|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David R. Hobson is Principal Assistant to the Commissioner and the Accreditation Manager at DOCJT. He holds B.S. and M.A. degrees from Eastern Kentucky University and has been an instructor at DOCJT. David currently supervises the Staff Services and Planning Section and the Multimedia Technology Section. He was a member of the CALEA Standards for PSTAA Advisory Committee and has been a CALEA assessor since 1999.
The Department of Criminal Justice TrainingThe Department of Criminal Justice Training (DOCJT) is a state agency in the Kentucky Justice Cabinet, located on the campus of Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky, and is responsible for training law enforcement personnel across the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Those receiving training include law enforcement officers from municipal, county, sheriff, university, airport and state law enforcement agencies, as well as telecommunicators and coroners.
The DOCJT is comprised of the Commissioner’s Office and three divisions—Administrative, Training Support and Training Operations and employs approximately 200 employees, including full-time instructors and support staff. Training provided includes both basic and in-service level training for law enforcement officers, telecommunicators, and coroners.
The CALEA ConnectionPrior to his appointment in 1996 as Commissioner of the DOCJT, Dr. John W. Bizzack, a Lexington Police commander, also served as the accreditation manager for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Division of Police in Lexington, Kentucky. Dr. Bizzack served as a CALEA assessor for many years as well.
Realizing the importance of accreditation, one of Dr. Bizzack’s first priorities was for the DOCJT to become certified under CALEA’s Training Certification Program. This was accomplished in 1998 and the DOCJT was re-certified in 2001. The training certification process required compliance with 64 standards, but was intended for police agencies with internal training academies and not statewide or regional full-service public safety training academies. Many of these training facilities requested a more comprehensive accreditation process for public safety training academies.
Since 1999, CALEA had been developing an accreditation program specifically for public safety training academies. CALEA established the Public Safety Training Academy Accreditation (PSTAA) Advisory Committee, comprised of law enforcement training professionals, including representatives of the American Society for Law Enforcement Training (ASLET) and the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST), to develop standards. CALEA Commissioners approved the PSTAA Program at the San Diego Conference in November 2001. Preparation for the PSTAA On-SiteWith a target date for an on-site in 2002, the preparation for the PSTAA program actually began in October 2001. The first item that needed to be addressed was the establishment of an accreditation team. We wanted the team to be comprised of a cross-section of agency employees, as well as being of sufficient number to handle the workload of researching and providing proofs of compliance.
The Accreditation Team An accreditation team was not utilized during the certification process in 1997. This was due in part to the small number of standards (64) that we had to comply with as well as the relatively small number of employees (70) at the agency at that time. It was a full-time operation for one person, the certification manager. The certification manager did the majority of the research, requesting assistance from a small number of employees to research proofs of compliance in such areas as personnel matters. The certification manager did all of the file work.
Due to the greater number of standards (182) in the PSTAA program and a self-imposed deadline for an on-site in December 2002, it was impossible for one person to do all of the work. With the expanded number of employees now working at the DOCJT, it was feasible to create the accreditation team.
After a thorough explanation of the CALEA accreditation process was presented to them, each of the three division directors was asked to provide employees from their respective divisions to serve on the accreditation team. The only prerequisites were that they were to be knowledgeable of their division’s operations and have the capabilities to research and file proofs of compliance. Accreditation team members were also selected from the Commissioner’s Office.
The parts of a standard Standard types Bulleted standards Written directives Examples of proofs of compliance ISSR’s
Development of the Tracking Database While accreditation team members were being trained, a database for tracking proofs of compliance and standards was being developed by Mr. Jerry Belcher, Research and Planning Advisor. Due to the fact that the PSTAA standards were still in draft form and CALEA had not yet developed ASAP software for the training program had not been developed for the standards, it was necessary for the DOCJT to develop its own tracking system. The draft standards were replaced with the final version when they were released in early 2002.
The system utilized to track and store the data necessary for the process was a Microsoft Access database developed by Mr. Belcher and is presently being utilized in accreditation maintenance. The database, a typical Access database, uses several tables for storing data, including standards text and commentary, bullet text, proofs of compliance and notes. Pop-up forms are also used to enter information in the different tables.
Some of the reports generated by the database include ISSR’s, the standards pages, and the agency self-assessment log. One important feature of the database is a table and data entry form to track time-sensitive standards. It is designed to automatically enter the next due date for necessary proofs of compliance, based on the date a proof was last received.
The database also features hyperlinks to the Kentucky Revised Statutes, Kentucky Administrative Regulations and the Kentucky Personnel Cabinet web sites. These sites contained many of the written directives that were used as proofs of compliance. The database has proven to be a vital and necessary tool for the DOCJT during the accreditation process.
Compiling the Proofs of Compliance The division directors were extensively utilized in ensuring that work assignments for accreditation team members were completed on time. The inclusion of the directors was beneficial in many ways. It not only reinforced the importance of accreditation to all agency employees, it also required the accreditation team to maintain the same chain of command as with any other work assignments. This streamlined the work assignment effort for the accreditation manager by allowing him to simply meet with the directors to make assignments to the team members. The team members were encouraged to directly contact the accreditation manager and his assistant for guidance in their work.
The directors were kept abreast of the changes needed to comply with the standards. This included the development of new policies and procedures as well as any revisions necessary to comply with standards. The directors were very supportive of accreditation from the beginning.
The Development and Revision of Policies and Procedures Due to the required compliance with certification standards from its initial certification and re-certification, the DOCJT had little difficulty in complying with those certification standards that were also utilized in the PSTAA program. Those standards dealt with the development of lesson plans, personnel issues, classrooms, and offices.
Some standards required the creation of policies and procedures. For example, the DOCJT had informal safety procedures for such areas as firearms training, driver training, and physical fitness/defensive tactics. However, the new PSTAA standards required that safety officers be designated and written procedures be established for those safety officers to follow. Supervisors were required to designate safety officers and instructors formalized safety procedures in their particular specialties.
Another area that had to be addressed was training for supervisors who monitor instructors. Again, this was an area that was handled informally, with no formal training of supervisors. This was resolved by formalizing a short training program that would not only provide supervisors with guidance in how to uniformly critique instructors but also how to use the standardized form that was developed for documenting the monitoring phase.
A third area that had to be addressed was the standard that required user analysis. A procedure was already in place to gather demographic information from all students participating in Basic Training, but there were no procedures to do the same with Professional Development (In-Service) students or instructional staff. Forms were created to gather the necessary information for Professional Development students and DOCJT instructional staff. Information was collected from a random sample of Professional Development students during class orientations. All DOCJT instructors were surveyed for demographic information as well. This information, coupled with the information already gathered from Basic Training students, provided us the basis for the user analysis.
Another major area dealt with the design and evaluation of training programs. Due to time constraints, it was decided to contract with an outside expert to develop a manual to assist instructors in not only designing training programs, but also evaluating them as well. The outside expert, Dr. James Wells, an Eastern Kentucky University professor with expertise in design and evaluation, worked closely with a committee of DOCJT instructors from both the Basic Training and the Professional Development branches to design a user friendly manual for instructors. The resulting manual is not only used by DOCJT instructors but is also used as a handout in the DOCJT instructor development course, which is offered statewide.
The Mock On-Site The mock on-site was scheduled for October 2002. Because DOCJT interacts with law enforcement agencies on a statewide basis, it has been Dr. Bizzack’s philosophy to retain the services of out-of-state CALEA assessors for the mock on-sites. It worked well for our two prior mock on-sites under the training certification program.
The reasoning behind this was to ensure that mock assessors would be critical and unbiased in their assessment. Dr. Bizzack didn’t want the role of the DOCJT as the statewide training academy to have any undue influence during a mock on-site. It has been proven time after time that a thorough, critical mock on-site contributes greatly to a successful accreditation on-site.
The DOCJT contracted with two CALEA assessors, Mr. Robin Geis, retired chief of the Dublin, Ohio Police Department and Chief J.R. McKean, Grove City, Ohio Police Department, to conduct the mock on-site. After a thorough examination of the accreditation files over a 3-day period, which included travel time, the assessors met with DOCJT executive staff and the accreditation manager to discuss their recommendations. The assessors also provided the DOCJT with a written report concerning the mock on-site.
The PSTAA On-Site Preparation for the on-site, scheduled for December 2002, began in earnest as soon as the mock on-site assessors left Richmond. The mock on-site report was reviewed to determine what changes needed to be made to policies, procedures, and the files in general. The mock assessors made several recommendations, which were implemented. While these recommendations were being implemented, another area that needed to be addressed was the orientation of employees and students just prior to the on-site.
Orientation Prior to the On-Site Several orientation sessions were conducted immediately prior to the arrival of the on-site assessors. These sessions included both agency employees and students. The sessions were scheduled at various times and the directors were responsible for ensuring that employees in their respective divisions attended. Agency staff designed brochures explaining the accreditation process, which were issued to all employees as a part of orientation. These same brochures are also given to new employees when they begin employment with the DOCJT.
Class coordinators briefed Professional Development students about the on-site assessment during class orientation. This was done because most Professional Development students are at our facilities for a short time since classes are presented in 8 to 40 hour modules.
The accreditation manager briefed Basic Training students about the on-site assessment. There were five Basic Training classes in session at the time of the on-site, with approximately 25-30 students per class. These orientation sessions were more in-depth because these students attend basic classes for 16 weeks. Orientation included not only a brief overview of the accreditation process but also what would be included in the on-site visit. Students were also provided with brochures detailing the accreditation process.
The On-Site Visit The accreditation on-site visit was scheduled for December 14-18, 2002. Mr. Jerry Stewart, Director of Public Safety, Iowa State University Department of Public Safety, team leader, and Mr. Geoffrey Ice, Executive Director, Connecticut Police Academy Education Foundation, were the on-site assessors. The only on-site issue that had to be dealt with was the transition of offices and classrooms to a newly constructed facility. This facility was designed to house all the Basic Training offices and classrooms, as well as residence hall rooms for all Basic and Professional Development students attending training. Of course, the move was supposed to be completed well in advance of our scheduled on-site. However, things were still in boxes in some offices and some employees were still transitioning during the on-site. The on-site assessors were understanding of our situation and encountered no problems because of this transitioning phase. The on-site assessment not only included the traditional file review but also interviews with employees and monitoring of training classes that were in session.
The on-site assessment was considered a success. The newly created panel review portion of the on-site turned out well despite some apprehension on the part of employees in having to appear before the assessors in person to explain compliance with standards. That apprehension quickly disappeared as soon as each of them began the panel review. This was due in large part to the assessors’ relaxed manner in which they interacted with the employees. Another contributing factor was that the employees were very prepared to speak about their assigned standards at the panel review.
One major benefit of the panel review was the required active participation of so many employees in the accreditation on-site process. Many of these employees had participated on the accreditation team or had input in some fashion with the process leading up to the on-site. There was more of a team effort from beginning to end with this new program than with the former certification program. Another benefit was that the assessors achieved a better understanding of our agency due to the interaction that resulted from the panel review.
Conclusion The DOCJT received its accreditation under the PSTAA program in Orlando, Florida on March 22, 2003. The awards banquet was definitely the highlight of our quest for accreditation. This accreditation was the result of a tremendous team effort put forth by DOCJT employees and has not only instilled a greater sense of pride in our employees, but has also made them very cognizant of the positive effects of accreditation. We believed we were on the right track before accreditation and this process has reinforced that belief.
|
|
|
