In an agency of 70 correctional facilities with just under 33,000 total staff, of whom approximately 23,000 are in uniform, the ease of recruitment we once knew has vanished. Add to this the impact of human rights legislation and the landmark Kirkland case, which totally changed New York State's recruitment program. We now find ourselves with a situation that those of us who started our careers in corrections, when I did, could never have imagined.

Recruitment today rightly requires that we mirror the ethnic and gender makeup of both our state and inmate population. In order to meet the mandate of a highly diverse workforce, we have explored and used most recruitment options available to us. Targeted recruitment occurs on a person-to-person
basis through our Diversity Management Division, which works throughout the state with community leaders and religious and social organizations to convince the groups they represent that corrections is a viable and rewarding employment opportunity. Advertising in local and statewide media ranging from newspapers, periodicals and radio, and to even the ubiquitous 'pennysaver,' ensures that we reach the wide variety of populations that make up the citizenry of this state.

In New York State, we are in fact exceedingly fortunate due to the existence of a highly diverse population with media of varying types targeted directly to them. Although reaching these groups is definitely expensive, that expense has proven both necessary and worthwhile in creating the ability of
Correctional Services to change its employee population from what was essentially white male in the early 70's to a workforce that is now more representative of the state's population

Recruiting from the state's population as a whole without any of the informal 'pre-screening' that existed in the early 70's has also mandated dramatic changes in the way in which we actually screen potential recruits. In the 70's, when we hired from within the local community, and usually the sons and daughters of existing employees, we had a good idea whom we were employing. Today's candidates who come to take the Civil Service examination are a totally unknown factor.

Workforce a Factor in Security 

Everyone in our field today is fully aware that one of the constant dangers to the safety and security of our facilities workforce. We all know of attempts by organized crime and gang members to infiltrate the workforce and, therefore, establish control of our correctional facilities. We have all seen the impact on training, payroll and legal costs in attempting to remove individuals who are totally psychologically unsuited for the very demanding jobs we have in our facilities. Combine this with individuals who have poor work habits, an inability to co-exist with fellow employees and supervisors, and the need for intense screening becomes painfully obvious.

In this department, we have an extensive psychological, background, and physical/medical screening process which helps us to remove problem candidates from consideration before they become problem employees. New York State is fortunate that we have been given legislative authority to
undertake one of the most rigorous psychological screening processes of any employer nationwide. This screening consists of a bank of validated psychological test instruments specifically targeted to our Correction Officer workforce supplemented by face-to-face interviews with licensed
psychologists and a legislatively-mandated appeals process. As a result, we are able to screen out a large number of individuals who are simply not psychologically suited to be Correction Officers. Interestingly, of those who take the initial battery of psychological tests, on average, 25% are disqualified.

Since the mid-70's we have also been conducting background checks on each and every candidate who passes the Civil Service examination using our own in-house employee investigations division. This division conducts investigations of criminal history, employment and education aimed again at
weeding out those who should not be employed as Correction Officers and be granted peace officer status with the right to use deadly force and bear arms. It is with continuing amazement that I look, in this day of computerization, at individuals with existing wants and warrants who apply to become Correction Officers and whom we regularly arrest and return to the custody of the issuing criminal justice organization.

Through a thorough medical examination and medical history screening, we are also able to eliminate those individuals who are simply physically unsuited to perform the physically demanding and potentially stressful Correction Officer duties. Combined with this, however, we have substantially modified our physical medical qualifications in order to accept candidates with limited handicapping conditions which either do not drastically impact their ability to function as Correction Officers or who, through reasonable accommodation, are able to function in our workforce.

Process is Successful

The result of our strenuous efforts to psychologically, medically, and background screen our Correction Officer candidates translates into only one in four who take the Civil Service examination will actually find employment in this department. Although this is an expensive screening process, it is one that ensures that those we employ as Correction Officer Trainees have the potential to be well-suited for this employment and to be retained as productive employees within our system. Comparing the costs of removing from our workforce those employees who cannot function appropriately, versus the costs of intensive candidate screening, shows that the money spent in screening results in dramatic savings in cost related to court suits and discipline involved with employee termination.

All of us in corrections today realize that the candidate pool we have for critical Correction Officer positions is vastly different from the past. When most of us veterans joined our departments, officer slots were often times filled quietly and directly by the children, relatives and friends of existing officers and prison administrators. Now, we publicly advertise our vacancies and hold examinations to screen our applicants. But good test-takers are not necessarily the people we want as officers, anymore than
nepotism and cronyism produced the best candidates in the past. So most of us, and rightly so, have created a battery of physical, mental and emotional tests and standards that are designed to tell us who the best candidates are to fill these critical positions. This process can be as time-consuming as it is expensive. But I believe it is a better and fairer process and, in many ways, guarantees us the best possible recruits. In my opinion, it is the most essential investment we will make in ensuring a safe and secure facility environment.