1 / 26

Evaluating a Firearms Qualification Program

Evaluating a Firearms Qualification Program. EAC 584 North Carolina State University Team 4 Ashlea Anderson Selby Bass Taylor Francis Stephanie Goins Ashleigh Watts. Overview. Wilson, NC Police Department Annual In-Service Firearms Training Level 1, 2, and 3 measures incorporated

hosea
Download Presentation

Evaluating a Firearms Qualification Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating a Firearms Qualification Program EAC 584 North Carolina State UniversityTeam 4 Ashlea Anderson Selby Bass Taylor Francis Stephanie Goins Ashleigh Watts

  2. Overview • Wilson, NC Police Department Annual In-Service Firearms Training • Level 1, 2, and 3 measures incorporated • Analysis of levels 1 and 2 • Primary conclusions and suggestions for improvement in future courses

  3. Program • Course mandated by the State of North Carolina for all law enforcement officers • One day, 10-hour course with three parts • 4 hours of classroom academics with final exam • Day and night qualifying on firing range • Obstacle Course • Eighteen participants • Approximately 9% of total force • Approximately 20% of total annual qualifiers

  4. Methodology • Level 1 • Reaction survey created by Team 4 • 7 five-point Likert scale questions, 3 open-ended questions • Level 2 • Observational checklist created by Team 4 and completed by course instructor (SME) • Exam created and mandated by North Carolina Justice Academy (NCJA) • Level 3 • Obstacle course simulating physical and mental stress and fatigue of possible real-world experience • Requirements and pass/fail criteria developed by NCJA

  5. Level 1

  6. Results and Data • Level 1 • Three types of analysis for Likert scale questions • Average response per respondent • Average response per question • Variance • Open-ended answers analysis • Answers categorized by themes • Overall summary of themes

  7. Level 1 – Likert Scale

  8. Level 1 – Likert Scale

  9. Level 1 – Likert Scale

  10. Level 1 – Likert Scale

  11. Level 1 – Open-ended List two things that you would change or improve:

  12. Level 1 – Open-ended List two things that you benefited from the most:

  13. Level 1 – Open-ended Should this training be provided on an annual basis?

  14. Level 1 – Open Ended Summary • 47% of responses indicate that participants would prefer more hands on time at the firing range • Participants value the opportunity to practice firing their weapon during training • Policy and procedure instruction also significantly impacted participants’ knowledge regarding accuracy and use of their firearm • Trainees felt the course fosters better efficiency, proficiency, and consistency when it comes to application as needed in the field. All participants agree that the training should be provided on an annual basis, if not more often • 100% stated the training should be provided on an annual basis • Approximately 31% voted semi-annually

  15. Analysis • Level 1 • Overall positive response • Respondent 1 – Outlier? Misunderstanding? • Minimal variance • Strongest area: “Use of Force” v. “Use of Deadly Force” IAW NC State Law • Weakest areas (tie): Overall impact on marksmanship and Identification of individual handgun parts

  16. Level 2

  17. Results and Data • Level 2 • Observation Checklist • Meets Standards or Does Not Meet Standards • Individual participant data and comments provided by instructor • Summary of data and comments created by Team 4 • Exam • Average score for class provided by instructor • No further analysis conducted • Tool not created by Team 4 and individual data not available

  18. Level 2 - Observation

  19. Level 2 – Observation • Eleven separate measures • Safety • Stance • Accuracy • Loading/unloading revolver • Loading/unloading semi-automatic • Drawing and holstering weapon • Malfunctions • Night procedures without emergency equipment • Night procedures with emergency equipment • Day qualification • Obstacle course performance

  20. Analysis • Level 2 • Observation • Every participant met standards in all categories • Strongest area: Safety • Weakest area: Stance • Attempted to avoid subjective judgments • Exam • All students achieved passing grade • Average score: 92% • Individual scores not available

  21. Level 3

  22. Results and Data • Level 3 • Obstacle Course • Controlled simulation dictated and governed by NCJA • Limited data provided and no analysis conducted

  23. Analysis • Level 3 • Obstacle Course • Graded as pass or fail

  24. Conclusions • Positive response from students to program • All measures of success met by all participants • Actual impact of class on performance? • Changes to the qualification time period?

  25. Areas for Improvement • Larger and more diverse sample size • Development of more in-depth level 3 observation tool to accompany simulation • Further observation and analysis of on the job performance

  26. Q & A Questions?

More Related