Investigative Interviewing: Psychology, Method and Practice

by Ferraro (CPP, SPHR), Eugene

  Administrative Interviews and Communicating Our Results ◾ 131

  Administrative interviews are generally reserved for the following:

  ◾ Witnesses

  ◾ Stakeholders

  ◾ Process owners

  ◾ Anyone with information (other than the subject)

  5.3 Administrative Interview Process

  Similar to our investigative interview method, our administrative interviews involve process and will unfold iteratively. However, the administrative process is simpler.

  The methodology has only six distinct phases:

  Phase I: Preparation

  Phase II: Introduction

  Phase III: Presentation

  Phase IV: Discussion

  Phase V: Written

  Phase VI: Conclusion

  And, like the Investigative Interview Method™ (I2M) it is structured, but flex-

  ible. However, it is designed to easily transition to an investigative interview when necessary. Because it is possible that the interviewee is culpable of an actionable offense unknown to the interviewer, the interviewer needs the ability to change his approach upon its discovery. This is more common than many fact finders

  anticipate. When it happens, the interviewer needs to be prepared and seamlessly transition to an investigative interview, obtain an admission, and properly move on. A loose, ad hoc administrative interview methodology will not allow this.

  Thus, going forward, I want you to think of the administrative interview as an

  investigative interview without the benefit of knowing the full involvement or

  culpability of the interviewee before you. To facilitate our examination of this method I will forego much of what was discussed in the prior chapter and instead focus on the differences between the two methodologies. Let’s begin with a few

  general considerations.

  5.3.1 Determining Who Should Be Interviewed

  Determining who should be interviewed is sometimes more complex than it might

  first appear. Employers often want everyone interviewed. Interviewing everyone is not a strategy, it’s a fishing expedition. As mentioned in Chapter 4, it consumes time and valuable resources. The investigative team should consider the project’s

  132 ◾ Investigative Interviewing

  objectives, time restraints, and budget, and decide what information is needed and then interview those that possess it. As a general rule, start with those who are expected to be the most cooperative, not necessarily with the most information.

  In complex matters, the learning curve can be steep. By starting with those who will likely be talkers, the fact finder will more rapidly come up to speed and better prepare himself for interviewing those less cooperative or hesitant.

  Tip: Before conducting administrative interviews determine who likely has the information sought, and, among them, who is most likely to provide it. Remember, even innocent people will not always be cooperative or tell the truth.

  Additional considerations include:

  ◾ How soon in advance should the interviewee be notified?

  ◾ How much should be the interviewee be told about the investigation’s purpose?

  ◾ How best can confidentialities be protected?

  ◾ What can be done to prevent the perpetrator from learning of the investiga-

  tion and the administrative interviews planned?

  ◾ Should anyone else be notified or involved?

  5.3.2 Selecting the Interviewer

  As with investigative interviews, selecting the right interviewer for the right reason is critical. However, because administrative interviews are not used for the purpose of obtaining an admission, interviewers with less skill and experience easily can be used. These interviews also serve as excellent training opportunities for new members of the team or investigative interviewers in training. To the extent possible, match the interviewer’s skill and experience to the complexity of the matter in question. Administrative interviews are capable of producing information that can instantly break an investigation wide open. Do not undervalue a subject or his potential for providing useful information.

  5.3.3 Location of the Interview

  The location and interview room set up for administrative interviews is not as critical as they are for investigative interviews. However, remember at any moment an interviewee could make an admission against interest (incriminating himself) and the dynamic of the interview change accordingly.

  Administrative Interviews and Communicating Our Results ◾ 133

  5.3.4 Introduction

  Like investigatory interviews, administrative interviews are best begun with a

  structured introduction. Here’s the one I typically use:

  , my name is . My team recently assisted your (or our)

  organization to look into . We have not yet completed that effort;

  however, today I would like to share with you some of what I and my team

  have learned so far. As you would image, we expect and appreciate your

  cooperation.

  Note the similarities to the introduction used for investigatory interviews. Also note that the word investigation is again not used. It should not be used at this point unless absolutely necessary or it is somehow widely known that an investigation is underway. And, again, like the investigative interview, I tell the interviewee he can do any of the following:

  ◾ Take a break

  ◾ Use the restroom

  ◾ Use the telephone

  ◾ Discontinue the meeting at any time, with or without my permission or that

  of management

  5.3.5 Presentation

  The interviewer should then disclose the genesis and purpose of the investigation.

  At a minimum, the interviewer should reveal the following:

  ◾ Context and ground rules (if any)

  ◾ That an investigation, in fact, is underway

  ◾ Generally, the purpose of that investigation

  ◾ Something about the information he is seeking and why

  You should recall that this monologue is called the theme. The interviewer

  should know it cold. He also should disclose that he is only a fact finder and not a decision maker. He should explain that at the end of the process, his results will be provided to the decision makers, and only they will decide the outcome. He should then develop the theme by:

  1. offering a general explanation of how an investigation is typically conducted and methods that are used; and

  2. revealing that, by using one or more of those methods, it was learned that the interviewee may have information that might be useful.

  134 ◾ Investigative Interviewing

  Note that instead of telling the interviewee we know he was involved as in an investigative interview, we instead say that he may have information that might be useful. This is a key differentiator between this type of interview and an investigatory interview. Here is an example:

  Let me begin by sharing with you a little bit about how an investigation

  of this type is conducted. Effectively, we have only six methods of investigation available to us. The first method is something we call physical surveillance. Physical surveillance is nothing more than watching people, places,

  and things. In this particular case, early on we discovered (a few hints are dropped and the other methods explained with more hints).

  Using one or more of these methods, we learned you may have information that might be useful. Today, what we hope to accomplish is find out that which you know and how you might be able to assist us.

  Just like the investigative interview, the interviewer describes all six methods.

  He intertwines some facts from the case with the explanation of each method

  whenever possible and/or appropriate.

  Next, in order to move the interviewee to providing the information in his

  possession, the interviewer needs to impose some conditions.
The conditions create the appearance of an obstacle of which the interviewee must overcome in order for the interview to go forward and he be allowed to participate. Appropriately, those conditions involve honesty. And just like investigative interviews, the conditions are framed like this:

  In order for us to discuss this matter and for you to have the opportunity

  to share with us that which you know, you need to agree to do two things.

  Both have to do with honesty. The first is to agree to be honest with me and the second is to agree to be honest with management (the decision makers).

  Once again, here it is, the first question asked during the interview: Can you

  promise to be honest with me? Notice that up to this point the interview has been a monologue. The interviewer has asked no questions or prompted the interviewee to respond to his statements. The first question asked is if the subject can be honest; when delivered properly, it is almost impossible for the interviewee to answer no. Moreover, should it be necessary to transition the interview to an investigative interview, the interview already has the two commitments in place.

  If necessary, it is permissible for the interviewer to tell the interviewee that lying is the more serious offense if, in fact, it is. The interviewer also can remind the interviewee that the interview cannot continue unless the interviewee is truthful.

  The dialogue should go like this:

  Administrative Interviews and Communicating Our Results ◾ 135

  If you cannot be truthful about that which you know, this interview can-

  not take place. We will have no choice but to move our investigation along

  without you … and you may not have the chance to provide input later.

  Again, without being accusatory, the interviewer tells the interviewee that he

  knows he has information concerning the issue in question. Experience shows that most administrative interviewees at this point will agree to cooperate and answer any questions posed to them.

  5.3.6 Discussion

  Suggesting the subject start at the “beginning,” the interviewer can methodically move from the events leading up to the incident to the actual incident. At a minimum, the interviewer should seek answers to the following:

  ◾ What is it that the interviewee knows?

  ◾ Were there any witnesses?

  ◾ Who else was involved?

  ◾ Who else knows about it?

  ◾ Get the interviewee to name names.

  This approach may seem overwrought or heavy handed, but remember the

  interviewee may be the person who committed the offense. By properly laying a

  foundation in this fashion, the interviewer is afforded the benefit of changing the interview from one seeking information to one seeking an admission.

  The interviewer should next ask: “Are you willing to help us and put that in

  writing?” Casually, he should display his written declaration checklist and preprinted statement form. If necessary, it is permissible to tell the interviewee that providing a written statement is a normal part of the process and that it is expected that a statement be provided by all those interviewed.

  5.3.7 Documentation

  Because the principal purpose of an administrative interview is to collect information, the interviewer should take notes. Like all interview notes, that which the interviewer documents should be accurate and concise. Notes should include the

  date of the interview, its start and finish time, and the name of the interviewer.

  As a matter of practice, some interviewers document their questions as well as

  the subject’s answers. I have not found that to be necessary. In most instances, by accurately documenting the subject’s answers, the questions that preceded them

  are obvious. The questions can be structured and, in some instances, prepared in advance. Sexual harassment investigations generally lend themselves to structured questions prepared in advance. Accident investigations on the other hand may not.

  136 ◾ Investigative Interviewing

  The fact finder’s preinvestigation will help determine the line of questioning and the order of the questions to be asked. Helpful to the interviewer will be an outline containing some case facts and some information about the person being interviewed. The outline does not need to be formal and might contain the following:

  ◾ Name of the interviewee

  ◾ Date and time of interview

  ◾ Location of interview

  ◾ Type or description of incident in question

  ◾ Location of incident

  ◾ Known witnesses

  ◾ Relation of those witnesses to the subject

  ◾ Interviewee’s job title

  ◾ Interviewee’s known location at the time of the incident

  Like all investigative notes, the notes of the interviewer should be written

  using a black ink pen on white lined paper (black ink photocopies better than

  blue ink on yellow paper). They should be neat and legible. The interviewer’s

  notes should not contain any subjective comments or observations. The notes

  should be an objective reflection of what the subject said. At the completion of the interview, the notes should be kept in a safe place and retained. No notes

  (unless copies of originals) should be destroyed. Although many in public sector law enforcement destroy their notes after they have rendered their report, doing so in the private sector is bad form and should not be done. Destroying notes tends to raise questions later and make it appear that whoever destroyed them might be hiding something.

  Tip: All interview notes should be retained. Do not destroy notes, documents, evidence, or case files until the matter has been completely adjudicated and all possible opportunities of appeal have expired.

  When appropriate, the interviewee should be asked to provide a statement. The

  statement may be prepared by either the interviewer or the interviewee. It may

  be handwritten or prepared using a computer. Regardless, the document should

  be authenticated by the interviewer and interviewee (and witness, if present) and dated. Authentication may be achieved with a signature or, more formally, with a notarized signature. The nature of the matter under investigation and importance of the statement should determine the appropriate protocol. If the subject is unwilling to provide a statement, one should be prepared for him and then be asked to sign it. If he refuses, ask that he read it and determine if it accurately reflects that

  Administrative Interviews and Communicating Our Results ◾ 137

  which he said. If he agrees that it is accurate and yet still refuses to sign it, the interviewer should annotate such and sign it himself.

  Tip: If an interviewee refuses to provide a statement or sign one prepared for him, he should be asked why. Often the subject’s concern easily can be addressed and an otherwise hesitant interviewee will become agreeable.

  Important elements in an administrative statement include:

  ◾ Subject’s name

  ◾ His position or job title

  ◾ Location of the interview

  ◾ Acknowledgement that the statement was voluntary

  ◾ The relevant facts, including the who, what, when, where, and how of the

  incident or matter in question

  ◾ Why the interviewee cooperated and was truthful

  ◾ An affirmation of the accuracy of the facts provided

  ◾ The signature of the interviewee

  ◾ The signature of the interviewer and witness, if present

  The affirmation of the accuracy of the facts provided might read as follows. I have written, read, and understand the above number of lines and declare that they are true and correct. If later called upon to verify the information set forth in this statement, I will do so accurately and confidently.

  5.3.8 Confidentiality

  Confidentiality is important to most workplace inv
estigations. At the beginning of an administrative interview, the interviewer should tell the interviewee that the matter to be discussed is confidential and that it and the interview should be treated as such. Most interviewees will understand the need for confidentiality and will be agreeable to these terms. If they are not, they should be asked why. In matters such as the investigation of a sexual harassment al egation, confidentiality is almost always necessary. If so, it is acceptable for the interviewer to insist on it. If the interviewee is still hesitant, the interviewer should consider terminating the interview until a later time.

  Trap: While an employer can consider the refusal to cooperate or keep a matter confidential to be insubordination, it is not advisable to discipline for it. Best advice: discontinue the interview and develop another investigative strategy.

  138 ◾ Investigative Interviewing

  Conclude the interview by completing all of the items on your checklist, providing the interviewee your contact information and any final instructions. Then arrange for the interviewee to safely return to work if appropriate. A few final thoughts:

  ◾ SAFETY IS YOUR FIRST PRIORITY.

  ◾ Your work will affect the lives of those you interview and those they touch.

  ◾ Treat the subject as you would wish someone treat you or a family member.

  ◾ Respect the rights of those you interview.

  ◾ Treat all people with respect and dignity.

  5.4 Communicating Our Results

  Of all of the methods of communication, fact finders find report writing the least enjoyable. I tend to like it. Many tell me that the more they write, the more they seem to like it. Regardless of one’s preference, report writing is a necessary requirement of the job. In this section, I will provide the fundamentals of basic report writing and review what I consider to be best practices. As most fact finders know, good reports evolve from good notes. Notetaking is a learned discipline. Accurate and complete notes allow the report writer the ability to write clear, concise, and complete reports. As you will read in the next chapter, notes frequently become part of the investigative case file and should be retained. One’s notes should be written in black ink and be legible. The use of shorthand or symbols is acceptable as long as the notetaker can later accurately decipher his work. Destroying notes after a report has been rendered is not advisable and may lead to questions regarding the investigator’s motives later. The same is not so for report drafts. Attorneys will occasionally recommend all drafts be retained. In all the years I have been in practice, I have not once been asked to produce a draft report of any kind. On the other hand, the request for notes is rather common and should be anticipated.