County Probes Peace Officer Psychologist : Job Testing: A report questions the practices of the nationally renowned applicant evaluator, and his job is at stake for the first time in 10 years.

Michael R. Mantell, who has built a national reputation as a police psychologist and all but cornered that market in the San Diego area, is under investigation by county authorities seeking to determine whether he adequately tested applicants for law enforcement jobs.

An interim report prepared by the county Civil Service Commission questions several key aspects of Mantell’s psychological evaluations, including whether he conducted only brief interviews with some peace officer candidates and submitted evaluations containing identical language for different individuals.

The inquiry has already prompted county officials to require Mantell to conduct interviews of at least 30 minutes with peace officer applicants and to agree to unannounced inspections of his Mission Valley testing office.

Despite the questions raised by the investigation, the county last month granted Mantell, 41, a new one-year contract to screen peace officer applicants--primarily because he cut the price of his psychological evaluations from $160 to $110 apiece. The reduction will save the cash-starved county about $28,000 annually relative to the prices offered by other bidders.

Deanna Spehn, chairwoman of the Civil Service Commission, said the investigation also raises “significant” questions about the county Department of Human Resources’ oversight of Mantell’s work and the process that allowed him to receive a new contract in the midst of the inquiry. Spehn is conducting the inquiry and wrote the Dec. 6 interim report.

Mantell defended his work in a lengthy interview with The Times last week, suggesting that the investigation may have been prompted by other therapists who are envious of his local domination of the field of police psychology.

“The bottom line is the quality of our decisions, not the length of time I spend doing interviews,” Mantell said.

The timing of the county investigation couldn’t be worse for Mantell: For the first time in 10 years, his contract as psychologist for the San Diego Police Department has been put out to bid, allowing the first open competition for a program that has become the mainstay of the prominent psychologist’s livelihood. The contract is currently valued at $235,000 for Mantell, two associate psychologists, office rent, secretaries and other costs.

City and Police Department officials stressed that they are very satisfied with Mantell’s performance as a psychotherapist for police officers, trainer at the Police Academy and evaluator of police officer candidates. They said the decision to put the contract out to bid should not be interpreted as unhappiness with Mantell, who was invited to apply again for the position.

“After 10 years, I think it’s time we make sure that we’re getting the best possible service at the lowest possible price,” Assistant City Manager Jack McGrory said.

For more than 10 years, Mantell’s professional activities as a police psychologist have been unblemished. In fact, he earned national recognition as a leader in the field after establishing the San Diego Police Department program and helping officers traumatized by the 1984 McDonald’s massacre in San Ysidro.

He has parlayed his credentials into contracts with San Diego County and smaller cities, such as Escondido and Coronado. He has worked with agencies in Imperial County, with the U. S. Customs Service and also maintained his small private practice. His county contract to conduct about 700 psychological evaluations of candidates for deputy sheriff, probation officer and marshal positions amounts to more than $70,000 this year.

Spehn may be the first official to formally raise serious questions about Mantell’s performance. She said the investigation does not involve Russell Gold, Mantell’s partner in the county psychological evaluation contract from 1986 to 1989.

The county Civil Service investigation began in October, 1988, when probation officer applicant John Arnold complained in a handwritten letter to the commission that he was forced to take the test in Mantell’s “uncomfortable” and dimly lit waiting room. Moreover, Arnold complained, his interview lasted just five minutes and came during the middle of the testing process. Arnold, who failed Mantell’s evaluation, could not be reached for comment.

Civil Service Commission staff members telephoned about 10 other candidates and received some similar responses, Spehn said. They subsequently asked the county’s human resources department to survey applicants. The surveys showed that 43% of the applicants had some complaint about the testing environment.

The commission has also received several letters regarding the psychological tests. “The total time I spent with (Mantell) in his office was perhaps five minutes,” wrote one applicant for a position in the county Sheriff’s Department, who failed the psychological exam administered by Mantell.

One local psychologist who contracts to handle appeals from county applicants who fail psychological evaluations conducted by Mantell said that most, if not all, of the approximately 50 candidates he has retested in the past three years said that Mantell gave them interviews that were no more than 10 minutes in length.

The psychologist, who has submitted a bid to win the city psychological services contract from Mantell, would speak to The Times only if his name was not used.

Spehn said she has also obtained test reports submitted by Mantell that contain sections of identical language for different peace officer candidates. She refused to provide the reports to The Times, identify how she obtained them or say how many samples she has.

Spehn said her Dec. 6 report will be followed by a final report that will answer many of the concerns she has identified.

“The investigation is still ongoing and the final report is not yet completed,” she said. “Ultimately, the commission will decide what’s going to happen, and they haven’t heard anything more beyond this interim report.

“I would say that since the average investigation lasts no more than usually a couple of months, it’s fair to say that since this has been going on since October of 1988, it’s a concern to the commission. This is significant. It’s a complicated issue.”

Spehn wrote in her report that she wants to know why Mantell was “allowed to submit computerized reports rather than original individualized reports” and why, “in light of past problems with Dr. Mantell, why was he again awarded the contract.”

In a 2 1/2-hour interview last week, Mantell defended the quality of his work for both the city and the county, noting that a survey of his clients and the performances of county peace officers prove his competence at deciding who is psychologically fit for duty.

Mantell vigorously defended his report-writing and interview process, denying that anyone received a five-minute interview.

“I wouldn’t do that to anybody,” Mantell said. “I wouldn’t make a decision that lightly on someone’s career. I wouldn’t make a decision that’s going to affect the safety of someone on the street like that.

“Some (police) departments don’t even have face-to-face interviews. But we have the luxury of being able to do that.”

Mantell also said that human resources officials did not require a written report on each evaluation until mid-1989, an assertion confirmed by Ethel Chastain, director of the county department. “They wanted a simple written statement with a pass or fail,” he said. Lengthy reports “weren’t part of what was required. It wasn’t necessary. They didn’t ask for it.”

Experts in the field of evaluating law enforcement candidates who were contacted by The Times offered a range of opinions on the need for lengthy interviews with applicants and individualized, rather than computer-generated, reports.

Robin Inwald, a New York City-based author of testing guidelines adopted by the psychological services section of the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, said that “research, including my own research, has shown the tests to be better predictors of later job performance” than interviews. She said, however, that thorough psychological screening interviews generally last 25 to 40 minutes. Inwald has designed a standardized screening test and sells it to various law enforcement agencies.

Katherine Ellison, a New Jersey consultant to law enforcement agencies for 17 years, said interviews are of no value in assessing fitness for duty as a peace officer.

“I don’t think a psychological interview is useful, even if it’s six days long,” she said.

Chastain defended the county’s oversight of the program.

“There were not a lot of complaints,” Chastain said. “Hundreds and hundreds of people go through this. And a lot of the complaints were minor ones.”

But she said the previous contract was written in such a “broad, general nature” that there were no strict requirements for Mantell on how he provided psychological services.

Mantell said it is unfair to criticize him for not performing tasks that were not demanded by the previous county contract, which ran from 1986 to 1989.

He said he willingly complied with changes demanded by the human resources department, despite his belief that some are unnecessary. Mantell’s new contract, awarded Feb. 21, requires him to personally conduct 70% to 80% of the expected 700 to 800 screenings; interview applicants for a minimum of 30 minutes each; submit individualized, one-page written reports within five days, and allow unannounced visits to his office.

“We’re monitoring it to the letter, to the hilt,” Chastain said. “That’s what we’re doing, and he’ll have to meet these new standards. If he does not, his contract will be terminated.”