CMIT will provide professional development programs and training initiatives to individuals (wardens) in the field of corrections. 

 Wardens who attend the Wardens Peer Interaction Program will be able to:

1. Discuss current management and direction of prison operations and programs;
2. Identify and discuss critical issues facing prison management;
3. Explore and discuss best practices; and
4. Prepare strategies for handling critical correctional challenges
   
   
   

Participants are requested to complete an evaluation requesting their depth and breadth of knowledge as a result of the training.

Fall: 
1. 100% of respondents could name at least one current management/direction of prison operations and programs.
2.  Only 21% of respondents could identify at least two critical issues facing prison management. Over 88% could name one critical issue
3.  Over 88% of respondents could name at least one best practice they wanted to implement in their facilities.
4.  Again, 21% of respondents could list two strategies for handling critical correctional challenges.  Over 88% could name one strategy.

Spring:
1. 100% of participants could name at least one current management/ direction of prison operations and programs. 35% could name two to four directions.
2. 100% of participants could identify at least two critical issues facing prison management. 19% could name three to four critical issues.
3. 100% of participants could name at least one best practice they wanted to implement in their facilities.
4. 97% of participants could list two strategies for handling critical correctional challenges. One participant did not complete this section of the assessment.

Other considerations:
1. Roundtable discussions that emphasized the purpose of the program: wardens talking to wardens.  These discussions were very well received.
2. Ability of wardens to compare and contrast their programs and procedures with colleagues from around the country.
3. Networking aspects of the program as well as touring local prisons.
4. The variety of presentations that was delivered by wardens.
5. Some participants' content was not useful to other participants. People who already had a K-9 unit found the info redundant to what they already knew; those without K-9 units did not expect to have units any time soon so found the info useless.

Part of the reason participants may have been less successful in the fall than we would have liked in identifying critical issues and listing strategies was the assessment instrument.  We piloted a new evaluation instrument for the spring. We will provide closer screening of participant content so that mere summaries of their prison units are not presented.

CMIT will provide effective training for corrections officials in the area of emergency preparedness training.

Participants in the forum for hands-on emergency management training will be able to:

1. Use decision-making skills during an emergency situation; and
2. Identify individuals which whom to network and gain expertise.

   At least 85% of participants will

1. List two skills gained in managing emergency situations; and
2. Identify at least four individuals at the training with whom they wish to network

1. 67% of participants were able to name two skills gained; 100% could name one skill gained.
2. 90% of participants were able to name four individuals with whom they wish to network further. One participant could name two individuals, and one participant left that part blank.

Additional considerations:
1. The core of the program – using simulations and exercises to prepare for incidents – was very well received.
2. Demonstration of a simulation in a “real setting,” on the grounds of a prison, gave participants a great visual understanding of how the incident command system could work in real life.
3. Offering opportunity to take exam and gain professional certification at the program has been well received.
4. Understanding how to better utilize professional staff in corrections during an incident.
5. Some of the small scenarios used in the training seemed to some participants to be unrealistic or not applicable to their local conditions.
6. Use of scenarios that may not have had corrections as their central focus.

1. Tighten up the content of the scenarios to ensure that they are all corrections based.
2. Develop scenarios more carefully so that they are more realistic for participants.

CMIT will provide training through the National Jail Leaadership Command Academy

Participants in each learning block will rate the sessions and instructors as effective.

1. The evaluations are reviewed immediately following the program, and instructional blocks receiving at least a 4.0 rating are deemed successful.  Sessions that receive less than a 4.0 rating requires corrective action.

2. Instructors will receive at least a 4.0 rating for teaching methods and for relation to participant's present work situation.

The overall evaluation areas were over 4.0 except for two:
1. Enough time allotted for breaks
2. Length of NJLCA was sufficient.

Instructors:
1. Facilitator conducive to learning: 4.6
2. Class content relates to my present work: 4.7

The vast majority of the comments were positive.  We are listing some that were critical:
1. Maybe call on folks instead of hunting for names.
2. I would have liked to have had the PowerPoint in my book for easier note taking and recall.
3. Conversation did get a little off topic. I would have rather stuck to the presentation.
4. The information (uses and abuses of statistics) is not that useful to the operations of jail.
5. Three hours about marketing statistics and promotions was not beneficial.
6. Audio was distracting
7. days is too long and students are falling asleep.
8. A little dry, but knowledgeable.
9. Short breaks (x3)
10. Topic was covered too quickly.
11.  Seems a little self-centered.

Because most of the instructors present multiple topics, we will try and limit the amount of time they present during each day to perhaps lengthen time in areas identified by participants as needed. We need to rethink the break time. We will share comments and ratings with individual instructors.  The ratings are high, and the vast majority of comments are positive.  The occasional critical comment could be helpful to the individual instructors to whom they related.