OSC 2007 Evaluation Report

2007 OSC Readiness Training Program Evaluation Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Army’s Chemical Materials Agency. Other participants
included 26 representatives of state agencies and eight local responders.
Exhibit 1. Participants by Job Title
EPA RPMs, 2% (9)
Academia, 1% (3)
EPA NDT, 2% (10)
Local Responders, 2% (8)
Other Federal Agency
Representatives, 14% (63)
EPA OSCs, 28% (127)
State Representatives,
6% (26)
EPA ERT, 4% (19)
EPA CICs, 2% (7)
EPA Removal Managers,
5% (24)
EPA HQ Representatives,
16% (70)
Other EPA Regional
Removal Staff, 18% (80)
Evaluation of Overall Training Program
Participants were asked to complete an evaluation form for the overall Readiness Training Program.
They evaluated 11 areas of the training program on a scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
Evaluation forms were collected from 169 participants. Of the participants who submitted an evaluation
form, 54 were OSCs with an average of more than 12 years experience. More than half of the OSCs who
responded indicated they had participated in at least five annual OSC Readiness Training Programs.
The majority of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with all 11 areas, indicating that the 2007 OSC
Readiness Training Program was a success. A small number of participants, less than 1 percent, indicated
that they did not agree that the program allowed them to strengthen the knowledge and skills essential to
successful job performance. About 10 percent of the respondents indicated that they did not agree that the
plenary sessions provided useful information about current topics of interest to removal and emergency
responders.
Evaluation of Training Courses
An evaluation form specifically tailored to the training courses was provided to all students. Students in
each course were asked to complete the form, which included questions about topics such as presentation
materials, handouts, the pace of the session, and recommendations for improvement. Participants also
were asked to rate the training course on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the best rating. A total of 1,155
evaluation forms for the training courses were collected. Of the 36 courses offered (one course was
offered twice), nine courses received an average grade of 5, 26 courses received an average grade of 4,
and 2 courses received an average grade of 3. No training courses received an average grade of 2 or 1.
ES-3