Training and Certification of Highway Maintenance Workers (2015)

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.

12 CHAPTER THREE STATE OF THE PRACTICE OVERVIEW To better understand the current front-line maintenance training and certification practices used by state and pro- vincial transportation agencies, a survey of practice was conducted through NCHRP in cooperation with AASHTO. The survey instrument was distributed to the voting mem- bers of SCOM and transportation agency contacts in each of the Canadian provinces and territories. These efforts resulted in a total of 47 completed responses, including 41 state DOT responses (out of 50) and six responses from Canadian MOTs (out of 13), as shown in Figure 1. The responses from state DOTs represents an 82% response rate among state DOTs. FIGURE 1 NCHRP Topic 46-17 response record. This chapter summarizes the findings from the survey of practices. The information is presented in a number of formats, including both tables and graphs, as appropriate. A copy of the survey questions that were distributed electroni- cally is provided as Appendix B (online version only), and the responses received are presented in Appendix A. SURVEY CONTENT The survey questions were organized into the following six categories: • General information—The questions in this section ask respondents to provide the number of front-line maintenance workers employed by the agency and the amount of maintenance work performed by con- tract. If the agency indicated that maintenance work is performed by contract, additional questions asked respondents for information concerning training and certification requirements for contract maintenance employees. In addition, respondents were asked about practices related to the sharing of training materials. • Training content and delivery—This section of the survey asks about the technical content areas being addressed through training across roadway assets. If an agency indi- cated that training was provided to front-line maintenance workers, respondents were asked to identify (1) general technical training content areas for which they offered training, (2) subtopic content areas for each category, (3) the methodology used to provide training, and (4) the source of instructors for each content area. Training areas covered in the survey include the following: – Bridges, – Highway safety and reliability, – Pavements, – Roadway/roadside, and – General maintenance skills. • Inducements to take training—The questions in this sec- tion of the survey investigate how highway transportation agencies are motivating front-line maintenance workers to enroll and complete training. Questions in this section not only focus on motivational factors such as pay, but also seek to establish how training is related to performance. • Frequency of training events and tracking participa- tion—This section seeks to establish the frequency with which front-line maintenance workers take man- datory and nonmandatory training and are encouraged to refresh their skills. • Evaluating the effects of training on worker perfor- mance and the organization—Questions in this sec-

13 tion pertain to the agency’s practice of measuring the impact of training, on both front-line maintenance workers and the organization. One question asks the respondent to provide an opinion on which delivery methods are the most effective for this audience. • Training development—The final section of questions explores how highway transportation agencies devel- oping training (whether in-house or outsourcing) and what they would identify as the biggest training needs by technical content area. The results of the survey are presented in the remain- der of this chapter. In addition to the survey results, inter- views were conducted with representatives from eight state DOTs and several national transportation training groups to explore additional program features. The results from the interviews are presented in chapter four. GENERAL TRAINING PROGRAM OVERVIEW Forty-one state DOTs and six provinces and territories responded to the survey. Of that number, 23 (49%) reported that they have a maintenance workforce of between 500 and 1,500 employees (see Table 1). TABLE 1 NUMBER OF FRONT-LINE MAINTENANCE WORKERS EMPLOYED BY THE AGENCY Number of Front-Line Maintenance Workers Count Percentage 0–500 8 17.0 501–1,500 23 48.9 1,500–3,000 11 23.4 Greater than 3,000 5 10.6 As shown in Figure 2, 34 of the agencies are currently contracting out 50% or less of their maintenance work. FIGURE 2 Amount of maintenance work being contracted by agencies (47 responses). Of those agencies contracting out maintenance work, only seven require contract workers to be trained and certi- fied beyond federal requirements and all seven require docu- mentation verifying training and certification requirements have been met. Of those seven: • Three agencies have training and certification require- ments that are the same for state, provincial, and con- tract maintenance workers. • One agency identifies training and certification require- ments are less stringent for state and provincial mainte- nance workers than for contract maintenance workers. • Two agencies identify training and certification requirements that are more stringent for state and pro- vincial maintenance workers than for contract mainte- nance workers. • One agency respondent does not know whether the requirements for contract workers are the same or different than what is required for state or provincial maintenance workers. For the agencies with more stringent requirements, one agency identified more stringent requirements in all five technical areas and the other agency identified more strin- gent requirements only for roadway/roadside and general maintenance skills. Among the agencies responding to this survey, 34 share materials with other organizations, as shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 DO YOU SHARE TRAINING MATERIALS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS? Answer Options Count Percentage Yes 34 72.3 No 13 27.7 The highest preponderance of sharing occurs with other state and provincial highway agencies and LTAPs (82% and 65%, respectively). Six respondents identified sharing materials with TC3, and four listed “other” partners (see Fig- ure 3). Some of these other partners were identified as the American Public Works Association (APWA) and county transportation agencies within the state. 4 6 22 28 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Other Transportation Curriculum Coordination Council (TCCC) Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAPs) Other State or Provincial Highway Organizations Agencies FIGURE 3 Agencies with which states and provincial highway agencies share training materials (34 responses).

14 TRAINING CONTENT AND DELIVERY The information pertaining to content and delivery is organized under the following headings: technical con- tent, delivery methods, required training, certification, and instructional sources. Within each topic, information is pre- sented to identify the knowledge and skills currently consid- ered necessary for maintenance workers to be trained. This information can serve as a resource to other agencies look- ing to develop similar content or those seeking to evaluate their current offerings and identify gaps. Forty-one DOTs and six MOTs responded affirmatively about providing technical training for front-line mainte- nance workers when asked to complete the questions in this section of the survey. Participants from these agencies were asked to select the content areas for which they provide training. Based on the content areas selected, participants were then asked additional questions about the subtopic for which training was provided, skill requirements, and certifi- cation requirements. Participants were also asked to identify the method(s) used to deliver training for each main content area and instructor sources for the training. Technical Content Bridges Thirty agencies indicated that they are providing bridge training in the areas of equipment operations, carpentry, concrete cut- ting or placement, erosion control, pile driving, welding, torch cutting, bolted connections, bridge inspections (not National Bridge Inspection Section), bridge preservation activities, and “other” (see Figure 4). Two agencies identified other types of training, one specifying bridge painting training. FIGURE 4 Bridge training topics (30 responses). Highway Safety and Reliability Thirty-four agencies indicated that they provide highway safety and reliability training on topics related to both traffic service and safety/reliability, as shown in Figure 5. (Note that some of this training may be mandated under federal or state law.) Those agencies were asked to select the subtopics within the highway safety and reliability category for which they provide training. Those subtopics were broken into two categories: traf- fic services, and safety and reliability. Traffic services subtop- ics include as equipment operations, curb markings, incident management, emergency traffic control, guardrail/end treat- ments/median barriers, snow and ice control for operators, debris removal, and “other.” In addition, training on safety and reliability includes equipment operations, work zone safety, personal protective equipment, flagger, securing and hauling cargo, and “other.” One agency identified other types of train- ing as tractor and mower safety, hydraulics, and electrical. FIGURE 5 Highway safety and reliability training topics (34 responses). Pavements Thirty-three agencies indicated that they provide pavement training on both roadway/shoulders and drainage topics, as shown in Figure 6. In the area of roadway and shoulders, training topics include equipment operations, asphalt emul- sion (storage and handling), base and subbase repair, asphalt pavement patching, shoulder and ditch maintenance, preser- vation treatment application, soil stabilization, inspections, and “other.” Drainage topics include equipment operations, roadway drainage systems, pipe installation, basic survey- ing, inspections, confined space, subsurface drainage, and “other.” One agency identified pavement design and pavement rehabilitations (rigid, asphalt) as additional training topics. 2 10 12 13 18 18 19 19 19 21 23 23 25 29 29 0 10 20 30 40 Other Subsurface Drainage Soil Stabilization Basic Surveying Bituminous Materials – Storage and Handling Base and Subbase Repair Inspections Pipe Installation Confined Space Roadway Drainage Systems Concrete Pavement Patching Preservation Treatment Application Shoulder and Ditch Maintenance Equipment Operations Asphalt Pavement Patching Agencies FIGURE 6 Pavement training topics (33 responses).

15 Roadway and Roadside Thirty-six agencies indicated that they provide training on roadway and roadside topics such as vegetation management, herbicide/pest management, fence installation, pesticide han- dling and disposal regulations, retaining wall construction and maintenance, sign and pavement marking retro-reflectiv- ity, rest area management activities, storm water management activities, and “other” (see Figure 7). One agency listed con- tamination soil management and road project environmental monitoring as additional training topics. 2 6 11 15 22 24 28 28 32 34 0 10 20 30 40 Other Retaining Wall Construction and Maintenance Fence Installation Rest Area Management Activities Storm Water Management Activities Pesticide Handling and Disposal Regulations Herbicide/Pest Management Sign and Pavement Marking Retro-Reflectivity Equipment Operations Vegetation Management Agencies FIGURE 7 Roadway/roadside training topics (36 responses). General Maintenance Skills Thirty-nine agencies indicated that they provide training on general maintenance skills in the areas of rental equipment supervision, customer service, scheduling and planning, street and driveway access, math, subdivision roads, utility encroachments, purchase order contract, fleet management, maintenance management system data entry, maintenance quality assurance program inspections, plan reading, driving skills, and “other” (see Figure 8). One agency listed safety checks on equipment, how to properly complete forms used to track maintenance activities, survey basics, explosive use, rock scaling, and patrolling as additional training topics. Delivery There are many delivery methods highway transportation agencies can use to deliver training. The purpose of this section is to determine what methods are used to deliver training and who is supporting these delivery methods. The survey results illustrate the diversity found in state mainte- nance training programs to meet the professional demands and learning styles of maintenance workers, and the broad- ened use of technology to address training needs. The results were also used to identify the methods considered to be most effective for front-line maintenance workers. 2 6 6 9 10 12 16 16 17 18 19 22 30 32 0 10 20 30 40 Subdivision Roads Rental Equipment Supervision Other Street and Driveway Access Purchase Order Contract Utility Encroachments Scheduling and Planning Fleet Management Customer Service Math Maintenance Quality Assurance Program Inspections Plan Reading Maintenance Management System Data Entry Driving Skills Agencies FIGURE 8 General maintenance skills training topics (39 responses). As shown in Table 3, transportation agencies use a variety of methods to deliver technical training (respondents were allowed to select all methods that applied for each content area). However, it is clear that on-the-job and instructor-led training are dominant. According to the information pro- vided, on-the-job and instructor-led training are the most common delivery methods used for bridge training. For highway safety and reliability, pavements, and roadway/road- side, instructor-led training is the most predominant delivery method, although on-the-job training is a close second for pavements (18 agencies selected instructor-led training and 17 agencies selected on-the-job training). For general mainte- nance skills, both on-the-job and instructor-led training were the predominant methods. For bridge, pavement, roadway/roadside, and general maintenance skills, state agencies indicated that they also use other delivery methods. One respondent stated that policy manuals were used for pavement training, and one respondent listed the use of self-paced correspondence courses for road- way/roadside and general maintenance skills training (see TABLE 3 NUMBER OF AGENCIES USING VARIOUS DELIVERY METHODS Instructor-Led Training Web or Video Conference Training Web-Based, Mobile, Video, Paper-Based Training On-the-Job Training Other Number of Responses Bridge 18 4 4 19 1 30 Highway Safety and Reliability 27 7 5 14 0 34 Pavements 18 6 6 17 2 33 Roadway/Roadside 24 6 6 16 1 36 General Maintenance Skills 24 3 7 24 2 39

16 chapter four, Case Examples, for more information on this method). In addition, another respondent recorded use of an academy that addresses general maintenance skills content. Twenty-four agencies identified on-the-job training as the most effective delivery method for training maintenance workers, and 15 selected instructor-led training (see Figure 9). Three agencies selected web or video conference train- ing, two selected self-paced learning, and three agencies selected “other.” Three respondents listed instructor-led training in combination with on-the-job training as the most effective delivery method. 2 3 3 15 24 Self-Paced, Web-Based, Paper-Based, Mobile Applications, including Video Instructor-Led, Web or Video Conference Other Instructor-Led, Classroom On-the-Job Training 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Agencies FIGURE 9 Preferences on the most effective method of delivering training to maintenance workers (47 responses). As shown in Table 4, most transportation agencies rely on DOT employees to deliver training across all technical content areas. Contracted instructors are the second most highly uti- lized source in each topic area (respondents were allowed to select all sources that applied for each content area). Four state agencies listed the following options for instructors: materials suppliers, industry associations, state university transportation technology transfer and research centers, and FHWA. Requirements and Certification The survey of practice identified content areas that required training or certification. For each technical content area, respondents were asked whether training was required or certification provided. If respondents answered “yes” to either question, they were asked to select the topic(s) for which training was required or certification provided. The results are presented in Table 5. These results are further broken out in Figures 10–14 for each technical content area. The results show that requiring training is far more common than providing certification. Certification appears to be most common when workers are exposed to traffic (e.g., flagger training) or working with hazardous materials (e.g., pesticide training). Agencies were also asked to provide information on why certification might be offered in a particular content area. They were prompted to select all reasons that applied. Fif- teen agencies said they do not offer certification. Of those that do, as shown in Figure 15, 21 indicated that certifica- tion is offered on topics related to safety, liability, and insur- ance issues. Agency history (17 respondents) and federal, state, or provincial mandates (16 respondents) were the two other main reasons for offering certification. Respondents that selected other reasons for offering certification did not provide any additional explanation. TABLE 4 SOURCES OF INSTRUCTORS AND FACILITATORS FOR MAINTENANCE TRAINING DOT Employees Contracted Instructors Equipment Manufacturers LTAPs Unions Community Colleges Other Number of Responses Bridges 26 15 7 5 1 4 4 30 Highway Safety and Reliability 31 15 7 7 1 2 6 34 Pavements 31 9 4 5 1 2 5 33 Roadway/Roadside 33 10 6 5 1 2 4 36 General Maintenance Skills 37 9 7 5 1 4 4 39 TABLE 5 TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS PER TECHNICAL CONTENT AREA Technical Content Area Training Required? Certification Provided? Yes No Don’t know Number of responses Yes No Don’t know Number of responses Bridges 17 10 3 30 6 15 9 30 Highway Safety and Reliability 26 7 1 34 16 15 3 34 Pavements 13 19 1 33 8 23 2 33 Roadway/Roadside 23 11 2 36 17 17 2 36 General Maintenance Skills 29 9 1 39 13 25 1 39

17 2 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 6 2 1 9 1 5 8 2 5 5 3 11 9 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Equipment Operations Carpentry Concrete Cutting or Placement Erosion Control Pile Driving Welding Torch Cutting Bolted Connections Bridge Inspections (not National Bridge Inspection Section) Bridge Preservation Activities Other Agencies Certification Offered Training Required FIGURE 10 Bridge topics for which training is required or certification offered (17 and six responses, respectively). 7 4 2 7 1 10 4 16 3 20 1 19 18 11 23 9 25 21 26 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 Equipment Operations Curb Markings Incident Management Emergency Traffic Control Guardrail, End Treatments, and Median Barriers Snow and Ice Control for Operators Debris Removal Work Zone Safety Personal Protective Equipment Flagger Securing and Hauling Cargo Agencies Certification Offered Training Required FIGURE 11 Highway safety and reliability topics for which training is required or certification offered (27 and 17 responses, respectively). 4 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 2 2 5 2 2 11 6 5 8 6 4 6 8 3 3 5 9 2 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Equipment Operations Bituminous materials – Storage and Handling Base and Subbase Repair Asphalt Pavement Patching Shoulder and Ditch Maintenance Preservation Treatment Application Soil Stabilization Inspections Roadway Drainage Systems Pipe Installation Basic Surveying Confined Space Subsurface Drainage Concrete Pavement Patching Agencies Certification Offered Training Required FIGURE 12 Pavement topics for which training is required or certification offered (13 and eight responses, respectively). INCENTIVES TO TAKE TRAINING The survey of practice included questions that focused on the incentives to take training that are offered by the high- way transportation agency to better understand how agen- cies motivate front-line maintenance workers to complete training. Incentives include skill acquisition, advancement, and pay increases. These may be used alone or in conjunc- tion with one another. They may also be used in conjunction with requirements and certification. 9 10 15 2 10 2 6 2 5 17 17 18 4 16 2 14 5 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Equipment Operations Vegetation Management Herbicide/Pest Management Fence Installation Pesticide Handling and Disposal Regulations Retaining Wall Construction and Maintenance Sign and Pavement Marking Retro-Reflectivity Rest Area Management Activities Storm Water Management Activities Agencies Certification Offered Training Required FIGURE 13 Roadway and roadside topics for which training is required or certification offered (23 and 17 responses, respectively). 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 7 2 3 9 4 1 6 4 8 1 5 4 7 19 7 7 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Other Rental Equipment Supervision Customer Service Scheduling and Planning Math Subdivision Roads Utility Encroachments Purchase Order Contract Fleet Management Maintenance Management System Data Entry Maintenance Quality Assurance Program Inspections Plan Reading Driving Skills Agencies Certification Offered Training Required FIGURE 14 General maintenance skill topics for which training is required or certification offered (29 and 13 responses, respectively). FIGURE 15 Reasons for offering worker certification (47 responses). In addition, the survey included questions intended to identify whether training is formally aligned with employee performance evaluations and whether training contributes to employee advancement. These questions were designed to determine whether the workforce development path aligns

18 with training offerings, thus making the purpose of attend- ing training and its benefits clear to maintenance workers. Finally, the survey included questions on the subject of the extent to which supervisors support training enrollment and completion. As per the survey, supervisors also may play a cru- cial role in disseminating information about employee training requirements and their connection to professional development. Twenty-two highway agencies indicated that they pro- vide incentives to maintenance workers to take training. Agencies that responded affirmatively to this question were asked to identify the types of training incentives they used. As shown in Table 6, there were a variety of answers. The agency that selected “other” stated that workers are auto- matically promoted, resulting in a wage increase. TABLE 6 INCENTIVES PROVIDED TO ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION IN TRAINING Training Incentives Count Completion of training allows workers to acquire new skills or keep pace with technology 17 Completion of training qualifies workers for promotion 16 Completion of training qualifies workers for specific jobs (such as inspector) 12 Completion of training is linked to a wage increase 12 Completion of training is necessary to retain employment 11 Other 1 Number of Agencies Responding to the Question 22 According to the survey results, 24 of 44 agencies con- sider their training programs to be aligned with mainte- nance worker performance requirements (those responding affirmatively to this question responded to the next ques- tion). Sixteen of the 24 agencies use participation in tech- nical training as a factor in evaluating performance (those responding affirmatively to this question responded to the next question). Fourteen of the 16 agencies that consider training in evaluating performance indicated that they for- mally document training on the performance evaluation. These responses are all included in Table 7. TABLE 7 ALIGNING TRAINING PROGRAM OFFERINGS WITH MAINTENANCE WORKER PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS Question Yes No Number of Responses Does your organization align its training pro- gram offerings with maintenance worker per- formance requirements? 24 20 44 Is worker participation in technical training a factor in evaluating performance? 16 8 24 Is worker participation in technical training formally documented on the performance evaluation? 14 2 16 To learn more about the involvement of supervisors in recommending training, participating agencies were asked two questions. First, the agencies were asked to identify whether supervisors regularly recommend training for maintenance workers in order to improve performance and possibly advance. Second, they were asked if the promotion of a front-line maintenance worker is dependent on the com- pletion of certain training requirements. Responses to both questions are found in Table 8. TABLE 8 SUPERVISOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRAINING, AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROMOTION Question Yes No Don’t Know Number of Responses Do supervisors regularly recom- mend training for maintenance workers to attend in order to improve performance and possi- bly advance? 35 6 6 47 Is the promotion of a front-line maintenance worker dependent on the completion of certain train- ing requirements? 28 19 0 47 FREQUENCY OF TRAINING EVENTS AND TRACKING PARTICIPATION A series of questions were included in the survey of practice to determine how frequently maintenance workers access training and whether they have opportunities to refresh knowledge and skills training as needed during their length of employment. Together with information about training length and delivery method, the responses help form a com- plete picture of an agency’s training program for front-line maintenance workers. First, the participants were asked a question about the frequency with which the average maintenance worker par- ticipates in mandatory training. As shown in Figure 16, 21 of the 47 responding agencies indicated that maintenance employees participate in mandatory training more than once a year, and 18 agencies reported that maintenance employees participate in training at least once a year. Participants were also asked to identify the frequency with which the average maintenance worker participates in nonmandatory training. The response breakdown, as shown in Figure 17, was similar to that for mandatory training. A total of 19 agencies indicated maintenance employees partic- ipate in nonmandatory training more than once a year, and 15 agencies reported that the average maintenance worker participates in nonmandatory training at least once a year. However, five respondents indicated they did not know the answer to this question because no formal process for report- ing participation in nonmandatory training existed.

19 4 4 18 21 At Least Once Every 2–3 Years Never; My Organization Does Not Have Mandatory Training Requirements At Least Once a Year More Than Once a Year 0 5 10 15 20 25 Agencies FIGURE 16 Frequency of participation in mandatory training for the average maintenance worker (47 responses). 3 5 5 15 19 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Almost Never At Least Once Every 2–3 Years Don’t Know At Least Once a Year More Than Once a Year Agencies FIGURE 17 Frequency of participation in nonmandatory training (47 responses). The survey also asked participants to provide informa- tion on the frequency with which training is repeated. Agen- cies were able to select multiple responses (see Figure 18). Twenty-three agencies indicated that certain training must be retaken after a certain amount of time, and 20 agencies indicated it could be done at the suggestion of a supervi- sor. Thirteen agencies stated training could be retaken any time, and an equivalent number indicated training could be retaken at the next scheduled session. FIGURE 18 Frequency with which training is retaken to refresh knowledge and skills (47 responses). EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF TRAINING ON WORKER PERFORMANCE AND THE ORGANIZATION Because training represents a significant investment for most agencies, the survey of practice included questions to deter- mine if agencies measure the impact of training on either the individual maintenance worker or the agency. If agen- cies identified that they are collecting such data for either, additional questions followed about how that information is being collected. The data collection options represented both subjective and objective methods, with the option to provide additional information by selecting the “other” category. As shown in Figure 19, few of the agencies that responded to the survey measure the effectiveness of training on worker performance. FIGURE 19 Number of agencies measuring the effectiveness of training on worker performance (47 responses). The nine states that measure training effectiveness on worker performance were asked to document the method used, and the results are presented in Table 9. Three of the agencies responding to this question provided multiple answers, indicating that a variety of methods are used. None of the agencies require supervisors to complete pre- and postevaluations of workers’ performance following train- ing. The agency that selected “other” as a response indicated that the agency uses “ongoing assessment” to measure the effectiveness of training on worker performance. TABLE 9 METHODS USED TO MEASURE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS In Order to Determine the Impact of Training on Worker Performance, My Agency…. Number of Responses Collects feedback from participants within 1 year of train- ing being completed via a survey, performance evalua- tion, or follow-up call with a representative from the human resources or training departments 2 Administers an evaluation to each participant at the end of training that includes questions about whether the training will help them complete their work 9 Requires supervisors to complete pre- and posttraining evaluation forms of worker performance. Posttraining evaluations are completed within 1 year of participant attending training. 0 Other 1 Number of Agencies Responding 9

20 A similar question was asked to determine whether agen- cies measure the impact of training on the organization. As Figure 20 shows, only eight of 47 respondents replied in the affirmative. The other answers were either “no” (over half of the responses) or “don’t know.” FIGURE 20 Number of agencies measuring the impact of training on the organization (47 responses). The eight agencies that monitor the impact of training on the organization were asked to provide information on how that is done (see Table 10). A total of five agencies conduct an annual survey to measure the training impact on the organization, and three agencies rely on pre- and posttraining evaluations to mea- sure training effectiveness. The agency that selected “other” reported that “in-house safety incident frequency” is used to measure the effectiveness of training on the organization. TABLE 10 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER TRAINING HAS IMPACTED THE ORGANIZATION, MY ORGANIZATION . . . Methods of Collecting Measurement Data Number of Responses Administers an annual survey to gather feedback on the impact of training on the maintenance program 5 Compiles all pre- and post-training evaluation results and runs an analysis to determine the impact of training on worker performance 3 Hires a consultant to evaluate the training program and report recommendations and issues 1 Other 1 Number of Agencies Responding to the Question 8 TRAINING DEVELOPMENT In this final section of the survey, highway transportation agencies were asked to document their in-house training efforts to help determine the degree to which in-house and outsourced training efforts are used. Questions in this part of the survey also asked agencies to identify their biggest training need to help guide future course development or sharing of training materials across agencies. As shown in Figure 21, 43 of the 47 agencies that pro- vide training indicated that they develop training mate- rials in-house. Of the 43 agencies that develop training in-house, 33 indicated that more than 50% of their training is developed in-house. FIGURE 21 Number of agencies developing training in-house and percentage of training being developed in-house (47 and 43 responses, respectively). Agencies were asked to identify the content areas for which there were training gaps. In other words, for which areas is there insufficient training content to support train- ing needs? Responses are presented in Figure 22. As the figure shows, the greatest training needs are in the general maintenance skills area. FIGURE 22 Training gaps (47 responses). Respondents were able to choose subtopics for each gen- eral technical content area selected for additional training. Specific topics that would address the training needs in each content area are presented in Figures 23–27.

21 FIGURE 23 Bridge training gaps (16 responses). FIGURE 24 Highway safety and reliability training gaps (16 responses). 0 5 6 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Other Subsurface Drainage Confined Space Bituminous Materials – Storage and Handling Shoulder and Ditch Maintenance Pipe Installation Basic Surveying Equipment Operations Concrete Pavement Patching Inspections Soil Stabilization Base and Subbase Repair Roadway Drainage Systems Preservation Treatment Application Asphalt Pavement Patching Agencies FIGURE 25 Pavement training gaps (22 responses). FIGURE 26 Roadway and roadside training gaps (19 responses). 0 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 9 10 11 13 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Subdivision Roads Street and Driveway Access Utility Encroachments Rental Equipment Supervision Math Other Purchase Order Contract Fleet Management Plan Reading Driving Skills Maintenance Management System Data Entry Maintenance Quality Assurance Program Inspections Customer Service Scheduling and Planning Agencies FIGURE 27 General maintenance skills training gaps (28 responses).