Minnesota Security Training

Final Evaluation Report

Training Sessions - Week of June 15

National Center for State Courts

July 2015

Nathan Hall, Project Director

Steven Berson, Project Coordinator
Timothy F. Fautsko, Trainer
Judge Lee Sinclair, Trainer

Daniel J. Hall, Vice President

Court Consulting Services
707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900
Denver, Colorado 80202-3429
Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

© 2015
National Center for State Courts

This document was prepared under State Justice Institute (SJI) Grant Number SJI-14-N-154
allocated to the Minnesota Judicial Branch, for consulting services rendered by the National Center
for State Courts (NCSC). The points of view and opinions expressed in this report are those of the
authors as agents of the NCSC, and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of
SJI or the Minnesota Judicial Branch.

Every attempt has been made by the NCSC team to achieve completeness and accuracy in this
report. As for style and grammar in the report, the NCSC follows the Chicago Manual of Style
15th Edition. The NCSC realizes that computer and/or human errors are possible.

The NCSC team is grateful to those in the Minnesota Judicial Branch and its judicial partners who
attended the training sessions referenced in this report.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

EVALUATION SCORES RECEIVED.......................................................................................... 1 

FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS FROM PARTICIPANTS ........................................................ 2 

FEEDBACK FROM THE ANOKA TRAINING SESSION ......................................................... 3 

FEEDBACK FROM THE MANKATO TRAINING SESSION ................................................... 6 

FEEDBACK FROM THE ROCHESTER MORNING (AM) TRAINING SESSION .................. 9 

FEEDBACK FROM THE ROCHESTER AFTERNOON (PM) TRAINING SESSION ............ 12 

FEEDBACK FROM THE ST. PAUL TRAINING SESSION..................................................... 14 

FEEDBACK FROM THE WINDOM TRAINING SESSION .................................................... 18 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 22 

APPENDIX A – Training Agenda ................................................................................................ 23 

APPENDIX B – Implementation Checklist .................................................................................. 24 

APPENDIX C – Training Locations and Contacts ....................................................................... 25 

National Center for State Courts, July 2015

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

INTRODUCTION
The Minnesota Judicial Branch, with support from the State Justice Institute, contracted
with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to provide courthouse security services in three
phases. In Phase One, the NCSC conducted detailed security assessments of five courthouses in
Minnesota, located in the following counties (cities): St. Louis (Duluth), Cass (Walker), Kanabec
(Mora), Winona (Winona), and Otter Tail (Fergus Falls). In Phase Two, the NCSC developed
material for a court security Tool Box to assist judges, court staff, and judicial partners on what do
in the event of a negative event or emergency. In Phase Three, the NCSC’s task was to conduct
twelve training sessions on the Tool Box material in court locations across the State of Minnesota.
The first six of the twelve training sessions were conducted during the week of June 15,
2015. The remaining six sessions will be held during the week of August 2, 2015. The training
sessions during the week of June 15, 2015, were held in the following locations: Anoka, Mankato,
Rochester, St. Paul, and Windom.
This evaluation report presents the ratings and comments put forth by participants at the
regional sites. On an 8.0 scale, the training was rated 7.0 or Excellent.

EVALUATION SCORES RECEIVED

Participants in the “Court Security Tool Box” security training seminars were asked to rate
the quality of the training on an 8-point scale. A score of 1 or 2 indicated that the training received
was “Poor,” a 3 or 4 indicated the training received was “Fair,” a 5 or 6 indicated “Good,” and a
score of 7 or 8 indicated “Excellent.” A total of 200 responses were received, including 33 from
the Anoka session, 42 from the Mankato session, 50 from the two Rochester sessions (32 in the
morning and 18 in the afternoon), 36 from the St. Paul session, and 39 from the Windom session.
Scores received were uniformly high, with a majority of respondents rating the training as
“Good+,” “Excellent,” or “Excellent+.”
The specific scores received were as follows:

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 1

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

ROCHESTER AM

ROCHESTER PM
MANKATO

WINDOM
ST. PAUL
ANOKA
Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6
Total Scores
Rating Score
Received

8 (Excellent +) 10 18 7 4 16 13 68
7 (Excellent) 14 13 11 6 16 13 73
6 (Good +) 5 9 10 6 4 13 47
5 (Good) 3 1 3 2 0 0 9
4 (Fair +) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
3 (Fair) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 (Poor +) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 (Poor) 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Sum of Total
226 295 212 120 264 273 1,390
Scores
Total
Responses 33 42 32 18 36 39 200
Received
Average Score
6.8 7.0 6.6 6.7 7.3 7.0 7.0
for Site

FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS FROM PARTICIPANTS

Participants were asked to provide feedback on the overall quality of the training, and to
cite examples of opportunities for the NCSC team to improve its offerings further. The three
specific questions asked were as follows:
 What did we do well?
 What are our opportunities for improvement?
 Please provide any additional comments.
These comments have been grouped according to theme and date/location for
consideration.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 2

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

FEEDBACK FROM THE ANOKA TRAINING SESSION

June 18, 2015
During the six training sessions, two major categories of positive feedback were received
in all locations: [1] praise for the presentation, associated videos, handouts, data, and training
materials; and [2] praise for the presenters, as well as their knowledge, familiarity with security
topics, demeanor, and overall expertise. For the Anoka session specifically, there were 24
complimentary comments concerning the presentation, handouts, and videos, and 10 comments
praising the presenters and their delivery.
(Please note that for the purposes of this evaluation form analysis, some participant
comments with multiple themes [e.g. “Presentation was good. Presenters kept us engaged.”] have
been separated into two thematic categories for review and consideration.)
Specific comments received for the Anoka training session were as follows:

What did we do well? RATED 6.84 out of 8.00

PRESENTATION, HANDOUTS, AND VIDEOS

 All great.
 Awesome that you gave us a zip drive.
 Candy and handouts were appreciated.
 Content was good.
 Content, different speakers, handouts and knowledge were good.
 Covered a lot of material fairly quickly. Visuals in PowerPoints and real life examples
were good.
 Examples were good. Good PowerPoints.
 Good information.
 Good information. Kept attention well.
 Good job at covering all of the threat events. Good ideas to teach back to staff, good
ideas for home as well.
 Good materials and well presented.
 Good video examples.
 Got my attention and started my thinking. Gave us lots of ideas on how to introduce to
staff.
 I liked all of it.
 Informative and kept our attention.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 3

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Liked the active shooter information. Always good to remember significant pointers for
employees. Liked the form and most important on one page, very helpful.
 Pointed out things I didn’t think of. Taught us how to pass along the training to those in
our county. Pointed out what’s most important to teach.
 Presentation was good.
 Relevant. Common sense, but not talked about.
 Stressed major points I will remember.
 Switching up topics was good; videos and examples, live stories that have happened.
 The videos were very eye-opening. I won’t forget them.
 The videos were very good.
 Well-designed presentation.
PRESENTERS, KNOWLEDGE, AND DELIVERY
 Engaging, interesting, good ideas. Some new ideas and discussions.
 Gave real life examples, made us think outside the box.
 Good speaking about each other’s past experiences.
 Kept everyone interested.
 Kept us engaged.
 Made it fun and easy to listen to. Did a great job.
 Personal stories had impact. Your knowledge was good.
 Presenters were knowledgeable about the subjects.
 Real life experiences; the experience of both of the trainers offered extra knowledge.
 Rotating between instructions of subject matter was good.
SECURITY AWARENESS
 Made me think about things that we’d rather not. Had a lot of insights into different
perspectives, so thank you for sharing.

In addition to the compliments and praise, the NCSC team also asked for constructive
criticism. The NCSC team has found that the perceptive insights of training participants frequently
lead to opportunities for program improvement.
For the Anoka session, comments focused especially on the length of the training seminar.
Additional feedback addressed the potential for advanced training, the interactivity of the
presentation, the team’s lack of follow up with team leaders, requests for more incident videos,

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 4

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

and concerns over pre-presentation planning and the possibility of adding a second break to the
session time block.
Specific comments received were as follows:

What are our opportunities for improvement?

ADVANCED TRAINING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

 Need advanced training for law enforcement.
INTERACTIVITY OF PRESENTATION
 Make it more interactive.
FOLLOW UP WITH TEAM LEADERS
 Follow up with team leaders to see what process is in place back in the courthouse.
LENGTH OF TRAINING SEMINAR
 As with all things, I wish we had more time.
 Give a longer class so you have more time to go through all of the information.
 Give a longer class time.
 Lengthen the amount of time available for presentation. Make it longer so the material
doesn’t have to be rushed.
 Make more time for training.
 More time is needed.
 More time, 4 hours.
 Possibly take more time.
 Take more time. It seemed rushed.
MORE INCIDENT VIDEOS
 Keep adding videos. Keep adding tools for us to use when we go back to our counties.
 More videos.
 Teach more through the use of videos.
 The videos were tough to see.
 Would like to see more videos.
PLANNING OF PRESENTATION, FORMAT, AND TIME BLOCKS
 Maybe offer two breaks during presentation.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 5

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

PRE-PRESENTATION PLANNING
 Make table tents to get people in the right place ahead of time.

FEEDBACK FROM THE MANKATO TRAINING SESSION

June 17, 2015
Positive comments received in the evaluations for the Mankato training session can be
thematically grouped as follows: [1] the quality of the presentation, handouts, and videos (28
comments); [2] the presenters’ demeanor, knowledge, and delivery (17 comments); and [3] a
heightened awareness for the need for court security which was experienced by the participants (2
comments).
Specific comments were as follows:

What did we do well? RATED 7.02 out of 8.00

PRESENTATION, HANDOUTS, AND VIDEOS

 Clear, precise information. Well delivered.
 Consistent information. Slides and videos were helpful.
 Covered everything in three hours, a lot was brought up.
 Covered general topics well.
 Demonstrated important points with good illustration via video or other means.
 Easy to understand and engaging.
 Excellent material presented, all very useful and educational. Kept our attention. Gave
great tips for training staff.
 Good desktop handout.
 Good examples of real events.
 Good examples of security issues, nicely embedded videos.
 Good examples, good materials. Very useful and easy to implement.
 Good general discussion topics.
 Good information, relevant.
 Good information.
 Good video presentation on real-life incidents.
 Good videos. Short, to the point, effective.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 6

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Great overview of the topics.

 Great presentation.
 Interactive, good videos and examples.
 Interesting, very informative.
 Presentation was wonderful.
 Provided good information. I appreciate getting the information to take home to aid in
future training.
 Quick reference card/sheet was appreciated.
 Really good presentation. All the information was excellent. Thanks so much for this
training.
 Short training, to the point, informative.
 The active shooter topic was covered well.
 The training was good.
 Tools helped keep it memorable.
PRESENTERS, KNOWLEDGE, AND DELIVERY
 Dynamic speakers.
 Engaging speakers.
 Good examples, topical, kept to time schedule.
 Good speakers.
 Got people together well.
 Kept interest with the humor and some interactions. Did provide more up to date
information that I’d been aware of.
 Kept it interesting.
 Kept it interesting. Lots of valuable information.
 Kept it very interesting, presenters were very prepared. Presenter enthusiasm – always
have ideas we need to work on. Thank you.
 Kept the agenda flowing. Relevant material, well prepared.
 Kept the group engaged.
 Kept things simple.
 Lots of good information presented, good breaks of fun were important. Good reminders
to never forget.
 Nice job of holding everyone’s interest. Good coordination between the presenters.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 7

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Presenters gave good practical experiences.

 Stayed on topic very well.
 Switched speakers and kept it moving.
SECURITY AWARENESS
 Made us all aware that this is a serious matter and we need to actively put a plan into
action. Lots of information.
 Scared us, helps emphasize security.

Constructive criticisms received and suggestions for improvement were fairly diverse, and
included: [1] encouragement to widen security awareness for the county board (1 comment); [2]
concerns over an emphasis on OSHA-related topics (1 comment); [3] a request for more advanced
(or less basic) training (1 comment); [4] a request for more incident videos (1 comment); [5] a
request for more handouts (1 comment); [6] a request for more information on concealed carry (1
comment); [7] concern over a lack of “train the trainer” suggestions (1 comment); [8] general
concerns over the presentation format and readiness (3 comments); [9] criticism of presenter time
management (7 comments); and [10] constructive suggestions for additional training topics and
approaches (3 comments, and see also [6] above).

What are our opportunities for improvement?

DISSEMINATION OF SECURITY AWARENESS

 County board needs to learn the message.
LESS EMPHASIS ON OSHA-RELATED TOPICS
 Some of the topics are OSHA required, so we are aware: fire, medical, severe weather.
Probably don’t need to spend as much time on those.
MORE ADVANCED TRAINING
 This seems very basic, learned nothing, sorry I wasted my morning.
MORE INCIDENT VIDEOS
 Maybe provide more videos.
MORE HANDOUTS
 There should have been a handout at start of session to each participant.
MORE INFORMATION ON CONCEALED CARRY LAWS
 Please provide more information on concealed carry and handguns.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 8

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

MORE INFORMATION ON “TRAIN THE TRAINER” METHODS

 This is set up as a train the trainer. I have been a judge for 4.5 years and never have
received training on how to handle any of these situations. I enjoyed the examples of
what to do, but could use more, before I can train or lead staff. That maybe doesn’t
happen at this training, but it is a needed resource.
PLANNING OF PRESENTATION, FORMAT, AND TIME BLOCKS
 Ask the participants for questions.
 Need more time to work in groups.
 Not being the leader, I did not bring extra paper for notes.
PRESENTER TIME MANAGEMENT
 Presenters could manage their time better.
 Should have had a little more time.
 Time management … the presenters were rushing through the end of the presentation.
 Time management could be better.
 Too rushed. Spend a little more time on subjects.
 Topics were rushed at the end before getting into groups.
 You tried to cover too much. The last two topics could have been left out, focus on the
top ones.
SUGGESTIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE TRAINING TOPICS AND APPROACHES
 Leave the building to make a call on bomb threat. Should not call within the building.
 Teach how to talk to people about targets, threats over the phone and in person. How to
react properly. Phone threats can lead to a person coming in and threatening in person.
 You could include information on Becker’s Gift of Fear.

FEEDBACK FROM THE ROCHESTER MORNING (AM) TRAINING SESSION

June 15, 2015
The Rochester trainings were split into two sessions, with one scheduled during the
morning and another during the afternoon. The feedback for each session has been considered
separately, particularly due to variance in the types of constructive criticisms received.
For the morning session, participants particularly praised: [1] the presentation and
materials (19 comments); [2] the presenters and their delivery (13 comments); and [3] awareness
of the need for security training (2 comments).
Comments received were as follows:

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 9

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

What did we do well? RATED 6.62 out of 8.00

PRESENTATION, HANDOUTS, AND VIDEOS

 Clear, concise, well prepared. Vital information.
 Condensed information, court handouts were good.
 Covered lots of material in a short time.
 Did a nice job with the topic. Much of it is a review for law enforcement.
 Engaging class with good examples.
 Good ideas of where to start our plan.
 Good materials provided to teams to use.
 Good materials.
 Laminated cards, videos of actual events were good.
 Pointed out the importance of staying calm in a crisis circumstance and acting with
urgency, safety first.
 Provided a good basic outline.
 Sent the message that having emergency response procedures in place and training with
practice is very important.
 The active shooter presentation was well done.
 The short forms were very good. The information overall was excellent.
 Threats made real.
 Valuable information. Good information on presenting PowerPoint presentations, never
really seen that before.
 Very simple and understandable. Good handouts.
 Videos, reminders to everyone of what is happening around the county were helpful.
 Well-organized, easy steps to take back to our courthouse and employees. 
PRESENTERS, KNOWLEDGE, AND DELIVERY
 Good communication, real life examples. Kept it interesting, kept it moving.
 Good knowledge.
 Good voice, pleasant, real life examples.
 Got us engaged.
 Great job keeping attention and being enthusiastic. Provided a lot of very valuable
information.
 Kept it flowing, good pace.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 10

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Kept it moving.
 Organized, hit topics well.
 Presenters were good, breaking up talk with two voices and changing locations in the
room.
 Put eight hours of information in a 3 hour class, kept things moving.
 Showed videos, brought focus off screen, rotated speakers.
 Very good communication and good useful tools.
 Very informative, engaging. 
SECURITY AWARENESS
 Developed good awareness.
 Lots of good information. Really made me think about the safety of our county. 

In addition to the praise received, the NCSC team also received valuable constructive
feedback concerning: [1] the need for more incident training (1 comment); [2] the length of the
training seminar (10 comments); [3] the overall need for additional training (1 comment); [4] the
need for more breaks during training (2 comments); [5] a request for PowerPoint hardcopies (1
comment); and [6] the overall approach taken by the presenters during the training session (4
comments).
Comments received were as follows:

What are our opportunities for improvement?

EMPHASIS ON INCIDENT TRAINING OVER SAFETY TRAINING

 Give more on active shooter and hostage; severe weather, fire topics are unnecessary.
LENGTH OF TRAINING SEMINAR
 Could be a much longer class, but I understand time was an issue.
 More time for the training.
 More time needed for presentation.
 More time.
 Needs more time.
 Not enough time for nuts and bolts in different scenarios. Take less time on how to set
up PowerPoint for local training events.
 Should have longer time allowed.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 11

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Time constraints hurt other presentations. Too much information in too short a period
of time, and I realize this was 8 hours condensed to 3.
 We need more time. These are very good trainings.
 Would really like the training to be longer with more hands on. Likely, it would be better
implemented later if we could practice today.
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING
 More training.
NEED FOR PRESENTATION INTERACTIVITY
 Weight more of the presentation for tabletop or team interaction.
PLANNING OF PRESENTATION, FORMAT, AND TIME BLOCKS
 More breaks.
 Need more breaks. It is said people lose interest after 20 minutes, but no break until 1.5
hours.
PRE-PRESENTATION PLANNING
 Provide the PowerPoint ahead of time so that we can annotate it with our notes as you
lecture.
PRESENTER APPROACH
 Don’t read off PowerPoint as much as you did.
 Give better detail about what to do.
 Give training in different environments.
 Give training with employees.

FEEDBACK FROM THE ROCHESTER AFTERNOON (PM) TRAINING SESSION

June 15, 2015
For the afternoon session, comments were equally divided between the topics of the
presentation and the presenters, as follows:

What did we do well? RATED 6.67 out of 8.00

PRESENTATION, HANDOUTS, AND VIDEOS

 All very good, visuals, speakers, good information.
 Caught our attention. Simple, easy steps to remember. Clear, thorough.
 Emergency response guide was good, as were presentation and examples.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 12

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Fast-paced, informative.
 Flash drive of all materials makes for more time to listen than take notes.
 Good including materials on flash drive for ease of training preparation.
 One-page guide is helpful.
 Presentation and other information shared were good.
 Presentation moved well. Held attention. Real life case studies were good.
 Presentation was well-presented and included a lot of helpful information, along with
good ideas and examples. 
PRESENTERS, KNOWLEDGE, AND DELIVERY
 Good speakers worked as a team.
 I liked the discussion. Thanks for not reading PowerPoint. Loved the examples and
scenarios.
 Kept our attention. Moved right along. Good information.
 Kept the audience’s attention. Gave a lot of information.
 Liked stories that relate to what is being taught. It helps to remember and relate to the
topic. It is obvious you are both very experienced and knowledgeable.
 Very engaging. Obviously knowledgeable in the subject areas.
 Went straight to the point on each section. Real life stories were good. 

The valuable critical feedback received during the Rochester afternoon session addressed
different topics than had been noted during the morning session, including: [1] a concern over
provided safety advice (1 comment); [2] the length of the training seminar (3 comments); [3] a
request for more incident videos (1 comment); [4] encouragement to consider multi-agency
training opportunities in the future (1 comment); [5] a need for more interactivity during the
presentation (1 comment); [6] the need for more security training overall (1 comment); [7] a
request for question and answer sessions during the training (1 comment); [8] a request for a more
extensive introduction to the training (1 comment); and [9] a complaint concerning technical issues
during the presentation (1 comment).
These comments were specifically as follows:

What are our opportunities for improvement?

CONCERN OVER PROVIDED SAFETY ADVICE

 Not a good idea to put something in someone’s mouth during a seizure.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 13

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

LENGTH OF TRAINING SEMINAR

 Probably not in control of this, but give more time. May have moved a little too fast for
the importance of the topic.
 There was a lot of information presented. Maybe could have been more time allotted for
discussion and questions.
 You are putting out a lot of information in a short amount of time.
MORE INCIDENT VIDEOS
 Give more examples/situations and videos with sound.
MULTI-AGENCY TRAINING
 It would be interesting to attend the full seminars with various agencies involved in the
training.
NEED FOR MORE INTERACTIVITY
 Have people describe scary situations that have happened in their courtrooms. Makes it
real, gets people’s attention, and much to learn from “almost disasters.”
NEED FOR MORE TRAINING
 We have little or no information on security, safety plans.
PLANNING OF PRESENTATION, FORMAT, AND TIME BLOCKS
 Have a time out for questions.
PRESENTATION INTRODUCTION
 Give more of a road map of main areas in the beginning.
TECHNICAL ISSUES DURING PRESENTATION
 Presenters had some PowerPoint issues.

FEEDBACK FROM THE ST. PAUL TRAINING SESSION

June 19, 2015
Positive comments received from the St. Paul session complimented the NCSC team on
the following topics: [1] appreciation for the team discussion approach (2 comments); [2] the
quality of the presentation, handouts, and video (30 comments); [3] the presenters’ demeanor,
knowledge, and delivery (15 comments); and [4] a heightened awareness for the need for court
security which was experienced by the participants (4 comments).
Specific comments received were as follows:

What did we do well? RATED 7.33 out of 8.00

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 14

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

CONVERSATIONS WITH COLLEAGUES

 Allowing conversations between table members was helpful.
 I liked the team discussion.
PRESENTATION, HANDOUTS, AND VIDEOS
 Concise, memorable, practical lessons.
 Covered a large amount of material in a short time, yet in detail and easily absorbed.
 Engaging presentation. Good information.
 Everything was done well, very entertaining.
 Excellent presentation and information, both in terms of presenting and content.
 Extremely engaging, very clear and understandable direction. Easy to see, hear, do.
Explained the techniques that have been proven to be effective. Videos are always
impactful.
 Good examples provided.
 Good format and presentation.
 Good ideas on how to train staff. Good visual examples to get our attention.
 Good information and resources.
 Good information, great for all employees in our county.
 Good information, PowerPoint, and videos.
 Good reminders. Pretty basic, but easy to overlook and not be proactive regularly.
 Good, minimal use of PowerPoint.
 Great information on security and personal safety.
 Great information.
 Handouts were appreciated.
 I thought the videos and examples helped paint the picture and described the importance.
 Kept my attention, entertaining.
 Learned about the Barracuda door stop and magnetometer calibration.
 Loved the flash drive with resources.
 Presentation of plans was helpful. Useful information.
 Provided a lot of useful, relevant information and tips.
 Provided materials, described action steps to take in a courthouse security committee.
 Provided tools for use, easy to understand and follow. Useful basic information.
 The pace was good.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 15

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Use of examples, use of resources was good.

 Very good overview and examples and benchmark processes to take to our courthouse.
 Video materials were appreciated.
 You gave really good examples of incidents in your presentation. Great ideas to
implement training at our MJB.
PRESENTERS, KNOWLEDGE, AND DELIVERY
 Dynamic team approach, with prompts to encourage participation.
 Gave us tools and examples we can use with staff. Appreciated the handout response
guide.
 Good job on the presentation. I liked the teaching style of the presenters.
 Knowledgeable, professional. Good presentation for awareness.
 Liked the interchange between presenters.
 Presenters gave clear, simple actions for reactions to various emergencies.
 Presenters kept the material entertaining and informative.
 Presenters mixed in instructions with videos of real-life situations.
 Presenters were energized.
 Presenters were well-organized, with good use of personal stories.
 Talked about real life experiences and highlighted the most important information.
 The presenters did a good job of keeping the attention of the audience, and kept the
information simple.
 Very good information, instructors were very knowledgeable.
 Very well-organized and informative presentation. Very knowledgeable instructors.
 You worked well together, nice tag teaming. Adapted to the audience well.
SECURITY AWARENESS
 Addressed the major issues that affect the safety and security of the courthouse.
Reinforced the run, hide, fight concept.
 Brief and to the point. Memorable tips and pointers. Allowed us to walk away with a
plan.
 Engaging and poignant. We got the point of “not if, but when” something will happen.
 Team did a good job of focusing on serious nature of risk.

Valuable comments concerning the NCSC team’s opportunities for improvement were
received at the St. Paul training session as well. These comments were more diverse, with topics

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 16

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

including: [1] concern over conflicting security strategies (1 comment); [2] concern over training
for an informed and aware staff versus frightening employees (1 comment); [3] disappointment
with the emphasis on courts over other government facilities (1 comment); [4] disappointment
with the emphasis on SWAT teams versus other first responding officers (1 comment); [5] the
length and pacing of the training seminar (8 comments); [6] requests for more incident videos and
video play time (2 comments); [7] requests for more online and/or handout resources (3
comments); and [8] constructive criticism of the presentation format and time blocks for the day
(3 comments).
Specific comments received were as follows:

What are our opportunities for improvement?

CONCERN OVER CONFLICTING SECURITY STRATEGIES

 Have you worked with the Minnesota Sheriff’s Association (MSA) to make sure we are
not conflicting with any strategies they might have?
CONCERN OVER INFORMED VERSUS FRIGHTENED EMPLOYEES
 How not to scare employees – we have trained staff, and it has made them afraid instead
of being prepared.
EMPHASIS ON COURTS OVER OTHER GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
 Understand that it is not just the courts that are participating in trainings. Maybe talk
about other offices within the county.
EMPHASIS ON SWAT OVER FIRST RESPONDING OFFICERS
 Give less emphasis on SWAT. They will not be the first law enforcement seen by
victims. First responding officers will be patrol with rifles, pistol carriers, etc.
LENGTH OF TRAINING SEMINAR
 Add more time to the class for discussion for the prevention portion of the training.
 Keep the presentation shorter.
 Presenters were short on time.
 Ran short on time for the last few of eight topics.
 The topics on the presentations seemed rushed.
 This presentation requires a little more time, and an opportunity for questions. It was a
lot of information in a short time. Seemed a bit rushed.
 Would like a longer training.
 You should add 30 minutes to your training. It seemed like you were running low on
time.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 17

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

MORE INCIDENT VIDEOS

 I would have liked to see more videos and examples of real-life situations of the topics
we covered.
 Could use more videos, or play the ones you have. They make a lasting impression.
MORE ONLINE INFORMATION AND HANDOUTS ON SECURITY MATTERS
 Please provide websites for further information.
 Please share the information with our staff.
 Would have liked PowerPoint handouts to add notes on.
PLANNING OF PRESENTATION, FORMAT, AND TIME BLOCKS
 A second break would have been helpful.
 Have participants do very quick introductions so we know who is in the room.
 Maybe provide some quick, short table activities.

FEEDBACK FROM THE WINDOM TRAINING SESSION

June 16, 2015
Positive comments received as a result of the Windom session included: [1] appreciation
of the inclusion of other organizations (1 comment); [2] praise of the presentation and materials
(25 comments); [3] praise for the presenters and delivery (13 comments); and [4] notices of
improved awareness of security concerns as a result of the presentation (6 comments).
Specific comments were as follows:

What did we do well? RATED 7.00 out of 8.00

INCLUSION OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

 Happy that you brought/invited all stakeholders to this training. 
PRESENTATION, HANDOUTS, AND VIDEOS
 Clear and easy to understand messages, good examples.
 Covered multiple topics.
 Emergency response cards, key items that employers will remember.
 Enjoyed the training very much. Thank you.
 Gave real life events and situations, videos.
 Good information we can bring back to our safety/security committees, setting up
trainings for employees in the AM/PM.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 18

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Good information, good presentation style.

 Good presentation.
 Good quick program, good information.
 Good structure.
 Good use of real life examples and videos.
 Great PowerPoint.
 I just took over a safety program that was basically nonexistence, and there are a lot of
different things that I need to do and prepare employees. This session will help
immensely.
 Kept information basic.
 Liked the videos.
 Lots of good information.
 Lots of information presented quickly, with many tips that relate to more than courts.
 Mixed up the training types. Active training, applicable videos of real life events were
good.
 Presentation was excellent.
 Presentation was very informative. Good to learn from previous experiences.
 Really good information to consider.
 Take home pen drive, action plan were good.
 The content of the presentation was good.
 Very informative. Learned a lot about common sense things to do in troubling
situations.
 Well done. Good topics, presented in interesting and interactive format. 
PRESENTERS, KNOWLEDGE, AND DELIVERY
 Covered a great deal of information efficiently. Kept us interested.
 Did a good job explaining the needs and shortcomings.
 Engaging. Liked it that you addressed the local concerns in order.
 I like how you’re teaching the teachers. Good energy dividing up between the two of
you.
 Kept attention and excitement while keeping the topics relevant.
 Liked the personal stories.
 Presented the information in a way that was informative and easy to digest. Presented
different ways to present/train other staff members.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 19

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Presenters clearly presented the purpose of training. Kept to time allotted. Very
engaged and kept everyone engaged.
 Presenters kept it interesting and moving.
 Presenters personalized it and gave memorable examples.
 Presenters were good keeping it simple and straightforward.
 Shared many good safety tips and threw some humor in.
 Very good use of different learning techniques. The videos are always good. 
SECURITY AWARENESS
 Gave a lot of insight to how we can evolve our security more.
 Good at getting people to understand the importance of these eight areas, and the
materials and videos presented help get the point across. It’s not if it happens, it’s
when.
 Good awareness, brought to light the need for preparation and planning.
 Got me thinking about the topics and how I would respond.
 Reinforced the idea that we cannot be complacent with security. Security is only as
good as the people involved/training to respond to situations.
 Very informative training. For what it is designed to do – inspire future planning – it is
well-developed. Spurs discussion on awareness of risk and presents a plan to evaluate
current practices. 

Constructive criticism received as a result of the Windom training session was diverse,
with twelve thematic topics covered as follows:

What are our opportunities for improvement?

CONFUSION OVER TRAINING AND ATTENDANCE

 I wasn’t sure what we were getting, or who should be there.
LENGTH OF TRAINING SEMINAR
 Allow more time to go into more detail.
 Concentrate on resources to give information; too much for an afternoon.
 Do an all-day training? Too important to minimize travel. Pick 3 topics and go more
in depth: active shooter, courtroom security, other occurrences.
 I would have liked it to be longer.
 Maybe have more time.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 20

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

 Presentation could be tightened up.

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
 More handouts would be good.
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND FUNDING
 Additional regular training for employees would be helpful.
 I know this is not your issue, but I suggest the need to convince courts to allow more
training on topics; funding to counties for up to date IP-based cameras; imaging
equipment; etc.
 Provide us with cheaper security ideas.
NEED FOR COURTHOUSE FACILITY RESEARCH
 Find out more about the courthouse design from each county.
NEED FOR INCIDENT SIMULATION SCENARIO
 Present a simulated incident during class.
 You could probably do a couple of real situations (role-play).
NEED FOR MORE “TRAIN THE TRAINER” INFORMATION
 Give examples on how to train employees, things to do for post training.
 Not adequate for us to be equipped to provide training to others. It would have been
awesome for court to have paid the presenters to do in-depth training for the 3 hours,
then broadcast it via ITV to each county so each county could have had all (or most)
staff trained thoroughly all at once.
NEED FOR SECURITY PLAN REVIEWS
 Survey each courthouse, set up a policies and procedures plan. Give examples of other
small rural county plans.
PRESENTATION APPROACH
 The presentation was a little slow right before the break. A lot of time was spent on
why it is important to train staff, which short-changed some of the other topics.
 Walk through the materials on the drives with groups.
PRESENTATION INTRODUCTION
 Identify goals that you are intending to accomplish.
PRESENTER AUDIBILITY
 Presenters should speak a little louder.
 Sometimes hard to hear the presenter.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 21

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

TRAINING VENUE
 More comfortable venue would be appreciated.

CONCLUSION
The NCSC is gratified by the overall positive evaluations from participants at the training
sessions. It is clear that the topics covered at the sessions were of great importance to the
participants and that further training on these topics may well be warranted. The NCSC is also
mindful of and grateful for the many suggestions received from participants with respect to
opportunities for improvement. We will carefully consider those suggestions as we plan future
training sessions.

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 22

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

APPENDIX A – Training Agenda

National Center for State Courts

Minnesota Emergency Response Training Sessions
Safety Summit
June and August 2015

Agenda

Welcome and Introductions

Presentations and Discussions on Emergency Response Topics

 Presentations will cover Emergency Response template topics, with emphasis on the
following:
o Overview of court security to protect judges, court staff and all those working in
the courthouse
o Detailed presentations and discussions on the following situations:
1. Active shooter
2. Hostage taking
3. Anger management/violence
4. Fire emergencies
5. Bomb threats
6. Medical emergencies
7. Suspicious package/unattended items
8. Severe weather/power outages

 Presentations will include videos, PowerPoint slides, and lectures, with ample opportunity
for discussion and input by members of teams attending the training sessions.

Moving Forward in a Collaborative Fashion

 Customizing Emergency Response Templates.

o In break-out sessions each team will discuss how the Emergency Response
templates can be customized to work best in their home county.
 Implementation Planning.
o In break-out sessions each team will begin to develop an implementation plan for
finalizing and distributing an Emergency Response guide in their county and
training other staff members on its content and use.

Wrap-up and Adjourn

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 23

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

APPENDIX B – Implementation Checklist

National Center for State Courts

Minnesota Emergency Response Training Sessions
Safety Summit
June and August, 2015

Implementation Checklist

TASK DATE COMPLETED

Complete Customized Short-Form Template

Distribute Short-Form Template to All Staff

Complete Customized Long-Form Template

Distribute Long-Form Template to All Staff

Complete Training Outline

Establish Training Date(s)

Complete Customized Training Materials

Deliver Training to All Staff

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 24

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

APPENDIX C – Training Locations and Contacts

June 15, 2015

AM Session 9-12

Number of resource teams: 7

PM Session 1-4

Number of resource teams: 6

Rochester

Kahler Apache, www.kahlerapache.com

1517 16th Street SW, Rochester, MN 55902

June 16, 2015

Session Time: 1-4

Number of resource teams: 9

Law Enforcement Center

902 5th Avenue, Windom, MN 56101

Training Room, Lower Level

June 17, 2015

Session Time: 9-12

Number of resource teams: 6

Blue Earth County Justice Center

401 Carver Road, Mankato, MN 56001

Jury Assembly Room (2nd floor)

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 25

Minnesota Security Training Final Evaluation Report

June 18, 2015

Session Time: 1-4

Number of resource teams: 8

Tenth Judicial District

Ramsey District Office, Ramsey, MN

7533 Sunwood Dr NW # 306 Anoka, MN 55303

(763) 422-7475

June 19, 2015

Session Time: 9-12

Number of resource teams: 5

Minnesota Judicial Center

25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155

(651) 297-7650

National Center for State Courts, July 2015 26