|
Suffolk guards stumble on promotion exams
Failing grades for 69 percent
By Francie Latour, Globe Staff, 6/05/2001
 fter Suffolk County Sheriff Richard J. Rouse implemented written promotional exams for guards for the first time last year, results from the tests show that more than two-thirds of the guards seeking to become supervisors failed to pass.
Of 260 officers who took exams to become sergeants or lieutenants, 69 percent failed the tests, according to scores released to the Boston Globe under the Freedom of Information Act. Lieutenants had to correctly answer 70 of 100 questions to pass; sergeants needed 65 of 100 correct answers to pass.
In comparison, scores from similar exams in Essex County show nearly three-quarters of officers seeking sergeant and lieutenant ranks passed, with 73 percent scoring 70 or higher last year. In 1997, the first year Essex officers took the test, 77 percent of officers passed.
According to Community Resources for Justice, a private, nonprofit criminal justice group that created the tests for both counties, the exams were designed to test basic knowledge of the employee policy manual given to guards when they are hired. The tests were written at a high-school reading comprehension level.
According to several Suffolk officers, a sample question asked which division to contact when reporting routine inmate counts -- a question many guards missed because the procedure Suffolk supervisors use is not the procedure outlined in the manual.
Rouse's department, which has come under intense criticism for tolerating systemic abuse and low standards, would not release copies of the test, saying it intends to use the same exam again. Citing personnel privacy, the department last week also declined to release information about the educational backgrounds or professional training of employees holding key positions.
Asked about the test results, Richard M. Lombardi, spokesman for Rouse, said: "From talking to the vendor, these test scores were not unexpected. This was the first time out of the box. My conversations indicate most test-takers did very well where basic knowledge was asked on their level of expertise. We may have a concern if the scores don't improve on the second round."
But some city leaders and critics of the department said the scores suggest a far different portrait of Suffolk guards than that offered by Rouse, who has called his officers "among the best-trained professionals anywhere in the country."
Boston City Council President Charles C. Yancey said yesterday that while he had not seen the tests, "I will say that we have to strive for the highest standards in all sectors of government. If the test results are accurate, I think it does raise legitimate issues about how well-trained our officers are, and obviously that has to be corrected, quickly."
Yancey is set to meet with Rouse this week to discuss the sheriff's operations following a two-month Globe investigation into Rouse's department. No matter what the result of the meeting, Yancey said, the council would almost certainly call for hearings.
A three-part series published in the Globe May 23-25 reported that sexual abuse of female inmates and beatings of male inmates by guards were more widespread than the department previously acknowledged. The report also documented that Rouse logged just 16 hours of work at his offices over a six-day period last month.
"The fact that that many correction officers scored so poorly just underscores the management issues that that prison seems to endure," said Leslie Walker, executive director of Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, which works on behalf of inmates.
The promotional exams, taken in October and January, marked the first time Suffolk guards took written tests for promotion.
Jack Sullivan, president of Local 419, said union members had lobbied for the tests in the latest round of contract negotiations as a safeguard against politically-driven promotions.
"We wanted the best person for the job to get the promotion, and I think this goes a long way toward that," Sullivan said. Asked about the scores, Sullivan said the tests were designed to weed out the majority of test-takers.
"This was our first round. You've got a lot of officers that have never taken a test [like this] before," said Sullivan. "Maybe you'll see some changes the second time around."
According to Lombardi, Rouse's spokesman, the written portion of the test counts for 50 percent of the total assessment for officers seeking promotion. The other half is based on job performance and interviews with department managers under Rouse.
Captains are still promoted at Rouse's discretion after oral interviews with a committee of his managers, Lombardi said. According to Paul Fleming, spokesman for the Essex County Sheriff's Department, written tests for captain began this year.
Suffolk County tests for promotion to corporals, a rank just above entry-level guards, but with no supervision duties. In those tests, 55 percent of officers passed.
Susan Jenness, director of standards and quality assurance at Community Resources for Justice, described the tests for sergeant and lieutenant for both counties as similar in degree of difficulty and format, and based on similar correction policy manuals used by each county.
"I would say you're looking at basic knowledge," said Jenness, who specializes in corrections accreditation policy. "How you're dealing with inmates, proper procedures, just basic knowledge kinds of questions."
Last week, Rouse hand-picked a Dorchester minister and a corrections specialist to lead a review of his department.
But both leaders, the Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III and American Correctional Association executive director James A. Gondles Jr., have direct or indirect financial ties to Rouse's department, and critics have called instead for a special prosecutor, or a commission akin to the St. Clair Commission that led to an overhaul of the Boston Police Department in the early `90s.
This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 6/05/2001.
© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
