Report No. 02-15
Office of the Inspector General
SUMMARY OF TRAINING SURVEY
NARRATIVE RESPONSES, BY PROVIDER
The following summary lists the benefits, strengths, and weaknesses of each of the training providers, as cited by the respondents to our survey questionnaire. This information, and data on the chart on page 12 of this report, may be useful to the ODP and the training providers in planning future classes.
Center for Disaster Preparedness (71 respondents)
- Increased awareness of the threat of terrorism and methods of delivery.
- Better understanding of the properties and effects of nerve agents.
- Knowledge of what is required of first responders in entering a contaminated area, and about equipment needed to survive contamination agents.
- Knowledge of decontamination skills and how to deal with unconscious patients.
- Knowledge of how to prepare for secondary devices.
- Courses very well set up, thought out, planned, and organized.
- Excellent practical exercises, simulations, tabletop exercises.
- Knowledgeable staff, high quality of presentation.
- Hands-on, live agent training.
- Use of audiovisuals.
- Professional treatment of students.
- Diversity of students.
- Classes too long.
- Training dates limited.
- Facilities not accessible.
- Content too technical.
- Not all instructors uniformly knowledgeable.
- Tactics/strategy/background work not covered sufficiently.
- Course resulted in increased knowledge and ability.
- Course improved confidence level for operating in and surviving a deadly environment.
- Attendance results in better preparedness to respond to terrorist attack.
- Course is recommend for others - all police and firefighters should attend.
- Provided good background on Middle East conflict.
Community Research Associates (9 respondents)
- Greater level of awareness and appreciation of dangers of weapons of mass destruction.
- Better ability to recognize weapons of mass destruction.
- Knowledge of when and when not to decontaminate exposed individuals.
- Better ability to work with a team to identify and control situations.
- Good introduction to terrorism concept.
- Good information on types of chemicals and biological threats.
- Knowledgeable instructor.
- Need more information on detection of biological agents.
- Need more field training and actual case studies.
- Very impressed with instructor's presentation and desire to share with the class.
Louisiana State University (5 respondents)
- Greater awareness on preparation for weapons of mass destruction.
- Knowledgeable instructors.
- Use of video trainers.
- Course too basic.
- Video trainer should be longer and more complex.
- Needs discussion of force protection/support to fire service security.
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (51 respondents)
- Improved ability to respond to incidents.
- Greater confidence in entering an area where there is a live agent.
- Increased knowledge of types, properties, and capabilities of explosives.
- Better investigation and isolation skills.
- Training materials, instructors, and facilities.
- Good overview of agents.
- Live demonstrations and hands-on training.
- Use of case studies.
- Inclusion of scientific explanations.
- Use of meter and testing equipment.
- Course should be longer and larger.
- More time needed on emergency medical services.
- Some instruction time was used for story telling rather than instruction.
- Cost of travel is questionable since special facilities not needed.
- Excellent overall.
- Course could be consolidated with CDP course to reduce travel cost.
- Would recommend course to others.
- Instructor should visit other grantees.
Nevada Test Site (8 respondents)
- Greater appreciation of dangers posed by terrorists.
- Better understanding of radiation hazards.
- Knowledge of how to monitor and treat radiation casualties.
- Knowledge of interactions with other incident commanders.
- Detailed involvement and instruction for radiological emergencies.
- Practical, hands on exercises and scenarios.
- Raised awareness of the possibilities of terrorist attack.
- Material covered was suitable for basic law enforcement having little or no training in responding to terrorism.
- Knowledgeable instructors.
- Facilities and equipment for conducting exercises and simulations.
- Course information ranged from elementary to highly complex; should be more focused.
- Course centered on management; should focus on use of equipment.
- Chemical or biological hazards should be included.
- Course was too short; should be lengthened by 1 day.
- Course did not always focus on the participants' needs or prepare them sufficiently for dealing with radiation hazards.
Pine Bluff Arsenal (8 respondents)
- Knowledge of capabilities and limitations of existing detection equipment.
- Ability to use latest technology during a response to terrorism using weapons of mass destruction.
- Quality of instructors.
- Presentation of strengths and weaknesses of equipment.
- Hands-on activities.
- Coverage of a broad base of information and instruments.
- Flexibility in scheduling.
- Course and exercises too short.
- Need more in-depth training in Draeger civil defense system.
- Instructor needed fire department/hazardous materials experience.
- Good detection equipment course.
- Good train-the-trainer course, although repetitious.
Texas A&M University (16 respondents)
- Knowledge of how to approach to risk assessment in an organized manner.
- Increased awareness of site-specific concerns.
- Knowledge of how to conduct surveys, analyze vulnerabilities, and assess risks.
- Increased understanding of the terrorist mind-set.
- Instructor knowledge, presentation, and interaction with others.
- Hands-on exercises and site surveys.
- Use of real target sites.
- Out-of-classroom exercises and preparation for presentations.
- Course was geared for all levels - from "rookie" to "seasoned vet."
- Focus on topics not considered in previous training.
- Interaction with other jurisdictions.
- Course should be offered more often.
- Final exercise was "disheveled."
- Confusion -- staff could not answer questions.
- Redundant coverage of basic hazardous materials.
- Course could be shorter if prerequisite material were provided ahead of time.
- Topics covered should be mandatory for all grantees.