Survey Deployment Plan

In fall 2010, CRA, Inc. will conduct the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment Project (National Training Needs Assessment and Training Validation Project) survey. The survey will assess the training needs of law enforcement personnel in rural jurisdictions and Indian Country (related to their law enforcement and emergency response functions). CRA manages the project for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Rural Policing Institute (RPI), Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Below we present our plan for conducting the survey in a manner that will produce a substantial and high-quality response rate. The plan provides an overview of our process for: (1) developing a proposed data collection/analysis plan, (2) designing and vetting the survey instruments (the final draft survey instruments are included in this plan), (3) selecting the sample (sample determination), (4) preparing to deploy the survey, (5) deploying the survey, and (6) analyzing the data.

Please note that we will make adjustments to the proposed survey deployment and data analysis processes during implementation, as needed.

Developing a Proposed Data Collection/Analysis Plan

The goal of the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment is to identify the training needs of law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country—both nationally and by region. In addition, we will collect data on the training currently provided by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) organizations and State and local law enforcement training academies, which we will use to conduct a training gap analysis. Together, the identified training needs and gaps will enable RPI/FLETC to: (1) enhance its process for allocating Federal training resources and (2) to design and deliver training that is both relevant and useful to law enforcement personnel in rural areas and Indian Country and not duplicative of training currently being offered by other major law enforcement training organizations.

Collecting the Data

In developing the data collection plan, the study team sought to collect data that would answer RPI’s most important study questions:

What are the greatest training needs of law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country, by:

Respondent type (position, experience)
Agency type, size, and location (by State and region)
Management and Field Officer functions

How can we most effectively address the connection between perceived training needs regarding specific law enforcement job functions (tasks) and the importance of those job tasks (i.e., the consequences for the agency and community when tasks are not performed properly).

What are the perceptions of the primary training providers for law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country regarding the training needs of those personnel?

What type of training is currently being offered to rural law enforcement personnel by the major law enforcement training provider organizations?

We also looked at how we would analyze the data within and across the main survey items, and in relation to the other variables (e.g., respondent type), so that our initial data collection would support the development of the survey instruments, and the collection and analysis of the data (see also the Data Analysis Section at the end of this plan).

We proposed and the COPS and RPI/FLETC staff approved the study team fielding the following three surveys:

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Survey: We will distribute this survey to the CEOs of the following law enforcement agencies: (1) all Tribal agencies, (2) all State-level agencies (primary State agency and special jurisdiction State agencies minus those that do not serve rural areas, e.g., not the State Capitol Police), and (3) a large national sample of rural local agencies (including campus police and other non-State special jurisdiction agencies).

Field Officer Survey: We will distribute this survey to field-level personnel through two methods: (1) via their agency CEOs, and (2) during their participation in in-service training provided by a sample of POST organizations or training academies during a designated 1- to 2-week period. We will also work with RPI to determine whether to administer this survey during RPI training (optional).

POST and State and Local Training Academy Director Survey: We will distribute this survey to the directors of all of the POST organizations and State and local law enforcement training academies serving rural areas (i.e., we will eliminate those training academies that clearly serve an urban area, such as New York City or Chicago).

Through our preliminary data collection and analysis discussions (internally, with the Internal Project Advisory Committee [IPAC] and representatives of the COPS Office and RPI/FLETC), we decided that the three surveys will include several primary sets of items, as shown in the chart below:

Survey Element	CEO	Field Officer	POST/State and Local Training Academy
Rating of Current Training Needs Related to Crime and Disorder Problems
Rating of Current Management Training Needs
Rating of Consequences of Poorly Performed Law Enforcement Job Tasks
Rating of Current Training Needs by Law Enforcement Job Tasks
Identification of Training Currently Offered on Crime and Disorder Problems, Management, and Law Enforcement Job Tasks

In addition, each of the surveys will include one or more open-ended questions about training for rural law enforcement personnel and a series of demographic questions.

We then designed the instruments to collect data that would answer the questions above, support our data analysis process, and enable us to provide RPI with the type of information the agency needs to guide its future training resource allocation process.

Designing the Survey Instruments

The study team designed each of the survey instruments to collect the data outlined above. Our survey development approach was informed primarily by two processes: (1) review of previous training needs assessments and job task analyses conducted in the law enforcement field, and (2) focus groups designed to solicit the input of representatives of national law enforcement stakeholder groups, State law enforcement training commissions (the POSTs), and the heads of Tribal law enforcement agencies.

Previous Study Review: We began the survey design process by identifying and reviewing a number of previous assessments of law enforcement training needs, including the following: (1) Assessing the Needs of Rural, Small-Town, and Tribal Law Enforcement: A National Survey of Municipal Chiefs and Sheriffs in Non-Metropolitan Counties, and of Tribal Police, which presented the findings of Dr. Ralph Weisheit’s assessments of the training needs of rural, small-town, and Tribal law enforcement personnel conducted in1999 (Dr. Weisheit is Distinguished Professor of Criminal Justice, Illinois State University and member of the IPAC; we also reviewed the results of his original 1996 survey), (2) the 1990 Minnesota POST statewide law enforcement training needs assessment, which presented findings about small/rural agencies, (3) the national training needs assessments conducted by the Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium in 2006 and 2009, and (4) the statewide law enforcement job task analyses conducted for the South Carolina Department of Public Safety in 2005 and for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in 2006. In addition, we reviewed the core police competencies developed by the COPS Office-funded Police Training Officer (PTO) Program.

Focus Groups: We conducted a series of seven focus groups between March and May 2010 to solicit input from key stakeholders about rural law enforcement, the survey, and the survey instrument design/questions. CRA planned and hosted a National Law Enforcement Stakeholder Organization Focus Group on March 31, 2010. We also facilitated focus groups at the five International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) Regional Meetings held during April–May 2010, and at the FLETC-sponsored Tribal Law Enforcement Agency Leadership Summit on May 18, 2010. (See the Summary of Outreach Activities Report for more information on the focus group discussions.)

An Informed Survey Design Process

Through both the assessment/job task analysis reviews and the focus groups, we learned critical information that guided the survey instrument design process, for example:

Our review of Dr. Weisheit’s previous training needs assessments highlighted the importance of focusing on categories of crime and disorder problems because rural areas often have different problems and priorities than do urban areas. We therefore included a question about the need for training related to a series of general crime and disorder problems.

The Minnesota POST study focused on specific job tasks, an approach that has subsequently been used in other States, including South Carolina and Florida. The Minnesota POST study found differences between smaller and larger agencies in the reporting of training needs associated with specific job tasks, which lends credence to using that approach for the current study of rural (typically smaller) law enforcement agencies. We therefore focused our questions about training needs on specific law enforcement functions (management and field officer job tasks).

The South Carolina and Florida needs assessments collected data from field-level officers and their superiors, an approach that we are also proposing for the current study. We also used the job task analyses from South Carolina and Florida, which were conducted from a training needs perspective, to identify specific law enforcement tasks that officers and supervisors indicated were critical in nature (and that were not comprehensively addressed by basic law enforcement training).

Both the Minnesota POST and the South Carolina needs assessments asked about the severity of consequences related to field officers’ failure to perform job tasks properly (the South Carolina study asked supervisors to rate the consequences, while the Minnesota survey of CEOs asked them to rate consequences and to note how often the job tasks were performed [frequency]). We chose to ask CEOs about the severity of the consequences (not the Field Officers who may not have that perspective for all job tasks). We did not ask about the frequency with which the job tasks were performed to avoid increasing the size of the CEO survey instrument.

During the focus groups, we heard directly from key stakeholders about the following: (1) the unique dynamics of rural communities, (2) the unique challenges and training needs of law enforcement agencies and personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country, and (3) issues/strategies related to conducting the survey.^¹ The input collected via the focus groups helped us to define key training topics related to crime and disorder problems and law enforcement job functions, and to address key strategic survey design elements (e.g., cover correspondence that describes the benefits of participating in the survey [i.e., emphasizing how RPI plans to use the results]). Participants also noted the need to ask additional demographic questions of Tribal law enforcement personnel regarding the type of agency for which they work because tribal agencies play different roles on the basis of whether they are under Public Law 280 or not, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or not, or a self-governance compact.

Below we describe our survey design approach.

Survey Design Approach: For the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment survey, we have adapted the approaches used in the studies noted above and integrated the focus group input. This includes:

Developing lists of training needs related to crime and disorder problems, management responsibilities, and law enforcement job tasks, using information from the aforementioned studies, the PTO Program-developed core competencies, and the input of the focus groups.

We drew the core lists of 12 crime and disorder problems and 25 management responsibilities from the focus group discussions, supplementing those with tasks and issues identified in prior research on rural law enforcement.

We initially drew the core list of law enforcement job tasks from the South Carolina study including tasks that met two separate criteria: (1) they exceeded the 50th percentile on criticality, according to supervisors; and (2) 50 percent or more of supervisor respondents indicated that officers learned to perform the tasks primarily through advanced (as opposed to basic) training. We also added tasks on the basis of the focus group discussions and our review of the COPS Office PTO Program’s core police competencies and then refined the entire list.

Categorizing the lists for readability and ease of rating by respondents.

The management training topics are categorized under: (1) Law Enforcement Management, (2) Law Enforcement Strategies/Tactics, and (3) Coordination/Collaboration with Other Agencies.

The law enforcement job tasks/training topics are categorized under: (1) Prepare/Protect, (2) Respond, (3) Investigate, (4) Prepare Reports/Testify, and (5) General Skills.

Linking training needs to on-the-job tasks and the potential consequences to the agency or community when those tasks are not performed well.

We ask field-level personnel to rate their training needs in relation to the law enforcement job tasks, while we ask their CEOS to rate the same tasks on both training need and the consequences for the agency if the tasks are not performed properly by their staff. This approach takes advantage of the on-the-ground knowledge of field-level personnel and the big-picture perspective of agency executives. (We also ask the POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors to rate both management and job task training needs for the personnel in their jurisdiction.)

Focusing on training needs related to crime and disorder problems.

We ask the CEOs and the POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors to rate training needs in relation to the crime and disorder problems. The CEOs will identify the training needs of personnel in their agencies and the POST and Academy Directors will report the training needs of the law enforcement personnel served by their training organizations. Moreover, for each crime and disorder problem, we ask about the training needs associated with: (1) prevention/problem solving, and (2) enforcement/investigation.

The intent of this component of the survey is to: (1) determine the highest priority crime and disorder problems facing rural law enforcement (from the standpoint of training need), and (2) to gather insight from those who routinely identify training needs at the State and local levels about which aspects of these problems (prevention/problem solving or enforcement/investigation) create the greatest concerns/training needs.

We believe that the responses to these items will provide useful information that will supplement the data we will gather regarding training needs related to the list of law enforcement management and job tasks. Ratings of the crime and disorder problems likely will provide a broad perspective on current law enforcement training needs, while ratings of the management- or job task-specific training needs (which break down law enforcement duties into smaller components) will offer a more detailed job‑specific focus.

Neither approach is more valuable. Rather by using both approaches, we likely will produce a more comprehensive picture of the training needs of rural law enforcement agencies and their personnel.

Avoiding survey structure-created bias: We have structured the questions to avoid biasing respondents as much as is possible. For example, we ask two separate questions of CEOs regarding the job-task specific training needs and the severity of the consequences when those job tasks are not performed properly by their personnel, rather than combining those (since the list of job tasks are the same in both). This method seeks to avoid the potential for bias when respondents consider both questions at the same time.

Below we provide an overview of the survey instruments.

The Survey Instruments

The study team produced initial drafts of the three survey instruments, which contain both overlapping questions and some that are unique to the target population for each instrument, as described below:

The Field Officer Survey: We designed this survey instrument to be very brief; it should take about 10 minutes to complete. This instrument comprises two sections: Section I: Survey Questions, and Section II: Demographic Information.

In Section I, there are three survey questions that ask field personnel to: (1) rate their current training needs in relation to a list of law enforcement job tasks, (2) share how familiar they are with the RPI training, and (3) provide input about how law enforcement training should be adapted to meet their training needs (i.e., for personnel serving a rural community).

In Section II, we ask questions about the respondent’s position, experience, agency type and location, and area served. We also inquire about who asked them to complete the survey (e.g., their CEO or a training academy instructor).

The CEO Survey: This survey instrument comprises three sections: Section I: Survey Questions about Training Needs, Section II: Questions about the RPI Training, and Section III: Demographic Information. It should take about 20–30 minutes to complete.

In Section I, we ask three questions about the CEO’s perspective of their agency’s training needs related to: (1) crime and disorder problems (prevention/problem solving and enforcement/investigation), (2) law enforcement management, and (3) law enforcement job tasks. We also ask them to rate the severity of the consequences for their agency and community when a specific job task is not performed correctly by their personnel.

In Section II, we ask three questions related to the RPI Training, including: (1) how familiar they are with the training, (2) what prevents them/their staff from participating in training (barriers), and how the RPI might make its training more accessible to their agency’s personnel (solutions), and (3) how law enforcement training should be adapted to meet the needs of personnel serving a rural community.

In Section III, we ask questions about their experience; position; agency type, location, area served, and operating authority; and the number of sworn employees.

The POST and State and Local Training Academy Survey: This survey comprises three sections: Section I: Survey Questions about Law Enforcement Training Needs, Section II: Survey Questions about Your Organization’s Training, Section III: Questions about RPI Training, and Section IV: Demographic Information. It should take about 20‑30 minutes to complete.

In Section I, we ask these key law enforcement training provider organizations about their perception of the current training needs of law enforcement personnel in relation to (1) crime and disorder problems (prevention/problem solving and enforcement/ investigation), (2) law enforcement management, and (3) law enforcement job tasks.

In Section II, we ask five questions about the training provided by their POST or academy; the information collected in this section will inform the project’s training information collection/training gap analysis.

In Section III, we ask four questions about the RPI training. This includes asking about their organization’s familiarity with the training, and how RPI can best support State and local training organizations in ensuring that law enforcement personnel serving rural areas obtain the training they need. We also ask them to identify the top five priority training topics for RPI consideration, and how RPI can make its training most useful to rural law enforcement personnel in the jurisdiction served by their organization.

In Section IV, we ask demographic questions about their organization type, location, and operating authority.

The instrument cover sheets/opening Web pages appear in Appendices B to F, and the final draft survey instruments appear in Appendices G to I (see also the instrument review/vetting process below).

Vetting the Survey Instruments

CRA is conducting a six-phase instrument review process before disseminating the survey to ensure that the questions are clear, concise, and understandable, and will enable us to achieve our study goals. The review process includes the following steps:

Internal (study team) review and revision (several cycles).

Review by Dr. Ralph Weisheit, Distinguished Professor of Criminal Justice, Illinois State University, and member of IPAC. We conducted two rounds of reviews (two versions); Dr. Weisheit reviewed the instruments, provided feedback, and we integrated his recommendations, as appropriate.

Review by the COPS and RPI/FLETC staff.

Structured external review of the survey instruments with select law enforcement personnel and former representatives of law enforcement training academies serving rural areas.

Final review and approval by the COPS and RPI/FLETC staff.

Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approval (we previously submitted the accompanying paperwork to the COPS Office for review and approval).

Conducting the Structured External Review

Early in the project period, we proposed, and the COPS and RPI/FLETC staff approved a revision to our initially recommended Pilot Test process.^² Instead, we will conduct a structured external review of the three survey instruments, after receiving RPI/FLETC and COPS Office staff approval of those. Through that review process, we will produce a final set of survey instruments that will enable us to achieve a substantial and high-quality response rate.

Selecting the External Review Team. We proposed to conduct the external instrument review with the following nine-member review team:

A representative of a key national stakeholder organization with Tribal law enforcement experience/expertise (all surveys)

A former sheriff (CEO and Field Officer Surveys)

A former police chief (CEO and Field Officer Surveys)

A former campus/school police administrator (CEO and Field Officer Surveys)

A former POST instructor (all surveys)

A former police department field officer and command official, and instructor for the State training academy (all surveys)

A former training academy instructor (POST and State and Local Training Academy Survey)

A former command level personnel serving a suburban/rural community (CEO and Field Officer Survey)

A former field-level law enforcement officer (Field Officer Survey)^³

We will select individuals for the external review team on the basis of our prior experience working with them or the recommendation of key stakeholder groups, and their reputation and level of expertise. We will also attempt to select candidates who represent the following:

State and Local Police Departments

Tribal Law Enforcement Agency

Sheriff’s Department

Campus Police

Fish and Wildlife/Natural Resources Law Enforcement Agency

Within and across the survey target populations (CEO, Field-level, and POST/Academy), we will also ensure a good demographic mix, such as by gender, race (Native American, African American, Hispanic), and location.

We will ask each of the selected candidates: (1) to complete the survey as if they were an invited respondent, assuming the role of the respondent type (e.g., CEO), and (2) to respond to a Survey Feedback Questionnaire, via which they will provide us with further feedback about the survey instrument(s) they are assigned to review. The Survey Feedback Questionnaire provides: (1) an overview of the project, (2) directions for completing the review process, and (3) a questionnaire. The Survey Feedback Questionnaire appears in Appendix J.

Testing the Instruments. Through this external review process, we will test the survey questions, more accurately determine the length of time necessary to participate in the survey, and solicit input about the overall survey instruments and instructions. We will evaluate the feedback received through the external review, make revisions, as needed, and if those revisions are substantial, submit the instruments to an additional set of respondents. We will continue the review process until the results indicate that no further substantial refinements are necessary (although we anticipate only conducting up to two rounds of the external review process).

Using this approach, we will more expeditiously obtain significant levels of feedback regarding the survey instruments design, clarity, and use; avoid the necessity of obtaining OMB approval twice (for a pilot and the overall survey); and achieve the objective of producing a credible and effective survey instrument. We will schedule the external review once the COPS and RPI/FLETC staff approve the drafts of the survey instruments that appear in this plan.

At the conclusion of the external review process, we will: (1) make final adjustments to the survey instruments and submit those for final review and approval by the COPS Office and RPI/FLETC staff, (2) make any requested revisions, and (3) submit the final drafts to the COPS Office to process them for OMB review and approval.

Selecting the Sample (Sample Determination)

We will select a sample for the CEO and Field Officer Surveys and we will survey all 49 POST organizations and all of the State and local law enforcement training academies that serve rural agencies (POST and State and Local Training Academy survey). Below we describe our process for selecting the survey samples.

CEO Survey

We will select a stratified random sample of 3,000 local and special-jurisdiction law enforcement agencies using the steps below. We will also survey the CEOs of all of the Tribal and the State-level law enforcement agencies.

Construct the overall sampling frame by deleting the following from the 2000 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (CSLLEA)^⁴ database of all law enforcement agencies in the United States: (a) the primary State and Tribal law enforcement agencies (because we will survey the entire population of these types of agencies), and (b) non-rural law enforcement agencies (following the RPI definition of rural). Please note that we are not surveying agencies located in the U.S. Territories.

Sort the sampling frame by the five RPI regions.

Using a random number generator, randomly select 600 agencies in each of the five RPI regions.

While it is not necessary to obtain an exact proportionate number of agencies for every State in a region (and the laws of probability will provide a roughly proportionate spread across States, particularly given the large sample size), we will implement a process to ensure that all States are adequately represented in the regional samples. This is particularly important for the States that have a small number of State and local law enforcement agencies (e.g., 7 in Hawaii, 49 in Delaware, and 51 in Rhode Island) because the random sampling process could produce a sample with only a few agencies from these States; this would limit our capacity to determine the training needs in those States.

Therefore, if the random selection process produces a sample with fewer than 10 agencies from any State, we will randomly select additional agencies from that State to bring its sample up to 10 agencies. If it is necessary to do this, we will eliminate other agencies from that region's sample of 600 agencies using the “last in, first out” rule. Further, we will include all of Hawaii’s rural law enforcement agencies because the State has less than 10 such agencies.

Inspect the overall sample to determine the number of special law enforcement agencies that were selected, for example, the campus/school law enforcement agencies.

When we draw the national sample of 3,000 agencies by randomly selecting 600 agencies in each of the five RPI regions, for example, we expect each region’s sample to include about 30 campus/school law enforcement agencies. That will result in approximately 150 campus/school agencies in the total national sample. This number is above the minimum target of 100 campus agencies needed to ensure the collection of sufficient data for this law enforcement agency type.

Should the sampling result in fewer than 20 campus/school agencies in any region, however, we will randomly select additional campus/school agencies from that region to bring the total up to 20. If it is necessary to add campus/school agencies in any region using this method, we will then drop a like number of non-campus/school agencies from that region’s sample, using the “last in, first out” rule, to keep the samples at 600 per region and 3,000 nationally.

POST Organization and State and Local Training Academy Survey

We plan to survey all of the POST Organizations and the State and Local Training Academies that serve rural jurisdictions (no sampling necessary). To select the appropriate training academies, we will begin with the population of all academies. We will review the list and delete the training academies that obviously do not serve any rural agencies (e.g., the New York City or Chicago training academies). We will survey all State, regional, and county training academies, and those based at colleges and universities, because while they may be located in more urban or suburban settings, they typically will serve a broader area that includes rural law enforcement agencies.

Field Officer Survey

We will use a two-pronged strategy for selecting the law enforcement personnel who will be invited to participate in the Field Officer survey. This will include: (1) outreach to the CEOs of law enforcement agencies in our survey sample (as described above), asking them to engage all of their agency’s sworn personnel in the Field Officer Survey, and (2) outreach to the POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors, asking them to administer the survey to Field Officers from rural areas while they are attending in-service training during a designated period of time. (See also below the third, and optional, approach in which we will work with RPI to have their instructors administer the survey to their training participants during a designated period.)

CEO administration of the survey to their field officers. We will use the sample identified for the CEO survey for two purposes—to conduct the executive-level survey and to engage CEOs in distributing the survey to their field-level personnel. We will inform the CEOs about both surveys during our introductory and survey transmittal correspondence to them.

Each CEO will be invited to participate in the CEO Survey and to engage all of their field-level staff in completing the Field Officer Survey. We will provide a link for their field-level staff to access the Web-based version of the Field Officer Survey (those CEOs with field staff who are unable to access the survey online may request paper copy surveys).

POST and State and Local Training Academy administration of the Field Officer Survey. Second, we will coordinate with 50 law enforcement training academies serving rural jurisdictions (10 per region) to survey an additional sample of Field Officers while they are attending in-service training during a designated 1–2 week period. We will use the following steps:

When we contact the POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors by e‑mail to notify them of the forthcoming survey (POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors Survey), we will ask them: (1) whether they are delivering training during a designated 1–2 week period (likely the first 2 weeks of November to avoid the end/beginning of fiscal years), and (2) whether they are willing to have their instructors administer the Field Officer survey to law enforcement personnel from rural areas attending training during that period.

We will sort the POST organizations or training academies that indicate their willingness to administer the Field Officer surveys by the five RPI regions, and then, using a random number generator, randomly select 10 academies in each region to participate. We will proceed to conduct the Field Officer Survey via these POST organizations or training academies even if we do not achieve a balanced draw of 10 per region. (Should we receive more than 10 volunteers per region, we will notify the POST organizations and academies that were not selected to participate, extending our appreciation for their interest.)

We will ask each selected POST organization and academy to administer the survey during up to five in-service courses for field-level personnel that will be taught during the designated period. We will send 100 paper copies of the Field Officer Survey to each participating POST or academy (twenty per course for up to five courses), and guidance for administering the survey. We will also provide links to the Web-based survey platform to training academies that have the capacity and/or would prefer to administer the survey online.

We will track the submission of paper copy (but not the online) Field Officer Surveys administered by the POSTs/academies, and conduct one follow-up mailing to those that indicated that they would participate in administering the Field Officer Survey but did not submit completed instruments by the designated due date.

Optional: RPI Instructor Administration of the Field Officer Survey. We also propose an optional Field Officer Survey deployment strategy. As possible and appropriate, we will work with the RPI staff to engage the agency’s training instructors in administering the Field Officer Survey to participants from rural agencies who are attending RPI courses during a specific period of time when the agency is offering a sufficient number of courses across the regions. We will coordinate with RPI once the survey instruments have been approved to determine if and when to use this Field Officer Survey deployment strategy.

The Final Field Officer Sample

It should be noted that the sampling methods for the Field Officer survey described above will not produce a random sample of potential respondents. Moreover, the study team will have less control over how the survey is administered, for example:

We will be dependent upon the CEOs to agree to have their agency personnel participate in the survey, and to provide them with the necessary materials (Web link to or paper copies of the survey), and potentially the time to complete the survey while on-the-job.

We will rely on the POST organizations or training academies to ensure that their instructors administer the surveys, and then collect and return those to us.

Participants in the RPI trainings are already a select group because they are aware of and have enrolled in an RPI course. They therefore are neither randomly selected or a representative group of field-level personnel.

Despite these obvious limitations, we believe the process for reaching field-level personnel is critically important to the survey results. First, there is no other feasible way to survey a random sample of field-level personnel (lists of these personnel are not available). Second, the potential value of the input of field-level law enforcement personnel is substantial—and essential to RPI’s training resource allocation decisions.

Third, we anticipate receiving a large number of Field Officer Survey responses collected through the two (and potentially three) deployment methods. This will provide us with some confidence that the responses are not seriously skewed in one direction or another. In addition, we will be able to compare the field-level responses received through each of the three methods. Our analysis of those will provide some insight into whether the responses received via any of the methods are systematically biased.

Finally, we will also be able to describe the overall Field Officer respondent pool—and each of the three respondent sub-pools collected via the different methods—in terms of the respondents’ years of experience and their agency size and type, and type of jurisdiction served. We will be able to compare the survey respondents to known population parameters (such as the average size of RPI-eligible agencies and the proportion of sworn law enforcement personnel who work for sheriffs’ departments) as another way of determining whether the survey respondents are generally representative of the entire population of field officers in rural law enforcement agencies.

Preparing to Deploy the Survey

CRA has conducted a number of steps to prepare to deploy the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment Survey, including:

Conducting Outreach

We conducted outreach to select Federal agencies and key stakeholder organizations; prepared and distributed outreach correspondence under the signature of the COPS and RPI/FLETC managers, and follow-up correspondence from CRA. (See the previously submitted Outreach Plan and Outreach Activities Report for more information on the project team’s early efforts to promote—and therefore encourage participation in—the survey.)

We also solicited (and continue to) the support of key National Law Enforcement Stakeholder Organizations, several of which have agreed to send e-mails and letters to their constituents encouraging them to participate in the survey. These include the National Sheriffs’ Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Preparing Dissemination Materials

We developed draft “welcome text” that will provide additional guidance to those invited to participate in the survey; the text will be in a survey cover sheet for the paper copies and on an opening screen for the Web version of the survey.

We selected a Web survey platform and began conceptualizing the survey platform design (the platform design will be finalized once the survey instruments are approved by the COPS Office and RPI/FLETC staff and OMB). The Web platform will comprise separate sections for each of the target populations in the sample (i.e., the CEOs, the Field Officers, and POST/Training Academies, Tribal law enforcement agencies, etc.), and invited respondents from each sample segment will receive the direct link to their section of the survey’s Web platform.

We began preparing e-mail and paper copy correspondence for use in distributing the survey; we will submit these materials after the deployment plan is approved.

We initiated the collection of e-mail and mailing addresses for the law enforcement agencies that comprise the sample frame. We prepared an e-mail for the signature of Mr. Chuck Daenzer, Chief, RPI/FLETC, which was distributed to the State POST Directors on June 11, 2010. The e-mail requested that they send to CRA their e-mail addresses for the law enforcement agencies within their respective States. We also prepared for Mr. Daenzer’s signature a follow-up e-mail, which he distributed on August 9, 2010.

We also spoke with representatives of several of the national law enforcement stakeholder organizations (e.g., National Sheriffs’ Association) who agreed to provide e-mail and mailing lists to CRA for use in distributing the survey.

In addition, we explored opportunities for obtaining an updated national list of law enforcement agencies from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Once we pull the final sample, we will research and identify the agencies in that sample for which we do not have e-mail or mailing addresses and prepare to deploy the survey.

Deploying the Survey

An effective survey deployment process is critical to achieving the survey’s goals. The project team will disseminate the three survey instruments to their target audiences using an array of recognized survey deployment strategies, including that we will:

Send an e-mail to key stakeholder organizations to remind them to disseminate an

“e-mail blast” just before the survey is deployed to alert their law enforcement membership/constituency that they may be receiving the survey imminently and to encourage them to respond, if invited (we will provide them with “adaptable text” for use in the “e-mail blast”).

Distribute the survey-related materials (e.g., the introductory e-mails and the surveys) on a Tuesday, which typically is considered the optimum survey day.^⁵ We anticipate disseminating the survey in fall 2010, depending on the OMB review and approval cycle.

Develop survey transmittal correspondence that is brief and engaging and describes how participation in the survey will benefit law enforcement professionals in rural areas and Indian Country.

Provide respondents a brief one (1) week turnaround period in which to complete the survey (longer completion timeframes often result in respondents setting the survey aside and never returning to it).

Survey Correspondence

We will develop an e-mail series for each of the recipient audiences (CEO, Field Officer, POST and State and Local Training Academy) described above that will include the following:

An introductory mailing (by e-mail or in paper copy) that provides an overview of the survey, highlights the benefits to them of participating, links them to more information about the RPI training, and shares the date on which they should anticipate receiving the link to the survey/paper copy survey. We anticipate distributing this e-mail after receiving OMB approval of the survey instruments.

A survey transmittal mailing (by e-mail or in paper copy) that, again, highlights the benefits of responding and/or further disseminating the survey on RPI’s behalf (e.g., the CEOs and POST Directors).

Two reminder e-mails or paper copy mailings encouraging potential respondents to complete the survey.

In addition, we will contact non-respondents by telephone.

Conduct Follow-up Telephone Calls to Non-Respondents

One week after we distribute the second reminder e-mail, we will begin to call the non-respondents to request that they complete the survey (our goal will be to reach at least a 60‑percent return rate). In an effort to achieve a substantial response rate for each strata of the survey (e.g., Tribal law enforcement personnel), we will follow a predetermined order in making those calls. For example, we will begin this follow-up outreach with the sample strata with the lowest return rate in an effort to achieve the 60-percent return rate. We propose to call each non-respondent two times.

When we call the CEOs of all law enforcement agencies (by strata, as described above) who do not respond to the survey, we will discuss: (1) whether they have completed the CEO Survey and (2) whether they requested that their staff complete the Field Officer Survey. (We will not be able to contact the field staff directly because we will not have their names or e-mail/mailing addresses, nor are we tracking their responses.)

Staff will use a prepared script to encourage participants to participate in the study by explaining the potential benefits to their organization and other rural agencies, and then offer them the option of completing the survey via telephone (with staff noting their responses), online (Web-based), or via the paper/pen option. They will request from each non-respondent an anticipated date of survey completion (online) or return.

Analyzing the Data

As a result of the survey planning, design, and deployment processes described above, we will be able to identify the greatest current training needs of law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian country by: (1) crime and disorder problems, (2) management topics, and (3) law enforcement job tasks. We will also be able to summarize the greatest training needs by the main categories and the respondents, as illustrated by the example below:

Training needs related to crime and disorder problems and:

All rural law enforcement personnel
All rural law enforcement personnel by agency type
All rural law enforcement personnel by State
All rural law enforcement personnel by region
All rural law enforcement personnel by agency type and State
All rural law enforcement personnel by agency type and region
All CEOs
CEOs by State
CEOs by region
CEO by agency type (e.g., Tribal, State agencies, Sheriff’s departments, campus/school police departments)
CEOs by agency type and State
CEOs by agency type and region
All Field Officer Personnel
Field Officers by State
Field Officers by region
Field Officers by agency type
Field Officers by agency type and State
Field Officers by agency type and region
All POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors (perception of need among rural law enforcement in their jurisdiction)
POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors by Region (we will not be able to provide POST or State training academy information by State to prevent the breach of confidentiality for academies that are the sole training unit in their State)
All POSTs
All State training Academy Directors
All Local Training Academy Directors
POSTs by region
State training Academy Directors by region
Local Training Academy Directors by region

We obviously will also be able to report on the above-described respondent types in relation to the other main items being rated by survey participants, including:

Familiarity with RPI training courses
Management training needs (CEOs and POSTs/academies only)
Law enforcement job task-related training needs
Consequences of poor job task performance (CEOs only)

Finally, we will be able to report on the training currently being offered by the POST organizations and State and local training academies. Together this information will be used to compare the stated training needs of rural law enforcement personnel to the training currently available and to conduct a training gap analysis. We will be able to provide this training gap analysis nationally and by State or region.

Comparing the Data

In essence, we will be able to “cut” the data in many different ways to support the RPI staff in determining the greatest training need(s) of each of their target training audiences. We will also be able to compare the responses of the different respondent types (CEOs of the different types of agencies, Field Officers, and POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors) within and across regions and States.^⁶ For example, we will be able to compare the responses of State agency personnel with those of the campus/school police departments and local or Tribal law enforcement agencies across and within specific jurisdictions.

In addition, we will explore whether, and if so, how, the identified training needs vary in relation to respondent and agency characteristics. These include a respondent’s years of experience, agency size, and whether or not an agency is located within a metropolitan area. We then will report any characteristics that appear to be systematically associated with perceived training needs, for example, (1) if the rural agencies located within metropolitan areas report different training needs than rural agencies located outside metropolitan areas, or (2) if CEOs with significant experience on the job report different training needs than new CEOs.

We will also be able to compare the perceptions of the POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors regarding training with the stated needs of the personnel in their regions. The information that we collect on the training offered by these organizations will also enable us to report the training provided by region and State and compare that to the stated training needs of personnel in those areas. The survey results may show, for example, that there is a great need for training on responding to domestic violence in a specific region. We then will review training offered in that region to determine whether or not the training need is related to the absence of training in that jurisdiction.

Creating a Link between Training Value and Need

In the CEO Survey, we asked respondents to rate the law enforcement job tasks on two criteria: (1) the need for training on the job tasks (0–3 scale^⁷), and (2) the severity of the consequences for an agency or community when particular law enforcement tasks are not performed properly (1–4 scale). When we analyze the CEO survey data from the overall CEO sample (3,000 local and special jurisdiction law enforcement agencies, the primary State agencies, and the Tribal agencies), we therefore will be able to calculate critical training needs in relation to these tasks in a way that we believe will be beneficial to RPI.

By combining these two independent ratings multiplicatively, we will be able to create a 0–12 rating of the importance or criticality of the training need related to each of the law enforcement tasks, as illustrated by the hypothetical examples below:

If a CEO rates the consequences of poor performance of “tactical driving” as “very significant” (4) but the current training need as “none—personnel are sufficiently trained” (0), then the calculated criticality score for that item for that respondent would be 4 X 0 = 0.

Conversely, if a CEO rates the consequences of poor performance of “search for missing persons” as “not significant” (1) but the current training need as “high” (3), then the calculated criticality score would be 1 X 3 = 3. This would be a relatively low score, due to the CEO’s low consequence rating, but it would not be zeroed out as in the example above, in deference to the CEO’s opinion that training is highly needed.

If a CEO rates the consequences of poor performance of “investigate domestic violence” as “somewhat significant” (2) and the current training need as “high” (3), then the criticality score would be 2 X 3 = 6.

Similarly, if a CEO rates the consequences of poor performance of “recruit/manage informants” as “somewhat significant” (2) and the current training need as “low” (1) then the calculated criticality score for that item for that respondent would be 2 X 1 = 2.

Any task for which a CEO judges the current training need as “none—personnel are sufficiently trained” would get a zero (0) criticality score since zero times anything is zero. This is as it should be, since any tasks with no current training need should be lowest on the priority list.

The tasks that get the highest criticality scores will be the ones that CEOs say are current training needs and have the most serious consequences as a result of poor performance.

Most criticality scores will probably fall in the middle of the 0–12 range, but it will be interesting and important to determine which are at the top of the criticality rating scale.

These calculated criticality ratings will provide a useful check and, in principle, should represent the most robust measure of the critical training needs of rural law enforcement officers because they are based on two separate and independent ratings by each CEO (i.e., the consequences associated with poor performance, and the current need for training). Specifically, these ratings will provide an objective way of balancing tasks that receive high ratings for “current training need” but low ratings for “consequences of poor performance.”

The Analytic Framework: Further Inquiry and Limitations

The bulk of the analysis will follow the framework described above, which will produce frequencies, averages, and percentages for all respondents and for subsets of respondents. This is appropriate because the main objective is to determine the most important training needs of rural law enforcement personnel (overall, and by respondent and agency type, and States and regions) and to identify whether those training needs are already being addressed through State and local law enforcement training academies.

We do anticipate encountering data that require further inquiry and believe that the Field Officer data will have limitations given our proposed deployment process.

Presenting a Need for Further Inquiry. Some of the data may present issues that require further inquiry by the RPI; when this occurs, we will propose strategies for doing so. For example, we anticipate that, in most cases, an identified training need will correspond with a lack of available existing training in a State or region. It is possible, however, that some training needs may be reported even when training is offered in the State or region (or nationally).

When presented with discordant data, we will explore with the RPI how the agency might further assess the information. Using the example above, for instance, further inquiry might show that training is not offered frequently enough, or that the law enforcement agency CEOs and field personnel are not aware of the availability of the training in their area. Obviously, the explanation for any potentially conflicting data sets would presumably influence RPI decisions about whether to develop and deploy particular courses in particular locations. We therefore will recommend to RPI a method for conducting further inquiry about those data.

Limitations of the Field Officer Data. As noted in the survey design section above, the methodology for surveying field-level personnel is the most challenging and will be heavily dependent on voluntary cooperation from law enforcement agency CEOs and POST and State and Local Training Academy Directors. We are optimistic that these personnel will cooperate with the study team and we will receive completed surveys from a substantial number of field-level personnel.

Yet, even given the potentially large number of Field Officer respondents, we will need to be cautious in stating that their responses are representative of all rural law enforcement field-level personnel because they were not randomly selected. This will be particularly true if we do not receive a fairly large Field Officer response rate, and we will be mindful of the need to interpret the field-level data with caution.

Conclusion

There are potential limitations and challenges associated with all surveys. This is particularly true for national scope studies of an array of personnel types representing myriad agency types from different jurisdictions.

We are optimistic about the chance for a positive response rate for the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment survey that produces data useful to the COPS Office and RPI/FLETC staff—for the following reasons. First, we have kept the survey instruments fairly brief and simple to complete. Second, we have emphasized why the study is important to potential respondents and to their fellow law enforcement officers across the country.

Third, we have supported the RPI staff in working closely with the IADLEST member POST organizations and the Tribal law enforcement leaders—discussing with them the critical issues facing rural and Tribal law enforcement personnel and engaging them in our early planning for the survey. We anticipate that they will be supportive participants in the survey and that the POST organizations will volunteer to administer the Field Officers Survey to rural law enforcement participants in their training.

Finally, we have reached out to key national law enforcement stakeholder organizations, many of which have already highlighted the survey via the newsletters and Web sites. They also have agreed to provide mailing list information, as needed, and to send e-mail blasts to their members/constituents encouraging them to participate in the survey, as invited. Their support for the survey should promote a strong response from law enforcement personnel across the Nation.

Appendix A
Survey Main Screen
(Web-based Surveys)

Appendix A
Survey Main Screen
(Web-based Surveys)^⁸

[Note: This section of the Survey Platform will be open to all law enforcement personnel so that they may learn more about the study and the Rural Policing Institute. Only those personnel with a unique URL will be able to enter the sections of the platform to complete their designated a survey. Additional directions specific to each survey will appear once they link to that section of the platform.]

Welcome to the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment Survey Web site.

Survey Purpose: The Rural Policing Institute (RPI) is conducting this survey to assess the special training needs of law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country. The RPI, which is within the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has teamed with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, to conduct the study.

Why the Survey is Important to Rural Law Enforcement Personnel: RPI/FLETC will use the information collected via the surveys to allocate future Federal rural law enforcement training resources. The input of executive, field officer, and training academy personnel from each region of the country will ensure that RPI/FLETC directs those resources to meet the needs of the professionals serving rural areas and Indian Country.

Accessing the Survey Instruments: You may click directly on the appropriate link below to begin taking the survey that you were invited to complete.

Chief Executive Officer Survey

Field Officer Survey

POST Organization and State and Local Training Academy Survey

For help in accessing the Web-based survey or for more information on the study: Please call [Note: We are exploring the option of establishing an 800 number for use during the survey deployment period.]

Accessing Additional Information about the Surveys: For more information about RPI Training and the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment Survey, please click on the links below:

RPI Training [Note: This will link to the RPI Web site.]

Frequently Asked Questions about the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment Survey. [This will link to the project team-prepared FAQs.]

List of National Law Enforcement Stakeholders Focus Groups that provided input into the survey design and deployment.

[Note: Under the above link, the following information will appear:

The RPI and the COPS Office conducted a series of seven focus groups between March and May 2010 to solicit input from key law enforcement stakeholders about the design and distribution of the Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment Survey. The following organizations participated in the focus groups:

Focus Group of Key National Law Enforcement Organizations (held in Alexandria, VA, March 31, 2010)

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST)
National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives (NAWLEE)
National Center for Rural Law Enforcement, Arkansas University’s Criminal Justice Institute (CJI)
National Sheriffs' Association (NSA)
Regional Community Policing Institute (RCPI; at Wichita State University)
Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC)

2010 International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) Regional Meetings (5 sessions with members of IADLEST held during April/May 2010)

May 18, 2010, Tribal Law Enforcement Agency Leadership Summit, sponsored by FLETC (with Tribal law enforcement leaders)

Appendix B
Draft Cover Sheet for the

Chief Executive Officer Survey
(Web-based)

Appendix B
Draft Cover Sheet for the

Chief Executive Officer Survey
(Web-based)

Welcome to the survey of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of law enforcement agencies serving rural areas and Indian Country. Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study.

Why this Survey is Important to You: The RPI mission is to design and deliver training that meets the unique needs of rural law enforcement professionals—both at an executive and field officer level. The RPI will use the results of the survey to guide its allocation of future Federal training resources for those personnel.

By participating in the survey, you will help RPI to ensure that the training it delivers meets your needs—and those of your fellow law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country nationwide.

Confidentiality: The study team has assigned each potential survey respondent a number for tracking/follow-up purposes only; the list of those numbers will be maintained separately from the master list of potential respondents and only the principal investigator will have access to both sets of information. Moreover, the survey results will be reported in an aggregate form only and information from individual respondents will not be shared.

Quick Overview of the Survey Questions: The survey comprises three sections and will take you approximately 20–30 minutes to complete.

In the first section, you will answer four questions about the training needs of your agency’s command and field officers—related to Crime and Disorder Problems, Management, and Law Enforcement Job Tasks.

In the second section, you will answer three questions about your familiarity with the RPI training, how RPI might best address any barriers to your agency accessing its training, and how law enforcement training should be adapted to meet the needs of personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country.

In the third section, you will provide non-identifying demographic information about yourself, your agency, and your community. This will enable us to analyze the findings by State and region, and agency and respondent type, while maintaining the confidentiality of those who complete the survey.

Survey Findings: After completing the survey, you may read more about how to access the survey findings, which will be available in late spring 2011.

When you complete the survey, please [Note: We will develop additional directions for the online version of the survey once we set up the survey platform site.]

Thank you for participating in this important study.

Dr. Sandra Webb, Deputy Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

U.S. Department of Justice

Charles L. Daenzer, Chief

Rural Policing Institute

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Appendix C
Draft Cover Sheet for the
Chief Executive Officer Survey
(Paper Copy)

Welcome to the survey of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of law enforcement agencies serving rural areas and Indian Country. Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study.

Quick Overview of the Survey Questions: The survey comprises three sections and will take you approximately 20–30 minutes to complete.

For more information on the study: Please call [Note: We are exploring the option of establishing an 800 number for use during the survey deployment period.]

Survey Findings: After completing the survey, you may read more about how to access the survey findings, which will be available in late spring 2011.

When you complete the survey in paper copy, please return it by fax or in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Thank you for participating in this important study.

Dr. Sandra Webb, Deputy Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

U.S. Department of Justice

Charles L. Daenzer, Chief

Rural Policing Institute

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Appendix D
Draft Cover Sheet for the

Field Officer Survey
(Web-based)

Appendix D
Draft Cover Sheet for the

Field Officer Survey
(Web-based)

Welcome to the survey of law enforcement personnel who serve rural areas and Indian Country. Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study.

Purpose of the Study: The Rural Policing Institute (RPI) is conducting this survey to assess the special training needs of law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country. The RPI, which is within the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has teamed with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, to conduct the study. (For more information, see the answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the survey).

Quick Overview of the Survey Questions: The survey comprises two primary sections and will take you approximately 10 minutes to complete.

In the first section, you will answer a question about your training needs and two questions about law enforcement training.

In the second section, you will provide non-identifying demographic information about yourself, your agency, and your community. This will enable us to analyze the findings by region, and agency and respondent type, while maintaining the confidentiality of those who complete the survey.

Survey Findings: After completing the survey, you may read more about how to access the survey findings, which will be available in late spring 2011.

When you complete the survey, please [We will complete this set of directions once we set up the survey platform site.]

Thank you for participating in this important study.

Dr. Sandra Webb, Deputy Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

U.S. Department of Justice

Charles L. Daenzer, Chief

Rural Policing Institute

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Appendix E
Draft Cover Sheet for the
Field Officer Survey
(Paper Copy)

Welcome to the survey of law enforcement personnel who serve rural areas and Indian Country. Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study.

Purpose of the Study: The Rural Policing Institute (RPI) is conducting this survey to assess the special training needs of law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country. The RPI, which is within the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, has teamed with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice, to conduct the study. (For more information, see the attached document containing answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the survey).

Quick Overview of the Survey Questions: The survey comprises two primary sections and will take you approximately 10 minutes to complete.

In the first section, you will answer two questions about your training needs and two questions about law enforcement training.

For more information on the study: Please call [Note: We are exploring the option of establishing an 800 number for use during the survey deployment period.]

Survey Findings: After completing the survey, read more about how to access the survey findings, which will be available in late spring 2011.

When you complete the survey in paper copy, please return it by fax or in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Thank you for participating in this important study.

Dr. Sandra Webb, Deputy Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

U.S. Department of Justice

Charles L. Daenzer, Chief

Rural Policing Institute

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Appendix F
Draft Cover Sheet for the
POST and State and Local

Training Academy Directors Survey
(Web-based Only)

Appendix F
Draft Cover Sheet for the
POST and State and Local

Training Academy Directors Survey
(Web-based Only)

[Note: We assume that all of the POST organizations and academies have e-mail and Internet access and will only provide the survey to them electronically. When we follow-up with non-respondents by telephone, we will, of course, offer them the paper copy version, as requested.]

Welcome to the survey of Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Organizations and Law Enforcement Training Academy Directors. Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study.

Why this Survey is Important to You: The RPI mission is to design and deliver training that meets the unique needs of law enforcement professionals serving rural areas and Indian Country—both at an executive and field officer level. The RPI will use the results of the survey to guide its allocation of future Federal training resources for those personnel. One of RPI’s mandates is to provide training that complements rather than duplicates training being offered by other providers, such as the POST organizations and State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies.

By participating in the survey, you will help RPI to ensure that the training it delivers meets the needs of law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country in your jurisdiction—without duplicating the training offered by the POST organizations and State and local academies.

Confidentiality: The study team has assigned each potential survey respondent a number for tracking/follow-up purposes only; the list of those numbers will be maintained separately from the master list of potential respondents and only the principal investigator will have access to both sets of information. While we are asking you to provide the State in which your training organization operates, the survey results will be reported in an aggregate form only, for example, by region. In addition, information from individual respondents will not be shared.

Quick Overview of the Survey Questions: The survey comprises four sections and will take you approximately 20–30 minutes to complete.

In Section I, you will answer three questions about your organization’s perception of the training needs of command and field officer personnel operating in rural areas and Indian Country in the jurisdiction served by your organization. Please answer these questions even if your organization does not directly design or deliver training.

In Section II, you will answer a series of questions about the type of training offered by your organization (i.e., designing and delivering training, and/or designing training courses that are delivered by others under your auspices). If your organization offers training, you will answer all of the questions in this section. If your organization does not offer training, you will answer only question 1.

In Section III, you will answer four questions about your familiarity with RPI training, how the RPI might most effectively support State and local law enforcement training organizations, priority training needs that RPI might address, and how RPI can make its training most useful to law enforcement personnel serving rural areas and Indian Country. (Please answer these questions even if your organization does not design and deliver training).

In Section IV, you will provide demographic information about your organization. This will enable us to analyze the findings by region and organization type.

Survey Findings: After completing the survey, you may read more about how to access the survey findings, which will be available in late spring 2011.

When you complete the survey, please [We will provide directions for the online version once we set up the survey platform site.]

Thank you for participating in this important study.

Dr. Sandra Webb, Deputy Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

U.S. Department of Justice

Charles L. Daenzer, Chief

Rural Policing Institute

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

1 We also learned about creative strategies for addressing training and/or rural law enforcement challenges, which we reported in the Summary of Outreach Activities Report.

2 We originally proposed to conduct a 3-month pilot survey with personnel in 100 rural law enforcement agencies. We revised this plan to eliminate the potential delays (up to several months) associated with obtaining the required OMB approval to conduct the pilot. We also believe that we will be able to test the survey instrument for clarity and ease of use through the above-described approach, which will not require OMB approval.

3 Please note that we plan to use law enforcement experts who are not in the survey framework.

4 The law enforcement census, which is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (and was co-sponsored by COPS in 2000), includes all State and local law enforcement agencies that are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers. The 2000 CSLLEA includes 17,784 agencies. Please note that the Project Team is attempting to obtain the results of the most recent law enforcement census, which we will use, as available.

5 For target audiences that are working professionals, it is best to avoid Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, and Mondays, during which many people are gearing up for the week ahead. (Survey Monkey: http://s3.amazonaws.com/SurveyMonkeyFiles/Response_Rates.pdf). In addition, many people use Thursday and Friday to begin to gear down for the weekend or to plan for the following week; studies have shown that the best time to send an e-mail is mid-week on a Tuesday or Wednesday between 2–3 p.m. (Zarca Interactive: http://www.zarca.com/Online-Survey-Resource/Survey-Best-Practices/Increase-Response-Rates.html).

6 Data will be reported by regions only for the POST and State and Local Training Academy Survey for the reasons described earlier in this section of the report.

7 CEOs may rate a task not applicable (0 on the scale) if the task is not part of the overall responsibilities of their agency’s personnel.

8 Please note that the study team will make adjustments to the cover sheets/opening Web-pages, as needed, during the finalization of the instruments and the development of the Web platform.

File Type	application/msword
File Title	Deployment plan
Author	CRA
Last Modified By	CRA INC
File Modified	2010-08-17
File Created	2010-08-17

Survey Deployment Plan

Formatted DeploymentPlan8-17-10-2.doc

COPS Rural Law Enforcement Training Needs Assessment Survey