest in training and development - yes those words again, and in this context we can reinvent the wheel. Some are doing it, but very few - sadly it's not enough.
In respect of the bread and butter of the investigation industry - insurance claim investigations - there is so much of it that some companies from time to time decline referrals, because if they attend to them, they cannot do so in accordance with the stringent service level agreements in place. It's dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. Not only personal injury claims are investigated, but thousands of property claim investigations as well. Warren Mallard seemed to have forgotten about motor theft, motor accident, burglary/theft and commercial property as an example. I cannot keep up with the amount of work and have had to refuse to accept work, so that I can manage and ensure that the stress levels don't go through the roof. It's the same story again, simply not enough good investigators, and again, the situation is not going to change any time soon. Many investigation companies cannot service their existing insurance clients to required standards in accordance with SLA's and associated KPI's, for want of skilled investigators, let alone look at diversifying and moving into non insurance areas. Again - the vicious cycle. I guess if you were unsuccessful in respect of the bout of recent insurance investigation tenders nationally, and have been forced to give way to the larger players in the industry; then you would have no choice but to diversify. However, one man and one company alone will not achieve Warren Mallard's vision. This then brings us to the issue of working with law enforcement agencies and police generally.
Law Enforcement Partnerships and Ex-Police:
There are three distinct yet linked issues here, (a) developing strategic partnerships to assist the law enforcement community with investigations, brief preparation, etc, as pointed out by Warren Mallard, (b) promoting and diversifying investigation services to a wider commercial/corporate non insurance market, and (c) utilising the knowledge and services of supposed competent ex police detectives/investigators in the process of diversifying and promoting/providing such services. Firstly, when we look at the following non insurance investigation services, a consistent theme should appear in relation to policing experience/detective training:
- Criminal Defence
- Internal Theft/Corporate Fraud
- Loss prevention generally
- Administrative investigations
- Statutory enforcement generally
Whilst most reasonably experienced and competent (that word again) investigators are capable of performing loss prevention and administrative investigations - internal theft, statutory enforcement and in particular corporate fraud and criminal defence - the conduct of which relates directly to the experience, knowledge and training provided to police, in particular detectives - should ideally be conducted by such experienced persons. Oh how good that would be in an ideal world - again that bubble is burst.
With the exception of a minority of serving members/ex detectives/police, who are truly committed to the cause of investigation, which is reflected in their attitudes, professional development and application of solid interview and investigation mechanics - most are incompetent bumbling idiots who can't spell, write or communicate let alone investigate. Moreover, they would not work on an iron lung. Overtly strong criticism - yes, because if I could have $1.00 from each of the investigation company principals/investigation managers or operation managers who were to tell a factual account of an investigation botched totally, a client utterly disappointed by incompetence thus prejudicing their position, a statement that was prepared by 1st graders at the local primary school, full of evidential and grammatical errors, reports so badly written that four to five attempts later their still not right, witnesses crucial to the investigation not even contacted let alone spoken to by ex police detectives/investigators, I would be a reasonably wealthy man. And, the list of incompetence and poor work ethic continues.
At this stage of my attack the reader is probably asking for more proof. Okay - let's look at the worst in the country (arguably) the WA Police - Mickelberg's (Perth Mint Swindle), Andrew Mallard (wrongly convicted, false evidence and total investigation incompetence) and the Claremont serial killings - still unsolved. Let's go to the AFP (Haneef) just highlighted by Mr. Hessenthaler. However, what about one of the best examples of utter investigation incompetence - the homicide of Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester? It took the AFP five years to get it right. It doesn't matter if it's the NSW, QLD, VIC or WA police - incompetence within the rank and file of the various criminal investigation sections is endemic. SA Police seem to be getting it right. These law enforcement organizations don't want help, they don't want strategic partnerships and they certainly don't want their investigation incompetence highlighted any more than is already known - they don't want to be embarrassed by the private sector investigator who will actually get out there and work - speak with people, interview, collect evidence and attend to what is truly necessary to undertake an investigation competently - getting off your ass and getting out there and finding out the facts.
How in the hell can any investigation company in this country service existing clients to the required standards, when these security training providers pump out security officers with a basic investigation qualification, which has no relevance to the work of a civil/commercial investigator? How can we service existing clients let alone expand and diversify, when the majority of investigation companies in this country won't sacrifice a bit of profit to train in house - real training, real traineeships, real career prospects and development, as a long term HR investment, to ensure a pool of skilled professionals can service existing clients and diversify into other non insurance areas? How can we move into partnerships with the law enforcement community when they don't want us there - for fear of being further exposed as incompetent? A big problem with too few answers - Why? Because although some of us say we have worked together to better the industry, to advance into other markets, promoting our skills and abilities - it is in the end of the day nothing but hollow rhetoric. Until such time that the players in this industry stop being so concerned about their market share, establish a comprehensive and relevant career structure, training and development process, endorse it, get it approved, promote it and seek wider industry support - then we will continue to struggle to be taken seriously.
Jason Atkinson MAIPI, MAIPD
GCertFraudInvestign, GCertInvstgtn&Intel
QUEST ASSESSING & INVESTIGATIONS
questassessing@bigpond.com