NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICER ... · PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MINNESOTA Final Report ... 2.2 Projected Number of Future Graduates

NNEEEEDDSS AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT SSTTUUDDYY OOFF PPRROOFFEESSSSIIOONNAALL PPEEAACCEE OOFFFFIICCEERR

EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN PPRROOGGRRAAMMSS IINN MMIINNNNEESSOOTTAA

FFiinnaall RReeppoorrtt

PREPARED FOR:

OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR 500 WELLS FARGO PLACE 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET

ST. PAUL, MN 55101

PREPARED BY:

2123 CENTRE POINTE BLVD. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308

DECEMBER 19, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... i 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................1-1 1.1 Overview of Project ..................................................................................1-1 1.2 Professional Peace Officer Educational Pipeline .....................................1-2 1.3 Minnesota’s Professional Peace Officer Education Programs.................1-2 2.0 SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR PROGRAM GRADUATES.................................2-1

2.1 Indicators of Law Enforcement Labor Market Conditions ........................2-1 2.2 Projected Number of Future Graduates ...................................................2-2 2.3 Employer and Academic Community Assessment of Current and Future Need for PPOE Graduates ....................................................2-7 2.4 Population Projections .............................................................................2-9 2.5 Occupational Projections and Estimated Job Openings ........................2-10 2.6 Estimated Level of Supply Needed to Meet Demand in Minnesota...............................................................................................2-14

2.7 Estimated Level of Supply Needed to Meet Demand, Adjusting for Out-of-State Employment..................................................2-16 2.8 Summary and Recommendations..........................................................2-18

3.0 ASSESSING OPTIMAL PROGRAM LOCATION ...............................................3-1

3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................3-1 3.2 Distance Between Population and Program Locations ............................3-1 3.3 Skills Training and Academic Program Locations ......................................3-3 3.4 Distance Between Employers and Program Locations ............................3-7 3.5 Appropriate Distances Between Academic and Skills-Training Locations..................................................................................................3-8 3.6 Program Delivery Models.......................................................................3-10 3.7 Decision Model for Balancing Program Location and Efficiency............3-11

4.0 SKILLS PROGRAM FACILITIES NEEDS ..........................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................4-1 4.2 Minimum Facility Requirements ...............................................................4-1 4.3 Description of Current Facilities ...............................................................4-2 4.4 Site Visit Observations .............................................................................4-6 4.5 Employer and Training Coordinator Assessment of Capacity Levels ......4-8 4.6 Other Training Facilities in Minnesota....................................................4-10 4.7 Cost of Facilities.....................................................................................4-11 4.8 Summary and Recommendations..........................................................4-20

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PAGE

5.0 SKILLS ASSESSMENT MODEL ........................................................................5-1 5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................5-1 5.2 Defining Skills Standards for PPOE Programs ........................................5-2 5.3 Proposed Performance Indicators and Data Availability ..........................5-3 5.4 Recommended Technical Skills Attainment Indicator ..............................5-5 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Methodology for Selecting Employers to Be Interviewed APPENDIX B: Interviews Conducted APPENDIX C: Projected Number of Graduates APPENDIX D: Comparison of Data Reported to Post Board and IPEDS APPENDIX E: Example of State Guidelines for Law Enforcement Training Space APPENDIX F: Operating Costs, Estimated Build Costs, and Lease Costs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

MGT of America, Inc. Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. Objective of the Study The Chancellor’s Office of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) system commissioned this study to examine the need for additional Professional Peace Officer Education (PPOE) programs. PPOE programs prepare students for careers as police officers, sheriffs, state patrol officers, and other agents of law enforcement. As of August 2007, there were 27 PPOE programs on the POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Board’s approved program list. In 2005, MnSCU issued a three-year moratorium on new PPOE programs so it could examine the need for additional programs in more detail. The Chancellor’s Office contracted with MGT of America, Inc., a higher education research and planning firm, to assess the need for additional programs. This report summarizes the results of that assessment. It is divided into three components:

An evaluation of the supply and demand for program graduates to anticipate the future need for program graduates (Chapter 2).

An assessment of program location and delivery models (Chapter 3)

An assessment of skills-training facilities needs, which includes decision model that considers options for expanding facility capacity (Chapter 4).

Additionally, the study provided the opportunity to examine how technical skill attainment is measured for PPOE programs and how this process may inform the technical skills measurement process required under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Improvement Act of 2006 (Chapter 5). MGT used a variety of methodologies to investigate these topics. These included analyzing demographic data and occupation projections; interviewing training coordinators, faculty, instructors, and a cross-section of employers; and conducting site visits at four of the seven skills-training facilities. The results and recommendations are summarized in the next three sections. II. Supply and Demand of PPOE Graduates Finding: The number of current and expected PPOE graduates and the number that pass the licensing exam generally exceed the number of job openings projected for the next five years. This parallels the historic trend: there is a significant difference between the number of PPOE program graduates and the number of newly licensed officers in Minnesota each year. It is unclear as to who falls into this “gap” and why they do not transition to employment in Minnesota state and municipal law enforcement positions. Understanding this disparity would help to more closely monitor annual supply and demand balance.

Executive Summary

MGT of America, Inc. Page ii

Recommendation 1: Given the described gap, we recommend that MnSCU identify and quantify the components of the gap between PPOE graduates and newly licensed officers, and monitor the gap on an annual basis. Analysis of this gap will help determine the extent to which employer demand is being met and where supply loss occurs.

- While MnSCU collects data on the number of graduates by Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code, PPOE program graduates do not fall into their own CIP code. For instance, some students graduating with a degree in Criminal Justice/Police Science do not complete skills training or other PPOE requirements. Appendix D provides a comparison of graduate data reported at the CIP code level to IPEDS and data reported to the POST Board. The data are generally inconsistent. This is due in part to the way data is collected. IPEDS data reports the number of degrees awarded, so a student that obtains a skills certificate and an associates of arts is counted twice, however the POST Board counts individuals. To estimate the head count from IPEDS data, MnSCU could use the historical ratios of graduates reported by the POST Board to the numbers reported by IPEDS. For instance, in 2005-2006 a total of 815 PPOE graduates were reported to the POST Board, and 1,116 degrees were reported in the IPEDS graduation file under the CIP Criminal Justice/Police Science CIP. The ratio of the former to the later is 73%.This portion could be applied to the number of degrees awarded in future years to estimate the number of PPOE graduates.

Possible reasons for the gap, noted by training coordinators and others in the academic community, include: - Enrollment in a 4-year degree program in related field - Out-of-state employment - Employment in a related field, like corrections - Employment in a different occupation because they could not find a job in

the field - Employment in different occupation by choice - Not meeting the criteria for pre-employment background tests or other

requirements

Data to support this effort is already being maintained by MnSCU. The graduation survey includes self-reported data on a graduate’s job title and its relatedness to his/her program of study.

Recommendation 2:

Despite the apparent adequate supply numbers, our interviews with employers indicated there is concern that not enough PPOE graduates are meeting employment selection standards. Therefore, to insure that institutions are

Executive Summary

MGT of America, Inc. Page iii

providing students with consistent information about employment requirements (prior to program enrollment), we recommend the following: MnSCU should establish a working group to review current practices and establish guidelines for institutions to follow in regards to program and employment requirements, standards, and qualifications prior to and at the time of program entry. The POST Board currently provides general guidelines about the minimum employment selection standards, which could serve as a starting point for this MnSCU working group.

- Although institutions do provide information about prerequisites for employment, the type of information provided and the manner in which it is transmitted varies from institution to institution. For example, Hibbing Community College displays the prerequisites for employment on its course description webpage.1 The Rochester Technical and Community College program description webpage recommends a “preplanning meeting” with the program advisor to determine proper sequence of courses.2 Additionally, the POST Board provides guidelines for informing students about the minimum selection standards and the psychological exam guidelines (required for employment).3

III. Location, Program Delivery Models, and Facilities Needs Findings:

The PPOE academic programs are widely distributed across the state. They tend to be located outside of the 7 county the St. Paul/Minneapolis Metropolitan area, where 53% of the state population resides.

A significant proportion of the total law enforcement positions across the state

are located within the metro area.

The current mix of program delivery models provides a flexible delivery system.

The majority (16/21) of employers interviewed were generally satisfied with the

academic and skill levels of graduates produced by the current mix of programs and delivery methods. Though, some noted that graduates could have better writing skills and/or life skills, such as ethics, customer service, and balancing work and family issues.

1 http://www.hcc.mnscu.edu/facultyStaff/academics/careerPrograms/?id=30 2 http://www.rctc.edu/catalog/overviews/lawe.html 3 POST selection standards: http://www.dps.state.mn.us/newpost/license.asp; Psychological exam guidelines: http://www.dps.state.mn.us/newpost/PDFs/psych%20evaluation%20guidelines.pdf

Executive Summary

MGT of America, Inc. Page iv

Our interviews indicate that there is a waiting list for skills-training, mostly in the metro area. Six of twenty-one employers referenced a waiting list.

At the same time, a substantial number of respondents (7 of 21 employers and

5 of 14 training coordinators) noted that there is currently adequate skills-training capacity across the state.

Recommendation 3: Based on the assessment, at this time we do not recommend that MnSCU add new academic program locations. Any changes to existing programs’ curriculums, their certificate offerings, or emphasis areas should be handled by current program review practices. These are not considered “new programs” since they are part of an existing academic program. Further, we have concluded that academic programs are adequately distributed across the state. Therefore, we recommend that MnSCU maintain the current geographical distribution of academic programs. However, in the event that an existing program seeks re-location, the movement should avoid duplication of programs, replication of related services in the region, and demonstrate that the relocation has a compelling benefit to residents of the region and the state. Recommendation 4: In order to ease the waiting list for skills-training in the metro-area, we recommend that MnSCU determine the current skills center capacity and identify the related capacity changes that are likely for the planned new facilities (CCJLE and Alexandria). MGT did some preliminary investigation on this topic during our interviews with program directors, but given that the projects are early in their planning cycle we were not able to obtain much detail on the expected capacity. Recommendation 5: Based on the review of existing skills-training sites, facilities and delivery models, at this time we do not recommend any new skills-training centers be added beyond those already progressing through the State’s planning cycle. Since skill-center capacity data are not readily available, MnSCU should identify the maximum capacity at existing PPOE skills-training facilities and compare it to supply and demand trends on an annual basis before approving any new facilities or sites. The capacity baseline should consist of current capacity and the additional capacity that may be gained from the proposed Alexandria expansion and the new Metropolitan State University/CCJLE location. Requests for expansions of current sites, adding more mobile locations, or conversion of sites from mobile locations to joint programs should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Factors such as waiting lists, current state-wide and regional unused capacity,

Executive Summary

MGT of America, Inc. Page v

and the start-up and annual cost of additional or conversion should be considered in making the decision. Recommendation 6: As capacity approaches demand for newly hired officers in Minnesota, we recommend MnSCU and its institutions consider the following strategies to expand skills-training capacity on an as- needed basis. Listed in order of priority:

Consider low-cost ways to acquire additional space at existing centers. Options include creating additional time slots to use existing space more efficiently or considering the use of existing multipurpose spaces, such as gymnasiums. Another option is to acquire or construct shoot-houses or similar specialty-use facilities at little or no cost to the institution (and the state) with donated materials and donated time. Other centers have secured time at nearby gun ranges in exchange for providing training opportunities to local law enforcement agencies.

Consider the expansion of mobile programs into new geographic areas. The

mobile program option provides remote sites with all the necessary equipment (including squad cars, fire-arms training simulator, defensive tactics mats, weapons, etc.). Most training is provided on or near the campus of the non-skills training institution. (Often local gun-ranges are leased for fire arms training.)

Consider expanding space (i.e., capacity) at existing skills-training centers.

This option may prove more costly than the previous two options listed above. It is reasonable to assume that the system may need additional capacity in the future when the supply of graduates nears the employment demand.

Finally, consider adding new skills-training centers. This is the most costly

option relative to the other alternatives.

Recommendation 7: When an existing skills center reaches its training capacity, we recommend MnSCU and the institution give students the option to choose in advance which skill-program/center they will attend. This will allow for more system flexibility and space utilization efficiency, and will help balance demand and capacity pressures while accommodating the interests of students. Recommendation 8: We recommend that MnSCU explore collaborations with employer-run training facilities in order to address excessive demand on specific skills center facilities. These could include:

− Specialty facilities (gun ranges, driving sites) − Temporary gaps (e.g., periodic skills center waiting lists)

Executive Summary

MGT of America, Inc. Page vi

− Unpredicted fluctuations in demand trends (unforeseen increases or decreases in demand)

− Unexpected disruption in access to current skills centers IV. Measuring Technical Skill Attainment Findings:

Employers interviewed for this study generally agreed that the PPOE licensing exam measured the basic academic aspects of the programs. However, several noted that the exam did not explicitly measure skills nor did they necessarily expect it to.

Several noted that successfully completing the field training period was

perhaps a better measure of skill, but that such a real-world setting simply could not be replicated by a standardized exam. During the field training period the new officer works in tandem with a field training officer (FTO). The new officer is given progressively more policing responsibility but is always being encouraged and critiqued by the FTO.

Recommendation 9: Based on our examination of the skills measurement process surrounding the PPOE program, we recommend a two prong approach to measuring skill assessment. First, for programs that lead to jobs in licensed occupations such as the PPOE program and nursing, we recommend relying on the portion of program graduates passing the licensing exam as the measure of technical skill attainment. Although no sharing agreements are in development, the POST board has expressed its willingness to share program level exam passing rates with MnSCU. The exam is given six times a year (during every even month). Second, for programs not leading to jobs in a licensed occupation, we recommend using multiple indicators that includes a DOE compatible definition.

Although the Department of Education does not consider related employment as a proxy for skills attainment, we think it is an appropriate measure for skill attainment since employment is a fundamental outcome of most educational pursuits. Additionally, MnSCU’s current graduation survey already collects information on this topic.

The Career and Technical Education community is currently in the midst of

debating and developing what the appropriate measure of skill attainment (under Perkins IV) could be. Therefore, we recommend MnSCU continue to monitor this discussion and select a measure that is compatible with DOE requirements.

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

MGT of America, Inc. Page 1-1

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 Overview of Project Minnesota’s Professional Peace Officer Education (PPOE) programs prepare students for careers in law enforcement through a combination of academic courses and practical skills-training courses. Between 2002 and 2006, an average of 758 students completed the PPOE program. Twenty-two of the 27 PPOE academic programs and all seven of the skills-training facilities belong to the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) system. In 2004, one of the colleges submitted a request to the MnSCU Chancellor’s Office to begin an eighth skills-training program. The college cited cost and scheduling concerns with its current skills-training arrangement as one reason for the request. The Chancellor’s Office recommended against the new program. It cited several reasons, including that an additional program would duplicate services. The Chancellor’s Office also issued a three-year moratorium on adding new law enforcement programs. Consequently, MnSCU’s System Office of Planning contracted with MGT of America, Inc., to assess the need for additional PPOE programs. The study components included:

Evaluating the supply and demand for program graduates to determine the future need for program graduates (Chapter 2.0).

Assessing program location and delivery models (Chapter 3.0).

Determining skills-training facilities needs, which includes decision model that considers options for expanding facility capacity (Chapter 4.0).

PPOE programs and the associated licensing process also offer an opportunity to examine how skills standards are established and examine what aspects of their skills standard model could provide guidance for measuring technical skill attainment as required by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Improvement Act of 2006. This topic is addressed in Chapter 5.0. To examine these topics, MGT:

Analyzed demographic and occupational trends, as well as facilities data provided by MnSCU.

Interviewed a cross-section of employers across the nine POST

(Peace Officer Standards and Training) Board regions and seven Minnesota Planning Areas.

Interviewed training coordinators, faculty, and deans across the 27

programs.

Conducted site visits of four of the seven skills-training facilities.

Project Background


The remainder of this chapter describes the pipeline students follow to become a licensed peace officers and the structure of PPOE programs in Minnesota. 1.2 Professional Peace Officer Educational Pipeline The typical pathway for becoming a licensed peace officer in Minnesota is illustrated in Exhibit 1-1. First students begin by enrolling in a POST-approved academic program (which includes both bachelor’s degree programs and associate degree programs) and the skills program. Students who complete both components are qualified to take the POST Peace Officer Licensing Exam. Those who pass the exam are eligible for employment. Only upon being hired are they issued a professional peace officer license.

EXHIBIT 1-1 PATHWAY FROM ENROLLING IN PPOE PROGRAM TO BECOMING A LICENSED

PEACE OFFICER IN MINNESOTA

>

> >Pass exam then eligible for

license

Hired by Minnesota

law enforcement agency and

obtain license

Enroll in PPOE

program

Sign up for POST licensing

exam

Complete PPOE academic

and skills program at

same location

Complete PPOE academic

and skills program at

different locations

Source: MGT rendering based on interviews. Between 2001 and 2005, an average of 715 students passed the Peace Officer Licensing Exam administered by the Minnesota POST Board. 1.3 Minnesota’s Professional Peace Officer Education Programs PPOE programs consist of an academic component and a skills component. The academic component familiarizes students with civil and criminal law, policing, and general law enforcement topics. The skills component provides basic training in areas such as firearms training, defensive tactics, and emergency vehicle operation. The Minnesota Peace Officer Standards and Training Board has the statutory authority to approve and oversee the PPOE programs in the state. As of August 2007, there were 27 institutions with approved PPOE programs (Exhibit 1-2). These PPOE programs graduated a total of 815 students in the 2005-06 academic year. This number represented a slight decrease from the 828 students who completed the program in 2004-05. All 27 institutions offer the academic component, and seven offer the skills-training component.

Project Background


EXHIBIT 1-2 MINNESOTA INSTITUTIONS WITH PPOE PROGRAMS

MnSCU Institutions Aca

dem

ic

Skill

s

1. Alexandria Technical College2. Bemidji State University3. Central Lakes College4. Century Community and Technical College5. Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College6. Hibbing Community College* 7. Inver Hills Community College 8. Leech Lake Tribal College 9. Metropolitan State University 10. Minneapolis Community and Technical College (Center for Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement) 11. Minnesota State Community and Technical College (Fergus Falls)12. Minnesota State University, Mankato 13. Minnesota State University, Moorhead 14. Minnesota West Community and Technical College - Worthington Campus 15. Normandale Community College 16. North Hennepin Community College 17. Northland Community and Technical College 18. Ridgewater College 19. Rochester Community and Technical College** 20. St. Cloud State University 21. Vermilion Community College 22. Winona State University Private Institutions23. Concordia-St. Paul24. Hamline University25. Rasmussen College (Added August 2007)26. Saint Mary's University 27. University of St. Thomas

*Some classes offered at Rainy River Community College. ** Some classes offered at Riverland Community College. To our knowledge neither of these class offerings are part of mobile programs. Source: POST Board, August 2007.

The academic component and skills-training component are joined together via one of the following models:

The seven institutions with their own skills-training facilities operate joint programs in which students complete both components.

Sixteen institutions without on-site skills-training facilities send their

students to a skills-training institution to complete the skills

Project Background


component. This is referred to as the separate program model.1 Five of these 16 institutions participate in the Metro Area Consortium.

Hibbing Community College operates a mobile program in which equipment and materials (mats, forensic equipment, firearms training simulator, squad vehicles, etc.) are brought to academic sites for on-site skills training.

Exhibit 1-3 depicts the relationships between the 27 institutions offering the academic component and the seven offering the skills component. The next chapter takes a broader view and examines whether together these 27 institutions are producing enough graduates to meet the expected demand for licensed peace officers in Minnesota.

1 This presumes that Rasmussen College will operate under the separate model. They were added to the list of PPOE programs in August 2007.

Project Background


EXHIBIT 1-3 ACADEMIC AND SKILLS COMPONENT PAIRINGS, 2007

(In parentheses: Average number of academic completers, 2003-05)

Bemidji State

University (21)

Central Lakes College (24)

Concordia University (<3)

Alexandria, Skills (121)

CCJLE Minneapolis

Community and Technical College

Skills

Hibbing, Skills (41) (Mobile)

Hamline University (<3)

Metro State University (33)

MSU- Mankato (45)

MSU-Moorhead (10)

Minnesota West CTC –Worthington (32)Ridgewater

College (16)

St. Mary’s University (<3)

St. Cloud State University (32)

University of St. Thomas (6)

Winona State Univ. (16)

Leech Lake Tribal

Rasmussen College (added in 2007)

Fond du Lac (55)

(Academic & Skills)

Northland (22)

(Academic & Skills)

Vermilion (25) (Academic &

Skills)

Rochester (42) (Academic &

Skills)

Metro Area College Consortium (233) CCJLE Inver Hills North Hennepin Normandale Century

Source: POST Board and MGT interviews, 2007.

MN State Community and Technical College (15)

2.0 SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR

PROGRAM GRADUATES


2.0 SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR PROGRAM GRADUATES

2.1 Indicators of Law Enforcement Labor Market Conditions This chapter assesses the current and future demand for Professional Peace Officer Education (PPOE) program graduates and the extent to which the current and expected supply of graduates meets this demand. PPOE programs in Minnesota generally prepare students for careers as police officers, sheriff deputies, state patrol officers, and other agents of law enforcement. Gauging the supply of and demand for graduates provides the foundation for the forthcoming chapters, which examine how the location of skills-training facilities and types of facilities are currently meeting demand. An optimal way to assess labor market conditions is to rely on multiple indicators that project future employer demand for graduates. MGT uses the following indicators:

Graduation projections: Historical graduation trends, license exam trends, and input from the academic community provide an estimate of the number of graduates who will be available to meet the expected demand.

Employer interviews: MGT interviewed employers about their

current and future need for program graduates. Employer input provides context for the population and occupational projections and helps identify particular areas of growth or decline. MGT selected employers of varying sizes and representing the different regions in the state. We also obtained input from employer and professional associations. Appendix A explains our methodology for selecting employers to be interviewed.

Academic community interviews: MGT obtained input from

training coordinators of PPOE programs, instructors, and deans about future enrollment trends and their perspective on employer demand for graduates. Appendix B provides a list of interviewees. All training coordinators were invited to participate in an interview.

Population projections: Population projections serve as a guide for

government and education planners. Typically, public services and infrastructure expand or contract to keep pace with state and regional population trends.

Occupational projections: Occupational projections are one

indicator of expected job openings available for PPOE graduates. Regional projections of police occupation job openings were obtained from the state. Also, MGT made additional projections using historical data on the annual number of newly licensed peace officers hired by Minnesota agencies.

Supply and Demand for Program Graduates


We use a five-year horizon for most projections because prediction is less reliable over longer time horizons. Five years also corresponds with occupational projections provided by the state. A shorter horizon is less useful for long-term planning purposes. Our conversations with employers, associations, and training coordinators suggested that a large portion of program graduates obtained jobs in Minnesota. Therefore, much of our analysis focuses on Minnesota. However, because it is expected that some graduates will obtain employment in neighboring states, the occupational projections include data from states that share a border with Minnesota. 2.2 Projected Number of Future Graduates Exhibit 2-1 illustrates the number of students in the pipeline spanning from completion of an academic program to success on the licensing exam. In academic year 2003-04, 1,063 certificates, associates degrees, or bachelor’s degrees in criminal justice/police science were conferred by institutions reporting data to IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System). This included all schools with POST-approved programs. In the same year, 828 students also completed the skills program required for those planning to take the Peace Officer Licensing Exam. The skills program covers practical skills such as defensive tactics, gun handling, and emergency vehicle operation. Approximately 761 skills graduates passed the licensing exam and 79 passed the reciprocity exam. Reasons for the gradual decline in students across the pipeline are enumerated below.

Some graduates of academic programs choose a career path that does not require entering a skills program, which explains much of the drop from 1,063 to 828 completing the skills program. For example, some graduates may enter programs that do not require a peace officer license, such as federal law enforcement jobs. Some of the 1,063 were also graduates of non–POST-approved programs.

The vast majority of skills program graduates go on to take and pass

the exam. However, some decide not to take the exam, take the exam later, or do not pass the exam, which explains the drop from 828 to 761 students. In 2005, an additional 79 candidates took the reciprocity exam, bringing the total passing the exam to 840. The reciprocity exam is designed for people who already have policing experience in another state, military experience, or experience with a federal law enforcement agency.

To estimate the number of graduates and candidates who will pass the exam in the future, we rely on historical growth rates to project future growth. As depicted in Exhibit 2-2, the number of students graduating from the skills programs has increased steadily from 2002 to 2006. The number of students passing the licensing exam has closely tracked the graduation trend.



EXHIBIT 2-1 NUMBER OF STUDENTS AT DIFFERENT STAGES IN

THE PEACE OFFICER EDUCATION PIPELINE, 2004-05 ACADEMIC YEAR.

Reciprocity

1,063

828 761

79

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Criminal Justice/PoliceScience Graduates

(Cert., AA, BA)

Completed SkillsTraining (in Addition to

Academic Program)

Passed Exam

PPOE

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

Source: POST Board, graduate data from IPEDS 2004-05 Completion File.

EXHIBIT 2-2 PPOE SKILLS PROGRAM GRADUATES AND PEACE OFFICER LICENSES ISSUED,

2001-06

Completed Skills Training

815

710 682725

740

828

768Passed Exam

761714691

661699

400450500550600650700750800850

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Num

ber

Source: POST Board.



The average growth rate in the number of skills program graduates between 2002 and 2006 was 5 percent (Exhibit 2-3). We excluded 2001 from the average because the decrease appeared to be an outlier when compared to more recent years. If it were included, the average would be lower at 4 percent. The projected trends are in line with the expectations reported by training coordinators during interviews. To project the number of students who will pass the exam, we simply applied the average portion of students passing the exam each year. Since data on the number who took the exam were not available, we estimated the portion passing the exam as the ratio of the number that passed the exam to the number that graduated from the skills program. The average exam-passing ratio was 95 percent for the period 2002-06.

EXHIBIT 2-3 HISTORICAL GROWTH RATES FOR SKILLS PROGRAM GRADUATES AND THOSE

PASSING THE LICENSING EXAM, 2002-06

Year # % Change #

Est. Passing Rate (=Passed Exam/

Completed Skills)2002 682 na 661 97%2003 725 6% 691 95%2004 740 2% 714 96%2005 828 12% 761 92%2006 815 -2% 768 94%

Average 758 5% 719 95%

PASSED PPOE EXAM*COMPLETED SKILLS

*Reciprocity exams are excluded from the total. Source: POST Board, MGT Projections.

Applying the average growth rates in Exhibit 2-3 yielded the trend lines in Exhibit 2-4. We project that 1,041 PPOE skills program graduates and (assuming 95% pass the licensing exam) 989 candidates will pass the exam in 2012.



EXHIBIT 2-4 PROJECTED SKILLS PROGRAM GRADUATES AND NUMBER PASSING THE

LICENSING EXAM, 2002-12

1093

856

682

815828740725


1041991944899 1038

813

691714 761 768

661

989

Passed Exam

941897854

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Num

ber

Note: Open circles denote projected numbers. Source: POST Board and MGT projections. We use a second method for projecting the number of program graduates that involves the ratio of newly licensed officers to program graduates. Appendix C displays the historical ratios of newly licensed officers to program graduates. The average for 2002-2006 is 68%. Presuming this ratio is maintained into the future, Exhibit 2-4A depicts the number of graduates that will be needed to maintain this ratio. The exhibit depicts three scenarios that are based on the projected demand scenarios described in Section 2.6



EXHIBIT 2-4A PROJECTED SKILLS PROGRAM GRADUATES BASED ON HISTORIC RATIO OF

NEWLY LICENSED OFFICERS TO GRADUATES, 2002-12

151910% Proj

445 580662501392 Newly

Licensed Officers

198315% Proj

967 2% Proj

Completed Skill Training

682 725740

828815

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Num

ber

Note: Open circles denote projected numbers. Source: POST Board and MGT projections.

Exhibit 2-4B summarizes the supply projections, and indicates that anywhere between 139 and 1,155 graduates are expected. It should be noted that there is substantial uncertainty associated with these projections. Further, the current capacity is depicted with a question mark because that is also an important unknown. If MnSCU can ascertain this number, it will allow for more accurate estimates of future need for skills-training capacity.

EXHIBIT 2-4B CURRENT CAPACITY VS. PROJECTED COMPLETERS 2012

828

1093 967

1519

1983

265?1155

139691

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Maximumin Last Five

Years

MaximumCapacity

Proj.Historicgrowth: 5%

Proj. 2%New Hires

Proj. 10%New Hires

Proj 15%New Hires



All of these supply projections assume:

There is enough student interest to generate a 5% annual growth rate. Although the Minnesota Office of Higher Education projects that high school graduates in Minnesota will peak in 2009 and steadily decline to 2015, our interviews with training coordinators suggested that interest is expected to grow in part because of interest from adults who are changing careers.1 Data from the POST Board adds some support to this observation: 43% of individuals taking the licensing exam in 2006 were age 26 or older.

There will be enough capacity to keep up with student interest.

Anecdotal evidence provided during the interviews with training coordinators suggests there is enough capacity to keep up with future demand. This topic is addressed in more detail in chapter 4.

In Section 2.7, we compare these projections to the projected demand derived in the Section 2.6 2.3 Employer and Academic Community Assessment of Current and

Future Need for PPOE Graduates Current Need Generally, employers and training coordinators agreed that there was an adequate supply of PPOE graduates to meet employer demand, though some expressed concern that not enough graduates were passing background checks necessary for law enforcement employment. More specifically:

Employers indicated that there was currently an adequate supply of

graduates to meet their demands. However, some larger employers (employing over 50 peace officers in 2006) raised the concern that there were not enough candidates passing background checks. Approximately half of the 10 larger employers raised this concern. Some employers observe that the pool of candidates passing such screenings has declined over the years. Only a few note that they have difficulty filling positions as a result. Also, a few employers noted that there was a shortage of minority candidates.

The majority of training coordinators and instructors interviewed also

indicated that there was currently an adequate supply of graduates to meet employer needs. Similarly, about one-third of the respondents mentioned that employers were concerned that not enough graduates were passing background checks.

1Minnesota Office of Higher Education, Actual and projected public and private high school graduates by state planning region, Access at: http://www.ohe.state.mn.us/tPg.cfm?pageID=1291&1534-D83A_1933715A=bdcf9a9192378c6



Future Need To assess the future need for PPOE graduates, respondents were asked about the future growth in job openings in law enforcement. The majority of employer respondents (62%) agreed that a 3 percent annual growth in job openings for the next five years was on target.2 One-third of employers expected the annual growth rate to exceed 3 percent. These employers tended to be:

From the Metro or Central region.3 Larger employers.

This regional variation will be used to guide the occupational projection estimates later in this chapter. Reasons employers gave for accelerated hiring included increased retirements and the likelihood of additional government funds for hiring. As depicted in Exhibit 2-5, training coordinators expressed more mixed opinions. Approximately 46 percent indicated that they expected the annual growth rate to exceed 3 percent. Another 23 percent indicated that 3 percent was on target, and 30 percent indicated that it was too high or that they did not feel comfortable making an estimate.

EXHIBIT 2-5 RESPONDENT EXPECTATION FOR

A 3% ANNUAL GROWTH IN LAW ENFORCEMENT JOB OPENINGS

On Target, 62%

On Target, 23%

Exceed, 33%

Exceed, 46%

Below, 5%

Below, 15%

DK, 0%

DK, 15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Employers (n=21) Training Coordinators (n=13)

Source: MGT interviews, June/July 2007.

2 Employers were asked to assess the 3 percent estimate, which was obtained from statewide occupational projections for the period 2007-12. 3 The Metro region consists of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties. The Central region consists of Benton, Cass, Chisago, Crow Wing, Isanti, Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Pine, Sherburne, Stearns, Todd, Wadena, and Wright counties. These regions are used for state occupational projections.



Employers were also asked to estimate the future growth in job openings at their agency.

Among the 10 large employers (employing more than 50 peace officers) interviewed, the expected annual openings ranged from 1.5 to 75 (Exhibit 2-6). If we convert this range to openings as portion of current licensed officers, then the range is 3 percent to 16 percent and the weighted average is 8 percent. This is not a rate of growth but rather a ratio of expected annual new hires to current officers in 2007.

Most of the 11 small employers (employing less than 50 peace

officers) interviewed planned to hire between one officer in the five-year period and two officers per year. Statewide in 2006, 47 percent of all peace officers were employed at agencies with 50 officers or less. And agencies with 50 or fewer officers constitute 91 percent of all agencies that employ peace officers in Minnesota.

EXHIBIT 2-6

EMPLOYER RESPONDENT PLANNED HIRING AND STATEWIDE EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS, BY SIZE

Small Employers (Less Than 50

Peace Officers)

Large Employers (50 or More Peace

Officers)Respondents Range of

Expected Annual Openings

<1 to 2 (n=11 resp.)

1.5 to 75 (n=10 resp.)

Statewide Portion of Peace Officers (2006)

47% (4,877/10,276)

53% (5,399/10,276)

Statewide Portion of Agencies (2006) 91% (420/460) 9% (40/460)

Source: MGT interviews, June/July 2007; POST Board, July 2007. 2.4 Population Projections Population projections are one indicator of expected demand for new peace officers. As population grows, more peace officers will be needed in the community. According to the State Demographic Center, Minnesota’s population is projected to grow by 10 percent between 2005 and 2015. That amounts to an annual growth rate of 1 percent per year. As shown in Exhibit 2-7, the rate of growth is projected to be highest (25%) in the Central region. This is consistent with the trends that surfaced during interviews with employers. A similar trend is evident for the period 2005-25 (Exhibit 2-8).



EXHIBIT 2-7 MINNESOTA POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2005-15

Region2005

Estimate2015

Projection% Change

2005-15Annualized % Change

Minnesota 5,192,122 5,709,450 10% 1%Metro Region 2,780,599 3,028,970 8.9% 1%

Central 698,994 873,920 25.0% 3%Southeast 485,909 533,020 9.7% 1%Northeast 325,356 334,540 2.8% 0.3%

South West 286,449 287,800 0.5% 0.0%South Central 227,538 237,220 4.3% 0.4%West Central 218,479 235,260 7.7% 1%North Central 80,572 88,530 9.9% 1%

North West 88,226 90,190 2.2% 0.2% Note: The regions used are those used in the occupational projections. Source: State Demographic Center, 2007.

EXHIBIT 2-8

MINNESOTA POPULATION PROJECTIONS 2005-25

Region2005

Estimate2025

Projection% Change

2005-25Annualized % Change

Minnesota 5,192,122 6,134,430 18% 1%Metro Region 2,780,599 3,214,870 15.6% 1%

Central 698,994 1,017,820 45.6% 2%Southeast 485,909 574,750 18.3% 1%Northeast 325,356 344,810 6.0% 0.3%

South West 286,449 294,420 2.8% 0.1%South Central 227,538 247,700 8.9% 0.4%West Central 218,479 251,300 15.0% 1%North Central 80,572 95,170 18.1% 1%

North West 88,226 93,590 6.1% 0.3% Note: The regions used are those used in the occupational projections. Source: State Demographic Center, 2007.

2.5 Occupational Projections and Estimated Job Openings Another indicator of expected demand is occupational projections. We examined projections for the occupations most closely related to common entry-level positions identified through our interviews:

Police and sheriff ’s patrol officers Detectives and criminal investigators Correctional officers and jailers First-line supervisors/managers of police and detectives

These occupation titles are standardized titles (standard occupational classification) developed by the federal government that allow for uniformity across national, regional, and state projections. These projections and data on the current number of licensed peace officers in Minnesota serve as the foundation for our estimated demand for job openings, which we calculated using the following method:



First, we aggregated the projections for the identified occupations within each region and for the state. For instance, in the Metro region, 240 vacancies are expected for each year between 2007 and 2012 (Exhibit 2-9).

Second, we adjusted the annual vacancies based on employer input.

As noted earlier, employers in the Metro and Central regions indicated their annual growth for the five-year period would exceed 3 percent.

Next, to obtain a second estimate of annual vacancies, we estimated

the growth in the number of licensed peace officers in Minnesota using historical data on newly licensed officers and employer input (Exhibit 2-11).

We also estimated the number of projected job openings in

neighboring states that would likely be filled by PPOE graduates.

In Section 2.6, the previously projected job openings are compared to the projected PPOE graduation trends.

There are 552 expected annual vacancies across Minnesota in police occupations (Exhibit 2-9). After adjusting the demand for regional variations, identified through employer interviews, the total increases to 624. The adjustment factor applied to the Metro area is the product of the current number of police and sheriff’s patrol officers (3,613 from occupation-level estimates) and the weighted average of the expected hiring reported by Metro area employers during the interview (8%). The same methodology was applied to the Central region to yield 10 percent. A demand adjustment was not applied to other areas because the interview data did not indicate stronger than average demand. We applied the adjustment to police and sheriff’s patrol officers because the 8% estimate was obtained from employers that primarily employ new hires in these occupations. We used a broader set of occupations for the general analysis because PPOE graduates sometimes enter other law enforcement occupations.



EXHIBIT 2-9 PROJECTED VACANCIES IN POLICE OCCUPATIONS

FOR MINNESOTA 2007-12, BY REGION

2007 2012 Total Annual

Demand For

OfficersAdj. Annual Vacancies

Minnesota 15,941 16,740 799 1,966 2,765 552 na 624Metro Region 7,701 7,946 246 956 1,202 240 8%*3,613 289

Central 2,057 2,243 186 249 435 87 10%*1,099 110Southeast 1,629 1,720 91 197 288 58 - 58Northeast 1,470 1,543 72 180 252 50 - 50

South West 1,016 1,060 44 125 169 34 - 34South Central 863 926 62 106 168 34 - 34West Central 565 612 46 71 117 23 - 23North Central 379 412 33 47 80 16 - 16

North West 252 268 16 32 48 10 - 10

Demand Adjustment Based on Employer

Input

Total and Annual

Vacancies

Current and Projected

Employment Levels in Police

Change 2007-12

Replacements over 5 years

*Includes the following occupations: First-line supervisors/managers of police and detectives (33-1012), correctional officers and jailers (33-3012), detectives and criminal investigators (33-3021), police and sheriff’s patrol officers (33-3051). Source: Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc., 2007. Demand factor estimates drawn from MGT Interviews with employers in the state. Our second estimate of job openings was based on the number of newly licensed officers hired each year between 2000 and 2006 (Exhibit 2-10). To obtain a peace officer license in Minnesota, one must meet the educational prerequisites, pass the licensing exam, and be employed at a law enforcement agency. The POST Board collects information on the number of new licenses each year, which serves as a proxy for the number of job openings being filled by new entrants to the Minnesota peace officer workforce. The year-to-year growth rate in new licenses fluctuated widely between 2000 and 2006. The rates fell from 2001 to 2003 because the federal funding from President’s Clinton “Community Policing” program was reduced. Beginning in 2004, hiring began increasing significantly. For the full period, the average annual growth rate was 2 percent. For the three most recent years, the average rate was 15 percent.

EXHIBIT 2-10 HISTORICAL GROWTH RATES FOR NEWLY HIRED LICENSED OFFICERS, 2000-06

#%

Change2000 577 na2001 549 -5%2002 445 -19%2003 392 -12%2004 501 28%2005 622 24%2006 580 -7%

Average 2001-2006 - 2%Average 2004-2006 - 15%

Newly Licensed Officers

Source: Minnesota POST Board, 2007.



We used these historical growth rates to project future job openings. The lower line in Exhibit 2-11 projects annual new hires assuming a 2 percent growth rate (the average for the pervious 6 years). This is near the 3% rate confirmed by the majority of employers. However, because of the wide fluctuations, we have also provided a second projection assuming the average growth rate for the three most recent years (15%). Finally, we assumed a 10 percent growth rate based on employer input about expected future hiring.4 The range of projected new hires for 2012 is 641 to 1,116. The lower bound of the estimate is very close to the estimate (624) derived in Exhibit 2-9. Given the high level of uncertainty associated with these projections, we suggest caution when relying on any one estimate.

EXHIBIT 2-11

MINNESOTA LICENSED PEACE OFFICER PROJECTED NEW HIRES 2000-12

654592 604 616 641

2% Projected Growth

628

1341

580

667767

882

577501

392445549

622

15% Projected Growth, 1166

1014 1027

10% proj. growth

0200400600800

1000120014001600

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Year

Num

ber

Source: Minnesota POST Board, 2007. While the previous two indicators estimate future job openings in Minnesota, Exhibit 2-12 provides estimates of job openings in the region. We assumed 9 percent of the openings could be filled by recent PPOE graduates. This estimate is a combination of the U.S. Census estimated 2 percent of Minnesota residents working in neighboring states and 7 percent of residents leaving the state between 1995 and 2000. This was the best proxy readily available to estimate the portion of jobs in neighboring states that were filled by graduates from Minnesota. Factoring in regional job openings would add a total of 95 annual openings to the previous two estimates. In Section 2.6, we compare the projected openings generated in this section to the projected number of recent graduates discussed in the next section.

4 We derived the 10% by computing the average of expected hiring among large (employing more than 50 licensed officers) employer respondents. For example, if an agency indicated it would hire 5 officers per year over the next five years and they currently employ 50 licensed officers, then its hiring rate was 10%. This estimate is not based on examining year-to-year changes, but rather assumes that the snap shot hiring rate reported will continue for the next five years.



EXHIBIT 2-12 POLICE OCCUPATIONAL PROJECTED VACANCIES

FOR NEIGHBORING STATES, 2004-14

Total AnnualWisconsin^ 5,900 590 53

Iowa^~ 2,900 290 26North Dakota^ 720 72 7South Dakota^ 1,010 101 9

Total 10,530 1,053 95

States Bordering Minnesota

9% of Vacancies

Total and Annual Vacancies In Police Related

Occupations

Source: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Iowa Workforce Development, North Dakota Workforce Intelligence Network, South Dakota Department of Labor. ^ Annualized projections are for period 2004-14 ~Estimates not available for detectives and criminal investigators.

2.6 Estimated Level of Supply Needed to Meet Demand in Minnesota As illustrated in Exhibit 2-13, the projected supply of PPOE graduates (and those passing the licensing exam, the line slightly below the graduate trend line) tends to slightly exceed the projected job demand for newly licensed officers in Minnesota. The gap between the number of graduates and the number of openings is greatest when openings are assumed to grow by 2 percent a year and smallest (even indicating a shortage) when assuming a 15 percent rate of growth. There is significant uncertainty associated with all the following projections, therefore we are most comfortable with the conservative projection of 2% (which is also near the 3% rate that the majority of employers agreed with):

Assuming the 2 percent growth rate, the projected demand for in 2009 (616 job openings) is much lower than the expected supply of 944 graduates (with 897 expected to pass the exam).

Under the 15 percent rate of growth, the projected demand for 2009

(882 openings) is slightly greater than the expected supply of 944 graduates and the 897 (=95%*944) expected to pass the exam. Then, by 2010 the number of openings exceeds the number of projected graduates. If job openings grew by 10 percent annually, then the number of openings would be slightly higher than the number of expected graduates (passing the exam) through 2012.

The first indicator of job openings, 624 annual openings (derived in

Exhibit 2-9), falls in between the above estimates and is represented in Exhibit 2-13 by a dashed line.

However, it is important to note that despite the tendency for a slight

surplus of graduates historically and in the projections, several employers interviewed for the study noted that not enough graduates



were passing the background checks and psychological screening tests required for employment. Therefore, while the numbers show a slight surplus, some employers are concerned that there is a shortage of employable graduates.

Exhibit 2-14 factors in the candidates who pass the reciprocity exam. Including these candidates increases the supply of potential graduates to fill the projected openings in Minnesota. However, many of these candidates may have previous policing experience and therefore may not be competing for the same entry-level jobs as recent PPOE graduates.

EXHIBIT 2-13 PROJECTED NUMBER OF PPOE GRADUATES VS. PROJECTED JOB OPENINGS

IN MINNESOTA, 2002-12

654 2% Proj.

134115% Proj.

Passed Exam661

10381027

10% Proj.

Newly Licensed Officers 445

Completed Skills Training 682

1093

200300400500600700800900

10001100120013001400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Num

ber

Note: Dashed line on the y-axis denotes the 624 annual openings projected using demand indicator one (Exhibit 2-5). Open circles, squares, triangles denote projected numbers. Source: POST Board, MGT projections.



EXHIBIT 2-14 PROJECTED NUMBER OF CANDIDATES PASSING THE LICENSING EXAM AND RECIPROCITY EXAM VS. PROJECTED JOB OPENINGS IN MINNESOTA, 2002-12

654 2% Proj.

134115% Proj.

1099

Passed Exam and Reciprocity

717

445

Newly Licensed Officeers

102710% Proj.

200300400500600700800900

10001100120013001400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Num

ber

Note: Dashed line denotes the 624 annual openings projected using demand indicator one (Exhibit 2-5). Those passing the reciprocity exam were assumed to increase at a 4 percent rate based on the average growth between 2003 and 2005. Open circles denote projected numbers. Source: POST Board, MGT projections.

2.7 Estimated Level of Supply Needed to Meet Demand, Adjusting for Out-of-State Employment

To account for regional demand for Minnesota PPOE graduates, Exhibit 2-15 compares the trends for projected supply of PPOE graduates with the projected job openings in the region. The regional openings consist on the estimated openings in Minnesota and an additional 95 openings each year from 2007 to 2012, estimated in Exhibit 2-8. Only in the case of the 15 percent growth rate scenario do the openings exceed the number of projected graduates. Graduates are depicted instead of those passing the exam because those seeking employment in other states need not pass the Minnesota licensing exam



EXHIBIT 2-15 PROJECTED NUMBER OF PPOE GRADUATES VS. PROJECTED JOB OPENINGS

IN MINNESOTA AND NEIGHBORING STATES, 2002-12

749 2% Proj.

143615% Proj.

1093


682

445


112210% Proj.

200300400500600700800900

100011001200130014001500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Num

ber

Note: Dashed line denotes the 719 (=624+95) annual openings projected using demand indicator one (Exhibit 2-5) and regional demand (Exhibit 2-8). Open circles denote projected numbers. Source: POST Board, MGT projections. Another way to illustrate the impact of graduates who obtain jobs out of state (not just in the region) is to shift the graduate trend line downward to account for the loss of graduates who obtained employment in other states. The “graduated skills training” line in Exhibit 2-16 is 19 percent lower than the line shown in Exhibit 2-13. We assumed 19 percent based on three pieces of information. One, we assumed that the portion of Minnesota graduates not staying in Minnesota to work or continue their education (19%) was a reasonable proxy for the portion of PPOE graduates who were employed out of state.5 Two, data collected for the Federal Workforce Investment Act indicates a similar number: 86% of skills program graduates are working in Minnesota (i.e. 14% are not in state). Three, anecdotal items mentioned during the interviews indicated that a portion of graduates did obtain jobs out of state. We do not factor in the reciprocity licensees here because we are focusing on graduates and not graduates that pass the licensing exam.

5 MnSCU estimates that 81% of graduates stay in Minnesota to work or continue their education. System- wide Facts Document, Accessed at http://www.pa.mnscu.edu/toolkit/pdf/toolkit_factsheets.pdf



EXHIBIT 2-16 PROJECTED NUMBER OF PPOE GRADUATES STAYING IN STATE VS

PROJECTED JOB OPENINGS IN MINNESOTA, 2002-12

654 2% Proj.

134115% Proj.

102710% Proj.

Newly Licensed Officers 445

Completed Skills Training, 552 (81%*

682)

885

200300400500600700800900

10001100120013001400

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Num

ber

Note: Open circles denote projected numbers. Source: POST Board, MGT projections. If we assume that 81 percent of PPOE program graduates stay in state, then under the 2 percent projection of job openings the number of openings exceeds the number of projected graduates. However, by 2010, the number of graduates expected to stay in state falls below the number of job openings under the 10 percent and 15 percent projection scenarios. Therefore, considering the potential for out-of-state employment may reduce the apparent surplus of graduates. 2.8 Summary and Recommendations Our interview and quantitative results suggest that there is an apparent surplus of PPOE graduates when compared to the number of newly licensed officers. This gap is best illustrated in Exhibit 2-13. Even projecting forward the number of PPOE graduates appears to meet current and future demand (assuming job openings grow between 2% and 10% annually and the number of PPOE graduates continues to grow at about 5% annually). There are many possible reasons behind the gap, which include, out-of-state employment, employment in different occupation, and not passing the pre-employment background tests or other requirements. Based on these findings, we provide the following recommendations. Recommendation 1:

Given the described gap, we recommend that MnSCU identify and quantify the components of the gap between PPOE graduates and newly licensed officers, and monitor the gap on an annual basis.



Analysis of this gap will help determine the extent to which employer demand is being met and where supply loss occurs.

- While MnSCU collects data on the number of graduates by Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code, PPOE program graduates do not fall into their own CIP code. For instance, some students graduating with a degree in Criminal Justice/Police Science do not complete skills training or other PPOE requirements. Appendix D provides a comparison of graduate data reported at the CIP code level to IPEDS and data reported to the POST Board. The data are generally inconsistent. This is due in part to the way data is collected. IPEDS data reports the number of degrees awarded, so a student that obtains a skills certificate and an associate degree is counted twice, however the POST Board counts individuals. To estimate the head count from IPEDS data, MnSCU could use the historical ratios of graduates reported by the POST Board to the numbers reported by IPEDS. For instance, in 2005-2006 a total of 815 PPOE graduates were reported to the POST Board, and 1,116 degrees were reported in the IPEDS graduation file under the CIP Criminal Justice/Police Science CIP. The ratio of the former to the later is 73%.This portion could be applied to the number of degrees awarded in future years to estimate the number of PPOE graduates.

Possible reasons for the gap, noted by training coordinators and others in the academic community, include: - Enrollment in a 4-year degree program in related field - Out-of-state employment - Employment in a related field, like corrections - Employment in a different occupation because they could not find a job in

the field - Employment in different occupation by choice - Not meeting the criteria for pre-employment background tests or other

requirements

Data to support this effort is already being maintained by MnSCU. The graduation survey includes self-reported data on a graduate’s job title and its relatedness to his/her program of study.

Recommendation 2:

Despite the apparent adequate supply numbers, our interviews with employers indicated there is concern that not enough PPOE graduates are meeting employment selection standards. Therefore, to insure that institutions are providing students with consistent information about employment requirements (prior to program enrollment), we recommend the following: MnSCU should establish a working group to review current practices and establish guidelines for institutions to follow in regards to program and employment requirements, standards, and qualifications prior to and at the time of program entry.



The POST Board currently provides general guidelines about the minimum employment selection standards, which could serve as a starting point for this MnSCU working group.

- Although institutions do provide information about prerequisites for employment, the type of information provided and the manner in which it is transmitted varies from institution to institution. For example, Hibbing Community College displays the prerequisites for employment on its course description webpage.6 The Rochester Technical and Community College program description webpage recommends a “preplanning meeting” with the program advisor to determine proper sequence of courses.7 Additionally, the POST Board provides guidelines for informing students about the minimum selection standards and the psychological exam guidelines (required for employment).8

6 http://www.hcc.mnscu.edu/facultyStaff/academics/careerPrograms/?id=30 7 http://www.rctc.edu/catalog/overviews/lawe.html 8 POST selection standards: http://www.dps.state.mn.us/newpost/license.asp; Psychological exam guidelines: http://www.dps.state.mn.us/newpost/PDFs/psych%20evaluation%20guidelines.pdf

3.0 ASSESSING OPTIMAL

PROGRAM LOCATION


3.0 ASSESSING OPTIMAL PROGRAM LOCATION

3.1 Introduction While the previous chapter estimated the projected job openings requiring licensed peace officers, this chapter assesses program access. Access is measured by the distance between the population and institutions, the distance between academic institutions and the seven skills centers, and the effectiveness of program delivery models. To gauge the appropriate distances, we examine:

Distances between population and academic and skills institutions. Distances between academic and skills-training institutions. Distances between educational institutions and employers. Training coordinators’ perceptions of students’ willingness to travel.

To assess the effectiveness of the three different types of skills training models, we rely on the following:

Employers’ opinions on the preparedness of Professional Peace Officer Education (PPOE) graduates.

Assessment of the current delivery models by training coordinators and employers.

3.2 Distance Between Population and Program Locations The PPOE academic programs and skills programs are widely dispersed across the state (Exhibit 3-1). The population is most dense in the counties around the Minneapolis and St. Paul region. Both types of programs tend to be located outside of the seven county metropolitan area. As depicted in Exhibit 3-2, 35 percent of graduates who signed up to take the POST exam between 2003 and 2005 were from institutions in the seven-county metropolitan area. In contrast, 53 percent of the state’s population lived in the Metropolitan area in 2005.

Assessing Optimal Program Location


EXHIBIT 3-1 2005 MINNESOTA POPULATION DENSITY BY COUNTY

Source: Minnesota State Demographic Center.

EXHIBIT 3-2 DISTRIBUTION OF STATE POPULATION (PLACE OF RESIDENCE) AND NUMBER

OF PPOE COMPLETERS BY POST REGION (Geographic area for PPOE completers is defined as that of their institution.)

2%

2%

5%

4%

12%

5%

8%

9%

53%

3%

3%

15%

18%

7%

6%

6%

8%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

North West

North Central

North East

West Central

Central

South West

South Central

South East

Metro

2005 Population Avg. # of Program Completers Taking POST exam 2003-2005

Source: POST Board, 2007.



Approximately 18 percent of graduates who signed up to take the POST exam in 2005 were from institutions in the West Central region, while 4 percent of the population lived in the West Central region. The concentration of programs in the non-Metro area does not appear to pose a travel burden on students at this time because less than one-fifth have to travel more than 25 miles. This will be illustrated in a later section. 3.3 Skills Training and Academic Program Locations Exhibit 3-3 displays the number of students completing the program in 2005-06 by model type and by skills-training institution. The four institutions providing skills training to the most students were:

Alexandria Technical College (Alexandria).

Minneapolis Community and Technical College—Center for Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement (CCJLE).

Hibbing Community College (Hibbing).

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College (Fond du Lac).

Because some institutions provide training through multiple delivery models, Exhibit 3-3 also indicates the number of students who completed the program at the same institution (joint model) and the number who completed the skills and academic component at different institutions (separate model). For instance, 138 of the 253 students who completed their skills component at Alexandria completed the program by way of the separate program model. The remaining 115 completed the program through the joint model.



EXHIBIT 3-3 NUMBER OF PROGRAM COMPLETERS 2005-06

BY SKILLS PROVIDER INSTITUTION AND MODEL TYPE

Skills-Training Provider

Total Completing

Skills at Institution Joint Model

Metro Area College

Consortium (Separate and Joint Model)

Separate Model Mobile Model

Alexandria Technical College 253 115 na 138 0Minneapolis Community and

Technical College, Center for Criminal Justice and Law

Enforcement (CCJLE)

238 0 233 5 0

Hibbing Community College (Vermilion Community College

Included)178 40 na 0 138

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College 72 72 na 0 0

Rochester Community and Technical College 50 50 na 0 0

Northland Community and Technical College 24 24 na 0 0

Total 815 301 233 143 138% of Total 100% 37% 29% 18% 17%

Source: POST Board, 2007. The plurality (37%) of program completers in 2005-06 completed the program through a joint model program, which did not require traveling to a separate skills training location. Approximately 29 percent (233) of the 815 completers completed their skills training through the Metro Area College Consortium (Exhibit 3-4). These students traveled anywhere from 1 to 23 miles for their skills training. Another 18 percent (143) completed the skills component at an institution separate from their academic institution (mostly at Alexandria, a distance of 50 to 272 miles). Nearly 17 percent (138) completed the program through Hibbing Community College’s mobile training program. However, they did have to travel to Hibbing to complete the driving component of the training. Program size varies from 24 to 238. Our research did not indicate any clear advantage of small or large programs. However, one advantage of larger programs noted by a few interview respondents is the consistency in training. An advantage of having several smaller programs is that it increases the geographic dispersion of programs, and thus increases access.



EXHIBIT 3-4 MODEL TYPE, DISTANCE BETWEEN ACADEMIC AND SKILLS LOCATION, AND

NUMBER OF PROGRAM COMPLETERS, 2005-06

Model

Distance Between Academic and Skills

Location (Miles)

Number of Completers 2005-

06% of Total

Joint 0 301 37%Separate (Metro Area College Consortium) 1 to 23 233 29%

Separate 50 to 272 143 18%Mobile 0* 138 17%

Note: Distances were obtained using maps.google.com. *For most training, students did not travel to Hibbing, the equipment traveled between 80 and 400 miles to the academic institution. Source: POST Board, 2007.

Exhibit 3-5 illustrates the distance between skills programs and academic programs. The northeast of the state is relatively well covered. The metro area, with the most population density, has one skills location for a 60-mile radius. This may create some capacity issues for the metro area, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.0. The skills locations and academic locations are denoted by open circles and closed circles, respectively. The smaller circle depicts a 25-mile radius, chosen because the institutions in the metro area fall within about 25 miles of each other. The larger circle represents a 60-mile radius, chosen based on information obtained during interviews (see Section 3.5).

EXHIBIT 3-5 DISTANCE BETWEEN ACADEMIC AND SKILLS LOCATION,

25- AND 60-MILE RADIUS (Does not include Mobile Locations)

Source: Minnesota State Demographic Center.



To give a more detailed view of how far students travel from their home academic institution to their skills training site, Exhibit 3-6 provides the mileage between the two locations:

All of the institutions participating in the Metro Area College Consortium and Metropolitan State University are both less than 25 miles from the CCJLE skills-training center.

Five of the institutions sending students to Alexandria Technical

College are located 100 to 150 miles away. Students are not commuting this distance, but rather spend 10 weeks during the summer at Alexandria attending the “summer skills program.” Typically students stay in off-campus rentals during this period.

− Between 2003 and 2005, these schools sent on average a total

of 37 students to Alexandria. Three institutions are located within 50 and 80 miles, and on average sent a total of 63 students to Alexandria. Two institutions are located over 150 miles from Alexandria, and on average sent a total of 19 students there for skills training.

The numbers presented in Exhibit 3-4 and Exhibit 3-6 indicate that between 2003 and 2005 a small portion of students had to travel over 100 miles to obtain most of their skills training. However, it is important to note than many students drive to either St. Cloud or Hibbing for their emergency vehicle operations training, which may last from 3 to 4 days and require staying overnight.



EXHIBIT 3-6 AVERAGE OF NUMBER OF STUDENTS SIGNED UP TO TAKE LICENSING EXAM

(2003-05) AND DISTANCE BETWEEN INSTITUTIONS AND SKILLS CENTERS

Institutions

Average # Signed Up to Take POST

Exam, 2003-05

Mileage to Skills Center O

wn

CC

JLE

Ale

x an

dria

Hib

bing

Mob

ile

Minneapolis Community and Technical College (Center for Criminal Justice and Law Enf.) CCJLE 233 - - - -

Metropolitan State University 33 <1Century Community and Technical College (Member Metro Area Consortium) in CCJLE total 16

Inver Hills Community College (Member Metro Area Consortium) in CCJLE total 16Normandale Community College (Member Metro Area Consortium) in CCJLE total 19

North Hennepin Community College (Member Metro Area Consortium) in CCJLE total 23Alexandria Technical College 121 - - - -

St. Cloud State University 32 69Bemidji State University 21 139

Ridgewater College 16 76Winona State University 16 272

Minnesota State Community and Technical College (Fergus Falls) 15 50Minnesota State University, Moorhead 10 105

University of St. Thomas 6 144Saint Mary's University of Minnesota 3 272

Concordia-St. Paul < 3 140Hamline University < 3 140

Hibbing Community College 41 - - - -Minnesota State University, Mankato 45 mobile - - -

Minnesota West Community and Technical College - Worthington Campus 32 mobile

Central Lakes College 24 mobileLeech Lake Tribal College na mobile

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College 55 - - - -Rochester Community & Technical College 42 - - - -

Vermilion Community College 25 - - - -Northland Community and Technical College 22 - - - -

Total 792 - - - - -

Skills Center

Source: POST Board, 2007. Distances computed using maps.google.com.

3.4 Distance Between Employers and Program Locations Another distance to consider is that between employers in the state and the home institution of recent graduates. Exhibit 3-7 illustrates the density of licensed police officers and the location of skills-training and academic institutions in 2007. As expected, it parallels the population trend from Exhibit 3-1. There is a concentration of licensed officers in the metro area and in the counties with bigger cities.



EXHIBIT 3-7 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSTITUTIONS AND LICENSED PEACE OFFICERS IN

MINNESOTA, 2007

Source: Licensed Peace Officer Data, POST Board, 2007.

3.5 Appropriate Distances Between Academic and Skills Training

Locations Training coordinators were asked to assess how far skills-training facilities should be located from potential students to be of most use to students. Training coordinators gave mixed responses. Six perceived that distance did not matter to students, and another six indicated that the distance should be 60 miles or less (Exhibit 3-8). Those who noted that distance did not matter, explained that students who were interested in the program would travel. As one may expect, four of the six that noted distance does not matter were associated with skills-training centers. They also noted that many students currently traveled to attend skills-training programs. Some also recognized that distance might be more difficult for non-traditional students.



EXHIBIT 3-8 HOW FAR COULD SKILLS-TRAINING FACILITIES BE FROM POTENTIAL

STUDENTS TO BE OF MOST USE TO THEM SAMPLE=TRAINING COORDINATORS

n=15 Training Coordinators 60 miles or

less, 6

Does not matter, 6Greater

than 60, 1

Depends, 2

Source: MGT Interviews

Employers were also asked to assess how far a skills-training facility should be located from employers to be of most use to them for continuing education training. The majority (13) preferred to have a facility within 60 miles because of the cost involved in having current officers travel far for training (Exhibit 3-9). Most employers indicated that they currently had access to nearby facilities (which in some cases were at a MnSCU institution) and some indicated having their own training facilities.



EXHIBIT 3-9 HOW FAR COULD SKILLS-TRAINING FACILITIES BE FROM POTENTIAL

EMPLOYERS TO BE OF MOST USE TO THEM SAMPLE=EMPLOYERS

n=20 Employers

60 miles or less,13

Greater than 60 miles,

5

Don't know2

Source: MGT Interviews, 2007.

3.6 Program Delivery Models Employers were asked to assess the quality of graduates’ academic and technical skills and the program delivery models. Respondents were generally satisfied with the academic and skill levels of graduates produced by the current mix of programs and delivery methods. This suggests that the current system is meeting most expectations of employers. Specifically:

The majority of the 21 employers interviewed indicated that PPOE graduates were prepared for employment in terms of both academic and skills training.

A few employers noted that graduates could have better writing skills

and/or life skills, such as ethics, customer service, and balancing work and family issues.

A few employers also noted that the level of preparedness depended

on the school.

When asked to evaluate specific program models, the majority of employers expressed a slight preference for the joint program model. Some noted that the model provided a smoother connection between the academic and skills components than the other models.



In assessing the different delivery models, most training coordinators were generally supportive of all the various options, but some had reservations about the mobile model:

Nine of 13 training coordinators expressed concern about the mobile model. Not all gave specific reasons. Some training coordinators expressed concern that the mobile model limited the connections between the academic and skills components. For example, some thought that the academic and skill curriculums were not always in sync. Two of the nine had direct experience with the mobile program through a recent partnership.

Others expressed concern that the mobile model relied on local

adjunct instructors to teach some components, which created variation in instruction across localities.

It is also important to note that:

Hibbing reported using the same instructor for firearms training across locations.

Further, all employer respondents were asked about the mobile

model and only 3 of the 20 interviewed expressed concern over the mobile model.

As with employer respondents, four training coordinators indicated that one advantage of the joint model was that the academic and skills components were taught contemporaneously, which they felt helped reinforce learning. 3.7 Decision Model for Balancing Program Location and Efficiency The results presented in the previous sections provide the foundation for the decision model presented in this section. To assess the program locations and the efficiency of delivery models, we considered the effectiveness of the current delivery models and factors common to location-decision modeling in urban planning:

1. Distances between population and academic and skills-training programs.

The academic programs are widely dispersed across the state, whereas the skills centers are less dispersed. There are three skills program locations in the northeast of the state, and there is one skills program location within a 60-mile radius of the metropolitan area, the area with the most population. This may create some capacity issues for the metro area, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.0.

2. Distances between academic and skills-training institutions.

In 2005-06, two-thirds of completers obtained their skills training

at their academic institution or through the Metro Area College



Consortia, where the skills-training facility is within 25 miles of the academic institution. Among the 18 percent that engaged in the (non-consortia) separate program model, the distance between academic and skills institutions varied from 50 to 250 miles. Data from 2003-05 suggests that a minority traveled more than 100 miles.

3. Distances between educational institutions and employers (as indicated by the

number of licensed peace officers).

Like the population, the licensed peace officers tend to be concentrated in the metropolitan area.

4. Students’ willingness to travel.

The plurality of training coordinators (6/13) indicated that the

distance between students and their skills-training facility did not matter because interested students would travel. Most others said it would be best if the skills-training facility were within 60 miles of students’ academic institution or home.

5. Employers’ opinions on the preparedness of PPOE graduates.

Employers indicated that they were generally satisfied with the

academic and skill levels of graduates produced by the current mix of programs and delivery methods. Most thought that graduates were prepared for employment in terms of both academic and skills training. A few employers suggested that graduates could improve their writing skills and soft skills such as customer service and balancing work and family. Though, this does not appear to have any location implications.

6. Assessment of the current delivery models.

Most training coordinators were generally supportive of all

models, though some noted the joint model had the advantage of providing more seamless transitions between the academic and practical skills. Several employers also credited the joint model with that advantage.

Training coordinators expressed concerns about the mobile

model, notably its limits with regard to connecting the academic and skills components and its reliance on different adjunct instructors at different sites, which could lead to variation in educational delivery. (It should be noted that Hibbing reported using the same instructor for firearms training across locations.)

Given that academic programs are well dispersed across the state, less than one-fifth of students currently travel over 25 miles to their skills-training institution, and employer



respondents are generally satisfied with the academic and practical skills of graduates, we conclude the following: Based on the assessment, at this time we do not recommend that MnSCU add new academic program locations. Any changes to existing programs’ curriculums, their certificate offerings, or emphasis areas should be handled by current program review practices. These are not considered “new programs” since they are part of an existing academic program. Further, we have concluded that academic programs are adequately distributed across the state. Therefore, we recommend that MnSCU maintain the current geographical distribution of academic programs. However, in the event that an existing program seeks re-location, the movement should avoid duplication of programs, replication of related services in the region, and demonstrate that the relocation has a compelling benefit to residents of the region and the state.

4.0 SKILLS PROGRAM

FACILITIES NEEDS


4.0 SKILLS PROGRAM FACILITIES NEEDS

4.1 Introduction The skills-training component of Professional Peace Officer Education (PPOE) programs trains students in the basic skills of law enforcement, such as officer survival, use of force, firearms training, defensive tactics, and emergency vehicle operations. In this chapter, we present a discussion of the minimum facility requirements for skills training, characterize the current facilities, and describe the general needs of the seven skills-training facilities in Minnesota. In the last section, we provide a decision model for comparing the costs of leasing a facility with those of building a facility. 4.2 Minimum Facility Requirements The vast majority of training coordinators and employers agreed that the minimum training facility requirements were:

Gymnasium or space with wrestling/gym mats for learning defensive tactics and physical control tactics.

Driving space, including a space to simulate traffic stops, a skid pad,

and a driving track.

Firearms range to accommodate basic handgun shooting.1

A tactical house or similar space for scenario-based trainings to allow students to practice skills such as house searches.

Other instructional space such as classroom and computer labs

It is not surprising that most of these facilities are in line with the practical applications and techniques outlined in the POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Learning Objectives for PPOE Programs. A minority expressed that minimum facilities would include smart classrooms, a dispatch console, and showers and locker rooms. Neither the POST nor the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) system has guidelines that specify the minimum size for any of the above spaces (except classrooms). This is not uncommon for specialized instructional space, such as the above. However, some states, such as Florida, have facility guidelines for law enforcement training space, which are provided in Appendix E. Also, the National Rifle Association publishes a guidebook that provides detailed design criteria for indoor, outdoor, and specialty gun ranges. MnSCU does have general space guidelines for classroom and traditional lab space. A 2006 summary of space planning guidelines

1 The POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Board requires that students learn to shoot a handgun at close range (2 yards), medium range (5-7 yards), and distance range (15-25 yards) in a variety of shooting positions.

Skills Program Facilities Needs


specifies classroom space requirements related to ceiling height, exiting, door swing, and student capacity.2 4.3 Description of Current Facilities All seven skills-training institutions have access to the minimum facilities described in the previous section; however, the size and proximity of the facilities varies across the institutions. In April of 2007, MnSCU’s Office of Facilities Planning distributed a survey to the seven institutions. Each skills-training institution was asked to catalog and describe its current facilities. The results indicate that:

Defensive tactics and scenario training space varies across institutions. Emergency vehicle driving space is commonly located off site. Firearms training space tends to be located off site.

Our site visits generally confirmed these findings. The results of the survey are summarized below and provide a snapshot of the current capacity at each of the locations. Defensive Tactics and Scenario Training Space Varies Across Institutions Defensive tactics space varies across the institutions. This is the space where students learn hand-to-hand combat techniques.

Three institutions (Rochester, Alexandria, and Hibbing) conduct the training in a gym.

The others use large non-gymnasium spaces.

All institutions use wrestling mats (or the equivalent) in their defensive tactics space.

The reported space size varies from 1,600 square feet to 45,000 square feet (Exhibit 4-1). The large range reflects the general differences among the facilities. The Rochester gym is 45,000 square feet, while Northland uses 1,600 square feet in an airport hangar. Two of the seven institutions report using leased space for defensive tactics training.

2 http://www.facilities.mnscu.edu./Planning_Programming/SpaceGuidelines_July2006.ppt.



EXHIBIT 4-1 DEFENSIVE TACTICS TRAINING SPACE

Institution

Total Square

Feet Description Own or Lease Age (Renov.)

Skills Completers

2005-06

Rochester Community and Technical College 45,000 Gym Regional Sports Center 2002 50

Alexandria Technical College 8,540 Gym Own 1974 (1983, 1985) 253

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College 3,500 Classrooms and double office

Leased MN power building 1976 (2000) 72

Minneapolis Community and Technical College (Center for Criminal Justice and Law Enf.) CCJLE 3,000 Physical Training

AreaLeased, 1380 Energy Park 1993 (2005) 238

Hibbing Community College 2,600 Gym Own na 178

Northland Community and Technical College 1,600 TacticsOwned-

Swenson Hangar

1992 24

Vermilion Community College na na na na inc w/ Hibbing

Source: MnSCU facilities questionnaire, 2007. Vermillion’s survey did not include space dimensions for defensive tactics training space. Hibbing Community College provides firearms training and emergency vehicle training to Vermillion students, therefore Vermillion graduates are included with the Hibbing total. Scenario training space also varies, but to a lesser extent, across institutions. Alexandria has two outdoor freestanding tactical houses, whereas most of the other institutions have smaller scale rooms simulating apartments or retail locations. Some institutions also have outdoor space for use in outdoor patrol practicals. Firearms Training Space Is Mostly Located Off Site Five of the seven institutions lease firearms training space from police departments, private companies, or community gun clubs (Exhibit 4-2). The remaining two (Alexandria and Hibbing) have their own gun ranges on site. A few training coordinators expressed a need for more gun ranges.



EXHIBIT 4-2 FIREARMS TRAINING SPACE

Institution

Total Square

Feet DescriptionOwn or Lease Age (Renov.)

Skills Completers

2005-06

Minneapolis Community and Technical College, CCJLE 6,000 na

Leased-varies Eden

Prairie or Burnsville

na 238

Alexandria Technical College 4,800 Small Arms (Outdoor) Own 1978 (1988) 253

Northland Community and Technical College 4,000 Gun RangeLeased -

Sportsman Club

1980 24

Hibbing Community College 2,666 Indoor Gun Range Own 2000 178

Vermilion Community College 900Outdoor Shooting Range

Leased- Babbitt

Conservation Club

na inc w/ Hibbing

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College na

Shared Shotgun Range

(Outdoor)

Leased Saginaw (St.

Louis County)

na 72

Rochester Community and Technical College na Gun RangeLeased -

Rochester Police Dept.

na 50

Source: MnSCU facilities questionnaire, 2007. Firearms training space is highly specialized, and requirements differ for indoor and outdoor ranges. Many design factors must be considered, notably:3

Sound abatement. Projectile containment and safety. Environmental concerns associated with use of lead bullets. Weapons storage and security.

In the final section of this chapter, we consider the costs associated with building and leasing a firearms range. Emergency Vehicle Driving Space Commonly Located Off-Site Students learn emergency vehicle operations on a driving track and a smaller course (often rectangular) referred to as a skid pad. Because of the space requirements and the highly specific use, most institutions use an off-site driving track. Most training coordinators did not identify this as a concern during the interviews. Also institutions may use a campus parking lot for exercises requiring less space or driving (Exhibit 4-3).

Two institutions (Alexandria and CCJLE) send their students to a 3- to 4-day vehicle operations class at the Minnesota Highway Safety and Research Center, which is part of St. Cloud State University.

3 The National Rifle Association publishes a source book that provides more detailed information on the design of both indoor and outdoor ranges.



The center includes 15 miles of paved roadway/track and 3 miles of gravel. Students pay for the training session as part of their tuition.

Another two institutions (Hibbing and Vermilion) and those

participating in the mobile program use the driving track at the Hibbing/Chisolm airport. Hibbing Community College acquired the space from Toyota, which used the track for testing cars in extreme cold conditions.

Other institutions use space at local airports and/or large parking

lots.

EXHIBIT 4-3 EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATIONS SPACE

Institution

Total Square

Feet Description Own or Lease Age (Renov.)

Skills Completers

2005-06

Hibbing Community College 450,000 Manual setup w/ cones

Gratis-Driving Track at Hibbing/Chisolm Airport 1985 (2000) 178

Vermilion Community College 450,000 Driving Tactics Gratis-Driving Track at Hibbing/Chisolm Airport 1985 (2000) inc w/ Hibbing

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College 55,000 Skid Pad/Track Lease From DIA Port Driving Range 1994 72

Northland Community and Technical College 50,000 Skills Training Owned-Airport Campus 1960-1992 24

Alexandria Technical College 1 mile long Track

Own and Rent Highway Safety and Research

Center, Saint Cloud State Univ.

1979 (1985/2000) 253

Minneapolis Community and Technical College, CCJLE na High-Speed Tactical

Rent Highway Safety and Research Center, Saint

Cloud State Univ.1980 238

Rochester Community and Technical College na Cones and Water Source West Parking Lot na 50

Source: MnSCU facilities questionnaire, 2007.



4.4 Site Visit Observations To supplement the facilities survey data summarized above, MGT conducted site visits at four of the seven training locations and the Minnesota Highway Safety and Research Center. MGT and MnSCU considered the number of students served and geography in selecting the following sites to visit:

Alexandria Technical College

Hibbing Community College

Minneapolis Community and Technical College (Center for Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement)

Rochester Community and Technical College

The first three of the above enrolled the most students in 2005-06. The fourth institution was included so that at least one location would be located south of the metropolitan (St. Paul and Minneapolis) area. Exhibit 4-4 summarizes the observations from our site visits. Two general findings emerged from our site visits and telephone interviews with training coordinators and employers:

Some centers have facilities dispersed over different locations and have fashioned general space to suit their needs for defensive tactics and scenario-based training, while a few have more centralized facilities and specially designed training space (such as gun ranges and tactical houses). Training coordinators at some of the institutions that we did not visit reiterated this concern for their location.

The training site in the metropolitan area appears to be near

capacity. Program staff reported a waiting list of approximately 20 students. A few employers also raised concern about the waiting list. Classroom space is limited and occasionally small classes take place in the scenario rooms.



EXHIBIT 4-4 SUMMARY OF SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS AND ASSESSMENT

(These Observations assume the planned capacity expansions at Alexandria and CCJLE will proceed)

Institution Defensive Tactics Scenario Training Firearms Training Driving Space Overall Assessment*


Gymnasium and a specially built mat room

with padded walls

Two outdoor tactical houses and an observation deck

Eight-lane outdoor gun range on campus.

One-mile gravel track on-campus and off-site driving

track

Gun and skills facilities generally in good shape;

biggest need identified was office space and classroom

space.

Hibbing Community College

Gymnasium and a gym room with padding

Rooms simulating a jail and an apartment. Old campus

building used for some outdoor training

Eight-lane indoor gun range on campus. Also use outdoor range for

shotgun and rifle training.

Driving track at airport

Facilities relatively new (built five years ago), generally in good shape. Biggest need identified was space for vehicle storage.

Minneapolis Community and Technical College,

CCJLE

Large room with wrestling mats

Large warehouse-like space that includes car for felony stop and rooms simulating bar, bank, and hotel room

Six-lane indoor gun range leased at off-campus location (32

miles away)

Off-site driving track, except stationary exercises like

traffic stops.

Facilities are generally adequate. There is a significant need for

expanded space (offices, classroom, skills-training)

which could eliminate waiting list.**


Large room with portable mats and padded walls,

as well as access to other physical training space in Center. New

recreation center campus available.

Plans to construct a split- level house on back sector

of campus, w/ 2,400 gsf 2nd level and 3,000 gsf 1st

level. Office and classroom space is currently being

renovated and reconfigured.

Outdoor gun range leased at off-campus locations (5 and 25

miles from campus). Five-mile location: handgun only, 40

lanes, limited use at night; twenty-five mile location: accomodates

shotgun, rifle.

RCTC parking lot. Can secure from public use, but

nearby lot is still in use.

Facilities are being expanded to improve

scenario-based training space and renovated as

part of asbestos abatement process.

Source: MGT site visits conducted in July 2007. Notes: * These Observations assume the planned capacity expansions at Alexandria and CCJLE will proceed. ** As of December 2007, it appears that the new planned CCJLE facility may not be able to accommodate more students than the current facility.



4.5 Employer and Training Coordinator Assessment of Capacity Levels In interviews, both employers and training coordinators revealed mixed opinions of the general capacity level of skills-training facilities across the state. Employers expressed a variety of opinions about the capacity of PPOE skills-training locations. Eleven of the 20 employers gave various reasons for estimating a shortage. Another seven estimated that there was adequate capacity (Exhibit 4-5). More specifically:

Approximately six of the 20 employers referenced the student waiting lists to enter skills training as an indicator of the shortage of capacity at skills-training locations. Based on our interviews with training coordinators, the only known waiting list is at CCJLE.

Three employers referred to a general shortage, and two referred to

a specific shortage such as tactical training houses or buildings.

Seven of the employers indicated that there was adequate capacity at skills centers. Two others did not have enough information to express an opinion.

EXHIBIT 4-5

EMPLOYER ASSESSMENT OF PPOE SKILLS-TRAINING CAPACITY LEVELS IN MINNESOTA

Employers, n=20

10%

10%

15%

30%

35%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Don't know (n=2)

Shortage, Specific(n=2)

Shortage (n=3)

Waiting List (n=6)

Adequate (n=7)

Source: MGT interviews, July 2007.



One training coordinator, recognizing the possibility that students on a waiting list could go to other skills-training facilities, suggested that it was difficult in practice because of curriculum differences between schools. For instance, an academic program may not emphasize theoretical aspects of a skill area that is covered in the skills curriculums. We expect some relationships between training programs and academic programs are well integrated and may pose difficulties in seamlessly moving students from on training program to another. Training coordinators were also asked to assess the skills-training capacity levels. The plurality of training coordinators suggested that there was adequate capacity across the state, while others indicated there was a shortage. As shown in Exhibit 4-6:

Five of the thirteen training coordinators said that there was adequate capacity at skills-training facilities in the state.

Another four training coordinators indicated that there was a general

shortage of capacity at skills-training locations around the state.

Three expressed concern over the capacity of the Alexandria summer skills program, which had a waiting list for the first time this year. Alexandria reported eventually accommodating these students by arranging for their training with another location.

The remaining two either suggested that more research was needed

or that there was a surplus.

EXHIBIT 4-6 TRAINING COORDINATOR ASSESSMENT OF PPOE SKILLS TRAINING CAPACITY

LEVELS IN MINNESOTA

Training Coordinators, n=14

7%

7%

36%

21%

29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Other (n=1)

Surplus (n=1)

Summer WaitingList (n=3)

Shortage (n=4)

Adequate (n=5)

Source: MGT interviews, July 2007.



These interviews were conducted prior to the approval of the Metropolitan State University and Minneapolis Community and Technical College law enforcement center and the Alexandria Technical College law enforcement center expansion. Presuming these projects are approved by the state legislature, we expect the system capacity to increase. 4.6 Other Training Facilities in Minnesota Police departments and other public agencies also have training facilities. In this section, we describe some of these facilities to illustrate the general non-MnSCU inventory in the state. This list is by no means exhaustive; it merely highlights locations identified through our interviews with employers and training coordinators and general news reports.

The three largest agencies in the state (those employing the most licensed peace officers) each put PPOE graduates through a 10- to 18-week academy and a field-training period. Field-training is a period where a new hire works under supervision of a training officer. Approximately 17 percent of Minnesota peace officers work at these agencies. Additionally, many other employers interviewed mentioned their field-training programs as playing an important role in acclimating new officers to real world police work.

The South Metro Public Safety Training Facility is a collaborative

effort of the Fire and Police Departments of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, and Bloomington and the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Police Department. The facility was principally funded by the four jurisdictions together with a grant from the State of Minnesota. It provides a variety of police and fire training opportunities on a three-acre, two-building campus and is used by approximately 600 police and fire personnel regularly. Additionally, organizations such as the FBI, U.S. Customs, IRS Criminal Investigation, Federal Air Marshal, Minnesota State Patrol, Minnesota Fire School, Metropolitan Transit Police and local police and fire agencies have used the training facility.

The planned Scott County Regional Public Safety Training Facility is

currently in its initial stages. In 2006, the State provided $1 million, which was combined with $5 million in local funding to move the project forward. The initial phase of the project is now nearing completion and a recent request for $3.2 million from the Minnesota Department of Finance will fund the remaining work.4 The Regional Public Safety Training Facility will be able to address all police, fire, and emergency medical service needs in the region as well as public works providers, an often overlooked component of large-scale public safety responses. The facility will feature a wide variety of

4 Capital Budget Request, Minnesota State Legislature, http://www.budget.state.mn.us/budget/capital/2008/prelim/subs/scott_county.pdf.



training options, including a kitchen, laundry, shower, and lodging to encourage use by a wide range of governmental units.

A 1999 study (Statewide Master Plan for Fire and Law Enforcement

Training Facilities in Minnesota) submitted to the Minnesota Legislature estimated that there were 136 indoor gun ranges, 49 outdoor gun ranges, and 7 driving ranges in the state. Although these data are nearly 10 years old, the study provides a broad inventory of particular facilities relevant to this study.

One employer spoke of plans to begin a regional public safety

training facility in his region and speculated on the idea of partnering with MnSCU in the endeavor. Another employer speculated about whether new recruit training at his academy could substitute for the PPOE skills training. The respondent painted it as a win-win situation: his agency would get employees in-house sooner and PPOE slots would be freed up for other students. As of November 2007, the POST Board was considering a pilot project along these lines.

A few training coordinators also raised the hypothetical question: “What if one of the private institutions decides to open its own skill center?” Currently MnSCU operates all the skill-training programs in the state. Their general concern is that MnSCU may lose students if one ore more private colleges build a state-of-the art training facility. Training coordinators perceive that an increasing number of students are interested in law enforcement careers. Another factor to consider is that the tuition costs for students may be higher at a private institution. 4.7 Cost of Facilities In addition to classroom space, PPOE programs require space for skills-training. As summarized in section 4.1, this space typically includes:

Gymnasium or space with wrestling/gym mats for learning defensive tactics.

Firearms range to accommodate basic handgun shooting.

Scenario-based training space, such as tactical house or a simulated retail location.

Tactical driving track for learning emergency vehicle operations.

Access to these facilities can be accomplished by the three models described in Chapter 1.0 and currently used by different institutions across Minnesota.

Joint-programs – students complete both the academic- and skills-component of the program at the same institution.



Separate-programs – students complete the academic component at one institution and travel to a separate institution to complete their skills training.

Mobile-programs – equipment and materials (mats, forensic

equipment, fire-arms training simulator, squad vehicles, etc.) are brought to academic sites for on-site skills training.

However even within these models there is variation. For instance, Fond du Lac’s program is classified as a joint program, but at the same time their delivery model can be described as distributive. Students travel to some facilities (such as leased firearm facilities or tactical driving space) and have access to other facilities on-campus. The constant is that the instructors are all managed by the same institution. In contrast, Alexandria’s joint program has most of its facilities located on campus (only high-speed tactical driving training occurs off-site). One could, thus have a joint model but distributive delivery or centralized delivery. Therefore, for the purposes of this facilities cost analysis, we present two decision models. The first uses existing data to examine options for expanding facilities at an existing skills training program. The second model considers the option of adding a new center by comparing a lease versus build option, as is currently the case with CCJLE. To weigh the relative value of the options considered via the two models, we propose the following general criteria:

Quality of instruction Number of students served Cost Quality of facility Appropriateness of facility site

Since the majority of employers interviewed indicated that PPOE graduates were well prepared with respect to academics and skills, we conclude that all three models provide adequate training. Therefore, we focus on the four remaining criteria: students served, cost, quality of facility, and appropriateness of facility site.

4.7.1 Expanding Existing Space As depicted in Exhibit 4-7, the space at existing facilities varies. The two centers (CCJLE and Alexandria) that serve the most students tend to have the larger spaces. In practice, Rochester has less space than was reported because the total includes a large shared sports-center and only a small portion is used for tactical training. Removing this brings Rochester’s total to 65,344 GSF which is still a relatively large amount of space compared to other programs. Fond du Lac stands apart in that it serves 72 students (the program with the third most graduates) with only 7,500 GSF reported in classroom and building space.



EXHIBIT 4-7 SPACE COMPARISON OF EXISTING SKILL CENTERS

Area is reported in square footage

Buildings and Classrooms

(includes offices, gym, lab space )

Shoot- House (or similar scenario -training space) Driving Space Gun Range

Vermillion 13,032 537,120 900

Rochester* 65,344 435,600

Hibbing 7,370 26,400

Northland 6,862 50,000 4,000

Metro 55,850 6,000

Fon-du-lac 7,500 55,000 30,000 (outdoor)

Alexandria 32,425 1,323 4,800

Mobile locationsWorthington 7,800 25,000

Central Lakes 9,600 30,000Mankato 10,200 35,000

Source: MnSCU/MGT Facilities Survey, 2007. Notes: *Rochester building/classroom space does not include the 45,000gsf for the sports center on campus.

The large variation in available space is not unexpected, as institutions creatively improvise space to deliver skills-training. For instance at some sites, classrooms are converted into crime scenes with simple props, furniture, and cloth mannequins for scenario-based training. Also some institutions obtain space (for example time at gun ranges) in exchange for providing professional training to police departments. Correspondingly the operating cost of programs (per unit measure and total cost) varies significantly, as depicted in Exhibit 4-8. Based on existing practices at skills centers, we estimate the annual operating costs of three expansion options: 1) small facility-modifications, 2)mobile model, and 3)extensive renovation. For the purposes of this chapter, operating costs may include facility lease costs. However, no faculty/instructor costs are considered. We also assume that the reported costs include cost for classroom space. The small facility-modifications option encompasses things that programs can do to increase capacity with little or no cost, such as using existing space more frequently or leasing additional gun-lanes to serve more students. The mobile option is simply the mobile model described earlier in this chapter. The extensive renovation option is the only one to have a capital cost. We use available data to compute the operating cost and average cost per graduate for each of the expansion modes:



The cost for the small facility-modifications option is computed using the average of all programs reporting cost data, with the exception of CCJLE because it is a full lease situation. This option assumes that the operating costs will remain relatively constant when the number of graduates from a program increases slightly. (It assumes some level of unused capacity.)

The cost for the mobile model is computed with data obtained from

Hibbing. This option presumes that the operational costs at an additional mobile location will be similar to the average of the current three ($19,934). Since the model relies on existing space at remote campuses, there is no additional capital cost. To illustrate the mobile option holistically, we present the costs both with Hibbing’s on-campus operating cost and without it. One cost not incorporated is that which may be borne by student traveling from one of the mobile sites to Hibbing for driving training.

The extensive renovation option is calculated using data from

Alexandria’s proposed expansion of their skills center, as a baseline measure. The yearly operating cost for this option includes the operating cost for the existing facility and the estimated operating cost for the proposed additional space.5

The cost analysis that follows is based on data obtained from secondary sources, such as the State of Minnesota Budget Requests and self-reported data from institutions; therefore these numbers should be used with caution. Prior to using the data for return on investment assessments the data should be verified with officials from the MnSCU chancellor’s office. More recent data may have become available since the writing of this report. Exhibit 4-9 provides current self-reported operating costs for the different options. We cannot assess how reasonable this cost range is because of varying ways institutions acquire access to specialty skills-training space, such as gun ranges and scenario-based training space. However this range does provide a reference point for future decision making. The mobile program operating costs are the lowest among the four options when one considers just the costs at the remote site (i.e. excluding Hibbing’s on-campus operating costs). This is an instructive number because it is an estimate of the added operating cost of introducing another mobile location. The most costly option is the extensive renovation option illustrated by the planned skills-center expansion at Alexandria. Exhibit 4-9 does not include CCJLE because all its space is leased, but it is considered in Section 4.7.2. When examining the cost per gross square foot a similar range emerges. However, if one looks at only building space and classrooms, the small-facility modification option has the lowest cost per GSF and the Mobile option (with Hibbing in the calculation) is the highest cost per GSF. This occurs because the additional types of specialty spaces increase the GSF and thus lowers the cost per GSF. Appendix F provides a break down of the costs for the five programs and three mobile programs that are summarized as averages in Exhibit 4-9.

5 This additional operating cost was taken from the 2008 state budget project narrative.



EXHIBIT 4-9 OPERATING UNIT COST COMPARISONS

PANEL A: COST PER GROSS SQUARE FEET

Type of ExpansionAnnual

Operating Cost Capital cost

GSF Buildings and Classrooms +

Scenario-based training + gun range

Operating Cost per GSF

Small facility-modifications (avg. of 5 programs)* $38,194 - 30,594 $1.2Mobile (avg of 3 mobile sites less Hibbing) $19,934 - 39,200 $0.5

Mobile (avg of 3 mobile sites + Hibbing) $49,934 - 37,843 $1.3Extensive Renovation (Alexandria) $200,347 $10,500,000 74,651 $2.7



GSF Buildings and Classrooms (includes

offices, gym, lab space )

Operating Cost per GSF

Small facility-modifications (avg. of 5 programs)* $38,194 - 25,134 $1.5Mobile (avg of 3 mobile sites less Hibbing) $19,934 - 9,200 $2.2

Mobile (avg of 3 mobile sites + Hibbing) $49,934 - 16,570 $3.0Extensive Renovation (Alexandria) $200,347 $10,500,000 74,651 $2.7

PANEL B: COST PER PROGRAM GRADUATE



Estimated Graduates

ServedOperating Cost per Graduate

Small facility-modifications (avg. of 5 programs)* $38,194 - 88 $434Mobile (avg of 3 mobile sites less Hibbing) $19,934 - 44 $453

Mobile (avg of 3 mobile sites + Hibbing) $49,934 - 44(Mobile) +40 (Hibbing) $594

Extensive Renovation (Alexandria) $200,347 $10,500,000 253 $792

Type of Expansion

Annual Operating Cost (No increase

assumed) Capital cost

Estimated Maximum Graduates Served**

Operating Cost per Max.

GraduatesSmall facility-modifications (avg. of 5 programs)* $38,194 - 114 $335

Mobile (avg of 3 mobile sites less Hibbing) $19,934 - 60 $332


Extensive Renovation (Alexandria) $200,347 $10,500,000 500 $401

Type of Expansion

Annual Operating Cost

(Increase assumed)*** Capital cost

Estimated Maximum Graduates Served**

Operating Cost per Max.

GraduatesSmall facility-modifications (avg. of 5 programs)* $46,905 - 114 $411

Mobile (avg of 3 mobile sites less Hibbing) $25,249 - 60 $421


Extensive Renovation (Alexandria) $299,318 $10,500,000 500 $599Source: MnSCU/MGT Facilities Survey, 2007. Notes: *The average of five programs does not include Northland because cost data was not available for this location nor does it include CCJLE because that is a leased location.** The estimated maximum is based on the estimated maximum capacity of the space reported by some training coordinators. See footnote 5.***The increase in annual operating cost was computed by multiplying the additional graduates by the operating cost per-graduate. For example for the small-facility modifications an extra 26 graduates (114-88) are each assumed to add an additional $434 to operating costs.



In Panel B, we estimate the cost per graduate. First, we estimate the cost using program graduate counts reported in 2006. Second, we estimate the cost using an estimated maximum capacity of students that can be served. We do this by assuming that each program can generate 30% more graduates (ex: an average increase of 88 to 114). We base the 30% estimate on anecdotal information from training coordinators and maximum capacity numbers reported by some skills programs.6 We do not know the threshold at which adding students will increase the operating cost (as defined in ), therefore we calculate two estimates: 1) Assumes cost will not increase when additional students are added and 2) assumes that operating costs will proportionately increase based on an average current cost per student calculation. This estimate also assumes some unused capacity. The pattern that emerges is slightly different than the cost per GSF. The small facility- modifications option and mobile option (without Hibbing) have similar per-graduate costs both at the current level and estimated maximum capacity. The extensive renovation option per-graduate cost falls from $792 to $400, as the student capacity increases to its estimated maximum. The $400 cost is in line with the current per-graduate operating cost in the small facility-modifications option. This analysis suggests that the small facility-modifications and the mobile option result in similar operating costs, however the advantage of the mobile option is that a fourth mobile location could increase the capacity by as much as 60 graduates with an estimated increase in cost of $19,934. The extensive renovation option, while more costly than the latter two options, results in a larger increase in capacity. Therefore, the following prioritization is recommended:

Making low cost-changes to increase capacity of existing programs (including existing mobile programs)

Adding another mobile location

Renovating and expanding existing owned-space

On a case-by-case basis, MnSCU should be seeking the option that minimizes cost yet maximizes the capacity to meet anticipated demand. However, the appropriateness of the proposed facility and site may be enough to justify considering a higher cost option.

4.7.2 Adding New Space: Lease versus Build Options The previous section focuses on ways to increase capacity without acquiring new locations. This section examines options for acquiring new locations by comparing current lease costs for the CCJLE location and the build costs as computed by the Debt Service (DS) model used by the MnSCU’s Office of the Chancellor. The debt service model is the capital bonding model used to raise funds for new construction. According

6 Our interviews suggest that some training coordinators think they can handle an increase in enrollments. Training coordinators reported maximum capacity numbers for three sites and the mobile sites, which on average amounted to an 81% increase. In 2006 these sites accounted for 46% of graduates. Therefore we reduced the estimate from 81% to 30%. Although the computed number would be 37% (=46%*81%), we further reduced it to 30% to be on the conservative side.



to the State of Minnesota 2008 Capital Budget Request, CCJLE currently pays $900,000 annually in lease costs. The assumptions underlying the DS model are:

The interest rate is 5.0% for the general obligation bonds. This rate is from a November 2006 bond issue.

MnSCU pays 1/3 of the total project costs including the debt service.

The institution pays 1/6 of the total project costs including the debt service.

Inflation is assumed to be 4.5%, which is slightly higher than the 3.13% rate that occurred between 2006 and 2007 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As noted earlier, prior to using the data for return on investment assessments the data should be verified with officials from the MnSCU chancellor’s office. Cost estimates obtained from the State of Minnesota Budget Requests may have changed. More recent data on costs and the number of students the space is expected to serve may have become available since the writing of this report. As illustrated in Exhibit 4-10, comparing a build scenario to a lease scenario is a function of the present value model assumptions. Present value calculations allow one to compare the value of money over time. In other words, present value allows one to asses what amount would need to be invested today (at a given interest rate) to yield a certain value in the future. Under the current assumptions, the lease cost option is lower than the $20,435,000 build cost borne by the Minnesota state budget (thus tax payers). However, when considering only the fraction of the build cost borne by the institution and the system, the build option cost is lower than the lease option cost. Though the institution is primarily concerned with its share, it is important to consider that the system as a whole bears one-third of the cost. It is important to note that the lease costs do not include lease-holder improvements, which if they were incurred would raise the cost of the lease option in all scenarios considered in this chapter. The picture changes entirely when one looks at the nominal costs. Nominal costs account for the increase in cost due to inflation. This case assumes 4.5% inflation rate, and $900,000 lease cost in period one. In the nominal case, the build option is lower than the lease option. The $20,435,000 build cost compares to a $28,234,280 cumulative nominal lease cost over 20 years.



EXHIBIT 4-10 LEASE VERSUS BUILD OPTION, THREE PERSPECTIVES (OVER 20 YEARS)

$3,405,833

$6,811,667

$20,435,000$16,389,063

$28,234,280

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

Lease cost(present

valueassumptions:

4.5%inflation; 5%interest rate)

Lease cost(nominal

value assume4.5%

inflation)

All (principal +interest)

1/3 of All(System's

share)

1/6 of All(Institution's

share)

Source: MnSCU Chancellor’s Office, State of Minnesota 2008 Budget Requests, project narratives.

A slightly different dynamic emerges when incorporating the annual operating cost ($367,000) into the calculation. The operating cost was obtained from the State of Minnesota 2008 Budget request. Further detail on what is covered in this cost was not available at the time this report was written. In Panel A of Exhibit 4-11, the operating costs are indexed to inflation and discounted. In Panel B, the operating costs are presented nominally (only assuming 4.5% inflation). After incorporating the operating costs, the lease option is lower than the build option in both the present value and nominal case. However if one assumes a 6.3% inflation rate than the lease cost option is lower only in the present value case. Appendix F provides the yearly cost schedule for all three perspectives.


EXHIBIT 4-11 LEASE VERSUS BUILD OPTION, THREE PERSPECTIVES

INCLUDES CUMULATIVE OPERATING COST FOR 20 YEAR PERIOD

PANEL A: PRESENT VALUE COMPARISON

$6,683,096

$6,683,096

$6,683,096

$20,435,000

$16,389,063

$6,811,667$3,405,833

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

Lease cost(Assumes 4.5%

inflation)

All (principal +interest + annual

operating cost over20 years)

1/3 of principal &interest (System'sshare) + operating

costs

1/6 of principal &interest (Institution'sshare) + operating

costspresent value assumptions: 4.5% inflation; 5% interest rate; annual operating costs period 1

$367,000

PANEL B: NOMINAL VALUE COMPARISON

$11,513,312

$11,513,312$11,513,312

$20,435,000

$28,234,280

$6,811,667$3,405,833

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

Lease cost (presentvalue assumptions:4.5% inflation; 5%

interest rate)

All (principal +interest + annual

operating cost over20 years)

1/3 of principal &interest (System'sshare) + operating

costs

1/6 of principal &interest (Institution'sshare) + operating

costsAssumptions: 4.5% inflation; annual operating costs period 1 $367,000

Source: MnSCU Chancellor’s Office, State of Minnesota 2008 Budget Requests, project narratives. An advantage of the build option is that at the end of the 20 year period MnSCU owns the building and the only cost is the facilities operating cost (i.e. there is no longer an interest payment or principal). To consider this advantage, Appendix F also provides two exhibits which compare the lease option to the build option over a 30 year period. One considers the nominal value, the other the present value. Under the nominal value case, the build option falls lower than the lease option in the 23rd year. In the present value case, the lease option is the lower cost option through the 30th year.




However, even when considering the full build cost versus the lease cost, one must consider the quality of the two facilities. The difference in scenario-based training space is one important reason for the higher cost of the build scenario. The proposed new metro area facility will include an indoor gun range. In contrast, current access to a gun range is secured by renting lanes at a local gun range, as needed. This is not ideal because of use limitations, sharing with the public, and lacks nearby classroom space. Though the build scenario is more costly than the lease scenario, there is agreement among the training coordinators interviewed that the proposed building(s) will have better facilities than currently available under the lease option. The proposed buildings are considered to have better space because they are designed specifically for PPOE skills-training. Therefore, although the locations will likely serve the same number of students, the quality and appropriateness of the space may be improved relative to the current space now utilized. Additionally moving the CCJLE location from a business park, where simulated traffic stops occur in a public parking lot, to a campus location will improve the appropriateness of the location and should minimize training interruptions and reduce potential risk. 4.8 Summary and Recommendations Employers interviewed for this study indicated in general that they are currently satisfied with:

The capacity of system (with exception of metro area)

The number of graduates

The quality of PPOE graduates in terms of their academic knowledge and practical skills.

The following recommendations are based on information from this chapter and Chapter 3.0, which examined the location of skills-centers. Recommendation 1: In order to ease the waiting list for skills-training in the metro-area, we recommend that MnSCU determine the current skills center capacity and identify the related capacity changes that are likely for the planned new facilities (CCJLE and Alexandria). MGT did some preliminary investigation on this topic during our interviews with program directors, but given that the projects are early in their planning cycle we were not able to obtain much detail on the expected capacity. Recommendation 2: Based on the review of existing skills-training sites, facilities and delivery models, at this time we do not recommend any new skills-training centers be added beyond those already progressing through the State’s planning cycle.



Since skill-center capacity data are not readily available, MnSCU should identify the maximum capacity at existing PPOE skills-training facilities and compare it to supply and demand trends on an annual basis before approving any new facilities or sites. The capacity baseline should consist of current capacity and the additional capacity that may be gained from the proposed Alexandria expansion and the new Metropolitan State University/CCJLE location. Requests for expansions of current sites, adding more mobile locations, or conversion of sites from mobile locations to joint programs should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Factors such as waiting lists, current state-wide and regional unused capacity, and the start-up and annual cost of additional or conversion should be considered in making the decision. Recommendation 3: As capacity approaches demand for newly hired officers in Minnesota, we recommend MnSCU and its institutions consider the following strategies to expand skills-training capacity on an as- needed basis. Listed in order of priority:

Consider low-cost ways to acquire additional space at existing centers. Options include creating additional time slots to use existing space more efficiently or considering the use of existing multipurpose spaces, such as gymnasiums. Another option is to acquire or construct shoot-houses or similar specialty-use facilities at little or no cost to the institution (and the state) with donated materials and donated time. Other centers have secured time at nearby gun ranges in exchange for providing training opportunities to local law enforcement agencies.

Consider the expansion of mobile programs into new geographic areas. The

mobile program option provides remote sites with all the necessary equipment (including squad cars, fire-arms training simulator, defensive tactics mats, weapons, etc.). Most training is provided on or near the campus of the non-skills training institution. (Often local gun-ranges are leased for fire arms training.)

Consider expanding space (i.e., capacity) at existing skills-training centers.

This option may prove more costly than the previous two options listed above. It is reasonable to assume that the system may need additional capacity in the future when the supply of graduates nears the employment demand.

Finally, consider adding new skills-training centers. This is the most costly

option relative to the other alternatives.

Recommendation 4: Additionally, we recommend that when an existing skills center reaches its training capacity, we recommend MnSCU and the institution give students the option to choose in advance which skill-program/center they will attend.



This will allow for more system flexibility and space utilization efficiency, and will help balance demand and capacity pressures while accommodating the interests of students. Recommendation 5: We also recommend that MnSCU explore collaborations with employer-run training facilities in order to address excessive demand on specific skills center facilities. These could include:

− Specialty facilities (gun ranges, driving sites)

− Temporary gaps (e.g., periodic skills center waiting lists)

− Unpredicted fluctuations in demand trends (unforeseen increases or decreases in demand)

− Unexpected disruption in access to current skills centers

5.0 SKILLS ASSESSMENT

MODEL


5.0 SKILLS ASSESSMENT MODEL

5.1 Introduction Minnesota’s Professional Peace Officer Education (PPOE) programs prepare students for careers in law enforcement through a combination of academic courses and practical skills-training courses. After completing the academic and skills-training components, students are eligible to take the Professional Peace Officer licensing exam administered by the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board. Generally such licensing exams are intended to ensure that those entering an industry meet minimum skill-standards, typically set by employers. This chapter examines the PPOE programs’ skills-standards setting process and the associated licensing process in order to provide guidance on gauging technical skills assessment, as required in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Improvement Act 2006. The U.S. Congress is also concerned with establishing technical training standards, and it passed the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Improvement Act of 2006. The act is the fourth in a series of legislation, and is thus often referred to as Perkins IV.1 The act provides federal money for technical training to high schools and post-secondary institutions. In exchange for public funding, the act requires training programs to report performance outcomes that are intended to gauge the quality of the programs. Perkins IV introduced an additional performance indicator for post-secondary programs, technical skills attainment. A 2007 program memorandum from the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) defines technical skills attainment as those: “who passed technical skill assessments that are aligned with industry-recognized standards.”2 Specifically, the act specifies the following five performance indicators for post-secondary technical education programs:

Technical Skill Attainment (newly added in Perkins IV) Credential, Certificate, or Diploma Attainment Student Retention or Transfer Student Placement into Employment Nontraditional Participation and Completion3

The next section describes how PPOE programs and the POST Board currently measure these indicators. The third section proposes a general model for measuring the skill attainment indicator for any skill-training program.

1 The previous acts were: Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1984, Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990, and Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998. 2 March 2007 USDOE Technical Assistance Memo: http://www.ed.gov/policy/sectech/guid/cte/perkinsiv/studentdef.pdf 3 A March 2007, USDOE Technical Assistant memo defines non-traditional as underrepresented gender groups. http://www.ed.gov/policy/sectech/guid/cte/perkinsiv/studentdef.pdf

Skills Assessment Model


5.2 Defining Skill Standards for PPOE Programs The Minnesota POST Board is the statutory licensing authority for peaces officers, and it sets the training requirements and standards. The POST Board’s training requirements are set forth in the Learning Objectives for Professional Peace Officer Education.4 It specifies the guiding standards for both the academic and practical-skills training program. The standards are set by a set of experts in each topic area and draw from a broad group of stakeholders. A typical standards-setting committee includes:

Employers (e.g. police chiefs, sheriffs, and other law enforcement agency representatives)

Professional law enforcement associations

Academic faculty

Retired officers deemed experts in the field by their peers

Other stakeholders, such as state representatives and county attorneys

The main goals of the committee are to:

Develop a list of critical skills for employment

Rank those skills in order of importance

Decide how in depth each skill topic needs to be covered in the objectives

The staff at the POST Board drafts the learning objectives based on the committee discussion and decisions. The draft document is then circulated to the committee for additional feedback. In the POST Board’s experience there was not a lot of disagreement over specific skill standards. The biggest challenge is that one-size does not fit all. For example, radar training has been added back to the learning objectives based on feedback from employers. It was originally removed due to feedback from some employers. However, after it was removed many other employers responded indicating they wanted graduates to have basic radar training. Therefore, it has been added back to the learning objectives. The standards are also periodically updated to reflect changes in the industry. In March 2007, the POST Board revised some of the learning objectives. One member of the community explained that the standards are written general enough to allow for some variation across programs in recognition of academic freedom. However, the more technical skills like firearms training are necessarily written with more specificity. 4 The Learning Objectives can be access at: http://www.dps.state.mn.us/newpost/PDFs/LearningObjectives.pdf



Some states go so far as to enumerate specific standards that all graduates must demonstrate. For example, Florida’s Department of Law Enforcement (DLE) has performance evaluation checklists for firearms handling, defensive tactics, and vehicle operations that must be completed by the instructor and submitted to Florida’s DLE. 5 This system has the advantage of providing employers with a pool of candidates that have all passed a standardized set of detailed skill-tests. Employer Perceptions of the Licensing Exam The PPOE licensing exam is designed to measures whether a student has met the standards set forth in the learning objectives. Employers interviewed for this study generally agreed that the test measured the basic academic aspects of the programs. The value of the exam is that it provides a common benchmark to measure basic knowledge required for the profession. Moreover because the benchmarks are based on input from employers they have the effect of standardizing the requirements to the needs of employers. However, several noted that the exam did not explicitly measure skills nor did they necessarily expect it to. Several noted that successfully completing the field training period was perhaps, a better measure of skill attainment than the exam. At same time they note that such a real-world setting simply could not be replicated by a standardized exam. During the field training period the new officer works in tandem with a field training officer (FTO), who is a senior licensed peace officer. During the training period, the new officer is given progressively more policing responsibility but is always being critiqued and encouraged by the FTO. The actual format of the field training period varies by department. Some departments evaluate new recruits over a multi-week period and use evaluations by the field training officer as part of the training process. The Minneapolis Police Department conducts their field training period using the Recruit Officer Performance Evaluation (ROPE).6 The ROPE evaluates new recruits on tasks, ranging from writing report skills to divided attention skills. The evaluations are conducted on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. The Minneapolis police department training period typically lasts 67 days. 5.3 Proposed Performance Indicators and Data Availability Since Perkins IV only introduces one new post-secondary indicator of performance, technical skill attainment, we focus our discussion there. Exhibit 5-1 provides the general USDOE definition of skill attainment and an operational definition based on the case of PPOE program (or any program leading to occupations requiring an occupational license).

5 The Firearms checklist can be found at: http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cjst/RulesandForms/CJSTC-04CMSDTD050505.pdf 6 http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/about/fto/fto-program-structure.asp



EXHIBIT 5-1 PROPOSED OPERATIONAL DEFINITION FOR TECHNICAL SKILLS ASSESSMENT

WHEN LICENSING EXAM DATA IS AVAILABLE

General Definition Operational Definition

Numerator-->Number of concentrators that passed

technical skills assessments that are aligned with industry recognized standards, if

available and appropriate.Number of PPOE graduates that

passed the exam in a year

Denominator--->

Number of concentrators who took technical skill assessments

Number of PPOE graduates that took the exam in a year

Source: Department of Education/ MGT proposed operational definition Data Availability Our interviews with members of the licensing board indicate that they maintain data on the number of students taking and passing the exam. The exam is given six times a year (during every even month). Results are typically available one to two weeks after the exam date. As of December 2007, MnSCU had obtained institution level data in order to incorporate licensure exam pass rates into their system accountability report. Students that fail the exam can re-take an exam multiple times during a year, therefore some students may show up in the data more than once. The POST Board does not differentiate between exam re-takes and new exam takers. This will should be kept in mind when interpreting the denominator. Since not all technical programs lead to an industry recognized license, we propose three alternative measures of technical skill attainment. The first uses employment in a related industry as a proxy for technical skill attainment. The second proposed option relies on employer feedback through interviews or surveys. However, at this time, it is our understanding that USDOE has expressed reluctance to use related employment as a proxy for skill attainment. USDOE’s preference is for a formal industry assessment of skills. Therefore, as the third option we propose exploring using or developing a work readiness test that leads to a credential. The options are: Employment in a Related Field MnSCU already conducts a graduation follow-up survey that asks students to self-report whether they are working in a related, somewhat related, or unrelated field. This information can be used to compute the portion of respondents that report working in a related field. Given the concern over self, reported data an additional source for computing the employment in a related field is Minnesota wage records. If the Minnesota wage records matching system includes data on the NAICS (North American Industry Classification



System) or SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) code, then a taxonomy could be created that associates each program with an industry/industries or occupations. Using this one could compute the portion of concentrators that are employed in a related field. Given that this option assumes there is not a licensing exam, we propose the broader denominator of concentrators that are employed. The numerator would be all those employed in related-employment. The idea of related employment also correlates with the idea expressed by some employers that completing the field training period is a good measure of skill attainment. Employer Satisfaction Survey Surveying employers of recent graduates is another possibility for measuring a program’s alignment with industry-recognized standards. One model is to conduct interview or focus groups with employers about their level of satisfaction with recent graduate of MnSCU programs. Another model for employer surveys is provided by the 1998 Workforce Investment Act. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) uses the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) to measure employer satisfaction with the services provided by local employment offices. The ACSI is a widely used index that measures customer satisfaction for over 200 companies, including many federal government agencies. As does ACSI, the indicator value will range between 0 and 100 and represents an index of customer satisfaction obtained by respondents answers to questions. Depending on how data is collected, this may prove to be a more costly option. Phone surveys tend be more time intensive and costly than web-based surveys. Further, as with all surveys one should consider the effort required to obtain adequate response rates required to reduce non-response bias. Work Readiness Credential Five states collaborated to develop the national work readiness credential. It is a standardized test that measures: situational judgment, oral language skills, reading with understanding, and use of math to solve problems. The National Work Readiness Credential website reports that seven organizations in Minnesota currently administer the test.7 The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is helpings its members understand and use the test as a hiring too. The most notable shortcoming of this test is that it does not assess writing skills. Another option would be for MnSCU to develop its own test or to supplement a national test with its own work readiness test that was customized to fill the areas not covered by the national model. The advantage of this approach is that it provides a third-party assessment of whether graduates pass a minimum set of skills.

5.4 Recommended Technical Skills Attainment Indicator Based on our examination of the skills measurement process surrounding the PPOE program, we recommend a two prong approach to measuring skill assessment. First, for programs that lead to jobs in licensed occupations such as the PPOE program and nursing, we recommend relying on the portion of program graduates passing the

7 http://www.workreadiness.com/images/AssessmentSites2.pdf



licensing exam as the measure of technical skill attainment. Although no sharing agreements are in development, the POST board has expressed its willingness to share program level exam passing rates with MnSCU. The exam is given six times a year (during every even month). Second, for programs not leading to jobs in a licensed occupation, we recommend using multiple indicators that includes a DOE compatible definition.

Although the Department of Education does not consider related employment as a proxy for skills attainment, we think it is an appropriate measure for skill attainment since employment is a fundamental outcome of most educational pursuits. Additionally, MnSCU’s current graduation survey already collects information on relatedness of employment to their program of study.

The Career and Technical Education (CTE) community is currently

in the midst of debating and developing what the appropriate measure of skill attainment (under Perkins IV) could be. Therefore, we recommend MnSCU continue to monitor this discussion and select a measure that is compatible with USDOE requirements. To illustrate the on-going discussion of appropriate indicators, we have listed below several measures that have appeared in the Perkins Peer Collaborative Resource Network that is supported by the Department of Education8:

− Local Standards and Assessment Systems − National/State Standards and Assessment System − National/State Standards and Local Assessment System − Program Completion − Vocational/Technical Course − Vocational/Technical Grade Point Average

8 http://www.edcountability.net/core_indicators_p/appr_pub.cfm?subindicatorcode=1P2

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A:

METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING EMPLOYERS TO BE

INTERVIEWED

MGT of America, Inc. Page A-1

APPENDIX A METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING EMPLOYERS TO BE

INTERVIEWED MGT invited a cross-section of employers, members of professional associations, and POST Board members to participate in a thirty minute phone interview. To insure that employers were represented with regard to geography and size (number of licensed peace officers), MGT compiled the invitation list using the following criteria:

Criteria Number Invited

Four largest employers in state or largest in DEED Region 9 Randomly selected employer (employing 20+ officers) from 9 POST regions 9 POST Board member 4 Professional Association 4 Randomly selected smaller employer (employing 20 or fewer officers) from 9 POST regions 4 Two largest state-wide employers (i.e. agencies whose jurisdiction includes areas all over the state) 2 Largest Tribal or specialty agency 2 Contacts suggested by other interviewees or the POST Board 3

APPENDIX B:

INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED

MGT of America, Inc. Page B-1

APPENDIX B INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED

Academic Community

Dave Andersen-- Training Coordinator Minnesota State Community and Technical College & MSU Moorehead

Dave Greeman-- LE Instructor Fond du Lac Tribal & Community CollegeDr. Mary Koski-- Provost Vermilion Community College Duane Wolfe-- LE Instructor Alexandria Technical CollegeGerald P. Krause -- Training Coordinator Hamline UniversityGrant Haugen-- LE Instructor and SCSU Skills Advisor Alexandria Technical CollegeHarry Kerr-- LE Instructor (possibly Parttime) Rochester Community & Technical College Jim Kobolt-- Training Coordinator Winona State University Kevin Stuckey-- Training Coordinator Northland Community & Technical College Mark Holden-- Training Coordinator Minnesota West Community & Technical CollegeMatt Stiehm-- Training Coordinator Leech Lake Tribal College Mike Kutzke-- Training Coordinator Ridgewater College Mike Smith-- Associate Dean Academic & Student Affairs Minneapolis Community & Technical College CCJLEMylan Masson-- Training Coordinator Minneapolis Community & Technical College CCJLEPeter Parilla-- Training Coordinator University of St. Thomas Scott Berger -- Training Coordinator Alexandria Technical CollegeScott Lyons-- Training Coordinator Fond du Lac Tribal & Community CollegeSister Therese Gutting-- Dean, Instruction Fond du Lac Tribal & Community CollegeSteve Kovacic -- LE Instructor Hibbing Community College Steve Lorenz-- Training Coordinator Hibbing and Vermillion Community College Tamara Wilkins-- Training Coordinator Minnesota State University, Mankato Terry Fairbanks-- Training Coordinator Central Lakes CollegeVirginia Lane & Everett Doolittle-- Executive Director, School of LE and Criminal Justice & Training Coordinator Metropolitan State University

Wesley Plath-- Faculty Vermilion Community College

Appendix B

MGT of America, Inc. Page B-2

Employers and Professional Associations Bill Gillespie-- Executive Director Minnesota Police and Peace Officers AssociationChet Cooper-- Inspector Hennepin County Sheriffs Office Chris Anthony Raboin-- Chief International Falls Police Department Colonel Hamm-- Colonel Dept. Natural Resources, Enforcement DivisionCommander Bill Martinez -- St. Paul Police Dept and President local chapter and National Latino Peace Officers Association

Gary Leo Miller-- Sheriff Wright Co. Sheriffs Office Gerald W. Johnson-- Chief Bemidji Police Dept.Gordon Scott Ramsay-- Chief Duluth Police DepartmentJerome John Huettl-- Mr. Mankato Dept. Of Public SafetyJim Franklin-- Executive Director Minnesota Sheriffs AssociationJohn Bolduc-- Chief Brainerd Police DepartmentKelly Ann Lake-- Sheriff Carlton Co. Sheriffs OfficeKelvin Blane Keena-- Chief Detroit Lakes Police Dept.Mark A Dunaski-- Chief Minnesota State Patrol Mark Lee Rosenow-- Mr. Metropolitan Airports Commission Matthew Clark-- Lieutenant Minneapolis Police DepartmentMichael P. Anderson-- Chief Hermantown Police Dept.Mona Dohman-- Chief Maple Grove Police DepartmentPeter Bravo-- Inspector St. Paul Police DepartmentPhil Juve-- Sergeant Polk County Sheriff’s DepartmentScott David Rehmann-- Sheriff Mcleod Co. Sheriffs OfficeThomas Lloyd Larson-- Sheriff Polk Co. Sheriffs OfficeTim Oie-- President Board of Directors Association of Training Officers of MinnesotaVictor Charles Weiss-- Chief Waite Park Police Dept.William W. Bergquist-- Sheriff Clay Co. Sheriffs Office

APPENDIX C:

PROJECTED NUMBER OF GRADUATES

MGT of America, Inc. Page C-1

APPENDIX C PROJECTED NUMBER OF GRADUATES

EXHIBIT C-1 HISTORIC TRENDS IN NEWLY LICENSED OFFICERS

AND PPOE GRADUATES

Year


PPOE Graduates

Ratio of Newly Licensed

Officers to Graduates

2002 445 682 65%2003 392 725 54%2004 501 740 68%2005 662 828 80%2006 580 815 71%

Average 68%

APPENDIX D:

COMPARISON OF DATA REPORTED TO POST BOARD

AND IPEDS

MGT of America, Inc. Page D-1

APPENDIX D COMPARISON OF DATA REPORTED TO POST BOARD AND IPEDS

(POST=Peace Officer Standards and Training)

(IPEDS=Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) (The IPEDS system reports degrees awarded not individuals.)

2005-2006

Institution Component# Reported to POST Board

# Certificates (less than 1 year or less

than 2 year) reported to IPEDS

# Associate degrees

reported to IPEDS

# Bachelor's degrees

reported to IPEDS

completed entire program at Alex 115 146 111 -completed only skills at Alex 138 na na nacompleted entire program at Fond du Lac 72 61 61 -completed only skills at Fond du Lac 0 na na nacompleted entire program at Hibbing 40 - 19 -completed only skills at Hibbing (Mobile) 138 na na nacompleted entire program at CCJLE 233 212 23 -completed only skills at CCJLE 5 na na nacompleted entire program at Northland 24 - - -completed only skills at Northland 0 na na nacompleted entire program at Rochester 50 - 35 -completed only skills at Rochester 0 na na na

Subtotal 815 419 249 0Central Lakes College-Brainerd - - 5

Century Community and Technical College - - 35Inver Hills Community College - - 49

Metropolitan State University - - 29 41Minnesota State University-Mankato - - 104

Minnesota West Community and Technical College - - 21

Normandale Community College - - 3 35North Hennepin Community College - - 37

Ridgewater College - - 10Riverland Community College - - 20

Saint Mary's University of Minnesota - - 20Vermilion Community College - - 39

Total 815 451 541 124

Northland


Criminal Justice/Police Science (43.0107 CIP)2005-2006


Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College

Hibbing Community College-A Technical and Community College

Minneapolis Community and Technical College (CCJLE)

APPENDIX E:

EXAMPLE OF STATE GUIDELINES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

TRAINING SPACE

MGT of America, Inc. Page E-1

APPENDIX E Example of State Guidelines for Law Enforcement Training

Space

The examples provided are from Florida. The samples forms found on the following pages are also available at the following websites:

CJSTC-201 Firing Range Facility and Equipment Requirements

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cjst/RulesandForms/CJSTC-201DTD050604.pdf CJSTC-202 Driving Range Facility and Equipment Requirements

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cjst/RulesandForms/CJSTC-202DTD050505.pdf CJSTC-203 Defensive Tactics Facility and Equipment Requirements

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cjst/RulesandForms/CJSTC-203DTD050604.pdf

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

FIRING RANGE FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT

REQUIREMENTS

Incorporated by Reference in Rule 11B-21.005(6), F.A.C.

CJSTC 201

TRAINING SCHOOL REVIEWER DATE Location: Rule 11B-21.005, F.A.C., requires that a training school conducting firearms training under the direct supervision of the training center director or designee shall comply with the following specifications: 1. The range shall have a bullet impact backstop that will stop and render harmless, bullets fired into it from

handguns-revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, rifles, carbines, and shotguns from the firing positions at the firing line, without ricocheting projectiles or debris, or striking individuals at the firing line.

2. The range shall have a minimum of five firing positions with two color-coded or numbered targets for each firing position. Range targets shall be placed at least 24 inches from the scoring edge to scoring edge facing the shooters.

3. The range shall have an observation position for the range master for indoor and outdoor range facilities that allow simultaneous unrestricted view of all firing positions and all areas within the confines of the impact area.

4. The range shall have warning signs posted at all access points to the firing range that clearly identify the areas as a criminal justice firing range.

5. The range shall have an operational public address system that is capable of transmitting instructions to all areas of the range to allow shooters on the firing line or in the firing booth to hear commands while firing with ear protectors in place.

6. The range cover used for firing shall be permanently affixed, or is a portable construction with a base affixed to the ground, or is securely braced to ensure the shooter’s safety.

7. The range shall provide adequate lighting to allow shooters to clearly see the targets from all firing positions and to allow the range caller to clearly see all firing positions and targets.

8. Firearm ranges used for practical exercises shall be equipped with a first aid kit. The first aid kit shall be located at the facility when basic recruit students are actively engaged in practical exercises or CJSTC training is in session and shall be immediately accessible to instructors and basic recruit students. The first aid kit shall include at a minimum the following supplies:

aa.. PPrrootteeccttiivvee gglloovveess ooff vvaarryyiinngg ssiizzeess bb.. VVeennttiillaattiioonn mmaasskk wwiitthh oonnee--wwaayy vvaallvvee cc.. GGaauuzzee bbaannddaaggee;; oonnee rroollll 44””xx66 yyaarrddss dd.. AAddhheessiivvee bbaannddaaggeess;; oonnee bbooxx ooff 11”” oorr 22”” ee.. CCoolldd ppaacckk,, oorr ppllaassttiicc bbaaggss wwiitthh iiccee ttoo mmaakkee aa ccoolldd ppaacckk ff.. TTwwoo 44”” bbaannddaaggee ccoommpprreesssseess

gg.. TTwwoo 22”” bbaannddaaggee ccoommpprreesssseess hh.. TTwwoo ttrriiaanngguullaarr bbaannddaaggeess ii.. OOnnee eeyyee--ddrreessssiinngg kkiitt jj.. OOnnee oocccclluussiivvee ddrreessssiinngg kk.. OOnnee bbooxx ooff aammmmoonniiaa iinnhhaallaannttss ll.. OOnnee rroollll ooff 11”” aaddhheessiivvee ttaappee mm.. OOnnee bbiioohhaazzaarrdd ddiissppoossaall bbaagg

Effective 10/01/1993 Original – FDLE 1st Copy – Training School 2nd Copy – Field Representative Revised 5/6/2004

9. The range and associated equipment shall be maintained in proper working order to ensure safety of the shooters and instructors. Indoor ranges shall comply with the manufacturer’s specifications for operational safety.

10. The range shall have accessible drinking water, a restroom, and a rain-resistant shelter for all personnel engaged in training on the range.

11. The range shall have telephone or radio communication immediately available to instructors.

12. Access to the range shall be restricted to criminal justice trainees, criminal justice instructors, Commission staff, and personnel authorized by the training center director when firearms training is being conducted. The range must have warning signs posted.

13. 14.

All personnel shall wear ear and eye protectors while a student is actively engaged in shooting exercise. Instructor to Student Ratio: For instruction of the CMS Criminal Justice Firearms Course, CMS Firearms Instructor Course, or CMS Firearms Instructor Transition Course, there shall be no more than six students actively engaged on a firearms range for each Commission-certified firearms instructor. Actively engaged is defined as “a student on the firing range handling a weapon,” pursuant to Rule 11B-35.0021(4), F.A.C.

In Compliance Non-Compliance Corrected on Site by the Field Specialist Rule Violation: , F.A.C. Comments: Field Specialist’s Signature: Date: Training Center Director or Coordinator or Instructor Signature: Date:

FORM CJSTC-201


DRIVING RANGE FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS


Effective 10/1/1993 Original-FDLE 1st Copy – Training School 2nd Copy – Field Representative Revised 5/5/2005

CJSTC 202

TRAINING SCHOOL REVIEWER DATE and TIME Rule 11B-21.005, F.A.C., requires that if a Commission-certified training school conducts vehicle operations training in a Commission-approved Basic Recruit Training Program, the driving range used is required to comply with the following requirements: Location: 1. The driving range shall have a paved area at least a 300’ x 600’ in size and a paved skid pad area at least

24’x200’ in size, that is located off public roadways, or the training school shall have a Commission-approved exemption on file pursuant to Rule 11B-21.005, F.A.C.

2. The driving range shall be equipped with at least 90 orange or yellow traffic cones no less than 12” in height; and at least eight orange or yellow traffic cones that are no less than 24” in height.

3. The driving range shall be equipped with two fire extinguishers with a rating of 10 BC or equivalent.

4. Driving ranges used for practical exercises shall be equipped with a first aid kit. The first aid kit shall be located at the facility when basic recruit students are actively engaged in practical exercises, and shall be immediately accessible to instructors and basic recruit students. The first aid kit shall include at a minimum the following supplies:

a. Protective gloves of varying sizes b. Ventilation mask with one-way valve c. Gauze bandage; one roll 4”x6 yards d. Adhesive bandages; one box of 1” or 2” e. Cold pack, or plastic bags with ice to make a cold pack f. Two 4” bandage compresses

g. Two 2” bandage compresses h. Two triangular bandages i. One eye-dressing kit j. One occlusive dressing k. One box of ammonia inhalants l. One roll of 1” adhesive tape m. One biohazard disposal bag

5. The driving range shall have accessible and immediately available telephone or radio communication.

6. The driving range shall have accessible drinking water, restroom, and rain-resistant shelter for personnel

engaged in driving training.

7. The driving range shall be secured by barriers from through traffic while training is being conducted on the range. Warning signs shall be posted at all vehicle access points that clearly identify the area as a “vehicle operations training driving range” with access restricted to basic recruit trainees, criminal justice instructors, and personnel authorized by the training center director.

8. For delivery of night driving exercises driving range equipment shall include: a. Reflective vests to be worn by all personnel and students; and b. At least one traffic wand for each instructor and other individuals designated to assist in the facilitation of

night driving, for example: road guards and traffic control personnel who setup driving cones.

FORM CJSTC-202

9. 10.

Each Commission-certified training school shall have available at least one automobile for vehicle operations training. Emergency lights and sirens that are external or internal are required for automobiles engaged in emergency training exercises in a CMS Law Enforcement Vehicle Operations Course, CMS Vehicle Operations Instructor Course, and CMS Vehicle Operations Instructor Transition Course. Instructor to vehicle ratio: For instruction of the CMS Law Enforcement Vehicle Operations Course, CMS Vehicle Operations Instructor Course, or CMS Vehicle Operations Instructor Transition Course, there shall be at least one Commission-certified driving instructor for each vehicle actively engaged on a driving range. Actively engaged is defined as “a vehicle that is at the point between the start and end of an exercise.” Returning from or being in route to a driving range or course shall not be considered as actively engaged, pursuant to Rule 11B-35.0021, F.A.C.

In Compliance Not In Compliance Corrected on site by the Field Specialist Rule Violation: , F.A.C. Comments: Field Specialist’s Signature: Date: Training Center Director or Coordinator or Instructor Signature: Date:


DEFENSIVE TACTICS FACILITY AND EQUIPMENT

REQUIREMENTS


CJSTC 203

TRAINING SCHOOL REVIEWER DATE and TIME Commission-certified training schools that conduct training in Basic Recruit Training Programs for the law enforcement, correctional, and correctional probation disciplines, shall comply with the following specifications, pursuant to Rule 11B-21.005, F.A.C.: Location: 1. Areas where defensive tactics is used for practical exercises shall be equipped with a first aid kit. The first aid kit shall be

located at the facility when basic recruit students are actively engaged in practical exercises, and shall be immediately accessible to instructors and basic recruit students. The first aid kit shall include at a minimum the following supplies:

aa.. PPrrootteeccttiivvee gglloovveess ooff vvaarryyiinngg ssiizzeess bb.. VVeennttiillaattiioonn mmaasskk wwiitthh oonnee--wwaayy vvaallvvee cc.. GGaauuzzee bbaannddaaggee;; oonnee rroollll 44””xx66 yyaarrddss dd.. AAddhheessiivvee bbaannddaaggeess;; oonnee bbooxx ooff 11”” oorr 22”” ee.. CCoolldd ppaacckk,, oorr ppllaassttiicc bbaaggss wwiitthh iiccee ttoo mmaakkee aa ccoolldd ppaacckk ff.. TTwwoo 44”” bbaannddaaggee ccoommpprreesssseess

gg.. TTwwoo 22”” bbaannddaaggee ccoommpprreesssseess hh.. TTwwoo ttrriiaanngguullaarr bbaannddaaggeess ii.. OOnnee eeyyee--ddrreessssiinngg kkiitt jj.. OOnnee oocccclluussiivvee ddrreessssiinngg kk.. OOnnee bbooxx ooff aammmmoonniiaa iinnhhaallaannttss ll.. OOnnee rroollll ooff 11”” aaddhheessiivvee ttaappee mm.. OOnnee bbiioohhaazzaarrdd ddiissppoossaall bbaagg

2. One Commission-certified Defensive Tactics Instructor with a current CPR and first aid, or first aid training while actively

engaged in practical performance.

3. For every two students actively and physically engaged in defensive tactics instruction the training school shall provide the following items:

aa.. AA ccuusshhiioonneedd fflloooorr mmaattttiinngg tthhaatt iiss aatt lleeaasstt 8800 ssqquuaarree ffeeeett iinn ssiizzee bb.. OOnnee sseett ooff hhaannddccuuffffss wwiitthh aa hhaannddccuuffff kkeeyy cc.. OOnnee ssttrriikkiinngg bbaagg dd.. WWaaiisstt cchhaaiinnss aanndd lleegg iirroonnss ((rreeqquuiirreedd ffoorr ccoorrrreeccttiioonnaall ooffffiicceerrss oonnllyy

ee.. AA lleegg rree--ssttrraaiinntt ff.. AA ttrraaiinniinngg ffiirreeaarrmm gg.. EEddggeedd wweeaappoonnss hh.. TTrraaiinniinngg bbaattoonn oorr ootthheerr ssuucchh iimmppaacctt wweeaappoonn

4. One duty belt to include a baton ring, handcuff case, and holster for each student.

5. Accessible and immediately available telephone or radio.

6. Accessible drinking water, a restroom, and a rain-resistant shelter for all personnel engaged in training.

7. 8.

Methods of decontamination for students contaminated with a chemical agent (ventilation and water readily available). Instructor to student ratio: For instruction of the CMS Criminal Justice Defensive Tactics Course, CMS Defensive Tactics Instructor Course, or CMS Defensive Tactics Instructor Transition Course, there shall be no more than ten students actively engaged in defensive tactics for each Commission-certified defensive tactics instructor. Actively engaged is defined as “a student engaged in the practical performance of any one of the approved defensive tactics techniques.”

In Compliance Not In Compliance Corrected on site by the Field Specialist Rule Violation: , F.A.C. Comments: Field Specialist’s Signature: Date: Training Center Director or Coordinator or Instructor Signature: Date:

Effective 10/1/1993 Original-FDLE 1st Copy – Training School 2nd Copy – Field Representative Revised 5/6/2004

APPENDIX F:

OPERATING COSTS, ESTIMATED BUILD COSTS, AND LEASE

COSTS

MGT of America, Inc. Page F-1

APPENDIX F OPERATING COSTS, ESTIMATED BUILD COSTS,

AND LEASE COSTS

EXHIBIT F-1 OPERATING COSTS FOR PROGRAMS

Institution Total Cost

Operating Costs (2006-2007) Less

Lease Lease CostAlexandria $40,347 $40,347 na

Fond du Lac $10,000 na $10,000Hibbing $30,000 $30,000 na

NorthlandRochester $55,594 $55,594Vermillion $55,030 $6,480 $48,550

CCJLE $900,000 na $900,000 Source: MnSCU/MGT Facilities Survey and 2008 State Budget Request Project Narratives.

EXHIBIT F-2 OPERATING COSTS FOR MOBILE PROGRAM LOCATIONS

3 year average costs Brainerd Worthington Mankato Rent $524 $396 $1,374 Repair $380 $682 $968 Travel $8,843 $8,566 $9,459 Supplies $9,205 $7,856 $11,548 $18,952 $17,500 $23,349

Completers 2006 48 20 65 Rent - Outdoor firing ranges at each site. Supplies - Mainly ammunition. Hibbing has an indoor firing range. Hibbing Course is 7 weeks during the summer. Off-campus during academic year. Firing range at Hibbing is used by Law Enforcement agencies during academic year. All students travel to Hibbing for defensive driving. Driving done at Hibbing/Chisholm airport at no charge to College.

Source: MnSCU Facilities Survey

Appendix F


EXHIBIT F-3 YEARLY PRESENT VALUE CALCULATIONS FOR ENTIRE COST

(Cost does not include any faculty and staff costs that may accompany space expansions.)

Factor AssumptionsFinancing mode BondFinancing term 20Bond Amount^ $13,400,000Inflation Rate 4.50%Interest Rate 5.00%Period of analysis 20Inputs Build Model Lease ModelAnnual Debt Service $0 naOperational Costs^ $367,000 naAnnual Lease Cost^ na $900,000

Year Operational CostPrincipal +

Interest1 $367,000 $1,658,250 $2,007,774 $900,000 $857,1432 $383,515 $1,289,750 $1,637,609 $940,500 $853,0613 $400,773 $1,256,250 $1,602,453 $982,823 $848,9994 $418,808 $1,222,750 $1,567,304 $1,027,050 $844,9565 $437,654 $1,189,250 $1,532,164 $1,073,267 $840,9336 $457,349 $1,155,750 $1,497,031 $1,121,564 $836,9287 $477,929 $1,122,250 $1,461,906 $1,172,034 $832,9438 $499,436 $1,088,750 $1,426,788 $1,224,776 $828,9769 $521,911 $1,055,250 $1,391,678 $1,279,891 $825,029

10 $545,397 $1,021,750 $1,356,576 $1,337,486 $821,10011 $569,940 $988,250 $1,321,482 $1,397,672 $817,19012 $595,587 $954,750 $1,286,395 $1,460,568 $813,29913 $622,388 $921,250 $1,251,316 $1,526,293 $809,42614 $650,396 $887,750 $1,216,244 $1,594,976 $805,57215 $679,664 $854,250 $1,181,180 $1,666,750 $801,73516 $710,249 $820,750 $1,146,123 $1,741,754 $797,91817 $742,210 $787,250 $1,111,074 $1,820,133 $794,11818 $775,609 $753,750 $1,076,032 $1,902,039 $790,33719 $810,512 $720,250 $1,040,997 $1,987,631 $786,57320 $846,985 $686,750 $1,005,970 $2,077,074 $782,827

Total $11,513,312 $20,435,000 $27,118,096 $28,234,280 $16,389,063

Lease CostNominal Cost

Annual Build Cost

Present ValueNominal Cost

Present Value (Opcost) + Principal &

Interest

^ obtained from State of Minnesota 2008 Budget Requests, project narratives

Appendix F


EXHIBIT F-4 YEARLY PRESENT VALUE CALCULATIONS FOR 1/3 OF TOTAL COST

(SYSTEM’S SHARE) (Cost does not include any faculty and staff costs

that may accompany space expansions.)



Interest1 $367,000 $552,750 $902,274 $900,000 $857,1432 $383,515 $429,917 $777,776 $940,500 $853,0613 $400,773 $418,750 $764,953 $982,823 $848,9994 $418,808 $407,583 $752,138 $1,027,050 $844,9565 $437,654 $396,417 $739,330 $1,073,267 $840,9336 $457,349 $385,250 $726,531 $1,121,564 $836,9287 $477,929 $374,083 $713,739 $1,172,034 $832,9438 $499,436 $362,917 $700,955 $1,224,776 $828,9769 $521,911 $351,750 $688,178 $1,279,891 $825,029

10 $545,397 $340,583 $675,410 $1,337,486 $821,10011 $569,940 $329,417 $662,649 $1,397,672 $817,19012 $595,587 $318,250 $649,895 $1,460,568 $813,29913 $622,388 $307,083 $637,149 $1,526,293 $809,42614 $650,396 $295,917 $624,411 $1,594,976 $805,57215 $679,664 $284,750 $611,680 $1,666,750 $801,73516 $710,249 $273,583 $598,956 $1,741,754 $797,91817 $742,210 $262,417 $586,240 $1,820,133 $794,11818 $775,609 $251,250 $573,532 $1,902,039 $790,33719 $810,512 $240,083 $560,830 $1,987,631 $786,57320 $846,985 $228,917 $548,136 $2,077,074 $782,827

Total $11,513,312 $6,811,667 $13,494,762 $28,234,280 $16,389,063


Annual Build Cost



Interest


Appendix F


EXHIBIT F-5 YEARLY PRESENT VALUE CALCULATIONS FOR 1/6 OF TOTAL COST

(INSTITUTION’S SHARE) (Cost does not include any faculty and staff costs

that may accompany space expansions.)



Interest1 $367,000 $276,375 $625,899 $900,000 $857,1432 $383,515 $214,958 $562,818 $940,500 $853,0613 $400,773 $209,375 $555,578 $982,823 $848,9994 $418,808 $203,792 $548,346 $1,027,050 $844,9565 $437,654 $198,208 $541,122 $1,073,267 $840,9336 $457,349 $192,625 $533,906 $1,121,564 $836,9287 $477,929 $187,042 $526,697 $1,172,034 $832,9438 $499,436 $181,458 $519,496 $1,224,776 $828,9769 $521,911 $175,875 $512,303 $1,279,891 $825,029

10 $545,397 $170,292 $505,118 $1,337,486 $821,10011 $569,940 $164,708 $497,940 $1,397,672 $817,19012 $595,587 $159,125 $490,770 $1,460,568 $813,29913 $622,388 $153,542 $483,608 $1,526,293 $809,42614 $650,396 $147,958 $476,452 $1,594,976 $805,57215 $679,664 $142,375 $469,305 $1,666,750 $801,73516 $710,249 $136,792 $462,165 $1,741,754 $797,91817 $742,210 $131,208 $455,032 $1,820,133 $794,11818 $775,609 $125,625 $447,907 $1,902,039 $790,33719 $810,512 $120,042 $440,789 $1,987,631 $786,57320 $846,985 $114,458 $433,678 $2,077,074 $782,827

Total $11,513,312 $3,405,833 $10,088,929 $28,234,280 $16,389,063


Annual Build Cost



Interest


Appendix F


EXHIBIT F-6 30 Year Period of Analysis

Nominal Dollars

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Mill

ions

Year

Cumulative Nominal Build Cost (Principal + Interset + Operating Cost)Cumulative Nominal Lease Cost

30 Year Period of Analysis

Present Value Dollars

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Mill

ions

Year

Cumulative Present Value Build Cost (Principal + Interset + Operating Cost)Cumulative Present Value Lease Cost

Documents

NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY OF PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICER ... · PROFESSIONAL PEACE OFFICER EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN MINNESOTA Final Report ... 2.2 Projected Number of Future Graduates