Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report Training Sessions - Week of June 15
Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report Training Sessions - Week of June 15
© 2015
National Center for State Courts
This document was prepared under State Justice Institute (SJI) Grant Number SJI-14-N-154
allocated to the Minnesota Judicial Branch, for consulting services rendered by the National Center
for State Courts (NCSC). The points of view and opinions expressed in this report are those of the
authors as agents of the NCSC, and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of
SJI or the Minnesota Judicial Branch.
Every attempt has been made by the NCSC team to achieve completeness and accuracy in this
report. As for style and grammar in the report, the NCSC follows the Chicago Manual of Style
15th Edition. The NCSC realizes that computer and/or human errors are possible.
The NCSC team is grateful to those in the Minnesota Judicial Branch and its judicial partners who
attended the training sessions referenced in this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
FEEDBACK FROM THE ROCHESTER AFTERNOON (PM) TRAINING SESSION ............ 12
INTRODUCTION
The Minnesota Judicial Branch, with support from the State Justice Institute, contracted
with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to provide courthouse security services in three
phases. In Phase One, the NCSC conducted detailed security assessments of five courthouses in
Minnesota, located in the following counties (cities): St. Louis (Duluth), Cass (Walker), Kanabec
(Mora), Winona (Winona), and Otter Tail (Fergus Falls). In Phase Two, the NCSC developed
material for a court security Tool Box to assist judges, court staff, and judicial partners on what do
in the event of a negative event or emergency. In Phase Three, the NCSC’s task was to conduct
twelve training sessions on the Tool Box material in court locations across the State of Minnesota.
The first six of the twelve training sessions were conducted during the week of June 15,
2015. The remaining six sessions will be held during the week of August 2, 2015. The training
sessions during the week of June 15, 2015, were held in the following locations: Anoka, Mankato,
Rochester, St. Paul, and Windom.
This evaluation report presents the ratings and comments put forth by participants at the
regional sites. On an 8.0 scale, the training was rated 7.0 or Excellent.
ROCHESTER AM
ROCHESTER PM
MANKATO
WINDOM
ST. PAUL
ANOKA
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Total Scores
Rating Score
Received
8 (Excellent +) 10 18 7 4 16 13 68
7 (Excellent) 14 13 11 6 16 13 73
6 (Good +) 5 9 10 6 4 13 47
5 (Good) 3 1 3 2 0 0 9
4 (Fair +) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
3 (Fair) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 (Poor +) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (Poor) 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sum of Total
226 295 212 120 264 273 1,390
Scores
Total
Responses 33 42 32 18 36 39 200
Received
Average Score
6.8 7.0 6.6 6.7 7.3 7.0 7.0
for Site
Liked the active shooter information. Always good to remember significant pointers for
employees. Liked the form and most important on one page, very helpful.
Pointed out things I didn’t think of. Taught us how to pass along the training to those in
our county. Pointed out what’s most important to teach.
Presentation was good.
Relevant. Common sense, but not talked about.
Stressed major points I will remember.
Switching up topics was good; videos and examples, live stories that have happened.
The videos were very eye-opening. I won’t forget them.
The videos were very good.
Well-designed presentation.
PRESENTERS, KNOWLEDGE, AND DELIVERY
Engaging, interesting, good ideas. Some new ideas and discussions.
Gave real life examples, made us think outside the box.
Good speaking about each other’s past experiences.
Kept everyone interested.
Kept us engaged.
Made it fun and easy to listen to. Did a great job.
Personal stories had impact. Your knowledge was good.
Presenters were knowledgeable about the subjects.
Real life experiences; the experience of both of the trainers offered extra knowledge.
Rotating between instructions of subject matter was good.
SECURITY AWARENESS
Made me think about things that we’d rather not. Had a lot of insights into different
perspectives, so thank you for sharing.
In addition to the compliments and praise, the NCSC team also asked for constructive
criticism. The NCSC team has found that the perceptive insights of training participants frequently
lead to opportunities for program improvement.
For the Anoka session, comments focused especially on the length of the training seminar.
Additional feedback addressed the potential for advanced training, the interactivity of the
presentation, the team’s lack of follow up with team leaders, requests for more incident videos,
and concerns over pre-presentation planning and the possibility of adding a second break to the
session time block.
Specific comments received were as follows:
PRE-PRESENTATION PLANNING
Make table tents to get people in the right place ahead of time.
Constructive criticisms received and suggestions for improvement were fairly diverse, and
included: [1] encouragement to widen security awareness for the county board (1 comment); [2]
concerns over an emphasis on OSHA-related topics (1 comment); [3] a request for more advanced
(or less basic) training (1 comment); [4] a request for more incident videos (1 comment); [5] a
request for more handouts (1 comment); [6] a request for more information on concealed carry (1
comment); [7] concern over a lack of “train the trainer” suggestions (1 comment); [8] general
concerns over the presentation format and readiness (3 comments); [9] criticism of presenter time
management (7 comments); and [10] constructive suggestions for additional training topics and
approaches (3 comments, and see also [6] above).
Kept it moving.
Organized, hit topics well.
Presenters were good, breaking up talk with two voices and changing locations in the
room.
Put eight hours of information in a 3 hour class, kept things moving.
Showed videos, brought focus off screen, rotated speakers.
Very good communication and good useful tools.
Very informative, engaging.
SECURITY AWARENESS
Developed good awareness.
Lots of good information. Really made me think about the safety of our county.
In addition to the praise received, the NCSC team also received valuable constructive
feedback concerning: [1] the need for more incident training (1 comment); [2] the length of the
training seminar (10 comments); [3] the overall need for additional training (1 comment); [4] the
need for more breaks during training (2 comments); [5] a request for PowerPoint hardcopies (1
comment); and [6] the overall approach taken by the presenters during the training session (4
comments).
Comments received were as follows:
Time constraints hurt other presentations. Too much information in too short a period
of time, and I realize this was 8 hours condensed to 3.
We need more time. These are very good trainings.
Would really like the training to be longer with more hands on. Likely, it would be better
implemented later if we could practice today.
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING
More training.
NEED FOR PRESENTATION INTERACTIVITY
Weight more of the presentation for tabletop or team interaction.
PLANNING OF PRESENTATION, FORMAT, AND TIME BLOCKS
More breaks.
Need more breaks. It is said people lose interest after 20 minutes, but no break until 1.5
hours.
PRE-PRESENTATION PLANNING
Provide the PowerPoint ahead of time so that we can annotate it with our notes as you
lecture.
PRESENTER APPROACH
Don’t read off PowerPoint as much as you did.
Give better detail about what to do.
Give training in different environments.
Give training with employees.
Fast-paced, informative.
Flash drive of all materials makes for more time to listen than take notes.
Good including materials on flash drive for ease of training preparation.
One-page guide is helpful.
Presentation and other information shared were good.
Presentation moved well. Held attention. Real life case studies were good.
Presentation was well-presented and included a lot of helpful information, along with
good ideas and examples.
PRESENTERS, KNOWLEDGE, AND DELIVERY
Good speakers worked as a team.
I liked the discussion. Thanks for not reading PowerPoint. Loved the examples and
scenarios.
Kept our attention. Moved right along. Good information.
Kept the audience’s attention. Gave a lot of information.
Liked stories that relate to what is being taught. It helps to remember and relate to the
topic. It is obvious you are both very experienced and knowledgeable.
Very engaging. Obviously knowledgeable in the subject areas.
Went straight to the point on each section. Real life stories were good.
The valuable critical feedback received during the Rochester afternoon session addressed
different topics than had been noted during the morning session, including: [1] a concern over
provided safety advice (1 comment); [2] the length of the training seminar (3 comments); [3] a
request for more incident videos (1 comment); [4] encouragement to consider multi-agency
training opportunities in the future (1 comment); [5] a need for more interactivity during the
presentation (1 comment); [6] the need for more security training overall (1 comment); [7] a
request for question and answer sessions during the training (1 comment); [8] a request for a more
extensive introduction to the training (1 comment); and [9] a complaint concerning technical issues
during the presentation (1 comment).
These comments were specifically as follows:
Valuable comments concerning the NCSC team’s opportunities for improvement were
received at the St. Paul training session as well. These comments were more diverse, with topics
including: [1] concern over conflicting security strategies (1 comment); [2] concern over training
for an informed and aware staff versus frightening employees (1 comment); [3] disappointment
with the emphasis on courts over other government facilities (1 comment); [4] disappointment
with the emphasis on SWAT teams versus other first responding officers (1 comment); [5] the
length and pacing of the training seminar (8 comments); [6] requests for more incident videos and
video play time (2 comments); [7] requests for more online and/or handout resources (3
comments); and [8] constructive criticism of the presentation format and time blocks for the day
(3 comments).
Specific comments received were as follows:
Presenters clearly presented the purpose of training. Kept to time allotted. Very
engaged and kept everyone engaged.
Presenters kept it interesting and moving.
Presenters personalized it and gave memorable examples.
Presenters were good keeping it simple and straightforward.
Shared many good safety tips and threw some humor in.
Very good use of different learning techniques. The videos are always good.
SECURITY AWARENESS
Gave a lot of insight to how we can evolve our security more.
Good at getting people to understand the importance of these eight areas, and the
materials and videos presented help get the point across. It’s not if it happens, it’s
when.
Good awareness, brought to light the need for preparation and planning.
Got me thinking about the topics and how I would respond.
Reinforced the idea that we cannot be complacent with security. Security is only as
good as the people involved/training to respond to situations.
Very informative training. For what it is designed to do – inspire future planning – it is
well-developed. Spurs discussion on awareness of risk and presents a plan to evaluate
current practices.
Constructive criticism received as a result of the Windom training session was diverse,
with twelve thematic topics covered as follows:
TRAINING VENUE
More comfortable venue would be appreciated.
CONCLUSION
The NCSC is gratified by the overall positive evaluations from participants at the training
sessions. It is clear that the topics covered at the sessions were of great importance to the
participants and that further training on these topics may well be warranted. The NCSC is also
mindful of and grateful for the many suggestions received from participants with respect to
opportunities for improvement. We will carefully consider those suggestions as we plan future
training sessions.
Agenda
Presentations will cover Emergency Response template topics, with emphasis on the
following:
o Overview of court security to protect judges, court staff and all those working in
the courthouse
o Detailed presentations and discussions on the following situations:
1. Active shooter
2. Hostage taking
3. Anger management/violence
4. Fire emergencies
5. Bomb threats
6. Medical emergencies
7. Suspicious package/unattended items
8. Severe weather/power outages
Presentations will include videos, PowerPoint slides, and lectures, with ample opportunity
for discussion and input by members of teams attending the training sessions.
Implementation Checklist
AM Session 9-12
PM Session 1-4
Rochester
(763) 422-7475
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155
(651) 297-7650