FBI IA and working in the field? [Archive]

View Full Version : FBI IA and working in the field?

Colonials322

08-11-2005, 02:05

BuMan

08-11-2005, 05:16

Seeing as how the FBI's Intelligence page is very vague and it is hard to get a lot of information on the job anywhere else, I was wondering if intelligence analysts, depending on their specific role (ie operations, all-source, etc.) do any considerable amount of work out of the office in the field? Or does most of the job take place in the office? I did a search but could not really sift through the hundreds of posts pertaining to the IA job in a very timely manner.

I appreciate any feedback.

Most of the work takes place in the office, however, there are opportunities for IAs to get out in the field. In the ACES course I'm currently in, a couple of IAs with health care related backgrounds did some light undercover work in a health care fraud investigation in their field division. Others have gone out to do interviews on prison gang members for their cases, etc. It's going to depend on the role you're assigned to, the staffing level of the field office, and the field you're working. Some fields are more conducive to field work. But the majority of the work is in the office with the IA position.

anwalt

08-11-2005, 06:34

Most of the work takes place in the office, however, there are opportunities for IAs to get out in the field. In the ACES course I'm currently in, a couple of IAs with health care related backgrounds did some light undercover work in a health care fraud investigation in their field division. Others have gone out to do interviews on prison gang members for their cases, etc. It's going to depend on the role you're assigned to, the staffing level of the field office, and the field you're working. Some fields are more conducive to field work. But the majority of the work is in the office with the IA position.

Buman,

Vis-a-vis working out of the office, the HQ job announcement noted that there could be significant travel required. Any ideas on the destinations?

Thanks.

eff-bee-eye

08-11-2005, 06:57

Yeah, mostly Maui, Fiji, St. Lucia, Belize.....

Okay not really, although you might be able to go to a hot spot for something if you are lucky, but I think when they put that line in there about travel, it is just to make sure you know there is the POTENTIAL for travel, whether it be voluntary or mandatory, including TDY's (temporary duty assignments), training or conferences in other cities, etc. There are no specific destinations persay.

orangeblossom77

08-13-2005, 16:41

I have not been too active on this board in a while...but I saw this question and I had to chime in. I am an operations specialist at HQ and my job is 100% sitting at a desk. In fact, I would even venture to say it is >90% administrative in nature. True, some of it is work-related admin. (writing short memos, uploading documents), but some is not even that (sorting and distributing mail for the office). I am not saying this to complain or scare people away, and I know that they are trying very hard to hire more secretaries and such in order to free analysts to actually do more analysis. Also, I do not take it personally (I am not talking about that agent-analyst conflict thing), but I am realizing that being in a HQ operational unit, that is just the kind of work that we do. However, I have to say that it has not been at all what I expected. Coming in with an MA, speaking multiple languages and having done a lot of analytical work in the past, I thought I would be using those skills...well, I am not at all.

Now, having said all that, I work with a lot of TDY agents from the field who all tell me it is very different out there, and that their analysts actually go out with them in the field once in a while. Sounds great - I wish I could get a TDY to the field just to see what is like. Also, I do have all-source analyst friends who like their work and actually produce intelligence products. So if I had the chance to do it over again, I would have picked all-source.

Again, this is just my experience. Last year when I was going through this process I had so many questions...but I didn't know anyone to contact and find out what it was really like. I know my experience may not be typical (although I think it is among the HQ Ops Specialists I know - in fact one person who EOD'd with me has already quit and gone to a different agency), but I just wanted to put it out there. I am not trying to badmouth the bureau, and I think we do great work in my unit...but I wish I felt like I was contributing in a meaningful way. :(

Seeing as how the FBI's Intelligence page is very vague and it is hard to get a lot of information on the job anywhere else, I was wondering if intelligence analysts, depending on their specific role (ie operations, all-source, etc.) do any considerable amount of work out of the office in the field? Or does most of the job take place in the office? I did a search but could not really sift through the hundreds of posts pertaining to the IA job in a very timely manner.

I appreciate any feedback.

Colonials322

08-13-2005, 17:32

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Orangeblossom (or anyone else who can shed some light) -
At my interview I asked about working in FO's vs. HQ and basically got the same idea from the analysts on my panel - that HQ can be more administrative in nature, yet they said you deal with things on more of a national level, which interests me. I realize they may put me wherever they want me, but is there a general consensus that working in the field offices gives you more opportunities to more or less get your nose dirty?

Thanks again for any feedback.

Kristin

08-13-2005, 19:05

I have not been too active on this board in a while...but I saw this question and I had to chime in. I am an operations specialist at HQ and my job is 100% sitting at a desk. In fact, I would even venture to say it is >90% administrative in nature. True, some of it is work-related admin. (writing short memos, uploading documents), but some is not even that (sorting and distributing mail for the office). I am not saying this to complain or scare people away, and I know that they are trying very hard to hire more secretaries and such in order to free analysts to actually do more analysis. Also, I do not take it personally (I am not talking about that agent-analyst conflict thing), but I am realizing that being in a HQ operational unit, that is just the kind of work that we do. However, I have to say that it has not been at all what I expected. Coming in with an MA, speaking multiple languages and having done a lot of analytical work in the past, I thought I would be using those skills...well, I am not at all.

Now, having said all that, I work with a lot of TDY agents from the field who all tell me it is very different out there, and that their analysts actually go out with them in the field once in a while. Sounds great - I wish I could get a TDY to the field just to see what is like. Also, I do have all-source analyst friends who like their work and actually produce intelligence products. So if I had the chance to do it over again, I would have picked all-source.

Again, this is just my experience. Last year when I was going through this process I had so many questions...but I didn't know anyone to contact and find out what it was really like. I know my experience may not be typical (although I think it is among the HQ Ops Specialists I know - in fact one person who EOD'd with me has already quit and gone to a different agency), but I just wanted to put it out there. I am not trying to badmouth the bureau, and I think we do great work in my unit...but I wish I felt like I was contributing in a meaningful way. :(

When did you start? Also, what was your timeline of getting into the FBI?
Thank you,
Kristin

anwalt

08-13-2005, 19:40

I have not been too active on this board in a while...but I saw this question and I had to chime in. I am an operations specialist at HQ and my job is 100% sitting at a desk. In fact, I would even venture to say it is >90% administrative in nature. True, some of it is work-related admin. (writing short memos, uploading documents), but some is not even that (sorting and distributing mail for the office). I am not saying this to complain or scare people away, and I know that they are trying very hard to hire more secretaries and such in order to free analysts to actually do more analysis. Also, I do not take it personally (I am not talking about that agent-analyst conflict thing), but I am realizing that being in a HQ operational unit, that is just the kind of work that we do. However, I have to say that it has not been at all what I expected. Coming in with an MA, speaking multiple languages and having done a lot of analytical work in the past, I thought I would be using those skills...well, I am not at all.

Now, having said all that, I work with a lot of TDY agents from the field who all tell me it is very different out there, and that their analysts actually go out with them in the field once in a while. Sounds great - I wish I could get a TDY to the field just to see what is like. Also, I do have all-source analyst friends who like their work and actually produce intelligence products. So if I had the chance to do it over again, I would have picked all-source.

Again, this is just my experience. Last year when I was going through this process I had so many questions...but I didn't know anyone to contact and find out what it was really like. I know my experience may not be typical (although I think it is among the HQ Ops Specialists I know - in fact one person who EOD'd with me has already quit and gone to a different agency), but I just wanted to put it out there. I am not trying to badmouth the bureau, and I think we do great work in my unit...but I wish I felt like I was contributing in a meaningful way. :(

Are you an "operations specialist" or an "intelligence analyst" . . . ?

orangeblossom77

08-13-2005, 19:53

There are three "roles" for all 0132 Intelligence Analysts: Operations Specialists, Reports Officers, and All-Source Analysts. Supposedly we are supposed to be trained in all three specializations so the bureau has the flexibility to move us around as needed. I am an operations specialist and I have not yet heard of any opportunities to switch roles or do any kind of HQ/FO rotations. I am hoping that will be a possibility in the future.

By the way, I applied around Feb. 2004, got my ICO in June, came on board in Oct. 2004.

anwalt

08-13-2005, 20:30

BuMan

08-13-2005, 22:33

Thought you might have been an Intelligence Operations Specialist (e.g., also an 0132 series position). Have you ever voiced your discontent to the powers that be in your office?

The FBI historically had 0132s who were Intelligence Research Specialists and Intelligence Operations Specialists. When the Office (later, Directorate) of Intelligence stood up, one of the early moves was to consolidate the positions into an Intelligence Analyst category with the three roles of Operations Specialist (generally, the former IOSs), All-Source Analysts (generally, many of the former IRSs), and Reports Officers (a new position within the FBI). The IOS positions themselves generally evolved from former Director Louis Freeh's realignment of Headquarters back in the 1990's, where he felt there were too many agents at Headquarters relative to the field. He opened up transfers to the office of preference for a large number of FBIHQ SSAs and gave them a transfer with pay retention to a field office, even if they would be working only as a street agent (GS-13) there. IOSs were created to come in and replace some of those positions in the operational divisions at Headquarters. In effect, many of the IOSs were acting as non-agent SSAs and were actively involved in case and program management. That's not really the role that the DI envisions for the Operations Specialist role, and there is a Working Group underway that is intended to better define the OS role to reflect the actual needs of the FBI and the needs of the OSs. Unlike Reports Officers and All-Source Analysts who can point to products they are responsible for at a promotion career board, the OSs may not have much to point to at a career board, which could hinder their career development prospects. That may require a couple of different approaches, including revising the career board system for OSs or having parallel career boards for AS, RO and OS analysts.

The IAAB has been looking at the issue and trying to come up with recommendations to the EAD-I to address the situation for some time.

Jedburgh II

08-14-2005, 00:55

...there is a Working Group underway that is intended to better define the OS role to reflect the actual needs of the FBI and the needs of the OSs. Unlike Reports Officers and All-Source Analysts who can point to products they are responsible for at a promotion career board, the OSs may not have much to point to at a career board, which could hinder their career development prospects. That may require a couple of different approaches, including revising the career board system for OSs or having parallel career boards for AS, RO and OS analysts.

The IAAB has been looking at the issue and trying to come up with recommendations to the EAD-I to address the situation for some time.
BuMan, interesting points. For me, it's been a challenge to try to square my military intelligence background into an round appreciation of the positions and requirements of the FBI IA job.

My entire operational background has been mostly along the lines of "operational support", as opposed to working in an all-source or intelligence synchronization section - although I've always had close relations with the former and spent a bit of time as NCOIC of the latter. (By the way - who is responsible for intel synch/requirements management? No description I've seen with the Bureau even mentions such a thing.)

Speaking in general terms, usually I've been the intel guy on an operational team - most often a bunch of door-kickers, sometimes a multi-disciplinary team, occasionally odd set-ups - like working with a bunch of microbiologists. But what acting in "operational support" in that context meant was being a fully-functional member of the team, and completely mission-focused throughout; from building target/mission packets and briefing those to the team and unit leadership, to being the primary on-the-ground collector as well as the conduit for all RFIs during the mission, and finishing up with writing the IIRs and various and sundry other intel reports, as well as the intel portion of any other required reporting, and finally submitting specific intel lessons-learned for the mission prep database. Time in-between missions was filled with the usual monitoring of traffic, database management, etc. etc. and acting as liaison/advisor in my specialty area to the all-source for missions in which I was not personally involved.

To bring it back to the points you brought up, in my case there were always plenty of quantifiable elements to spark up the annual eval - target/mission packets, a wide variety of intel reporting, and elements related to operational collection. If OSs are truly integrated with operations in an intel capacity, then I find it hard to understand why there would be difficulty with quantifiable elements for evaluations and career progression.

BuMan

08-14-2005, 07:17

My entire operational background has been mostly along the lines of "operational support", as opposed to working in an all-source or intelligence synchronization section - although I've always had close relations with the former and spent a bit of time as NCOIC of the latter. (By the way - who is responsible for intel synch/requirements management? No description I've seen with the Bureau even mentions such a thing.)

The Directorate of Intelligence has the Intelligence Requirements and Collection Management Unit which handles that.

Speaking in general terms, usually I've been the intel guy on an operational team - most often a bunch of door-kickers, sometimes a multi-disciplinary team, occasionally odd set-ups - like working with a bunch of microbiologists. But what acting in "operational support" in that context meant was being a fully-functional member of the team, and completely mission-focused throughout; from building target/mission packets and briefing those to the team and unit leadership, to being the primary on-the-ground collector as well as the conduit for all RFIs during the mission, and finishing up with writing the IIRs and various and sundry other intel reports, as well as the intel portion of any other required reporting, and finally submitting specific intel lessons-learned for the mission prep database. Time in-between missions was filled with the usual monitoring of traffic, database management, etc. etc. and acting as liaison/advisor in my specialty area to the all-source for missions in which I was not personally involved.

To bring it back to the points you brought up, in my case there were always plenty of quantifiable elements to spark up the annual eval - target/mission packets, a wide variety of intel reporting, and elements related to operational collection. If OSs are truly integrated with operations in an intel capacity, then I find it hard to understand why there would be difficulty with quantifiable elements for evaluations and career progression.

The problem is, some of the "operational" divisions, such as Counterterrorism Division, play a major role in managing cases, but are not operational in the sense you are thinking of. I work in a truly operational division and have elements of my job which fall into the All-Source Analyst role and elements which fall into the Operational Specialist role. As with what you described above, my job includes a wide variety of duties, many of which involve preparing Intelligence Bulletins and Assessments, which would provide documentation of expertise for a promotion board. The HQ OSs in Counterterrorism Division, on the other hand, are mostly working on the management aspects of a case. There's no direct operational support of the door-kickers and gun-totes in the context that you and I would think of it, more discussion with the field. Within CTD, there is also the split between operational units and analytical units. The "operational" units manage the caseload, while the analytical units look at the implications for reporting that comes in, either through the FBI or other government agencies and prepare assessments or bulletins. Ironically, the result of all this is that the IIRs are mostly prepared by Reports Officers, the assessments by AS Analysts, and that doesn't leave much for the OSs to do in their day-to-day work role. For some, the answer may be a different job series, if they are not being given the opportunity to perform intel-related work and develop a base of materials to facilitate advancement.

Kristin

08-14-2005, 14:53

OrangeAlum2003, OhioLaw, Electra1978, anyone,

I haven't seen a post from TopJag. I wonder if he ever got a call for an interview, considering he was found best qualified.

TopJag, are you out there..................... I am talking about you.

ricki223

08-14-2005, 20:43

Buman,

Do you know if the FBI allows you to wear corrective lenses when taking the color vision test for an individual applying for SA. I was just wondering in case I were to apply in the future assuming my IA application went cold. Last year I had a CO withdrawn from the DEA b/c of my color vision. Once I found out about corrective lenses I tried to see if they were acceptable since it wasn't specified on the job announcement but they said no. Just trying to explore every avenue b/c working for the gov't has become my dream.

BuMan

08-14-2005, 20:52

eff-bee-eye

08-23-2005, 09:04

Last year when I was going through this process I had so many questions...but I didn't know anyone to contact and find out what it was really like.

Well that's because you didn't call me and ask me all those questions!! :D As an IA (OS role) at HQ, I could have told you exactly where to go and where to avoid if you truly wanted more analytical work. My unit is okay, but there just isn't the analytical work here to justify the higher grades for IA's, so I'm lucky I am getting out before I have to worry about putting together a 13/14 package, because it would likely be a waste of my time to even put in for it.

anwalt

08-23-2005, 09:12

Well that's because you didn't call me and ask me all those questions!! :D As an IA (OS role) at HQ, I could have told you exactly where to go and where to avoid if you truly wanted more analytical work. My unit is okay, but there just isn't the analytical work here to justify the higher grades for IA's, so I'm lucky I am getting out before I have to worry about putting together a 13/14 package, because it would likely be a waste of my time to even put in for it.

Where are the best places and which should be avoided (@HQ)?

eff-bee-eye

08-24-2005, 09:35

Okay, maybe I won't list the places to "avoid" afterall, but I sent you a PM.

GTgrad02

08-24-2005, 19:09

eff-bee-eye
PM me too, would you. I requested to work @ HQ... so this would be valuable "intel", pardon the pun.