Last year's unrest following the fatal injury of Freddie Gray in police custody threw a spotlight on how officers interact with residents of poor and minority communities. Law enforcement is a high-stress, people-intensive profession, and the last thing cities like Baltimore need is police officers who can't handle the work responsibly. That is why the city made the right call this week when it terminated its contract with the firm hired to screen police recruits for psychological or emotional problems following reports that its work in many cases fell short of what the job required.

As The Sun's Alison Knezevich reported this month, the mental health screenings conducted for many prospective Baltimore police officers by the Lutherville-based firm Psychology Consultants were significantly shorter than required by its contract. Of the more than 500 officers and trainees interviewed by the city Office of Inspector General, nearly three-quarters said their pre-employment screenings lasted 30 minutes or less, and nearly three dozen reported screenings lasting 15 minutes or less. The contract stipulated that screenings should be at least an hour long for each job candidate.

Experts say the purpose of such evaluations is not to identify deep-seated psychological problems or personality disorders that require medical intervention. It's rare for even poorly performing applicants to be mentally ill. Rather, the interviews are intended to screen out applicants who are ill suited for law-enforcement work because they exhibit counterproductive behaviors such as a lack of initiative, inability to follow rules, argumentativeness, untrustworthiness and over-aggressiveness. The screenings are also intended to identify recruits who may abuse alcohol or drugs.

Police commanders are wary of such individuals because they don't want to invest time and resources in hiring, training, and fielding an officer unless they are reasonably certain that he or she will be effective on the job, won't pose a danger to the public or other officers, and won't create a liability for the department by engaging in excessive use of force or other misconduct that could result in civil or criminal charges. The screening process varies from agency to agency but usually consists of two main components: A battery of standardized psychological tests for the applicant to fill out, then an interview with a certified clinical psychologist covering such issues as background, work history, lifestyles and any problems an applicant may be experiencing. Based on the test results and the interview, the psychologist assesses the applicant's suitability for police work and forwards it to the officials responsible for hiring.

The psychological evaluation is just one element of a multifaceted hiring process that can also include a basic abilities test, a thorough background investigation, a credit check, a polygraph exam, physical abilities testing and medical screening, all of which aim to help departments hire the best people for the job. But that can't happen if the psychological screenings are short-circuited by interviewers who don't take the time to thoroughly assess applicants' fitness for duty.

Granted, even an hourlong interview may not allow enough time for a psychologist to identify every potential emotional or behavioral problem that could adversely affect an applicant's ability to handle the stresses of police work. But Baltimore clearly needs to take the process more seriously than the lax attitude its former testing firm apparently exhibited.

Most Baltimore City police officers carry out their duties with honesty, integrity and empathy for the people they are sworn to serve and protect. But even one or two bad apples can taint the public's perception of the entire force. The city can't risk that happening. Baltimore needs to do everything it can to make sure that people who can't meet the high moral and ethical standards demanded by police work never get to put on