|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Training Needs Assessment
Assessing the training needs of agency personnel does not have to be a complicated process requiring the use of expensive consultants. By following a few basic steps, any agency can conduct its own training needs assessment and produce valuable training information for revising and creating training courses.
The Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training (DOCJT) recently completed a statewide assessment of law enforcement in-service training needs. Presently, the DOCJT is in the planning stage for a statewide assessment of telecommunications in-service training needs, utilizing the same procedures, as the law enforcement needs assessment.
The process involves:
1. Creating focus groups to provide a master list of training needs. 2. Compiling the training needs into survey form to be sent out to those agencies that participate in the training. 3. Prioritizing the list of training needs according to the survey results.
Creating Focus GroupsThe size and number of focus groups will vary depending on the size of the training population and area. The Docjt conducts training on a statewide basis, providing training to over 8,000 law enforcement officers. This requires dividing the state in 11 regions to achieve proper representation of training needs. This takes into account the possibility of training needs varying from one part of the state to the other. For the assessment of telecommunications training needs, telecommunications instructional staff decided the state should be divided into four regions (East, Central, West Central, and West). Two focus group sessions, at different locations, will be scheduled per region to ensure proper representation.
This philosophy applies to the training needs of any size agency that conducts its own training. The training needs of one area of an agency’s jurisdiction may be different than that of another area. Just as the DOCJT divided the state into 11 regions, an agency may have to divide its jurisdiction into smaller areas to ensure proper representation of training needs.
After the training area has been subdivided, the next step is the determination of subject or disciplines in which to categorize the training needs. For the law enforcement in-service needs assessment, seven different disciplines were used (Administration, Investigation, Management, Patrol, Sheriffs, Supervision, and Traffic), which is also how the In-Service Training Branch categorizes its training. A focus group was then created for each of the disciplines.
For the telecommunications needs assessment, three disciplines are being considered (In-Service, Supervision, and Communications Training Officer). The important thing to remember is to create disciplines that make sense to training personnel. Input from training personnel in the creation of the disciplines is important because they are the ones who have to take the results of the assessment and apply them to training courses.
The next step is to categorize the training population according to its attributes. For the law enforcement needs assessment, agencies were categorized according to agency type. The agency type classifications were municipal, county, state, sheriff’s office, airport police, and university police. The municipal, county, and sheriff’s offices were then further categorized according to the number of sworn personnel, using the following breakdown:
Small agencies 1-9 Medium agencies 10-25 Large agencies 26 and greater
The majority of law enforcement agencies in Kentucky are municipal, county, or sheriff’s departments. Utilizing the small, medium, and large agency categories ensured the proper representation of all agencies in the focus groups.
This same process can be used by agencies that conduct their own training. For example, instead of using agencies as a source for focus group participants, as the DOCJT did, a police agency training academy could use the different bureaus or sections within the agency (i.e.-patrol, detectives, traffic, community services, etc.). Another approach would be to create a focus group comprised of supervisors from different bureaus or sections for a combined Supervision/Management discipline. The key is to ensure proper representation of all agency personnel so that the master list of training needs is all-inclusive.
Agency heads were then contacted to send representatives to the focus group meetings. Seven meetings were simultaneously scheduled per region. Each agency head received an explanation of the purpose of the needs assessment, and they were asked to send one or more representatives to each of the seven focus group meetings. The only stipulations were that the representatives had to be experienced in the particular discipline and they could only attend one focus group meeting. This last stipulation was necessary because all seven focus groups would meet at the same time.
The focus group meetings were held in each region and were scheduled for a maximum of three hours. Two DOCJT staff served as facilitators. The facilitators were responsible for ensuring that the focus groups remained on task. Also, they were aware that statements made by them regarding training needs could have an influence on the training needs identified by the focus groups. Therefore, the facilitators made every effort to encourage discussion of training needs without becoming a part of the discussion.
Flipcharts were provided for each group. The groups were instructed to discuss the training needs of their particular discipline and compile a list using the flipchart. They were also instructed to be specific, and to consider any training need regardless of cost or whether it had been previously addressed by the DOCJT. Once they had exhausted all ideas, they were excused. The flipchart lists were then taken by a DOCJT staff member to be entered into an Access database.
Compiling the Training NeedsThe eleven focus group sessions were conducted from July to September 2001, resulting in over 800 training needs being entered into the database. The Access database was simple in design. Four fields were created, (Topic, Training Need, Discipline, and Region). The Topic field allowed staff to further group training needs so that similar needs could be combined. The actual training needs listed on the flipcharts were entered into the Training Need field. The corresponding discipline for each training need was entered in the Discipline field and the number of the region where the focus group session was held was entered in the Region field.
Now began the process of eliminating duplicate needs and combining similar needs. The over 800 training needs were trimmed to a much more manageable 388. These 388 training needs became the basis for the training needs survey that was sent to all agencies that regularly send officers to DOCJT in-service training.
The survey instrument categorized the 388 training needs into the same seven disciplines. Each agency received just one survey and the agency head was asked to distribute the survey among agency personnel for their input. In this way, people who would attend the training had a voice in the development of the training, and there would be reliance on the expertise of the practitioners, just as in the focus groups.
The survey requested a rating be given to each training need. The rating choices were No Need, Some Need, and Great Need. The surveys were then returned to the DOCJT for analysis.
Prioritizing the List of Training NeedsFifty-three percent (53%) of the agencies responded to the survey. The method for prioritizing the training needs was quite simple. A scoring system used by training consultant Donald L. Kirkpatrick was used.1 Each rating choice was assigned a different value. No Need was assigned 0 points; Some Need was assigned 1 point; and Great Need was assigned 2 points. Each training need was then assigned a score based on the average of all the responses. This average score was then used to rank the training needs in order of importance relative to the other training needs within the discipline. Research staff used SPSS software to analyze the information, but the analysis can also be done with Microsoft Access or Excel.
A booklet was created for each discipline, detailing the results of the survey. The booklets were divided into four sections:
1. A brief summary of the survey; 2. Table 1: Training Needs-Statewide Highest to Lowest Means; 3. Table 2: Training Needs-Statewide Highest to Lowest Means-Means By Region; and 4. Maps: Training Needs-Statewide Highest to Lowest Means-All Regions.
Table 1 shows the ranking of each training need in the Traffic discipline, on a statewide basis, from the highest mean to the lowest mean. Table 2 shows the ranking of the same training needs, by region, from highest to lowest. Each map in the Maps Section shows the score for each Traffic discipline training need by region in comparison to the overall statewide score.
The use of tables and maps makes it easier for instructional staff to better understand how the training needs not only relate to each other on a statewide basis but also how they rank on a regional basis. This also allows instructional staff to tailor training to specific areas, if need be. Due to the large number of training needs, DOCJT In-Service staff are presently only considering those training needs which received a 1.0 (Some Need) or higher. Staff is also documenting training needs that are addressed in existing courses. Training needs that are not addressed will be considered for addition to existing courses or the basis for new courses.
This training needs assessment is intended to provide a road map for in-service training for the next 3 to 5 years. The results of such an extensive examination of training needs on a statewide basis will produce a tremendous amount of information that cannot be condensed into just a year or two of in-service training courses. Another factor to consider is the length of time it takes to develop new courses and instructor training.
We believe this method for assessing training needs is not only more scientific and reliable than previous methods, but also provides an excellent avenue for law enforcement agencies and individual officers to actively participate in the development of their training.
1. Kirkpatrick, Donald L. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 2nd Edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, 1998, pp.4-7.
|
|
|
David R.
Hobson is the Executive Staff Advisor, Staff Services and Planning Section of
the Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training. David is the CALEA
Accreditation Manager for this agency and has been a CALEA Assessor since 1999.
He was a member of CALEA’s Standards for Public Safety Training Academies
Advisory Board. David holds a Master’s degree in Criminal Justice and a
Bachelor’s degree in Police Administration from Eastern Kentucky University.
This paper will be used as the basis for the training session David will present
at the Portland (OR) Conference