Train-the-Trainer Pilot Courses for Incident Responders and Managers (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

38 A p p e n d i x C Tennessee Train-The-Trainer pilot Summary Introduction The first of the train-the-trainer pilot courses was held in Tennessee on June 19–20, 2012, at the Tennessee Highway Patrol Training Center. The course was led by two master instructors. The course was also observed by two members of the research team. There was representation from the three core disciplines of law enforcement, fire, and transportation as shown in Figure C.1. Table C.1 contains a list of all partici- pants’ and observers’ organizations. Agenda The pilot course began with introductions from top-level offi- cials of the three core disciplines: a representative of the Tennes- see Highway Patrol; the Executive Director of the Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy; and the Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer for the Tennessee Department of Transportation. Additionally, with a representative from FHWA provided open- ing remarks about FHWA’s role in training implementation. After these introductions, the course curriculum was introduced. The Master Instructors rotated responsibility for teaching the individual course modules. Tables C.2 and C.3 reflect the actual timing of each lesson and any breaks. Evaluation Results At the conclusion of the 2-day pilot course, the participants were given a course evaluation form to complete. The feed- back was overwhelmingly positive. Of the respondents, 79% “strongly agreed” that they would recommend this training to others. An additional 18% “agreed” that they would rec- ommend this training to others, meaning 33 participants out of 34 would recommend the training to other responders. At least 90% of respondents responded positively to all 28 evalu- ation questions. The only negative response came from one individual on Question 2, who felt there was too much infor- mation covered during the 2-day course. Figure C.2 provides the responses for all 28 questions. The evaluation responses were also analyzed by discipline (Figure C.3), years of TIM experience (Figure C.4), and years of training experience (Figure C.5). The training appears to have been well received across all three of the disciplines in attendance. According to the responses to Question 16, 100% of fire attendees, 100% of law enforcement attendees, and 89% of Department of Transportation (DOT) attendees would recommend this course to others. The importance of safe, quick clearance (SQC) appeared to resonate with nearly all attendees, regardless of TIM expe- rience. An analysis of Question 23 reveals that all but one attendee (11- to 15-year experience range) reported a gain in SQC appreciation. Many of the respondents reported that they felt confident in their ability to subsequently teach the curriculum to other responders. As shown by the responses to Question 28, this confidence generally did not appear to be affected by years of training experience. Only one attendee did not express confi- dence and, not surprisingly, that individual had no prior experience with training. Individual Pilot Summaries 17 8 11 Law Enforcement Fire DOT Figure C.1. Tennessee course attendees by discipline.

39 First Name Last Name Organization First Name Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation First Name Last Name Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy First Name Last Name Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation First Name Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Instructors/Observers First Name Last Name SHRP 2 Technical Expert Task Group (TETG) First Name Last Name Senior Observer, Research Team First Name Last Name Visiting Professional, SHRP 2 First Name Last Name FHWA First Name Last Name Master Instructor, Research Team First Name Last Name Master Instructor, Research Team First Name Last Name Junior Observer, Research Team First Name Last Name Organization Attendees First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation First Name Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation First Name Last Name Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) First Name Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation First Name Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol First Name Last Name Tennessee Fire and Codes Academy Table C.1. Tennessee Course Attendees Time Lesson 7:45–8:00 a.m. Breakfast (provided) 8:00–8:35 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 8:35–9:25 a.m. Lesson 0: Course Introduction 9:25–9:35 a.m. Break 9:35–10:15 a.m. Lesson 1: Statistics, Terminology, and Standards 10:15–10:30 a.m. Lesson 2: Notification and Response 10:30–10:40 a.m. Break 10:40–11:30 a.m. Lesson 3: Arrival 11:30 a.m.–Noon Lunch (provided) Table C.2. Day 1: June 19, 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Time Lesson Noon–12:50 p.m. Lesson 3: Arrival (cont’d) 12:50–1:30 p.m. Lesson 4: Initial Size-Up 1:30–1:40 p.m. Break 1:40–2:00 p.m. Lesson 5: Command Responsibilities 2:00–2:30 p.m. Lesson 6: Safety, Patient Care, and Investigation 2:30–2:40 p.m. Break 2:40–3:40 p.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management 3:40–3:50 p.m. Break 3:50–4:50 p.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management

40 43% 54% 3% 1. The date and time of today's training fit my schedule. 37% 57% 3% 3% 2. The duration of the training was sufficient for learning the subject matter. 48% 43% 9% 3. The training environment was comfortable/appropriate for the class. 63% 34% 3% 5. The instructor clearly explained the goals and objectives of the training. 63% 31% 6% 6. The instructor clearly conveyed the material to the audience. 66% 31% 3% 7. The instructor's knowledge of the subject matter was satisfactory. 51% 40% 9% 8. The instructor's pace of presenting the material was appropriate. 57% 40% 3% 9. The instructor satisfactorily answered participants' questions. Figure C.2. Evaluation results for the Tennessee train-the-trainer pilot (continued on next page). Time Lesson 7:45–8:00 a.m. Breakfast (provided) 8:00–8:40 a.m. Lesson 8: Clearance 8:40–8:50 a.m. Lesson 9: Termination 8:50–9:10 a.m. Break 9:10–10:30 a.m. Lesson 10: Hands-On Tabletop Activity 10:30–11:00 a.m. Lesson 11: Situational Awareness 11:00 a.m.–Noon Lunch (provided) Table C.3. Day 2: June 20, 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. Time Lesson Train-the-Trainer Content Noon–1:05 p.m. Lesson 1: Legal Guidelines and Considerations 1:05–1:15 p.m. Break 1:15–2:05 p.m. Lessons 2–5: Best Practices, Resources, and Real-World Scenarios 2:05–2:25 p.m. Group Discussion 2:25–4:00 p.m. Assessment and Course Evaluation

41 Figure C.2. Evaluation results for the Tennessee train-the-trainer pilot (continued on next page). 51% 40% 9% 13. The student workbooks provided helped me understand the content of the training. 63% 34% 3% 14. The content of this training appropriately built on my existing knowledge of this subject matter. 51%43% 6% 15. I am satisfied that the learning objectives for this training were met. 80% 17% 3% 16. I would recommend this training to others. 40% 60% 17. Based on the training I received, I am able to explain the subject matter to others that may need future assistance on this topic. 43% 48% 9% 18. I am likely to request or attend additional training on this topic in the future. 48% 43% 9% 19. During the training I learned methods/practices that will help me more quickly mitigate incidents. 48% 46% 6% 20. The content and best practices promoted in the course are appropriate to the local context. 66% 34% 10. The instructor satisfactorily used training aids to help facilitate a clearer understanding of the topic. 68% 29% 3% 12. The content of this training course was valuable to me in developing my knowledge of this subject matter. (continued from previous page)

42 63% 34% 3% 23. I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. 23% 29%24% 24% 25. Estimate the time this training may save you on researching information. 34% 66% 27. Based on the training and materials I received, I understand how to set up the classroom for training. 21% 76% 3% 28. Based on the training and materials I received, I am confident that I can lead all classroom activities. 54% 43% 3% 29. The instructor notes contained in the Instructor Guides will help facilitate my delivery of the course. 51%46% 3% 30. I am satisfied that the slide presentations, videos, and other visual aids provide a good foundation for teaching the course. 54% 46% 31. The resources and reference materials are relevant to the curriculum content. 40% 54% 6% 32. I believe that the time allocated to each lesson is sufficient to allow me to teach it. 63% 34% 3% 21. I gained an understanding of the need for coordinated incident mitigation. 60% 37% 3% 22. I acquired knowledge of roadway safety and scene management methods. Figure C.2. Evaluation results for the Tennessee train-the-trainer pilot. (continued from previous page)

43 11% 89% DOT 25% 75% Fire 22% 78% Law Enf. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Figure C.3. Tennessee course responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline. 37% 63% 21+ 75% 25% 16-20 11% 33%56% 11-15 33% 67% 6-10 100% 1-5 100% No Exp. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Figure C.4. Tennessee course responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. 100% 21+ 100% 16-20 100% 11-15 43% 57% 6-10 100% 1-5 10% 70% 20% No Exp. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Figure C.5. Tennessee course responses to Question 28 stratified by years of training experience.

44 Question 16—I would recommend this training to others. Figure C.3 provides the responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline. Question 23—I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. Figure C.3 presents the responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. Question 28—I am confident that I can lead all classroom activities. Figure C.5 provides the responses to Question 28 stratified by years of training experience. While nearly all participants had a positive experience, the qualitative feedback provided the team with insight into areas of potential improvement. Most of the feedback dealt with inconsistencies between the workbooks and the presentation, but this was anticipated given the “pilot” nature of the course and the evolving curriculum. One helpful item of feedback received was that there were too many scenarios discussed in some lesson sections. Participants felt that two or three scenarios were enough to relay the concepts without being redundant. In related comments, several participants felt the course seemed “rushed”. Reducing the time spent on sce- narios could alleviate some of those concerns. Finally, some also observed that quick clearance was an “afterthought” Table C.4. Question 4—Scheduling Comments Comment Resolution Very appropriate na Either additional bathrooms or extra time at breaks. This facility only had one main restroom. Ideally the training facilities should have sufficient restroom capacity. Facility checklist should be amended. Note: In Appendix C tables, na denotes not applicable. Table C.5. Question 11—Instructor Comments Comment Resolution Some scenarios (video examples) need to be updated. I realize this project has been on the table for some time. The team would argue that although some video examples are more than 10 years old, the principles of SQC taught by the scenarios are still relevant. Lengthy training sessions with few and short breaks. Difficult to address given the amount of content that needs to be delivered in 2 days. The alumni pilot will experiment with 15 minute breaks, as opposed to 10 minute breaks. Instructors did not give whole picture as scenes were discussed. Scene safety to quick clearance treated as two different topics. They both should [be] considered at a scene. Observer team agreed with this statement. As part of the curriculum review after this course, the quick clearance content was expanded and better linked to scene safety. Some material was a little redundant. Observer team agreed with this statement. As part of the curriculum review after this course, several slides and scenarios were taken out of the curriculum to address this comment. Though there were too many scenarios two or three would have kept everyone’s attention. Please see resolution from previous comment The instructor created a good learning environment. There were times of argument and times of humor but both were handled professionally. na The pace of a few of the lessons could have been a little slower. With all the training material not yet complete and available it does seem con- fusing. After I received the material I believe it will come along better. None. As this was the first pilot, this comment should address itself. compared to safety, when in reality the two should carry equal weight in the course delivery. All of the comments to the qualitative feedback sections are presented in Tables C.4 through C.11, along with the reso- lution to each comment (if applicable). Observer Comments and Next Steps Overall, the observer team felt the training went very well. The lack of focus on quick clearance, as noted by participants, should be remedied for subsequent pilots. A series of quick clearance slides consistently woven into the narrative of the training would have helped reinforce the “quick clearance” portion of “safe, quick clearance.” With this in mind, the team updated the curriculum to better weave in the quick clear- ance message. Part of that was achieved by using a TIM time- line graphic throughout the curriculum. The observers agreed that too many scenarios were presented in certain sections of the curriculum. This became redundant at

45 Table C.6. Question 24—Overall Training Comments Comment Resolution Would like to receive the electronic version as soon as possible. Revised training materials will be provided to all trainers as soon as they are finalized. Set scenarios for table crashes. Observer team agrees. The alumni-led pilot will have the scenario printouts at each tabletop. I am blessed in the fact that I work in an area that practices what was taught in this course. na In the instructor guide there were a few diagrams set that appeared backwards. These were noted by the observer team and were corrected as part of the post-course curriculum update. Table C.7. Question 26—Time-Saving Measures Comments Comment Resolution Like stated, some of this material is used with other programs but put together well. na Providing links and resources is very helpful. na Many of the materials were in my possession already since it is part of my job to disseminate materials and provide training. na Table C.8. Question 33—Instructor Materials Comments Comment Resolution Varying times/blocks of instruction should be pre-developed—2-hour, 4-hour, 6-hour, 8-hour It was explained to participants that each module can be taught inde- pendently. Examples of varying instruction blocks should be pro- vided to further explain. A+ na Guide is straightforward and easily followed. na Table C.9. Question 34—“If you believe that the course contains gaps or omits any content which would be valuable, please provide an explanation.” Comment Resolution I would need to see the final edit of material to make a fair assess- ment, but make sure the instructor manual follows the PowerPoint. This has been addressed through multiple curriculum updates. Instructors did not work to cover all disciplines on the scene. Material given from a fire department standpoint quick clearance was treated more as an afterthought. Observer team agreed with this statement. As part of the curriculum review after this course, the quick clearance content was expanded and better linked to scene safety. Some guidance on responding to the incident scenes instead of only actions at the scene. There were no course participants from 911/Dispatch. Adding these perspectives in the future would enrich the class experience. Lengthy test maybe shorten it. Some questions on the test were redundant. The test was modified after the Tennessee pilot course. More reminder/emphasis of SAFE quick removals. Again, subsequent courses will do a better job of explaining that safety and quick clearance are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps add a short component on state or local resources and intelli- gent transportation system (ITS) components—message boards, cameras, DOT resources—personnel and equipment in each county. Observer team agrees, and will recommend that these materials be included in course curriculum updates. I would like to see more reference why quick clearance benefits safety to the responders but also the traveling public. Observer team agreed with this statement. As part of the curriculum review after this course, the quick clearance content was expanded and better linked to scene safety.

46 points and took away valuable time to introduce new content. In the future, the instructors should limit themselves to two or three scenarios, but explain there are additional scenarios in the curriculum that can be used as needed. Furthermore, during the curriculum update, several scenarios and slides were elimi- nated from the presentation to reduce redundancy. Another potential area of improvement noted by the observ- ers was the curriculum pacing. Many of the lessons went sig- nificantly longer or shorter than the allotted time. A more detailed pacing script that times each content section within a lesson could have reduced some of these fluctuations. After the Tennessee pilot course was completed, a detailed pacing script was created to help guide the instructors on how quickly to cover a particular content section within a lesson. This script was tested in the Virginia and Montana pilot courses and sub- sequently refined. Due to the fact that the Virginia pilot was only one week after the Tennessee pilot, some measures discussed above could only be implemented in the presentation because the hard cop- ies of the workbooks for Virginia were printed before the Ten- nessee pilot occurred. Regardless, all changes were made in the master electronic versions of the presentation and workbook and were reflected in future printings of the workbooks. Virginia Train-the-Trainer pilot Summary Introduction The second train-the-trainer pilot course was held in Rich- mond, Virginia, on June 27–28, 2012, at the Virginia State Police Administrative Headquarters. The course was led by two master instructors and observed by two members of the research team. There were 38 students at the training, repre- senting law enforcement, fire, transportation, towing, dispatch, and EMS, as shown in Figure C.6. Table C.12 contains a list of participants’ and observers’ organization or discipline. Table C.10. Question 35—“If you feel that the training presentation contains any shortcomings, please list them.” Comment Resolution Seemed that everything was rushed a little. Maybe certain modules should be allowed more time for instruction. Unfortunately, the course time restrictions do not allow any modules to be extended. However, each attendee was given a copy of the instructor guide that he or she can use for self-study. Scene safety is most important but the quicker everyone leaves a scene the safer we all are. Observer team agreed with this statement. As part of the curriculum review after this course, the quick clearance content was expanded and better linked to scene safety. More details should be given during tabletop exercises. Extent of injuries, extent of vehicle damage, debris, weather conditions, spillage, etc. Observer team agrees. The alumni-led pilot will have the scenario printouts at each tabletop. None; good job!! na No shortcomings for me. na Table C.11. Question 36—“What do you consider to be the most valuable information that you will take away from this class?” Comment The emphasis and importance of all agencies working together for a common goal and to keep traffic ways flowing. Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) thoughts and reason- ing on incident response and vehicle location. Importance of quickly clearing incidents. Knowledge of cones and vests gained, importance of. Emphasize the role we play and the common goals we have. Everyone needs to work as one unit, assisting and helping each other on situational scenes. A better understanding of other agencies’ operations. A better understanding of how much one incident can affect a large area and large population. Interaction with different agency members and creating dialogue. Each discipline’s response role from dispatch to scene to clearing. Need for communication. The need to make other[s] aware of the importance of effective traf- fic incident management. Roadway safety and scene management methods. A better understanding of the roles of other organizations. Better understanding of why other agencies do what they do. Bringing all the disciplines together for the tabletop. Interoperability. The importance of team concept with all agencies at a highway incident. The collective cooperation between disciplines. The value of interdisciplinary training and cooperation. Information gained from the different agencies that participated, by listening and participating in conversations during break. Also the interaction during tabletop exercise most beneficial to myself. Cooperation with other agencies.

47 11 13 9 2 2 1 Law Enforcement DOT Fire Towing EMS Dispatch Figure C.6. Virginia course attendees by discipline. Name Organization/Discipline Participants Attendee First and Last Name FHWA Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name Roanoke County Police Department Attendee First and Last Name Towing/Recovery Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name Hanover County Emergency Communications Attendee First and Last Name Towing/Recovery Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name Virginia State Police Attendee First and Last Name EMS/Virginia Department of Health Attendee First and Last Name VDOT–Hampton Roads Attendee First and Last Name Stafford County Sheriff’s Office Attendee First and Last Name Virginia State Police Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name VDOT–Central Office Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name Virginia DOT (VDOT)–Central Office Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name VDOT–Central Region Attendee First and Last Name VDOT–Southwest Region Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name FHWA Name Organization/Discipline Attendee First and Last Name Virginia State Police Attendee First and Last Name Virginia State Police Training Attendee First and Last Name VDOT–Southwest Region Attendee First and Last Name Virginia Beach Police Department Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name Virginia State Police Attendee First and Last Name Fire/EMS Attendee First and Last Name VDOT–Northwest Region Attendee First and Last Name FHWA Attendee First and Last Name Virginia State Police Attendee First and Last Name Virginia State Police Attendee First and Last Name Virginia State Police Attendee First and Last Name VDOT–Hampton Roads Attendee First and Last Name Roanoke County Emergency Communications Attendee First and Last Name VDOT–Northwest Region Observers Observer First and Last Name Observer, FHWA Team Observer First and Last Name Junior Observer, Research Team Observer First and Last Name Observer, TETG Observer First and Last Name Observer, FHWA Instructor First and Last Name Master Instructor, Research Team Instructor First and Last Name Master Instructor, Research Team Table C.12. Virginia Course Attendees and Observers

48 from the Virginia pilot was positive. More than half (57%) of respondents “strongly agreed” that they would recommend this training to others, and an additional 38% “agreed” with that statement. Only two questions garnered any “disagree” responses: One was whether students would seek out additional training on the topic, and the other was whether students would feel confident leading classroom activities. Although some stu- dents said they would not seek out additional training, 94% said the course built on their current knowledge of the subject mat- ter, and 97% said it was valuable in developing their knowledge of the subject matter, indicating that students did find this training to be thorough and successful. The 3% who did not feel confident about leading activities and the 11% who felt neutral could reflect the opinions of trainers with less experience or those who felt they would need more time to review the materi- als before assessing their confidence. Figure C.7 provides evaluation results for all 28 questions. The evaluation responses were also analyzed by discipline, years of TIM experience, and years of training experience. The training appears to have been well received across all four of the disciplines in attendance, with DOT participants rating the training the highest. In addition, the message of SQC appeared to resonate with nearly all attendees, regardless of TIM experience. Many of the respondents reported that they felt confident in their ability to subsequently teach the Agenda The pilot course began with welcoming a representative of the Virginia State Police Training Academy and an introduction to the training facility building and rules. A representative from the research team then gave a brief introduction about FHWA’s role in training implementation. A representative from FHWA provided a brief welcome on the morning of Day 2 and pre- sented FHWA’s role in training implementation in the after- noon. After the FHWA introduction, one of the instructors gave a brief introduction to the course and the seating arrange- ments before introducing the curriculum. The master instruc- tors rotated responsibility for teaching the individual course modules. Tables C.13 and C.14 reflect the actual timing of each lesson and any breaks. Evaluation Results At the conclusion of the 2-day pilot course, the participants were given a course evaluation form to complete. The feedback Table C.13. Day 1: June 27, 8:00 a.m.–4:25 p.m. Time Lesson 7:45–8:00 a.m. Breakfast (provided) 8:00–8:33 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 8:33–8:52 a.m. Lesson 0: Course Introduction 8:52–9:03 a.m. Break 9:03–9:36 a.m. Lesson 0: Course Introduction (cont’d) 9:36–10:41 a.m. Lesson 1: Statistics, Terminology, and Standards 10:16–10:29 a.m. Break 10:29–10:41 a.m. Lesson 1: Statistics, Terminology, and Standards (cont’d) 10:41–11:01 a.m. Lesson 2: Notification and Response 11:01–11:13 a.m. Break 11:13 a.m.–12:03 p.m. Lesson 3: Arrival 12:03–12:51 p.m. Lunch (provided) 12:51–1:19 p.m. Lesson 3: Arrival (cont’d) 1:19–1:43 p.m. Lesson 4: Initial Size-Up 1:43–1:59 p.m. Break 1:59–2:37 p.m. Lesson 5: Command Responsibilities 2:37–3:55 p.m. Lesson 6: Safety, Patient Care, and Investigation 3:26–3:35 p.m. Break 3:35–3:55 p.m. Lesson 6: Safety, Patient Care, and Investigation (cont’d) 3:55–4:25 p.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management Table C.14. Day 2: June 28, 8:00 a.m.–3:15 p.m. Time Lesson 7:45–8:00 a.m. Breakfast (provided) 8:00–8:05 a.m. Welcome (Representative, FHWA) 8:05–9:15 a.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management (cont’d) 9:15–9:36 a.m. Break 9:36–9:46 a.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management (cont’d) 9:46–10:52 a.m. Lesson 8: Removal 10:52–10:58 a.m. Lesson 9: Termination 10:58–11:15 a.m. Break 11:15–11:30 a.m. Lesson 11: Situational Awareness (flipped with Lesson 10) 11:30 a.m.–12:15 p.m. Lunch 12:15–1:21 p.m. Lesson 10: Hands-On Tabletop Activity (flipped with Lesson 11) 1:21–1:36 p.m. Break 1:36–2:08 p.m. FHWA’s role in training implementation (Representative, FHWA) 2:08–2:13 p.m. Introduction to Train-the-Trainer Instructor Guide 2:13–3:15 p.m. Assessment and Evaluation (text continues on page 52)

49 Figure C.7. Evaluation results for the Virginia train-the-trainer pilot (continued on next page). 8% 35% 57% 1. The date and time of today's training fit my schedule. 8% 60% 32% 2. The duration of the training was sufficient for learning the subject matter. 3% 40% 57% 3. The training environment was comfortable/appropriate for the class. 3% 32% 65% 5. The instructor clearly explained the goals and objectives of the training. 5% 35% 60% 6. The instructors clearly conveyed the material to the audience. 24% 76% 7. The instructor's knowledge of the subject matter was satisfactory. 11% 32%57% 8. The instructor's pace of presenting the material was appropriate. 3% 38% 59% 9. The instructor satisfactorily answered participants' questions. 3% 30% 67% 10. The instructor satisfactorily used training aids to help facilitate a clearer understanding of the topic. 3% 59% 38% 12. The content of this training course was valuable to me in developing my knowledge of this subject matter.

50 11% 50% 39% 13. The student workbooks provided helped me understand the content of the training. 6% 47% 47% 14. The content of this training appropriately built on my existing knowledge of this subject matter. 8% 50% 42% 15. I am satisfied that the learning objectives for this training were met. 5% 38% 57% 16. I would recommend this training to others. 8% 60% 32% 17. Based on the training I received, I am able to explain the subject matter to others that may need future assistance on this topic. 5% 22% 30% 43% 18. I am likely to request or attend additional training on this topic in the future. 20% 47% 33% 19. During the training I learned methods/practices that will help me more quickly mitigate incidents. 8% 60% 32% 20. The content and best practices promoted in the course are appropriate to the local context. 3% 43% 54% 21. I gained an understanding of the need for coordinated incident mitigation. 3% 51% 46% 22. I acquired knowledge of roadway safety and scene management methods. Figure C.7. Evaluation results for the Virginia train-the-trainer pilot (continued on next page). (continued from previous page)

51 11% 43% 46% 23. I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. 3% 23% 29%14% 31% 25. Estimate the time this training may save you on researching information. None 1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 9% 57% 34% 27. Based on the training and materials I received, I understand how to set up the classroom for training. 3% 11% 57% 29% 28. Based on the training and materials I received, I am confident that I can lead all classroom activities. 8% 50% 42% 29. The instructor notes contained in the Instructor Guides will help facilitate my delivery of the course. 11% 53% 36% 30. I am satisfied that the slide presentations, videos, and other visual aids provide a good foundation for teaching the course. 6% 50% 44% 31. The resource and reference materials are relevant to the curriculum content. 19% 53% 28% 32. I believe that the time allocated to each lesson is sufficient to allow me to teach it. Figure C.7. Evaluation results for the Virginia train-the-trainer pilot. (continued from previous page)

52 Question 28—I am confident that I can lead all classroom activities. Figure C.10 provides responses to Question 28 stratified by years of training experience. All of the comments to the qualitative feedback sections are presented in Tables C.15 through C.22, along with the resolution to each comment (if applicable). Key themes from the qualitative feedback sections include the following: • The importance of SQC. (Note: Based on feedback from the Tennessee pilot, the research team enhanced SQC mes- saging in advance of the Virginia pilot.) curriculum to other responders. However, not surprisingly, students with no training experience were less confident. Question 16—I would recommend this training to others. Figure C.8 provides responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline. Question 23—I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. Figure C.9 provides responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. 36% 64% DOT 11% 45% 44% Fire 9% 36%55% Law Enforcement 50%50% Towing Figure C.8. Virginia course responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline. Figure C.9. Virginia course responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. 27% 27% 46% 21+ 67% 33% 16-20 67% 33% 11-15 25% 75% 6-10 100% 1-5 14% 86% No Exp. (text continued from page 48)

53 Figure C.10. Virginia course responses to Question 28 stratified by years of training experience. 70% 30% 21+ 67% 33% 16-20 33% 50% 17% 11-15 33% 67% 6-10 50%50% 1-5 14% 14% 43% 29% No Exp. Table C.15. Question 4—Scheduling Comments Comment Given the expectation of having to teach or instruct the provided information, I feel this training should have been an extra day. I am pretty familiar with the content, but I feel those that aren’t familiar will be short-changed. For a full program, it was a good time frame. I think it will be chal- lenging to get a responder to get 2 days of this. Breakfast and lunch very good! Helps get conversations going and staying on site. The Virginia State Patrol folks are always very accommodating when it comes to training evolutions here. Could move faster. Should try to get it done in 8 hours. Sufficient time granted to classroom instruction. Could be added 1 day after final version to allow instructors an update and chance to review and read over material. My only concern with timing of the training is that we only glanced over the manual. We (this course) are trying to turn the titanic and there will be many issues that will extend the course. Climate control issue (cold). Excellent instructors. More training time is never a bad thing, so a 3-day Train-the-Trainer course would be appropriate, but the basics can be learned in two. Table C.16. Question 11—Instructor Comments Comment Representation of two different disciplines, Ron (EMS) and Gary (DOT), was well balanced and adds significantly to the delivery and acceptance of the information. Instructors are very knowledgeable on the content of the topic. They bring real-world experience to the table. Good instructor group. Although there were instructors from fire, law, and DOT, it had a DOT feel. Gave good examples of how to insert locale- and state-specific info. Training is very straightforward. Easy to learn and will be easy to teach. The instructors were very well prepared and worked seamlessly with each other. Video [Kerri Crane]—too long. Over 5 min will be too much. Instructors were obviously subject matter experts and delivered material effectively. Instructors are very knowledgeable of material. Nice to see using Inci- dent Command System/National Incident Management System and multidiscipline. Would have been good to have a draft view of presentation Power- Point. Would suggest lessening instructor remarks to specific groups or types of people. If trainers hear it coming from present- ers, they think it is okay to say when they get in the classroom, especially those that do not teach on a routine basis. Instructors made a good effort to educate themselves on Virginia’s protocols. The instructors did a great job. Took this topic seriously and it showed! A bit slower pace may be beneficial.

54 Table C.17. Question 24—Overall Training Comments Comment Most of the course content included training and operational prin- ciples I have already had many times and “attempt” to use. The instructor book should more mirror the slides. It was cumber- some to extract information from the book compared to the slides. It had a DOT feel. From a local standpoint, to make some of this happen, DOT will need to be more responsive and timely in response. I have been a traffic officer and supervisor for many years, as well as a crash reconstructionist, so many of the concepts of TIM are not foreign to me. However, the importance of combining disciplines working the same incident is always good training. This is a great foundation on a great “only class” for both the departments with a program and those without. I feel that the Kerri story had no relevance other than the trooper interview. All of the personal part should be omitted. Being new to incident management, I feel I would need extra time to go over the material and teach with a more knowledge- able instructor on the subject matter before facilitating a class. I would be okay with my discipline, but not very helpful with others. Great training—should’ve been done years ago. Very good. Can use some materials and info in our training program. This course provided sufficient information and resources for me to be part of an instructional team; however, due to my role in pub- lic safety, I lack the on-scene TIM knowledge to be a true subject matter expert. I look forward to building on what I have learned here to change this. Thorough training material. I strongly agree with reason for quick/safe clearance. Excellent subject matter. Table C.18. Question 26—Time-Saving Measures Comments Comment The key resource will come from connecting this manual to an e-learning environment and home page of information sharing. Having a Virginia-specific PowerPoint [presentation] would be vital to assist with training expectations. Good listing of additional resources. VDOT has a similar training we are currently teaching. The manual itself is great and will look forward to the online material. This foundation will greatly speed up the process of producing a local venue. Initially I didn’t know much about the subject and how many manu- als cover this area. I wasn’t looking to further myself in this area, but understand the need for TIM. I believe this topic is something the Stafford Sheriff’s Office needs to incorporate and this class has saved a lot of time for the department in development of a TIM protocol. It is good to have all the information in one place. This is the strong suit of the program. Very good. Need to use current videos and stories, but can localize. As stated in [Question] 24, I would still feel the need to study/ research/prep somewhat more than others to compensate for my lack of field experience. The research would take a few hours. I never heard of MUTCD or complementing Virginia’s manual. I am not sure—I will be researching this subject to be better informed and able to answer questions, especially Virginia-based questions. • Conflicting responses on course length: some students felt an extra day of training would be beneficial, while others thought it would be too long and it would be diffi- cult to ask responders to take 2 days away from their jobs for training. • The need to swap in Virginia-specific examples and proto- cols for future deliveries. • The length of the Kerri Crane video. (Note: The full 16- minute video was shown in this pilot to gauge students’ reactions, but was significantly shortened for subsequent deliveries in response to the feedback received in Virginia.) • Ability to use this training as a foundation to build TIM training programs at Virginia agencies or to bolster pre- existing TIM training programs. Curriculum Modifications As a result of comments received during the training deliv- ered in Virginia, the research team made 156 discrete changes to the course curriculum. The types of changes implemented are outlined in Figure C.11. Key curriculum modifications implemented by the research team as a result of the Virginia training include • Refreshed imagery to show more highway and fewer city street scenes, more mixed discipline scenes, and updated accident scenes. • Updated terminology to ensure it is discipline-neutral. • Removed and/or made recommendations for substitution of duplicative case studies or examples.

55 Table C.19. Question 33—Instructor Materials Comments Comment Kerri Crane video: appropriate to put the section leading up to sec- ondary incidents/crashes. A more formal, standardized tabletop exercise kit is available and would be good to use in a formalized Train-the-Trainer course. I believe that prior to the instructors receiving their teaching materials, the PowerPoint [presentation should] be changed to allow for Virginia information to be changed out/inserted. This is in an effort so that all instructors are on the same page and teaching the same information across the Commonwealth. Possible conducted by the Virginia State Police Academy/VDOT? VDOT diagram inserted into PowerPoint (traffic control zones). The length of the course is going to be a deterrent if offered over 2 days. One day or one-half day is good. This training generates a lot of discussion; sometimes time frames slip a bit. The Kerri Crane video can stay or a similar video for the emotional aspect. Excellent Train-the-Trainer. The final test is extremely too long. I feel confident I could lead all classroom activities, but would like to be able to spend time with the material to gain more expertise. The video can be reduced in time. 32—This depends on the group size and topic that may need more time. Again, 16 hours is a bit long. Instructor materials—hard to read captions and charts not clear. Should be in color for contrast. My only issue here is making this Virginia-specific. Also, concerned with multidisciplinary training and its possibility. The video was good if used in Chapter 2/7, but cut out all the rehab information, which is not relevant to the course. I would suggest stopping the tape right after the first mother interview. Pictures in instructor manual need to be lightened up to see pictures clearly. The “Seattle wave” video sums up the need for this training and could be moved forward in the curriculum. I would’ve liked to see the slides/PowerPoint bubbles or teaching points to appear the same way in the book as they do on the PowerPoint. I found myself searching for the corresponding info in the book to highlight for my own record or attention. It is difficult for any one person to teach it all in my opinion. Just as I know what to do in some scenarios, it is quite unrealistic for me to believe I could teach police or fire in a different way. I think stress- ing that this should be a dual or triple session for each discipline. Kerri Crane video length was sufficient and informative. Would like to see a 1-day refresher course after training material is finalized. Table C.20. Question 34—If you believe that the course contains gaps or omits any content which would be valuable, please provide an explanation. Comment Need to improve flow of delivery. Intro material that emphasizes the impact of incident duration on areas like Los Angeles Airport should be presented in a way that does not lessen the quick clearance goals in less populated areas. It will be easy for folks to say it is not important here because I am not at an LA Airport area. Add the “Virginia Highway Incident Management: Safe, Quick Clearance Strategies Interactive video” as a resource. Located on VDOT external website on incident management homepage. Virginia-only specific material to be inserted into the PowerPoint [presentation] so that there is the same material being instructed across the Commonwealth. We also need a main facilitator for the state that we would report to. No, but I get the feeling that it is primarily driven to open roads quicker. I do not agree we always need to shut it down, but clear- ance times had too much emphasis. Could provide these trainers with more state and local examples that could be used. The videos were great at driving home the point for personnel safety. The video of the girl was a little long, but it also helped push the need for improvement of clearing up incidents. I was amazed to learn how a long-term road closure could affect the entire world as far as commerce goes. As explained, the addition of local protocols will enhance the program. Well covered. Need better instructor manual with color graphs, not black and white. May separate lesson plan/PowerPoint/modules. Easier to use than book. From the communications (dispatch) perspective, I think there needs to be a module or an enhancement that addresses interoperable solutions. Need additional information added to Chapter 5 about ICS. Most law enforcement (street-level) and towing do not under- stand ICS. No, it is thorough. I think much more should include towing and recovery. Letting towers know about SOP expected. Linear situation for room needed for tow truck. Why are towers killed more than any other responder or incident person? Add Kerri Crane story. I will have to wait and see final materials.

56 Table C.21. Question 35—If you feel that the training presentation contains any shortcomings, please list them. Comment As the program grows and the need for updating materials devel- ops, cost is a variable in relation to delivery. It would be great if we could have key points boiled down to fit into a pocket guide for practitioners. Quick reference sheet would also work, especially in the work zone traffic control section. There is still apparent resistance of some participants to adopt phi- losophies of quick clearance. Some partners in the Fire Service refuse to reduce the mindset of unnecessary lane blockages and demanding “in-charge” attitudes. Until the core group changes, these concepts will not change current problems. The course needs an early attention grabber. The Kerri story should be played after introductions, get it out first and get people’s attention. She can become the “face” of this course. Also, potentially integrate the North Carolina video or some of it, again to grab attention of the students. I hope that with so many instructors the content will not be compromised or watered down. Would there be any public service messages or television (TV) ads be available to broadcast on radio and/or TV? No, I am comfortable with the program. This training is good to set up trainers to teach incident manage- ment. A point in the correct direction. While I understand the need to clear the road quickly, my area fire department (FD) is not going to allow units to leave hazardous materials (HAZMAT) alongside the roadway. They have to wait until either the wrecker or a cleanup crew arrives to handle the incident cleanup. Instructor Guide—some of the tables and figures are hard to read (ex: page 7–29). Shorten the 16 minute video. Seems to be inclusive of all elements. Short version of Kerri Crane video—not entire 16 min. Getting the five disciplines to work and train together. I believe after the initial push it will end up being single type training. Very limited number of people trained as trainers. Going forward, it is a lot of work to be championed by a small group of people. Need to talk to towers and understand challenges in our industry. How knowing more info about who you work with (tower) then you can better work an incident. Video is fine as far as time. A few more videos is always a nice break for adult learners. Kerri video could be a bit shorter. Make a pocketsize guide for all the stats. Need color guides—the black and white is hard to see. Quality of instructor manual copy; source of information. The only issue that I have is that I am still unclear as to how we manage or coordinate multi-agency joint training. I know that I can do this in my area with some if not most, but until we have a unified plan from each agency mandating this, it will, at best, be hit or miss. The 16 minute video is too long—edit to show the crash, trooper speaking, victim’s mother, back to crash would be sufficient in 5–6 minutes. Reduce video by half to 8–9 minutes. Table C.22. Question 36—What do you consider to be the most valuable information that you will take away from this class? Comment New course for delivery throughout the Commonwealth via multiple disciplines. Multidisciplinary messages like room needed to load a person on a straight board and other details like that. Safe quick clearance! “D” driver. It was a great refresher from what I learned in other programs I have taken. All good points. Been doing this training for a few years. It helps to have multidisciplinary setup. Like the reference to the shortening of the timeline. The importance of getting things cleaned up quickly and efficiently. SAFE + Quick clearance That TIM is a collaborative effort. Everyone has an important job to do. How the different disciplines can better work together to clear an incident. Inter-agency cooperation and communication. Officer safety when dealing with a traffic incident and understanding the need for quick clearance. Its need. Sixteen minute video should stay. Eight and 9 [are the] best units. Terms best help for responders. Tabletop worked great. Overall very informative. Reinforce safety and use of technologies. It has driven home the importance of agencies working together toward a common goal—“quick clearance”—in order to prevent further incidents. It also supports the need for multi-agency and multidisciplinary training. Explaining category of incidents, cone placement, and setting up for initial activities, coordinating with other agencies. Shorten 16-minute video to 5–6 minutes. National standard information, networking. Other perspectives from different agencies and disciplines. Awareness of how complicated it is to coordinate. Quick, safe mitigation of accidents prevents secondary collisions. Interfacing with each other—we need to stress more about egos not being important. Having relationships before you are “in action.” Instructor guide. I love the stats. I think it brings things into perspective. I liked the time lines for quick clearance. Quick and safe clearance instruction and learning how to reduce secondary incidents. The program as a whole is excellent. The desire of program to be multidisciplinary in delivery. Quick clearance—new to me and will definitely be presenting at my local FD first. Thanks! Knowledge of resources, personnel contacts, a well laid-out program.

57 “Other.” In addition, it should be noted that two of the par- ticipants from “DOT” were from the Wyoming DOT and attended the training to gauge the potential benefit of deliver- ing the training in Wyoming. Table C.23 contains a list of all participants’ and observers’ organization or discipline. Agenda The pilot course began with a welcome from a representative of the Montana Highway Patrol. After the FHWA introduction, one of the instructors gave a brief introduction to the course, seating arrangements, and instructor guide before the curricu- lum was introduced. After lunch, a representative from FHWA gave a brief presentation on FHWA’s role in training implemen- tation moving forward. The master instructors rotated respon- sibility for teaching the individual course modules. Tables C.24 and C.25 reflect the actual timing of each lesson and any breaks. Montana Train-the-Trainer Pilot Summary Introduction The third train-the-trainer pilot course was held in Helena, Montana, on July 11–12, 2012, at the Fort Harrison Montana Army National Guard Regional Training Institute. The course was led by two master instructors and observed by two mem- bers of the research team. There were 32 students at the train- ing representing law enforcement, fire, transportation, and towing, as shown in Figure C.12. Due to wildfires occurring in Montana at the time of the training, fewer fire participants were able to attend than originally anticipated. Therefore, the contacts from fire organizations that helped invite partici- pants to the training reached out to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to send par- ticipants; these participants are classified in Figure C.12 as Figure C.11. Change profile for Virginia pilot delivery. Figure C.12. Montana course attendees by discipline. 13 4 9 4 2 Law Enforcement Fire DOT Towing Other

58 Table C.23. Montana Course Attendees and Observers First Name Last Name Organization/Discipline Participants Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DNRC Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Tow Truck Association Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Tow Truck Association Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name East Helena Fire Department Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Fire Services Training School Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Fire Chiefs Association Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Wyoming DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Fire Services Training School Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Tow Truck Association Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DNRC Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Wyoming DOT Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Highway Patrol Attendee First Name Attendee Last Name Montana Tow Truck Association Observers First Name Last Name Observer, FHWA Montana Division First Name Last Name Senior Observer, Research Team First Name Last Name Junior Observer, Research Team First Name Last Name Observer, FHWA First Name Last Name Master Instructor, Research Team First Name Last Name Master Instructor, Research Team

59 Evaluation Results At the conclusion of the 2-day pilot course, each participant was given a course evaluation form to complete. The feedback from the Montana pilot was largely positive, with 96% of respon- dents agreeing that they would recommend this course to others. However, students at this pilot also expressed more con- cern regarding the length of the training, with 23% responding either “neutral” or “disagree” to the question “The duration of the training was sufficient for learning the subject matter,” and 43% responding “neutral” or “disagree” to “I believe that the time allocated to each lesson is sufficient to allow me to teach it.” These results are not surprising when one understands that Montana does not have a TIM program and the subject matter was relatively new to the participants. Also, despite the hesita- tion some participants expressed, 60% felt confident that they could lead the classroom activities. Figure C.13 provides evaluation results for all 28 questions. The evaluation responses were also analyzed by discipline, years of TIM experience, and years of training experience. The training appears to have been well received across all four of the disciplines in attendance, with towing attendees rating the training the highest. In addition, the message of SQC resonated with all attendees, regardless of TIM experience. Years of training experience appeared to have little impact on respondents’ confidence in their ability to lead classroom activities. The one responder who had 16–20 years of training experience felt “neutral” about his level of confidence in lead- ing activities, and of the 11 respondents with no previous training experience, 55% felt “neutral.” Question 16—I would recommend this training to others. Figure C.14 provides responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline. Question 23—I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. Figure C.15 provides responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. (Note: There were no respondents who fell within the 1–5 years of TIM experience range.) Question 28—I am confident that I can lead all classroom activities. Figure C.16 provides responses to Question 28 stratified by years of training experience. (Note: No respondents who fell within the 21+ years of training experience range.) Table C.24. Day 1: July 11, 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. Time Lesson 7:45–8:00 a.m. Breakfast (provided) 8:00–8:23 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 8:23–9:28 a.m. Lesson 0: Course Introduction 9:28–9:45 a.m. Break 9:45–10:43 a.m. Lesson 1: Statistics, Terminology, and Standards 10:43–10:56 a.m. Break 10:56–11:17 a.m. Lesson 2: Notification and Response 11:17 a.m.–Noon Lesson 3: Arrival Noon–12:48 p.m. Lunch (provided) 12:48–1:14 p.m. Lesson 3: Arrival (cont’d) 1:14–1:32 p.m. Lesson 4: Initial Size-Up 1:32–2:01 p.m. Lesson 5: Command Responsibilities 2:01–2:16 p.m. Break 2:16–3:03 p.m. Lesson 6: Safety, Patient Care, and Investigation 3:03–3:16 p.m. Break 3:16–4:00 p.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management Table C.25. Day 2: July 12, 8:00 a.m.–3:40 p.m. Time Lesson 7:45–8:00 a.m. Breakfast (provided) 8:00–9:02 a.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management (cont’d) 9:02–9:18 a.m. Break 9:18–9:44 a.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management (cont’d) 9:44–10:28 a.m. Lesson 8: Removal 10:28–10:34 a.m. Lesson 9: Termination 10:34–10:52 a.m. Break 10:52 a.m.–12:25 p.m. Lesson 10: Hands-On Tabletop Activity 12:25–1:21 p.m. Lunch (provided) 1:21–1:49 p.m. Lesson 11: Situational Awareness 1:49–2:05 p.m. Break 2:05–2:13 p.m. Introduction to Train-the-Trainer Instructor Guide 2:13–2:48 p.m. Open Discussion 2:48–3:40 p.m. Assessment and Evaluation

60 16% 64% 20% 1. The date and time of today's training fit my schedule. 8% 15% 62% 15% 2. The duration of the training was sufficient for learning the subject matter. 60% 40% 3. The training environment was comfortable/appropriate for the class. 46% 54% 5. The instructor clearly explained the goals and objectives of the training. 42% 58% 6. The instructor clearly conveyed the material to the audience. 19% 81% 7. The instructor's knowledge of the subject matter was satisfactory. 4% 11% 50% 35% 8. The instructor's pace of presenting the material was appropriate. 35% 65% 9. The instructor satisfactorily answered participants' questions. 4% 31% 65% 10. The instructor satisfactorily used training aids to help facilitate a clearer understanding of the topic. 4% 54% 42% 12. The content of this training course was valuable to me in developing my knowledge of this subject matter. Figure C.13. Evaluation results for the Montana train-the-trainer pilot (continued on next page).

61 4% 4% 44% 48% 13. The student workbooks provided helped me understand the content of the training. 8% 54% 38% 14. The content of this training appropriately built on my existing knowledge of this subject matter. 4% 87% 9% 15. I am satisfied that the learning objectives for this training were met. 4% 42% 54% 16. I would recommend this training to others. 16% 69% 15% 17. Based on the training I received, I am able to explain the subject matter to others that may need future assistance on this topic. 4% 38% 31% 27% 18. I am likely to request or attend additional training on this topic in the future. 15% 35% 50% 19. During the training I learned methods/practices that will help me more quickly mitigate incidents. 4% 8% 72% 16% 20. The content and best practices promoted in the course are appropriate to the local context. 54%42% 4% 21. I gained an understanding of the need for coordinated incident mitigation. 38% 58% 4% 22. I acquired knowledge of roadway safety and scene management methods. Figure C.13. Evaluation results for the Montana train-the-trainer pilot (continued on next page). (continued from previous page)

62 All of the comments to the qualitative feedback sections are presented in Tables C.26 through C.33, along with the resolu- tion to each comment (if applicable). Key themes from the qualitative feedback sections include the following: • The course felt rushed; a lot of information was presented very quickly. Also, participants noted they will need more practice and time reviewing the materials before instructing the course. Given that the material being presented may have been newer to Montana participants than to those in the other pilot locations, the research team was not sur- prised by this response. • There should be more traceability between the PowerPoint presentation and instructor guide. The research team 58% 42% 23. I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. 27% 27% 27% 14% 5% 25. Estimate the time this training may save you on researching information. >10 hours 6 - 10 hours 3 - 5 hours 1 - 2 hours 0 hours 4% 8% 64% 24% 27. Based on the training and materials I received, I understand how to set up the classroom for training. 40% 48% 12% 28. Based on the training and materials I received, I am confident that I can lead all classroom activities. 4% 60% 36% 29. The instructor notes contained in the Instructor Guides will help facilitate my delivery of the course. 52% 48% 30. I am satisfied that the slide presentations, videos, and other visual aids provide a good foundation for teaching the course. 52% 48% 31. The resource and reference materials are relevant to the curriculum content. 4% 39% 39% 18% 32. I believe that the time allocated to each lesson is sufficient to allow me to teach it. Figure C.13. Evaluation results for the Montana train-the-trainer pilot. (continued from previous page)

63 50%50% 21+ 50% 50% 16-20 100% 11-15 50%50% 6-10 33% 67% No Exp. Figure C.15. Montana responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. 100% 16-20 100% 11-15 67% 33% 6-10 50%50% 1-5 55%36% 9% No Experience Figure C.16. Montana responses to Question 28 stratified by years of training experience. 37% 63% DOT 60% 40% Fire 10% 40% 50% Law Enforcement 33% 67% Towing Figure C.14. Montana course responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline.

64 will address this concern in the final materials by adding the Power Point slides to the corresponding pages in instructor guide. • The importance of inter-agency cooperation and commu- nication needs to be emphasized. (Note: A known history of miscommunication/disagreement between on-scene responders in Montana is a primary reason the state was selected to be a pilot workshop location.) Curriculum Modifications As a result of comments received during the training deliv- ered in Helena, Montana, the research team made 153 changes to the course curriculum. The types of changes implemented are outlined in Figure C.17. Table C.26. Question 4—Scheduling Comments Comment The training could go another ½ day. I feel a little rushed in some areas. A little overwhelming. While the pace was fast to cover the material, I have the experience in fire and EMS that I understood the philosophies behind the program. My challenge is that many of our princi- pals in wildland fire are younger folks who don’t have that experience and the classroom pace will have to slow down a bit to allow them digestion. This can be tailored on the local level. Case studies presented and end of second day got long. Rolled out a lot of information quickly. Presenters old. A great job, but course should have been a half day longer to not feel so rushed. I felt the information presented was great, but there was a lot to process in 2 days. This even more difficult knowing that we have to teach it as well. The dates and times are fine. Duration of the training could be shorter. Too much intro stuff—took too long. Upstream, downstream, one lane numbers too long. Get on with it. Too many slides on time line—cut by half. Video too long—shorten and make more of a point that it was a medical closure. Room being hot was beyond instructors’ control. No. 2—not sure! I did not receive any NIMS or ICS training before- hand. This was kind of my first exposure, but I had enough experience at Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) to relate to some of the case situations and knowledge of what we as a DOT try to do. Always hard for independent business owners to take time from their busy time of the year. It would be important for instructors to recognize independent business owners and volunteers from fire departments and such for spending the time and money to attend two. The duration of the class, considering the type of material, is pretty short. Our instructors are good and very well-rehearsed. A new instructor would need some time and practice. Table C.27. Question 11—Instructor Comments Comment Some of the slides and videos didn’t give a complete view of the crash scenes. It was hard to decide where to place emergency vehicles at the scene when viewing the slides. At this writing, we have got to the “tactile” learning portion, but the written lesson and visual aids enhance and accommodate these different learning styles. All instructors did a very good job of facilitating conversations and still keeping the class on track. Very good video clips that were relevant and interesting. Both Tom and Ron are outstanding! Seemed a little rushed. Could have gone an hour longer the first day to help cover material. Presenters did a great job of prepping group for possible questions when leading class and gave areas you should research and prep for. The ability of the instructors to bounce back and forth was helpful in keeping my attention and effectively communicating the information. The instructors did a great job. The best part is that they are or have been involved in all of the life situations. Just a little bit slow at times. The instructors gained my respect very early on Day One because they were “real.” They had managed incidents. They had seen the results of mismanaged incidents firsthand. They were experienced veterans and very articulate in their presentations. Text was difficult to follow at times. Each PowerPoint slide should have chapter and number so that instructor can keep track of where we are. The secondary crash video with Kerri was poorly produced and not a very valuable tool for training. No issues noted. Instructors were very knowledgeable and pas- sionate about the training subject matter. No. 8 relates back to question No. 2. The pace maybe okay if I had other training. Maybe a bit fast if I did not have the experience. PowerPoint and book need coinciding page numbers. Page number of workbook on lower right hand side of slide. 5: I think some of the students were confused about clearing scenes quickly. This is a new concept for Montana and, if the principles are applied correctly, then TIM will become SOP. Maybe if you focus on this being a new process, not excuse for sloppy work—I think the supervisors were nervous and saw potential for issues with their troops. Excellent team instruction. Thanks! Key curriculum modifications implemented by the research team as a result of the Montana training include • Reinforced safe, quick clearance terminology throughout. • Added instructor notes that provide context for course content, promote uniformity of delivery, and enhance messaging. • Updated instructor guide and student workbook to match presentation.

65 Table C.28. Question 24—Overall Training Comments Comment I now understand that communicating to the other departments that are responding to a scene will greatly reduce the time my guys and I will spend on the pavement in harm’s way. (Referencing No. 17) I am an adult educator and understand adult learners. Many people in this room probably aren’t and don’t. This can be a hindrance to relaying the information. A few moments addressing adult learners and how to effectively convey the message may be helpful. A lot of what was presented seems like common sense for a seasoned veteran. But, it is good for us “old guys” to be reminded to stop and think through a situation. Secondary accidents: Great new info on secondary accidents. The movie with the woman that survived a secondary crash I believe was too long. I never quite connected her story, although I believe others might. I understand the concept of quick clearance and its benefits, but we need to address getting the job done at an incident from a law enforcement perspective. Amount of material and time required is long. Thought Kerri’s story was a good component to remind us of the consequences of secondary crashes. Reinforces what we are all here for. I would need to study this material more to fully be able to relate this material to others. There is so much. Additional time to make it presentable would be needed for me to address the other disciplines that I am not an expert in. I think it could be taught without student books. I don’t know what the student book looks like, but I hope it’s half the size of the instructor book. There seem to be a lot of sections that could be shortened a lot. Most of the first responders I deal with on incidents are volunteers that are very poorly trained and very poorly equipped. “Secondary” incidents are common in my environment. All incident response entities need this training—NOW! I do not think this course cannot be put on without subject matter experts. I would not provide this course to others without taking the training. The In-Time video, I think, was useful for the about first half. After that, I did not get much out of it. There seem to be a lot of urban photos and situations. It would be nice to have rural presentation to more align with rural settings we deal with in a geographically challenged state. Several states around Montana are in the same situation. Should consider some material to address responders using privately owned vehicles to arrive on scene. This is a true issue in rural states. It will take a little [time] to look over the material and [I will need to] instruct a couple times before I will feel confident that I have a strong under- standing and can answer student questions. A coordinated effort by the various disciplines to launch this program will save lives. The launching of a statewide multidisciplinary program by the end of the year is not possible. Five years is more realistic. I was unsure what to expect before attending. After attending, I learned and appreciated the course and its content. I feel this is vital training for all emergency responders. Table C.29. Question 26—Time-Saving Measures Comments Comment Not sure how to answer this one. Most of this material is new to me. I’m going to have to spend a lot of time reading through it and doing research. One must always prepare and researching local protocols will always be part of it. All resources are great. The modular system should work nicely. Some examples used by instructors could be in manual—i.e., using cell phones is like driving impaired. Great stuff—lots of resources. It is usually easier to sell a new tactic if you can show it is listed as “best practice” in a published government publication. Course materials give excellent references for future use. I have been conducting local “incident action planning” meetings for several years. Now, for the first time, I have a lesson plan. I can’t wait to see the training aids. I will research online, but up until now, I’ve been flying by the seat of my pants. Having used UFIS drivers training (Emergency Driving) and scene safety, most was not new material. Some of the videos were a good addition. A lot of the information being presented has already been put into use in the area I work. What I have learned and the websites given during the training will help to get the rest on board. If I was to be the trainer in WYDOT for this course, I don’t believe you could give me the materials only and ship me out. You need the knowledge of those that helped develop the presentation.

66 Table C.30. Question 33—Instructor Materials Comments Comment Again, this is new to me. It is going to take quite a bit of learning the material before I can lead a class on this subject matter. I’m a little overwhelmed. (Referencing No. 27) Haven’t received all materials . . . this writing. (Referencing No. 32) See No. 4. Any resource is helpful. If I don’t have to build it that saves me time to better learn the information. Didn’t get a lot from the Kerri Crane video. Might be just my own law enforcement perspective. I know this is a pilot, but if we are going to be instructing this we really need the PowerPoint quicker and we need to be heading out to train this to others. Looking forward to shortened version in order to deliver to volunteers. Also looking forward to multidiscipline audiences. I believe we have been handed an opportunity to move our highway responses to a much higher level. The material in this course will save lives! Good training materials, videos, and class participation exercises to use in teaching the course. On the first few times teaching this, it will take longer to present all the material. As one practices, I believe the time allotted would be sufficient. I think the course could be taught without books for the students. To present this to most fire departments, will need to shorten it a lot. As with most federal-level classes, I would probably cut the slides by 50%. I haven’t seen all the material yet, but it appears the course would require several days to teach, especially if we are staging incidents and prac- ticing our response. That might be tough when you are dealing with a class of volunteers. Leave space under instructor notes for instructors to add additional notes and comments. After-action reviews should be integrated into course materials. They can go a long way in bringing understanding on why certain events occurred as well as helping to build the inter-ageing team. Once the materials for instructing are sent out, it may answer No. 27. I did like Kerri’s video. It’s a reality awareness that should capture all responders. It will take a couple sessions as an actual instructor before I can really accurately answer these questions. Next step—how to keep it fresh? It needs a bit more four-lane interstate case studies. It is harder when you block one lane plus 1 and you only have two to begin with. And you may not have any alternate routes. Some examples could stimulate discussion. More involvement and training would be necessary before I’d feel comfortable instructing. Table C.31. Question 34—“If you believe that the course contains gaps or omits any content which would be valuable, please provide an explanation.” Comment I have not seen any gaps or missing content. The instructors have done a good job “hitting home” with the material in the instructor guide. Need to put some more rural examples, case studies. I think it covers it all! I like the modular concept. I will utilize that concept on the road instructing fire departments! Possibly have an exercise on incident action planning and establishing incident command. This will be a big part for the groups moving forward. I would like to see more discussion about the role of T/R in the TIM program. It focused a lot on fire and LE, but didn’t continue the discussion much about how the casualty was removed and the effects of the tow truck positioning on the scene. A lot of responders do not understand that tow trucks need to clear a scene and effectively remove damaged vehicles. The course assumes a working knowledge of ICS [incident command system]. My experience outside the fire com- munity finds that is not the case. I-100 and 200 is not adequate for Incident Commanders. Students need a better understanding of unified command and how it works in the field. It seemed there were segments of the PowerPoint presentation that seemed scattered. Perhaps best described like a computer’s hard drive that needs to be defragmented. Having more rural presentation material would be more audi- ence appropriate and discussions more real life. Should include a copy of 6I from MUTCD. The gap is how the scene changes in relation to the tow truck operator’s needs. As presented, not once did the instruction talk about how the scene will change—the need to reevaluate and readjust the scene. You-tube: “Mechanism of injury”—entertaining video.

67 Table C.32. Question 35—“If you feel that the training presentation contains any shortcomings, please list them.” Comment Again, I believe the course could go ½ day longer. Speaking about the Train-the-Trainer course. Well done, appropriate. Overall time training may be difficult to “sell” to local agencies and private firms. We should continue to look for ways to condense presentations. Consider including Ch. 6I: 3.5 pages in the manual (MUTCD). Maybe a module about debriefing and/or after-action reports. Do we really need a demonstration on exiting a vehicle or placing cones? It seemed pretty well explained in the classroom on the board. Discussion on after-action meetings and reports for motor incidents. Possibly adding more small-group interdisciplinary activities. The training presentation was good. The instructors were efficient and knowledgeable. The audio/visual component was well thought out and followed the book. It would be nice to have corresponding back page numbers on all slides for faster reference. Great program. You do not recognize or talk about risk management and the mitigation of risk even though that is what the whole course is about. There was very little presentation material regarding tow truck protocol and ambulance protocol. Having these folks included provides a better understanding of roles and responsibilities for all IC scenarios. Need to work on wording for cleaning scenes quickly. Need to ensure it doesn’t result in shoddy, incom- plete instructions. It may not be the course, but it may be examples of who should be at trainings. Who should be at year one trainings? When should refreshers be done? What is a good class size? Or mix for discussion purposes? The basic program is primarily what I would call First Responder Roaded. Please address the end-of- scene needs. Lesson 11 seemed to take a little too much time. It’s a pretty basic principle exiting the car. Not sure if much was gained by the actual demonstration. Table C.33. Question 36—“What do you consider to be the most valuable information that you will take away from this class?” Comment Lesson 3: Arrival was the most valuable information I gained. The terms “move it” or “work it” is the first time I heard them and once explained will give my guys a better idea of when to stay on the pavement or get off the pavement. The entire chapter explains how to set up a scene to safely protect everyone involved. Along with Chapter 7 on traffic control, I now understand how to set up a scene. The five traffic cone setup: great information. Interdisciplinary understanding; “Just what is it that you do? Oh, that makes sense!” I plan to implement the modules into 1–2 hour training meetings with local FD’s, tow companies, etc. Video clips of traffic examples—very compelling. All instructor materials—preparation bringing this course forward. The simple realization that we need to get together (all disciplines) and train together and maybe pre-plan for different scenarios. Opened my eyes to what the other disciplines are doing at the scene. Interaction with other disciplines. I believe highway work to be some of the most dangerous activities that we do. Hats off to all the great work that went into this course. Communication between the different agencies through each phase or step of incident management. Better understanding of other agency and private sector concerns in incident management. Need to make sure all sides are taught and we need to come up with solutions everyone can agree to. What is expected of me as I work with the other disciplines on scene. (continued on next page)

68 Table C.33. Question 36—“What do you consider to be the most valuable information that you will take away from this class?” Comment That it takes many people working together to shorten the timeline I believe we need to do. To have all of the other agencies in one room. MUTCD and the fact that in most areas of Montana, we can’t comply in a timely manner. This course was way too long. Most of the people I work with and for can’t take 12 hours out of their lives on available training hours for their departments. For the course to have an impact on firefighters, it needs to be shortened to 3–4 hours—honestly, 3 hours max. That gives me the ability to back coordinated emergency response teams that can safely reduce incident on-scene time lines, save lives, and not get any additional people injured or killed, due to their response to the incident. I have discovered valuable information from this course, that I will be able to share within my own crew/agency, that will enhance safety, reduce incidents of secondary crashes—on incidents and within my maintenance “work zones”—and reduce on-scene time lines. The opportunity to develop a game plan for local jurisdictions before the incident and focus on common goals for all involved. Hands-on exercise and the value of this segment. Providing all partnerships the same information material with an understanding of why each agency plays a role in safe clearance of a specific incident. All playing together in the sand box with the ultimate end result: safe clearance in the quickest manner. The importance of quick clearing to avoid secondary collisions. I really appreciated the hands-on parts. Helps sink in the validity of the training. That it is time to bring all groups to the table to communicate, coordinate, and train together. The training program itself. From the DOT side, it opened my eyes to what other disciplines have to do. We touched on it some, but the main goal of a transportation system is to move traffic. I don’t think we pushed the return traffic flow enough. What I mean is I think “intermediate” to “major” crashes should use ICS, even if there is no command post. Someone needs to take charge of the crash scene. Rookie Trooper or Engine Chief, they need to say “I’m in charge until . . .” and they need to know these TIM principals to keep communications open with a goal of opening the system back up to traffic. We have rural volunteer firefighters that will stay and block traffic until the last dog is hung. We need to be able to send folks home at the right time and keep folks for as long as needed also. By following and implementing TIM programs to decrease secondary accidents, we can work as a team and shorten or at least not lengthen the time line. All of it! I got a lot from this course. This has been a long time coming to our agency. I also think it was pre- sented very well. Simple approach to an important officer safety issue. Training was paced well to easily understand and follow. (continued) Figure C.17. Change profile for Montana pilot delivery.

69 Figure C.18. Florida course attendees by discipline. 8 15 15 10 Law Enforcement Fire DOT Towing Attendee Name Organization Attendee First and Last Name South Trail Fire & Rescue Attendee First and Last Name Florida Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Florida Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Southwest Ranches Volunteer Fire Rescue Attendee First and Last Name Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Attendee First and Last Name American Towing Inc. Attendee First and Last Name Priority Towing Inc. Attendee First and Last Name Anchor Towing Attendee First and Last Name Miami-Dade Expressway Authority Attendee First and Last Name Tice Fire Department Attendee First and Last Name Hollywood Fire Rescue Attendee First and Last Name Florida Department of Transporta- tion (FDOT) District Four Attendee First and Last Name FDOT Attendee First and Last Name Hallandale Beach Fire Rescue Attendee First and Last Name FDOT Attendee First and Last Name FDOT District Four Attendee First and Last Name FDOT Attendee First and Last Name FDOT Attendee First and Last Name Broward Sheriff’s Office Attendee First and Last Name Southeastern College Attendee First and Last Name Emerald Towing Service Attendee First and Last Name US Coast Guard Aux. BBC Attendee First and Last Name Florida Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Florida Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Rapid Incident Scene Clearance (RISC) Provider Table C.34. Florida Course Attendees Attendee Name Organization Attendee First and Last Name FDOT Attendee First and Last Name Transcore, FDOT District 3 Attendee First and Last Name AECOM Attendee First and Last Name Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise Attendee First and Last Name FDOT District Four SMART SunGuide RTMC Attendee First and Last Name Westway Towing Attendee First and Last Name FDOT Attendee First and Last Name City of Miami Attendee First and Last Name Margate Fire Rescue Attendee First and Last Name Florida Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Marion County Fire Rescue Attendee First and Last Name Florida Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Florida Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name South Trail FD Attendee First and Last Name Plant City Fire Rescue Attendee First and Last Name FDOT District Four Attendee First and Last Name Florida Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Westbrook Towing Attendee First and Last Name Kauff’s Transportation Systems Attendee First and Last Name FDOT Attendee First and Last Name Tice Fire Department Attendee First and Last Name DBI Services Attendee First and Last Name DBI Services Contractor Name Title/Organization Contractor First and Last Name Master Instructor, Research Team Florida Train-the-Trainer Pilot Summary Introduction The final train-the-trainer pilot course was held in Florida on August 8–9, 2012, at the Florida DOT SMART SunGuide Center. The course was led by two master instructors and observed by two representatives from the research team. There was representation from law enforcement, fire, transporta- tion, and towing as shown in Figure C.18. Table C.34 con- tains a list of all participants’ and observers’ organizations.

70 Table C.35. Day 1: August 8, 8:00 a.m.– 4:00 p.m. Time Lesson 7:45–8:00 a.m. Breakfast (provided) 8:00–8:21 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 8:21–9:10 a.m. Lesson 0: Course Introduction 9:10–9:23 a.m. Break 9:23–10:18 a.m. Lesson 1: Statistics, Terminology, and Standards 10:18–10:28 a.m. Break 10:28–10:58 a.m. Lesson 2: Notification and Response 10:58–11:53 a.m. Lesson 3: Arrival 11:53 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Lunch (provided) 12:30–1:11 p.m. Lesson 3: Arrival (cont’d) 1:11–1:43 p.m. Lesson 4: Initial Size-Up 1:43–2:00 p.m. Break 2:00–2:24 p.m. Lesson 5: Command Responsibilities 2:24–3:21 p.m. Lesson 6: Safety, Patient Care, and Investigation 3:21–3:39 p.m. Break 3:39–3:57 p.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management Table C.36. Day 2: August 9, 8:00 a.m.–3:15 p.m. Time Lesson 7:45–8:00 a.m. Breakfast (provided) 8:00–9:13 a.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management (cont’d) 9:13–9:28 a.m. Break 9:28–9:36 a.m. Lesson 7: Traffic Management (cont’d) 9:36–10:26 a.m. Lesson 8: Removal 10:26–10:31 a.m. Lesson 9: Termination 10:31–10:47 a.m. Break 10:47–11:56 a.m. Lesson 10: Hands-On Tabletop Activity 11:56 a.m.–12:35 p.m. Lunch (provided) 12:56–1:22 p.m. Lesson 11: Situational Awareness 1:22–1:35 p.m. Course Evaluation 1:35–2:00 p.m. Group Discussion 2:00–3:15 p.m. Assessment Agenda The pilot course began with introductions from a representa- tive from FHWA about FHWA’s role in training implementa- tion. Unlike the other pilot courses, there was no introduction from senior leadership from any of the TIM disciplines. After the FHWA introduction, the course curriculum was intro- duced. The master instructors rotated responsibility for teaching the individual course modules. Tables C.35 and C.36 reflect the actual timing of each lesson and any breaks. Evaluation Results At the conclusion of the 2-day pilot course, the participants were given a course evaluation form to complete. As was the case in the other train-the-trainer pilots, the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Two-thirds of respondents “strongly agreed” that they would recommend this training to others. An additional 27% “agreed” with that statement, meaning 46 participants out of 48 would recommend the training to other responders. At least 90% of respondents responded positively to all but two evaluation questions. The two ques- tions with slightly less positive reactions dealt with instruc- tors satisfactorily answering questions and the appropriateness of the curriculum to the local context. The somewhat lower scores in these two questions were related to skepticism from some attendees about whether certain elements of the cur- riculum could work in Florida. This disagreement led the instructors to go off-script occasionally as they discussed cer- tain nuances of the curriculum. While the course is designed to accommodate discussion, repeated digressions can result in time management issues. As the instructors began to run out of time, it necessitated shorter question responses, which some in the course took as providing “evasive” answers. This issue points to the importance of consistently following the curricu- lum guide to help avoid lengthy digressions. Figure C.19 illus- trates the evaluation results for all 28 questions. The evaluation responses were also analyzed by discipline, years of TIM experience, and years of training experience. The training appears to have been well received across all four of the disciplines in attendance. According to the responses to Question 16, 100% of towing attendees, 93% of DOT attend- ees, 94% of fire attendees, and 89% of law enforcement would recommend this course to others. The message of SQC appeared to resonate with nearly all attendees, regardless of TIM experience. An analysis of Ques- tion 23 reveals that all but two attendees (one in the 16–20 year range and one in the 11–15 year range) reported a gain in SQC appreciation. Many of the respondents reported that they felt confident in their ability to subsequently teach the curriculum to other responders. As shown by the responses to Question 28, this confidence did not appear to be affected by years of training experience. Only five attendees did not express confidence: one in the 21+ year range, one in the 16–20 year range, and two in the 6–10 year range.

71 59% 39% 2% 1. The date and time of today's training fit my schedule. 53%45% 2% 2. The duration of the training was sufficient for learning the subject matter. 61% 33% 4% 2% 3. The training environment was comfortable/appropriate for the class. 55% 41% 4% 5. The instructor clearly explained the goals and objectives of the training. 55% 41% 2% 2% 6. The instructor clearly conveyed the material to the audience. 61% 33% 4% 2% 7. The instructor's knowledge of the subject matter was satisfactory. 59% 39% 2% 8. The instructor's pace of presenting the material was appropriate. 47% 41% 8% 4% 9. The instructor satisfactorily answered participants' questions. 69% 29% 2% 10. The instructor satisfactorily used training aids to help facilitate a clearer understanding of the topic. 63% 29% 8% 12. The content of this training course was valuable to me in developing my knowledge of this subject matter. Figure C.19. Evaluation results for the Florida train-the-trainer pilot (continued on next page).

72 63% 35% 2% 13. The student workbooks provided helped me understand the content of the training. 63% 35% 2% 14. The content of this training appropriately built on my existing knowledge of this subject matter. 54% 42% 2% 2% 15. I am satisfied that the learning objectives for this training were met. 67% 27% 4% 2% 16. I would recommend this training to others. 48% 48% 2% 2% 17. Based on the training I received, I am able to explain the subject matter to others that may need future assistance on this topic. 63% 31% 2% 4% 18. I am likely to request or attend additional training on this topic in the future. 59% 33% 6% 2% 19. During the training I learned methods/practices that will help me more quickly mitigate incidents. 54% 34% 6% 6% 20. The content and best practices promoted in the course are appropriate to the local context. 67% 27% 6% 21. I gained an understanding of the need for coordinated incident mitigation. 65% 25% 8% 2% 22. I acquired knowledge of roadway safety and scene management methods. Figure C.19. Evaluation results for the Florida train-the-trainer pilot (continued on next page). (continued from previous page)

73 65% 31% 4% 23. I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. 23% 37% 23% 15% 2% 25. Estimate the time this training may save you on researching information. >10 hours 6 - 10 hours 3 - 5 hours 1 - 2 hours 0 hours 49% 47% 4% 27. Based on the training and materials I received, I understand how to set up the classroom for training. 31% 59% 10% 28. Based on the training and materials I received, I am confident that I can lead all classroom activities. 47% 51% 2% 29. The instructor notes contained in the Instructor Guides will help facilitate my delivery of the course. 53%43% 2% 2% 30. I am satisfied that the slide presentations, videos, and other visual aids provide a good foundation for teaching the course. 63% 37% 31. The resources and reference materials are relevant to the curriculum content. 39% 53% 6% 2% 32. I believe that the time allocated to each lesson is sufficient to allow me to teach it. Figure C.19. Evaluation results for the Florida train-the-trainer pilot. (continued from previous page)

74 Question 16—I would recommend this training to others. Figure C.20 provides responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline. Question 23—I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. Figure C.21 provides responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. Question 28—I am confident that I can lead all classroom activities. Figure C.22 provides responses to Question 28 stratified by years of training experience. While nearly all participants had a positive experience, the qualitative feedback provided the team with insight into areas of potential improvement. Most of the constructive feedback centered on including more local context to the training, such as transportation management center (TMC) and service patrol information. The local context is an important part of the 7% 20% 73% DOT 6% 27% 67% Fire 11% 56% 33% Law Enf. 11% 89% Tow Figure C.20. Florida course responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline. Figure C.21. Florida course responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. 37% 63% 21+ 50%50% 16-20 9% 18% 73% 11-15 25% 75% 6-10 42% 58% 1-5 100% No Exp.

75 Figure C.22. Florida course responses to Question 28 stratified by years of training experience. 11% 67% 22% 21+ 25% 50% 25% 16-20 33% 67% 11-15 17% 58% 25% 6-10 50%50% 1-5 87% 13%No Exp. course and there were fewer local examples in this course than in other pilots. As noted by some participants, there was some hostility and negativity among a few of the students. Inclusion of additional local context, particularly at the beginning of the course, may have alleviated some of the skepticism. All comments to the qualitative feedback sections are pre- sented in Tables C.37 through C.44, along with the resolution to each comment (if applicable). Observer Comments and Course Modifications Overall, the observer team felt this was one of the most chal- lenging pilot courses, yet the result was still very positive. The pilot was challenging because there was a high level of skepti- cism among a small, but vocal, portion of the class attendees. This skepticism reinforced the importance of the course Table C.37. Question 4—Scheduling Comments Comment Resolution Chairs at facility could have been more comfortable. Time allocated was sufficient for the amount of material presented. Chair complaint passed to venue contact. Chairs need to be replaced. Chair complaint passed to venue contact. Chairs were uncomfortable for the amount of time spent in them. Understanding this was beyond your control! Chair complaint passed to venue contact. Chairs were very uncomfortable. Hard seats. Chair complaint passed to venue contact. Good job on prep, execution, and show. Instructors all of them excellent job. Very professional! na Hope the final course can recommend key topics in case the training is needed to be shortened to accommodate some first responders schedule. I understand that may be a local issue, but could be based on common deficiencies throughout nation. Stressed throughout course that lessons do not need to be taught all in one session. I had enough advance warning to clear my schedule, which is key. na I have been in the job two years and this session has been the one with the most information I’ve gotten yet. One-stop session on all you would need to know or start thinking about. Thanks, Bill. na I understand there will be training in other areas of Florida. Pensacola is an area that is ready, so I wanted to get trained now to move forward quickly. na More time (3 days). Overall, great course—instructors very knowledgeable. na N/A great job. na Need better chairs for the amount of time spent in them. Chair complaint passed to venue contact. Seats were not made for 2 full days. Gotta do a better job with an advance to ensure comfort for the students when securing a venue for use. Chair complaint passed to venue contact. (text continues on page 81)

76 Table C.38. Question 11—Instructor Comments Comment Resolution A lot of evasiveness in answering some questions when hard pressed. This was due to time management issues. Having instructors stick to the script will reduce digressions. As this was a Train-the-Trainer pilot, some of the material was not covered in detail that would normally be done in the regular training. na Car scenes were a great learning tool. na Excellent instructors. Thank you. na Have an instructor at each individual tabletop scenario—please. More instructions on tabletop activity were added after this pilot to allow exercise to commence without instructor at table. I know it is hard to get disciplines to change their way of thinking. Maybe a little more explana- tion at the beginning to get rid of some negativity. Indicates importance of having senior leadership from various disciplines speak at beginning of course. This did not occur in Florida. I see the student exercises in most cases were not demonstrated, just referred to. However, to be more effective in bringing forth the proper message (I may interpret it differently), it would have been nice to address them more. While the exercises themselves were not per- formed, the principles necessary for leading the exercises were taught. Instructors were great!! na Kept swearing by the timeline when, in fact, keeping it on the easel would have been sufficient. na May need to reiterate throughout training that this is a Train-the-Trainer session since class partic- ipants constantly bring up local issues at our training. Important for instructors not to digress from the script and get caught up in too many local questions. Need more breaks—10 minutes each hour. Noted. Nice that instructors were from different fields as first responders. na Okay. Good to go. na Ron had excellent knowledge of presentation. Ron . . . answered questions satisfactorily, Gary sometimes “vague.” na Ron was excellent; other instructor (Gary) did not know South Florida audience and therefore was unprepared to answer certain questions. He seemed to “tap dance” a lot. This was due to time management issues. Having instructors stick to the script will reduce digressions. Ron was great, kept attention well. Gary talked [about] how his department handled things, above what we could implement. This was due to time management issues. Having instructors stick to the script will reduce digressions.

77 Table C.39. Question 24—Overall Training Comments Comment Resolution From time to time, kindly inform the class what page you are on—slides don’t match pages. Final curriculum page numbers will match. I already had knowledge about subject. This just helped fur- ther explain things I already knew and why. na I believe more information about the TMC and the resources available to the responders would be helpful. Some of the TMC information should be included. Excellent point. Speaks to the need for local customization of curriculum (not all areas have TMC). Nothing can replace on scene experience. Some students have never had feet on the ground and do not have a clue. Important to bring the right kind of students into the course. Okay. Good to go. na Overall an excellent training presentation. A little long but lots of helpful information. na Seems like a great training that will benefit first responder agencies. na The material that was provided is helpful. I can use the books as a quick reference guide/tool. na This course gave me a better insight on how different agen- cies would like to perform their jobs. Networking was excellent. na Training program was excellent. na Training very good. Interaction with all agencies helpful. Need more classes dealing with traffic. na Wish I had the simulation road maps. Additional instructions on tabletop scenarios added after this pilot. Working training into our five different fields would be good, but will it happen. I hope we can train together to help in all our learning and respect for each other’s role in highway safety. na Table C.40. Question 26—Time-Saving Measures Comments Comment Resolution Attended two FHWA Traffic Incident Management (TIM) workshops prior to this that covered a lot of the same material. na Gave out good information!! na Good source of information to take for training. na Happy to have these materials at hand for further training. I have been gathering information around the state for our area. na I already had a lot of this information. na Thank you for doing the research for us. na The material was well presented to better understand the different roles in each profession. na This class gave me the tools to perform a good class to anyone that is expected to perform under temporary traffic control (TTC) incidents. na

78 Table C.41. Question 33—Instructor Materials Comments Comment Resolution Amount of time needed to teach is too high; it is unreasonable to take people off the road for that many hours. Info needs to be condensed. It was stressed numerous times that the course is intended to be broken into modules. Another day covering commercial trucks, rigs, tankers, and HAZMAT, fuel spills. Noted; however, many complained the course was already long. Excellent program. Some minor mistakes in instructor guide that were pointed out in class. Expected in a pilot delivery. Good work with material. Could include a severe incident or accident such as the alligator alley 2000 36-car/truck accident due to fog, I-4 incident multicar/truck incident, and I-75 fog/smoke multi incident. What would you do? Excellent point. Speaks to the need for local customization of curriculum. I like the suggestion and ability to break out the modules as needed to target the student needs. na I will need to train other individuals separately to assist me in training a class, but that is doable. na Lengthy but a lot of good materials that will help. na Make a definite time limit for the course (i.e., 8 hours or 16 hours). Each lesson has an expected time length. Teachers did an excellent job; well taught. na Table C.42. Question 34—“If you believe that the course contains gaps or omits any content which would be valuable, please provide an explanation.” Comment Resolution A module dedicated to dispatch (law enforcement and transportation manage- ment center) would be very valuable. While it was touched on, this communi- cation needs to be further discussed. Noted; however, many complained the course was already long. As a towing professional, this course was more toward fire safety. na Emphasize for the incident commanders police/fire/recovery to work together and re-evaluate scene for clearance and safety more often. This was reiterated numerous times. I would like to see more time on HAZMAT. Very little was covered; also big rigs. Noted; however, many complained the course was already long. Incorporation of road rangers (Service Patrol) as part of incident response, usu- ally first ones on scene. They do not necessarily have the same responsibili- ties as “DOT,” as explained in the course. Understand that may only be locally here, but they are an important . . . Speaks to the need for local customization of curriculum. Might want to include a pretest so you could measure student comprehension with post-test. This would also help determine instructor effectiveness. Good suggestion; however, length of test may make that an unpopular decision. More information on best practices, what is the trend, backed up with document- able research and testimonies. na More TMC information to let responders know how the dynamic message signs (DMS) and cameras can help them with response and their safety. Speaks to the need for local customization of curriculum. Need to talk about road rage and their roles to mitigate traffic at incidents and the equipment that they have on board (i.e., cones, arrow boards, portable signs). Covered in “D Driver” section No gaps in my estimation. na None that I noticed. na Other local specialized agencies such as the local severe incident response vehi- cle program. Speaks to the need for local customization of curriculum. Very fluid course. na Would include one multicar/truck incident. There were several in the curriculum. Would like to see other performance metrics other states use or implement besides the FHWA required ones. Speaks to the need for local customization of curriculum.

79 Table C.43. Question 35—“If you feel that the training presentation contains any shortcomings, please list them.” Comment Resolution Three days might be better—covers HAZMAT and big truck incidents. Noted; however, many complained the course was already long. Add express lane procedures. Speaks to the need for local customization of curriculum. Don’t allow some of the subjects that are being debated to carry on as long as they did. Having instructors stick to the script will reduce digressions. Ensure all attendees have each other’s contact informa- tion for networking purposes. Lastly, more time should be spent or added on the Train-the-Trainer portion of the course, because that’s what most of us will be expected to do when returning to our respective organizations. Contact information was distributed immediately after the course. Follow up one on one with groups of instructors locally to see how well prepared they are to present the material. This is accomplished through the alumni-led course. No, not at this time. I do understand this is a pilot pro- gram. Look forward to teaching my guys. na Page 6-4 of the instructor guide contains false informa- tion that may adversely impact a responder’s safety. Page 3-33 of the instructor guide contains an error with respect to HVSA. HAZMAT citation was corrected. Some classmates (1) tried to use the class as their per- sonal forum. The instructor was able to control it, but it is what it was. na Stress the importance more to fire/rescue personnel about clearing lanes. They are usually the issue for clo- sures through my years of experience. I understand their safety, but as in this class (Seattle video + arrest) it is continual. This point was mentioned numerous times. The material is very general in nature and needs to be more specific for each of the disciplines. This class should not be taught by anything less than two to three multidiscipline instructors coordinated by DOT. There were two instructors from different disciplines at this course. There is not enough understanding of the individual agen- cies standard operating procedures (SOPs) and how we are individually liable for any errors in judgment on deci- sions made on the scene of an incident. I know of the importance of safe, quick clearance. Over- all, very good!! na We need everyone to understand that lane blocking events wreckers should be notified as soon as possible. na Would like to see more time spent on tabletop exercise. This would be possible in situations where the curriculum was not delivered in its entirety in one session.

80 Table C.44. Question 36—“What do you consider to be the most valuable information that you will take away from this class?” Comment Alertness on scene to hazards, and the importance of opening the roadway and communication. All of the new safety issues that I was unaware of. I can now apply them in the field and teach my team. Awareness and safety at the roadside. Understanding each responder’s duty and actions and cross training. Excellent course! Please take this to the next level nationwide. It is invaluable. We had an associate wrecker driver struck and killed on 95 in January 2012 while assisting the Florida Highway Patrol. We need to protect ourselves and each other. This program will save lives. Thank you! Communication with agencies involved on scene. Communication, collaboration, and understanding the mission and priority of the other agencies. Coordinated TIM during incidents. Thinking ahead during initial response size-up on how to position vehicles so that following agencies can deploy efficiently. Every department has assets and resources that contribute to TIM. This class shows how to merge all assets and resources together for the best possible TIM scene. Federal highway is backing up what we are trying to teach locally. From a fire rescue standpoint, the integration of multiple disciplines on the scene that typically in the past have not been in the forefront of concern for the fire departments. Gained a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of tow trucks, DOT, and recovery on scene. How to handle difficult tower questions and/or concerns. How to properly set up for traffic blocking or diverting. Information shared between agencies gave a better understanding and respect of other agencies. Inner teaching I strongly like. I [would] like the DOT, fire, police to see that tow drivers are just as important to help the scene and clear roads. Learning why each discipline does what they do at a scene helps us understand at the TMC why lanes are closed at times. MUTCD Need for better communication between all responding agencies. Networking. Quick clearance and on-scene safety. Responders working together. The class shows that all responders are needed in meeting time lines and working as a team. Safe, quick clearance and understanding of each other’s roles with communication. Also, we have information to take to field personnel. Safety and protection from “D” drivers and better services from my agency to consumers or contracts. Safety concerns pre-during-post incidents and how to safely perform these tasks with some sort of unified standard or system. And I would like to thank you all for your knowledge and experience in the subject presented. Safety responders working together. Safety of responders on scene. That all disciplines have unique concerns, making it more important to all sit at the table to work through some of those issues. That the training is a good idea, but you guys still have work to do to make it better. That there is a national push to attempt to train first responders in the TIM concept and work together to get the roadway open with safe, quick clearance. That you are not telling responders how to do their jobs but giving them other options. Stress on teamwork for the multiple agencies. The ability to train others and save lives. The fact that everyone needs to communicate to obtain the same goal on an incident. The importance of sharing our knowledge between each profession. The resources, teaching aids, and training props that were provided. The tabletop exercises because hands on you retain more. The teaching points were the most helpful. I highlighted those when presented. Time is critical when you arrive to an incident with road obstructions. Important to assess the situation and relay the information. Training content is very well organized. I do outreach to incident responder agencies. We have been teaching many of same principles, but I have learned some new materials that are valuable. When working in our groups the conversations on how and why other first responder units do what they do. We all learned a lot of teamwork. Work together. Working together to achieve a common goal. Safety for all and quick clearance.

81 introductions and buy-in from senior leadership. In other pilot locations, high-level representatives from DOT, law enforcement, and fire gave opening remarks speaking to the importance of this course. These opening remarks did not occur in Florida. Because the team did not alleviate concerns and skepticism at the beginning of the course, there was a greater resistance to the curriculum compared to other pilots. This resulted in numerous digressions from the instructor script, which, in turn, created time management issues for the instructors. It is critical for instructors to stay close to the instructor script to avoid lengthy digressions. Given that this was the final pilot course, the curriculum changes stemming from the Florida delivery were relatively minor. Most of the changes dealt with updating and refining curriculum imagery as well as revising curriculum citations. One significant revision was the inclusion of scenario instruc- tion handouts for each tabletop exercise. This will enable attendees to run the tabletop activity without an instructor always being present. Tennessee Alumni-Led pilot Summary Introduction The alumni-led pilot course was held in Tennessee on September 12–13, 2012, at the Tennessee DOT Region One Auditorium. The course was led by graduates of the train- the-trainer pilot course held in Nashville in June 2012 and observed by two members of the research team. There was representation from law enforcement, fire, transportation, towing, and EMS, as shown in Figure C.23. Table C.45 con- tains a list of all participants’ and observers’ organizations. Evaluation Results At the conclusion of the 2-day pilot course, the participants were given a course evaluation form to complete. As was the 8 6 8 3 2 1 Law Enforcement Fire DOT Towing EMS Other Figure C.23. Alumni course attendees by discipline. Table C.45. Alumni Course Attendees First Name Organization Attendee First and Last Name Seymour Volunteer Fire Department Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation Attendee First and Last Name Eddie’s Wrecker Service Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Towing & Recovery Professionals Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Gatlinburg Fire Department Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Rural Metro EMS Knoxville Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation Attendee First and Last Name Greeneville Fire Department Attendee First and Last Name Seymour Volunteer Fire Department Attendee First and Last Name Greeneville Fire Department Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation Attendee First and Last Name Eddie’s Wrecker Service Attendee First and Last Name City of Knoxville Fire Department Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Knoxville Police Department Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Highway Patrol Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation Attendee First and Last Name Lenoir City Utilities Board Attendee First and Last Name Tennessee Department of Transportation Attendee First and Last Name Jefferson County Emergency Management Attendee First and Last Name Rural Metro EMS Knoxville (text continued from page 75)

82 case with the train-the-trainer pilots, the feedback was very positive. Three-quarters of respondents “strongly agreed” that they would recommend this training to others. An additional 19% “agreed” with that statement, meaning 94% of respon- dents would recommend the training to other responders. The question with the least positive reaction asked respon- dents if they were likely to attend training on this topic in the future. The majority, 81%, responded favorably; however, the remaining 19% had “neutral” feelings. Two of these three neu- tral responses came from towing attendees, indicating that the training may not have had as strong of a positive reaction as in the other disciplines. One potential explanatory variable is that there were no instructors at the course with a towing background. However, no other pilot course had tower instructors, yet the towing community had positive reactions to the course. Figure C.24 illustrates the evaluation results for all 16 questions. Figure C.24. Evaluation results for the Tennessee alumni-led pilot (continued on next page). 69% 25% 6% 1. The date and time of today's training fit my schedule. 69% 31% 2. The duration of the training was sufficient for learning the subject matter. 63% 31% 6% 3. The training environment was comfortable/appropriate for the class. 69% 19% 12% 12. The content of this training course was valuable to me in developing my knowledge of this subject matter. 69% 31% 13. The student workbooks provided helped me understand the content of the training. 75% 19% 6% 14. The content of this training appropriately built on my existing knowledge of this subject matter. The evaluation responses were also analyzed by discipline and years of TIM experience. The training appears to have been well received across three of the four disciplines in atten- dance. According to the responses to Question 16, 100% of DOT attendees, 100% of fire attendees, 88% of law enforce- ment attendees, and 50% of towing attendees (only two evalu- ations from towers) would recommend this course to others. The message of SQC appeared to resonate with nearly all attendees, regardless of TIM experience. An analysis of Ques- tion 23 reveals that all respondents reported a gain in SQC appreciation. Question 16—“I would recommend this training to others.” Figure C.25 provides responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline.

83 Figure C.24. Evaluation results for the Tennessee alumni-led pilot. 75% 12% 13% 19. During the training I learned methods/practices that will help me more quickly mitigate incidents. 56% 44% 20. The content and best practices promoted in the course are appropriate to the local context. 69% 25% 6% 21. I gained an understanding of the need for coordinated incident mitigation. 81% 19% 22. I acquired knowledge of roadway safety and scene management methods. 75% 25% 23. I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important. 6% 25% 19% 44% 6% 25. Estimate the time this training may save you on researching information. >10 hours 6 - 10 hours 3 - 5 hours 1 - 2 hours 0 hours 75% 25% 15. I am satisfied that the learning objectives for this training were met. 75% 19% 6% 16. I would recommend this training to others. 62% 38% 17. Based on the training I received, I am able to explain the subject matter to others that may need future assistance on this topic. 56% 25% 19% 18. I am likely to request or attend additional training on this topic in the future. (continued from previous page)

84 100% DOT 20% 80% Fire 12% 38% 50% Law Enf. 50% 50% Towing Figure C.25. Alumni course responses to Question 16 stratified by TIM discipline. Question 23—“I gained an appreciation of why quick clearance is important.” Figure C.26 provides responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. While nearly all participants had a positive experience, the qualitative feedback provided the team with insight into areas of potential improvement. Most of the constructive feedback focused on a somewhat less positive experience for towers. This is an interesting feedback item that generally did not appear in any other pilot course. One potential explanation is that there were no towers in attendance at the June 2012 Figure C.26. Alumni course responses to Question 23 stratified by years of TIM experience. 100% 21+ 25% 75% 16-20 67% 33% 11-15 100% 6-10 100% 1-5 train-the-trainer pilot in Nashville. Without towers at that course, the attendees did not have the full benefit of the multi- disciplinary environment. Given that these attendees then became the instructors for the alumni-led pilot, it is possible the initial lack of tower involvement was partially responsible for some of the tower concerns expressed in the evaluation. Because there were only three towers present at the alumni- led pilot, it is difficult to precisely determine the source of the tower concerns. All of the comments to the qualitative feedback sections are presented in Tables C.46 through C.51, along with the resolution to each comment (if applicable).

85 Table C.46. Question 4—Scheduling Comments Comment Resolution 1. Well-developed curriculum. 2. Room temp was very cold. Room complaint passed to venue contact. Class was good for DOT, fire, and police, but not much for towing. Team is evaluating why towers may have had less valuable experience. Room too cold! Room complaint passed to venue contact. Room was a little cold at times. Room complaint passed to venue contact. Table C.47. Question 24—Overall Training Comments Comment Resolution I think it helps when we can work together, but need more information from dispatch. na I would definitely recommend this course to others. na Would be interested in further classes or opportunities to take a Train-the-Trainer course. I teach work zone safety to our utilities operations at Lenoir City, which consists of 150 employees working in roadside work zones. na Table C.48. Question 26—Time-Saving Measures Comments Comment Resolution Again, towing needs more info on what to bring to the scene. Team is evaluating why towers may have had less valuable experience. Any information that may be read on this subject has potential to be interesting or useful. So don’t think for that reason I would not read or research other info. na I was impressed with the handouts and materials provided to me. na Table C.49. Question 34—“If you believe that the course contains gaps or omits any content which would be valuable, please provide an explanation.” Comment Resolution Gaps between towing and dispatch. Curriculum will be reviewed. Great job. na Incorporating working with (to include training) power compa- nies. Our electric crews respond to numerous motor vehicle crashes each week that have broken poles and downed power lines at incident scenes. Interesting comment and speaks to the myriad agencies that are related directly and indirectly to TIM. The towing and recovery section was just kind of rushed through. This could be related to a relative lack of towing involvement prior to this course in Tennessee planning activities and the Nashville Train-the- Trainer course. Table C.51. Question 36—“What do you consider to be the most valuable information that you will take away from this class?” Comment A greater understanding of how each department works on the scene as a whole and how to better work with each department. A timely reopening of travel lanes. Communication among all agencies on scene and dispatch. Publications. Refresher of ITS utilization. Safety. Safety and timely. The information on the proper way to set up transition and buffer zones on highway incidents. To properly position apparatus to block oncoming traffic. Table C.50. Question 35—“If you feel that the training presentation contains any shortcomings, please list them.” Comment Resolution The need for towing and recov- ery input is needed more as we towing and recovery are one of the most important entities needed for scene clearance. This could be related to a rela- tive lack of towing involve- ment prior to this course in Tennessee planning activi- ties and the Nashville Train-the-Trainer course.

86 Observer Comments and Course Modifications The alumni-led course offered the research team the first opportunity to evaluate a course taught by graduates of the train-the-trainer course. Overall, the observer team felt the alumni pilot went well, validating the train-the-trainer concept. As expected, those alumni instructors that had done the most preparation were the most effective. While there were only three towers present at this course, these attendees appeared to have a somewhat less valuable expe- rience compared to attendees from other disciplines. It is pos- sible that a lack of towers at the initial train-the-trainer pilot in Nashville resulted in less understanding of tower issues for the alumni instructors. If this was the case, this is further evidence of the criticality of multidisciplinary training. While curricu- lum content is crucial for attendee learning, the shared experi- ence and understanding that comes from multidisciplinary learning is equally important. The curriculum changes stemming from this pilot course generally focused on refining course content and improving instructor notes. A general refresh of data was conducted to provide the most up-to-date statistics in the curriculum. Instructor notes were reinforced based on observed experi- ences with new instructors, including adding presentation thumbnail images and adding photographs of activities. One major change was to recommend moving Lesson 11 (Situa- tional Awareness) to follow Lesson 3 (Arrival). This change was made to provide a break from classroom curriculum dur- ing the first day of the course.