Thread: Federal Task Forces

ATF, DEA, FBI, ICE, task force officers (guys that are employed through local LE that are put on local Task Forces); can anyone provide any information on moving to 1811 positions with that respective agency? In other words, is it just a slight bonus on your resume, is it heavily weighted in the hiring process, is it essentially a feeder program into the agency, etc. Anyone who has personally done that, or has any insight to it, information would be appreciated.

Working on a task force is almost always a good career move.

FBI: Asks specifically if you've worked on an FBI led task force (they seem to value FBI led task forces over non-FBI led task forces)
DEA: Highly values any narcotics task force, but seems to be mostly concerned with working narcotics cases in any capacity
ATF: Don't know much about how they value them. It should be noted that only veterans were invited to test this last go around
Marshals: The Marshals entry requirements are a lot less strict then most 1811 positions, so although valued, I would not say that a task force necessarily will make or break your applications. also, like ATF, only veterans were invited to test this last go around
ICE: Highly valued task force experience this last vacancy announcement.

If you have the opportunity I highly suggest working on a task force, but its definitely not a prereq to getting hired with that particular agency.

Originally Posted by o2force

Marshals: The Marshals entry requirements are a lot less strict then most 1811

Using what metric? The last announcement saw approximately 35,000 applicants in 24 hours. Estimates put actual hiring numbers at (maybe) 200 or so, meaning about 1/2 of 1% of applicants get hired.

Coupled with the hiring being done solely at the GS-07 baseline, how do you figure USMS has less strict standards?

I personally know of multiple for TFO's who are now DUSMs. I don't see how USMS hiring difficulty (which I feel you greatly underestimate) has any bearing on Task Force Officers getting hired.

They might mean requirements on paper, not strict insofar as how many applications.... FYI the FBI has very strict, custom standards, but they are excepted service and can do what they want. Yeah, I would imagine ANY task force experience would be great no matter what.

Task force guys at DEA were always sought after. They knew the job, paperwork, everything. All they had to do was switch badges and they were GTG. Most guys didn't want to come over because thy made more than I did with OT and didn't like the mobility requirement.

Originally Posted by DrePol

Using what metric? The last announcement saw approximately 35,000 applicants in 24 hours. Estimates put actual hiring numbers at (maybe) 200 or so, meaning about 1/2 of 1% of applicants get hired.

Coupled with the hiring being done solely at the GS-07 baseline, how do you figure USMS has less strict standards?

I personally know of multiple for TFO's who are now DUSMs. I don't see how USMS hiring difficulty (which I feel you greatly underestimate) has any bearing on Task Force Officers getting hired.

First of all, this last hiring announcement was a bit of an anomaly in regards to application numbers. I can't take data from this last announcement and simply apply it to ALL future occurances. Secondly, this is a completely reworked hiring process, so the process and standards are not fully revealed to the public just yet. However, generally speaking, the Marshals will create a hiring pool of those who meet, not necessarily exceed, the qualifications (this is where it doesn't really matter if you were a task force officer!). Applicants will then be hired from that pool. However, right now we don't know how hiring is decided. In a lot of cases, it is by date cleared to EOD....again not really relying on task force officer experience.

Lastly, I did not underestimate the marshal hiring practice. Compared to that of FBI, Secret Service, or DEA, the U.S. Marshals minimum qualifications are of a lower standard. Saying otherwise is simply a denial of written fact.

In all cases, being a task force officer is not a shoe in, it is simply a really nice addition to your resume and a great experience.

Aside from whether a particular agency may value task force experience, often the real benefit is that a TFO can demonstrate that they have worked complex interstate investigations, can work in a Federal environment, know Federal laws and rules of evidence, and so on. An experienced detective can show a lot of solid investigative skills, but applying for 1811 jobs is weighted towards complex, multi-jurisdictional investigative experience, especially at higher grades.

Networking is a big part of it too. Agencies like to higher a known quantity when they can, or at least someone who they know can do the job (and who knows what they are getting into with FLE). A solid TFO will have agents and supervisors that can advocate for them with the SAC, or at a minimum can provide references with a hiring agency.

TFO experience can cut both ways, although it is generally a plus. More than an internship, a TFO experiences the work of the agency and the agency experiences the work of the TFO. Sometimes, that works; sometimes the agency is unimpressed. As DMClark notes, some top TFO's are very senior in their agency and pulling in more money than if they came over.

As to hiring standards, minimum qualification standards are all but irrelevant to the process. They may get you to a test or even further, but the competitive nature of the hiring results mostly in folks that would be hired by any agency.

The last announcement saw approximately 35,000 applicants in 24 hours. Estimates put actual hiring numbers at (maybe) 200 or so, meaning about 1/2 of 1% of applicants get hired.

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into the idea that larger number of gross applicants translates into an agency being strict on hiring or tough to get on with. The number you need to look at is how many applicants are actually qualified and are selected to move forward/compete in the process after that initial application.

That goes for any agency.

Originally Posted by krellum

I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into the idea that larger number of gross applicants translates into an agency being strict on hiring or tough to get on with. The number you need to look at is how many applicants are actually qualified and are selected to move forward/compete in the process after that initial application.

That goes for any agency.

Not to mention, how many extremely well qualified applicants were denied the opportunity to test because they were not veterans.

We have a TFO in my group from a large local department. He applied on the ATF announcement and got the "no thanks" email because he is not a veteran. He is simultaenously going through the ICE process. His TFO time has given him exactly what others have said: the ability to look under the federal curtain at various federal agencies (we sit in a large Task Force that has agents from FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals, ICE, and IRS), and also the opportunity to work complex cases involving criminal organizations to a degree never possible in a local PD.

During the ICE interview he said they seemed very impressed with his TFO time and the variety and complexity of the cases he has been able to work. He is for all practical purposes (except the pay) an ATF agent. As ATF SAC said, this would be bad for him if he were a dirt bag. Because he's a good cop working good cases, he can parlay that into good resume/interviewing builders.

To specifically answer your question, the ATF TFO program could have at one point in ATF's history served as a feeder program. Under today's hiring model, this is no longer true. SAC's in ATF have pretty much lost hiring authority, and that limits the direct hire potential. Hiring is now controlled at HQ and OPM, so the ability of an individual SAC to influence that decision is greatly limited. Certainly being an ATF TFO would help you through the ATF hiring process (assuming you could make it to an interview based upon your own qualifications), but it is by no means a guaranteed try-out.

I can count ten guys who were local PD on a DEA Task Force and are now DEA agents, some GS-15's

If you are a hard worker / producer, on a Task Force, you are almost guaranteed a shot at interview.

Yes, good move.

Originally Posted by whatchagot

We have a TFO in my group from a large local department. He applied on the ATF announcement and got the "no thanks" email because he is not a veteran. He is simultaenously going through the ICE process. His TFO time has given him exactly what others have said: the ability to look under the federal curtain at various federal agencies (we sit in a large Task Force that has agents from FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals, ICE, and IRS), and also the opportunity to work complex cases involving criminal organizations to a degree never possible in a local PD.

During the ICE interview he said they seemed very impressed with his TFO time and the variety and complexity of the cases he has been able to work. He is for all practical purposes (except the pay) an ATF agent. As ATF SAC said, this would be bad for him if he were a dirt bag. Because he's a good cop working good cases, he can parlay that into good resume/interviewing builders.

To specifically answer your question, the ATF TFO program could have at one point in ATF's history served as a feeder program. Under today's hiring model, this is no longer true. SAC's in ATF have pretty much lost hiring authority, and that limits the direct hire potential. Hiring is now controlled at HQ and OPM, so the ability of an individual SAC to influence that decision is greatly limited. Certainly being an ATF TFO would help you through the ATF hiring process (assuming you could make it to an interview based upon your own qualifications), but it is by no means a guaranteed try-out.

I can tell you that, unforunately on the HSI boards its all by the numbers. You may ask about background on a candidate, however it would be out of curiosity more than anything else. The way the hiring process is now (unfortunately) interviewing agents have much less hiring discretion than they should over the candidates that come before them, TFO or otherwise. Even if someone like a highly regarded TFO comes to the interview and screws a question up, chances are he won't get through. Granted most seasoned cops would know how to answer the battery of questions but there have been times when the applicant couldn't be saved. Once the FTO candidated gets through all phases successfully a SAC can definately make sure that the candidate makes it through, in HSI TFOs are well taken care of and on certain occassions run a team as G/S. I personally like the FBI hiring model, which measures your real life experience on several levels, your accomplishments in life should weigh in more than how you answer a few "what would you do" questions. Agencies will engage in the worst practices just to avoid potential law suits instead of worrying about the quality of the person they're about to give a gun and badge to...

I obviously cannot speak to the ICE questions, having not done them myself. Your explanation makes good sense and I'm sure that this TFO did well on the questions. Good info for others though. We all appear to be in agreement that being a TFO, regardless of where a person decides to apply for an 1811 position, can only help.

Originally Posted by ATF SAC

TFO experience can cut both ways, although it is generally a plus. More than an internship, a TFO experiences the work of the agency and the agency experiences the work of the TFO. Sometimes, that works; sometimes the agency is unimpressed. As DMClark notes, some top TFO's are very senior in their agency and pulling in more money than if they came over.

As to hiring standards, minimum qualification standards are all but irrelevant to the process. They may get you to a test or even further, but the competitive nature of the hiring results mostly in folks that would be hired by any agency.

I know of a case where this exact thing happened. Ultimately, he was not picked up with that agency because they weren't impressed.