< Previous50 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 3 EVOLVE AND ADAPT A Closer Look at LGBTQ Youths’ Experiences LGBTQ youth experience uniquely high rates of childhood maltreatment in comparison to their peers (Balsam, Lehavot, Beadnell, & Circo, 2010). In some cases, such maltreatment plays out in the home, with parents or caregivers instigating the maltreatment. Maltreatment can take any number of forms, including child neglect, emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. Abusers may explicitly target LGBTQ children based on their identities or self-expression. Surveys of LGBTQ adults have found that 50.2% of surveyed men and 60.8% of surveyed women report experiencing–at minimum–emotional abuse in childhood (Balsam et al., 2010). LGBTQ youth are also disproportionately vulnerable to maltreatment outside of the home. In educational settings, the majority of LGBTQ youth regularly experience verbal harassment based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Unfortunately, 25% of LGB students and 55% of transgender students also report experiencing physical assault based on the same factors (Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network [GLSEN], as cited in Oregon Judicial Department, 2013). An even larger proportion of transgender students (74%) report experiencing sexual harassment related to their identities. According to GLSEN (as cited in Oregon Judicial Department, 2013) some in- school harassment is instigated by school staff rather than students. Abuse, harassment, and general maltreatment have significant consequences for LGBTQ youth. Domestic abuse of LGBTQ youth sometimes culminates with parental or familial rejection of the LGBTQ family member, and many LGBTQ youth who experience rejection are ultimately forced out of their homes by their parents or caregivers. A number of LGBTQ youth also choose to leave their homes in order to escape chronic familial abuse. Consequently, LGBTQ youth are vastly overrepresented among the homeless population. In fact, up to 40% of homeless or runaway youth may identify as LGBTQ (Woods, 2018). Although some LGBTQ youth transition into the child welfare system after being ejected or removed from their homes, child welfare placements do not always secure their safety or well-being. Abuse and discrimination arise with some frequency within foster families, adoptive families, and emergency shelters, just as they do within many of the LGBTQ youths’ biological families (Woods, 2018). As such, child welfare placements can also end in rejection and homelessness for LGBTQ youth. Harassment, discrimination, and abuse also impact LGBTQ youths’ welfare in educational settings. In the face of peer or staff maltreatment, youths’ grades and attendance suffer. Some LGBTQ youth choose to fight their peers to defend themselves from chronic harassment, and others commit truancy because of such harassment. According to GLSEN, approximately 28% of LGBTQ youth ultimately drop out of school to escape peer maltreatment (Oregon Judicial Department, 2013). Frequent exposure to maltreatment can take a profound toll on LGBTQ youths’ mental health. Scannapieco, Painter, and Blau (2018) state that maltreatment and rejection make LGBTQ youth more likely to experience depression, engage in substance abuse, or commit suicide in childhood or adolescence. In adulthood, individuals who identify as LGBTQ may exhibit mental health symptoms associated with childhood maltreatment. These symptoms notably include post-traumatic stress and anxiety symptoms, which Vitopoulos et al. (2019) describe as responsivity factors (Balsam et al., 2010). These symptoms represent one of many prospective consequences of childhood mistreatment.51 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION EVOLVE AND ADAPT Outcomes for Justice-Involved Youth It has been well established that discrimination and maltreatment also increase LGBTQ youths’ vulnerability to contact with justice institutions in several ways. Maltreatment at home or in state care contributes to homelessness across the LGBTQ youth population (Woods, 2018). To survive homelessness, some LGBTQ youth engage in nonviolent “survival crimes,” such as prostitution or theft. These youth are disproportionately criminalized because of their circumstances (CAP et al., 2017). Maltreatment-related truancy also factors into the criminalization of LGBTQ youth. Because a significant proportion of LGBTQ youth engage in truancy to escape maltreatment, these youth are at high risk of arrest for status offenses (CAP et al., 2017). Naturally, youth who choose physical conflict over truancy are not less vulnerable to arrest than chronic truants; rather, they may simply find themselves in court for a different reason. In the context of the RNR model, the crux of the problem is this: contact with justice institutions does little to address LGBTQ youths’ specific needs, be they criminogenic or otherwise. In fact, contact with justice institutions can reinforce barriers to LGBTQ youths’ rehabilitation. LGBTQ youth often face further maltreatment while under correctional supervision, including physical and sexual abuse. According to CAP et al. (2017), incarcerated LGBTQ youth experience youth-on- youth sexual violence ten times more often than their heterosexual counterparts. Additionally, LGBTQ youth also experience a disproportionate amount of staff-instigated abuse. To illustrate, approximately 15% of lesbian, gay, or bisexual youth report experiencing sexual contact with correctional staff, compared to 4.6% of heterosexual youth (CAP et al., 2017). The above experiences can promote profoundly negative mental health outcomes among LGBTQ youth. So, too, can isolation or solitary confinement, which some penal institutions use to “protect” LGBTQ youth from the general population (CAP et al., 2017). Upon release from correctional supervision, LGBTQ youth are rarely better off. In the absence of adequate familial or community support, many LGBTQ youth are simply released back into homelessness. Thus, the cycle of vulnerability continues, with LGBTQ youth going on to experience disproportionate and recurrent contact with justice institutions into adulthood. Responsivity in Context Under the RNR model, rehabilitation means giving individuals prosocial alternatives to recidivism through conscientious treatment of factors associated with recidivism. However, individuals’ responsivity or stabilization needs can act as barriers to their acceptance of such alternatives. As Marlowe points out, “criminal justice professionals are likely to have a very difficult time addressing a participant’s antisocial attitudes or delinquent peer interactions if he or she is living on the street, suffering from a severe mental illness” (2018, para. 10), and the same applies to those struggling with other preeminent social service needs. Discrimination and maltreatment create real barriers to the long-term rehabilitation of LGBTQ youth. Such maltreatment has adverse and enduring effects on their mental health (Vitopoulos et al. 2019). Moreover, maltreatment also imposes deprivation upon LGBTQ youth. Specifically, maltreatment contributes to deprivation of safe housing, social support systems, clinical care, and more. In effect, maltreatment isolates LGBTQ youth from reliable and safe communities. Social safety nets are altogether less reliable for LGBTQ youth than they are for heterosexual and cisgender youth. Without access to alternative housing, income, or care options, some youths lack the resources to desist from crime. While the correctional community cannot provide LGBTQ youth with such resources over the long term, the community has the power to limit youth involvement with justice institutions by addressing their needs in correctional settings.52 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 3 EVOLVE AND ADAPT Recommendations To mitigate the involvement of LGBTQ youths with justice institutions, it is necessary to recognize that homelessness and other responsivity needs hamper their desistance from criminal behavior. As such, these needs should factor into case management and planning for LGBTQ youth. This article is not a comprehensive guide to case management or to the applications of the RNR model in LGBTQ youth rehabilitation. However, the research compiled within this article shows some paths that community practitioners can take to improve justice outcomes for this population. More specifically, this research points to a need for: • Further research on LGBTQ youths’ specific treat- ment needs. More information is needed to deter- mine whether modern, RNR-aligned case manage- ment tools capture the experiences of LGBTQ youth and how case management should evolve to meet their needs. • Investigation of LGBTQ-friendly assessment and case management tools. Per the above, it is un- clear whether LGBTQ youths’ needs can be fully captured by traditional assessments. • Research and training on the needs of LGBTQ youths in the context of community supervision. As this article discusses, LGBTQ youths’ needs are not always met by traditional community support systems. • Cultural competency and anti-discrimination training pertaining to LGBTQ youth at all stages of justice involvement. Such training combats the stigmatization of special correctional populations, including the LGBTQ youth population, within the juvenile justice and criminal justice systems (CAP et al., 2017). • Direct consultation with LGBTQ youth about their “needs and safety concerns” (CAP et al., 2017, p. 8) in the process of securing correctional or com- munity placement. • Youth-oriented education on LGBTQ youths’ rights under correctional supervision (CAP et al., 2017). Both consultation and education empower youth to advocate for their needs under correctional super- vision. • Community programming that aligns with trans- gender or gender-non-conforming youths’ gender identity rather than their assigned sex. Gender-spe- cific programming supports youths’ physical and psychological well-being. LGBTQ youths’ overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system is reflective of a broader problem. These youth are subject to systemic maltreatment within familial, educational, and social institutions, and that maltreatment increases their vulnerability to contact with justice institutions. Chronic maltreatment disengages youth from prosocial behavior and communities. The recommendations provided above support LGBTQ youths’ engagement with healthy support systems and thereby the parallel treatment of their responsivity and criminogenic needs. References Andrews, D. A. (2012). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of correctional assessment and treatment. In J. A. Dvoskin, J. L. Skeem, R. W. Novaco, & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Using social science to reduce violent offending (pp. 127-156). Oxford University Press. Balsam, K. F., Lehavot, K., Beadnell, B., & Circo, E. (2010). Childhood abuse and mental health indicators among ethnically diverse lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 78(4), Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk- Need-Responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Public Safety Canada. Brogan, L., Haney-Caron, E., NeMoyer, A., & DeMatteo, D. (2015). Applying the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model to juvenile justice. Criminal Justice Review, 40(3), Center for American Progress, Movement Advancement Project, & Youth First. (2017). Unjust: LGBTQ youth incarcerated in the juvenile justice system. 53 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION EVOLVE AND ADAPT Conron, K. J. (2020). LGBT youth population in the United States. UCLA School of Law Williams Development Services Group. (2014). LGBTQ youths in the juvenile justice system. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(2), 21–24. Lipsey, M. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124– Marlowe, D. B. (2018, July 17). The most carefully studied, yet least understood, terms in the criminal justice lexicon: Risk, need, and responsivity. Policy Research McCormick, S., Peterson-Badali, M., & Skilling, T. A. (2017). The role of mental health and specific responsivity in juvenile justice rehabilitation. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 55–67. Murez, C. (2021, June 15). Big rise in U.S. teens identifying as gay, bisexual. U.S. News. Oregon Judicial Department. (2013). LGBT youth Oudekerk, B. A., & Reppuci, N. D. (2012). Reducing recidivism and violence among offending youth. In J. A. Dvoskin, J. L. Skeem, R. W. Novaco, & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Using social science to reduce violent offending (pp. 199-221). Oxford University Press. Scannapieco, M., Painter, K. R., & Blau, G. (2018). A comparison of LGBTQ youth and heterosexual youth in the child welfare system: Mental health and substance abuse occurrence and outcomes. Children & Youth Services Review, 91, Vitopoulos, N. A., Peterson-Badali, M., Brown, S., & Skilling, T. A. (2019). The relationship between trauma, recidivism risk, and reoffending in male and female juvenile offenders. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 12(3), Woods, J. B. (2018). Unaccompanied youth and private-public order failures. Iowa Law Review, 103(4), 1639–1709. Author Bio: Erin (Katherine) Epifanio is a doctoral student in Saint Leo University’s Doctor of Criminal Justice program. Before starting the doctoral program, the author served in the Corporation for National and Community Service’s (CNCS) FEMA Corps and AmeriCorps VISTA programs. Epifanio recently developed and taught a course on resilience in public safety for Mary Baldwin University’s undergraduate criminal justice program. Upon completion of graduate work, the author plans to pursue further research on mental health among public safety practitioners. Erin can be reached at 55 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION EVOLVE AND ADAPT ANTHONY TATMAN, PH.D. CRITICAL HIRE, PLC THREE ASSESSMENTS THAT WILL HELP CORRECTIONAL AGENCIES HIRE TOP PERFORMERS 56 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 3 EVOLVE AND ADAPT & Hunter, 1998; Schmidt, Oh, Shaffer, 2016; Tatman, 2020a, 2020b; Tatman & Huss, 2020; Wanek, 1999). The pre-employment testing field is flood- ed with tests advertised as being measures of integrity. However, most of these instruments have not been assessed by research published in peer-reviewed journals and, importantly, have not been empirically validated for use with cor- rectional officer applicants. This scientific valida- tion process is important for correctional agencies that want to use pre-employment measures like integrity tests. In 1978, the U.S. Equal Employ- ment Opportunity Commission adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Proce- dure (UGESP) (1978), which provides guidelines for the proper use of tests and other employee selection procedures. Based on the UGESP, se- lection procedures such as integrity testing must show empirical evidence for the instrument’s or process’s validity, reliability, and applicability for correctional officer applicants. This is important for correctional agencies choosing to use pre-em- ployment tests because it says that an instrument used by an agency for employee selection must show empirical evidence that it measures what it is supposed to measure (i.e., validity), is consis- tent in that measurement (i.e., reliability), and has empirically developed norms specific for correc- tional officers (i.e., applicability). Many vendors of integrity tests conduct validation studies by administering tests with a pre-determined group of high performers from the buyer’s agency. Vendors would then gener- ate average scale scores, or ranges of scores, based on this optimal employee sample. Future applicants would then be compared against this set of “in-house” norms. Although this method of validation is quite common in the field, it typical- ly has a limitation of having a very small sample size from which to generalize conclusions for the rest of the organization. Concerns should be raised, for example, if future employees are rat- ed and compared with only a few high perform- ers in the agency. For generalizations to have reliability and scientific credibility, they must be generated from an adequate sample size and be representative of the larger organization (i.e., In regard to the financial impact alone, the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that replacing a poor performer can cost 30% of that employee’s potential first-year earnings (Fatemi, 2016). With the average annual salary for probation and correctional officers ranging between $43,540 and $56,630 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018), the cost to replace a poor performer could fall between $13,062 and $16,989 for each officer. These amounts, however, could dramatically increase with add- ed direct costs such as legal fees and settlement costs or indirect costs such as the lost productiv- ity, strained morale, and fractured public trust often associated with turnover and terminations. Hiring poor performers can be quite costly on many levels. Fortunately for correctional agencies, a variety of pre-employment testing tools that sig- nificantly predict problematic workplace behav- iors have been developed and carefully studied, resulting in an extensive body of research liter- ature. Use of these empirically validated tools could increase the hiring agency’s chances of finding top performers. This article will discuss three unique types of pre-employment testing tools that will be greatly beneficial to correction- al agencies during the hiring process. Assessment 1 - Integrity Pre-employment tests of integrity are one of the most widely used types of tests for predicting future workplace problems (Fine, Horowitz, Weigler, & Basis, 2010). This widespread use is due to their relative ease of use and the amount of empirical research strongly supporting their efficacy. Research has found integrity tests to be valid predictors of a variety of workplace problems such as theft, tardiness, property damage, rule-breaking, violence, and absenteeism (Nicol & Paunonen, 2002; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 1993; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Schmidt, 2003) Integrity tests have also repeatedly been identified as being highly accurate in predicting future job performance (Berry, Sackett & Wiemann, 2007; Fine, 2013; Jones, Cunningham, & Dages, 2010; Marcus, Ashton, & Lee, 2013; Schmidt 57 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION EVOLVE AND ADAPT age, gender, race/ethnicity). Furthermore, for a test to show adequate validity multiple studies or sources are needed, representing a trend of find- ings as opposed to a single analysis from a sin- gle agency (Tippins, Sackett, & Oswald, 2018). Integrity Test Resources for Correctional Agencies Based on the UGESP criteria for pre-em- ployment testing, an extensive search for integ- rity tests with multiple published validation stud- ies, and normative data for correctional officers was conducted. Two integrity tests were found that met these criteria for use in law enforcement and/or correctional settings: The Vangent Reid Public Safety Report (RPSR; Ash, 1971, 1986; Brooks & Arnold, 1989; Cunningham, 1997; Kamp, 1989; Vangent, Inc., 2008) and Critical Hire-Screen (CH-S; Tatman, 2020a; 2020b; Tat- man & Huss, 2019; 2020). The RPSR uses over 260 self-admission questions (e.g., Have you taken money from work without permission?) to measure factors such as integrity, conscientious- ness, dishonesty, criminal history, substance use, absenteeism, and other problematic work-related behaviors. The CH-S uses 107 questions to mea- sure factors such as work and criminal history, honesty, substance use, theft, problems with au- thority, personal responsibility, and propensity for rule violations and deception. The CH-S uses both self-admission questions (e.g., How many times have you taken money from your employ- er?) and core-belief questions (e.g., It is okay to use illegal drugs at work if it doesn’t cause safe- ty problems.). Assessment 2 - Personality Although your applicants may present well during a 30- to 60-minute interview, what is their true, boots on the ground, “how do you respond when stressed” personality like? They may have sound integrity (Assessment 1) but be cold, distant, aggressive, closed- minded, impulsive, or otherwise present with personality traits that may not mesh well with job demands, their peers, and/or your agency. Tests of personality, particularly personality tests using the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM) (Wiggins, 1996), are highly predictive of future workplace problems (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Behling, 1998; Furnham & Fudge, 2008; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Mount & Barrick, 1995; Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998; Oh & Berry, 2009; Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011; Ones, Dilchert, Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007; Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003; Salgado, 2002; Tett & Christiansen, 2007; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). The five factors measured in the FFM include Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experiences, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Traits such as Neuroticism and Conscientiousness are highly predictive across many job settings, while traits such as Agreeableness, Openness, and Extraversion are more job dependent in their predictive ability (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Judge & Ilies, 2002). Salgado’s (2003) meta-analysis also found that FFM-consistent inventories significantly outperformed non-FFM based inventories in predicting future job performance, supporting correctional agencies application of FFM- consistent inventories when measuring applicant personality traits. Personality Test Resources for Correctional Agencies The NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO- PI-3; Costa & McCrae, 2010) is arguably the most well-known and researched personality assessment using the FFM that is available. The NEO-PI-3 provides users with information on five large personality factors and 30 subscales or facets of personality. The Critical Hire-Personality Assessment (CH-PA; Tatman, 2019, 2020c) is another personality measure available to correctional agencies that uses the FFM as its theoretical foundation. The CH-PA provides users with five large scales and 17 subscales of personality. While the NEO PI-3 must involve a psychologist for interpretation, the CH-PA does not require a psychologist to administer. The California Personality Inventory (CPI; Gough & Bradley, 1996) is also a well- known and researched measure of personality used in pre-employment evaluations. Although it does not follow the FFM, it is well respected in the field for providing a valid, reliable, and comprehensive measure of applicant 58 PERSPECTIVES VOLUME 45, NUMBER 3 EVOLVE AND ADAPT personality. The CPI has 18 scales of personality and requires a psychologist to administer. Assessment 3 – Psychological Health As you have moved along in the above assessment process you have identified applicants who have sound integrity and a personality fitting for the job. However, do they have the mental stability or psychological health needed for the job? Can they handle the pressure and stress of correctional work? Do they have a psychological condition (e.g., Antisocial Personality Disorder, psychotic disorder, or Intermittent Explosive Disorder) that might hinder their ability to perform the essential functions of the job or cause a significant liability if they were hired to work with high- risk individuals on probation or parole or with incarcerated individuals? The application of psychological tests in law enforcement and correctional settings dates to 1917 (Terman et. al., 1917). Subsequent research has been extensive, repeatedly showing adequate reliability and validity for the application of psychological tests with law enforcement and correctional officers (Sellbom, Fischler, Ben- Porath, 2007; Shusman & Inwald, 1991; Shusman, Inwald, Landa, 1984; Simmers, Bowers, Ruiz, 2003; Tarescavage et al., 2015). Currently, over 90% of law enforcement agencies in the U.S. use psychological testing in their hiring process (Roufa, 2019), with some states codifying the use of psychological testing for law enforcement officer applicants. Based on this longstanding use and rich empirical history, correctional agencies would likely find great value in implementing psychological testing into their existing hiring processes. Agencies should take note, however, that courts have ruled that psychological assessment measures used in pre-employment evaluations are medical tests (Griffin v Steeltek, Inc., 1997; Karraker v Rent-A-Center, 2003). Therefore, psychological tests must be administered after a conditional offer of employment has been given, making psychological tests the final step in the hiring process. Psychological Test Resources for Correctional Agencies Although there are hundreds of personality tests available today, relatively few have met the UGESP’s criteria of having empirical evidence on the reliability, validity, and applicability for their use with correctional officer applicants. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Format (MMPI-2-RF; Ben- Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011) and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) (Morey, 2007) are three of the most well-known, respected, and researched measures of psychological traits meeting UGESP criteria for law enforcement and correctional applicants. All psychological tests require a psychologist to interpret. Putting It All Together Most correctional officer hiring processes involve an initial screening to ensure the applicant meets minimum qualifications (e.g., age and education level), followed by interviews and then criminal and employment background checks. Although interviews are part of the standard hiring protocol and generate valuable information, they have limitations. Have you ever hired a person only to later realize that their attitude, personality, and beliefs were wildly different than what they presented in the interview? Interviews offer a brief snapshot in time of the applicant under controlled conditions. It is natural and expected for applicants to closely monitor the content and context of their responses while in an interview situation. However, this controlled environment does not provide a venue or opportunity for the hiring agency to see true, underlying personality traits and belief systems. Criminal history checks are also a common and valuable step in the hiring process but are also limited in that they can be hard to compile if the applicant lived in multiple states and may or may not shed light on actual criminal behavior. A study from the University of Cincinnati found that, while 64% of small businesses they studied experienced 59 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION EVOLVE AND ADAPT employee theft, only 16% of those businesses reported the incident to police despite the amount stolen averaging $20,000.00 (Brooks, 2014). Agencies should also remember that criminal background checks only capture charges at a certain level of severity, frequently excluding misdemeanors or “lesser” crimes. Employment background checks are also a staple in the hiring process, but they also have significant limitations for the hiring agency. Most employers will only give an individual’s start and/or end date during an employment reference call and will intentionally leave out any poor or worse job performance due to fear of defamation and/or lawsuits. Including tests of integrity into the hiring process could help hiring agencies measure the applicant’s underlying core beliefs connected with various counterproductive work behaviors such as theft, violence, or illegal drug use that would otherwise go undetected or unnoticed during the hiring process. Personality tests help provide unique information to the process by sharing how the person will likely interact with others around them, approach their work, and fit in with the hiring agency. Lastly, tests of psychological adjustment help answer the final question about their mental stability and degree to which they can emotionally cope with the stressors of correctional work, adding yet another unique component to the hiring process. Implementation Considerations When considering what test(s) to integrate into an existing hiring process, accuracy, cost, and convenience are three key factors many agencies initially consider. All the tests provided above have documented accuracy but differ in terms of cost and convenience. For example, the NEO PI-R and CPI require a licensed psychologist to administer, which considerably increases the cost and time needed to complete these assessments. The CH-PA, on the other hand, is administered on-line and has a listed price of $25 per report, making it relatively easy for hiring agencies to administer at a nominal cost. In addition to questions about cost and convenience, there are a handful of valuable questions hiring agencies can ask test vendors to ensure they are receiving a product that meets legal requirement, has been evaluated with scientific scrutiny, and meets their professional needs. Below are a few example questions that hiring agencies can ask vendors to better determine what test is right for their needs and purpose. • If the test is administered online, is the platform HIPPA compliant? If not HIPPA compliant, how does the vendor ensure security of test and applicant information? • Does the vendor offer in-person consulta- tion regarding the test results? • Are there peer-reviewed, published ar- ticles documenting the tool’s reliability, validity, and predictive accuracy? • Does the test have any documentation on whether or not it contributes to discrimina- tion based on age, race or gender? • Has the test ever been challenged in court? If so, what was the result? • Can this test be administered prior to a conditional offer being made? • What is the normative sample for this test? What group(s) are the scores based on (e.g., correctional officers, business executives, college students)? Hiring top performers is difficult, regardless of the profession. Integrating these three tests into an evidenced-based, standardized hiring process could help correctional agencies increase their odds at hiring top-performing correctional officers.Next >