Do You Know What To Expect At The Academy?

You decided that you wanted to work for corrections, applied, took the test, passed the test, had your oral board and just got your letter with the conditional offer of employment. Congrats! Now, do you know what to expect once you start the academy?

Most letters with the conditional offer of employment will give you somewhat of an idea on what to bring with you for your time at the academy. Depending on the agency, you may be required to stay at the academy or you may elect to commute (it varies from agency to agency). If your agency requires you to complete a Physical Agility Test prior to the start of the academy or it may have been part of the hiring process (In the case of Texas, we do it the day prior to the start of the academy).

For the Physical Agility Test make sure that you prepare yourself physically for it and do the best that you can while completing it. I can tell you that if you just do the bare minimum, it will be noticed. The people conducting the test can tell the difference between someone that just barely gets the minimum score (or just over) and were trying their best and those that could do more but just decided to quit. Please keep in mind that the impression that this may leave is that your work ethic may be just like your score….bare minimum and you don’t care to apply yourself.

Once the academy starts, you will be in for a culture shock. The way that you communicate in the outside world will not be the same way that you communicate inside the correctional system. The purpose of the instructors that you will have is to prepare you with the base knowledge that you will need to perform the job functions of a correctional officer. They are not there to be your friend. Do not take it personally if you think that they are being “short” with you. You need to be able to listen to directions accurately and follow them. Once you are on the facility that one time may be all you’ll get based on the situation. There is no room for error inside. Your instructor is getting you ready for it. You are one of many so please do not think that you are special and require special attention. To give you an idea, here in Texas the class sizes range from 20-100 depending on the region. My current class size is 44.

There will be many things academically that you will be required to learn and will be tested on. If you are the type of person that does not test very well during written exams you know that you will have to work a little harder in order to pass the exams. In addition to the written exams you will also have hands on classes that you must complete and pass. If you happen to be the type of person that is not very coordinated you may have to work twice as hard at getting the technique down. The best advice that I can give you is this: practice, practice, practice. Do not worry about speed at first. Work on the technique. Once you get the technique down, speed will follow. Use a mirror when practicing at home so you can see yourself doing the technique correctly and make any adjustments there.

If you happen to be coming from another agency/state to work in corrections, please know this: DO NOT say “this is how we did it where I came from.” You are no longer there. You are here. You will do it our way. If you happen to disagree with it, you have two choices: Get over it or go back to where you came from. I learned this lesson the hard way.

If and when you are exposed to chemical agents please keep in mind that it is going to suck. You never get used to it. You may have learned how to work through it but it still sucks. Let me rephrase that… IT SUCKS!!!

If your agency has a requirement that you qualify with firearms throughout the academy, you will be trained in the proper handling and operation of the weapons that you will be using. If you have never used a firearm before do not worry. The instructors deal with trainees that have never handled a weapon before on a regular basis. The best advice that I can give you here is this: Do as you are told when you are told and DO NOT shoot the instructor on the firing line (good thing we stand behind you). Please do not think that you know more than your instructor. The worse type of student that a firearms instructor can have is the one that says “well I’ve been shooting since I was a kid” or “My dad/grandpa showed me this way.” I can guarantee that you will have some really bad habits that need to be broken.

Finally, know that there will be rules that you will have to follow while at the academy. Some of these rules you may not agree with.  Deal with it. If you happen to be the type of person that likes to talk back and roll your eyes when you disagree with something and have an attitude, don’t even bother showing up for the academy. Agencies will not tolerate it while you are working and you’ll never make it through the academy.

All things considered, you will have a great time while at the academy. You will learn many things and you will make great new friends. Keep your head held high, shoulders back, stand up straight and welcome to the family.

This article was originally published in Corrections.com

Effective Simulation Training

This is a great article from Gary T. Klugiewiczand was printed in correctionsone.com.

10 key steps for safe, effective simulation training

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that the instructors reading this article already know the importance of simulation training (any instructor who doesn’t know simulation training should be the centerpiece of all training programs has more problems than can be solved here). Below, we will talk about developing a nuts-and-bolts template for scenario-based simulation training programs, not the importance of simulation.
Now that we’ve agreed on that foundation, let’s begin.  There are 10 key steps for creating realistic, scenario-based, decision-making simulations. They are:

1. Needs Assessment
2. Levels of Simulation
3. Creating the Simulation Format
4. Designing the Simulation
5. Training & Controlling Demonstrators
6. Providing the Training
7. Equipment & Safety Procedures
8. Creating Multidimensional Scenarios
9. Creating Multiple-Use Scenarios
10. Debrief

Step 1: Needs AssessmentInstructors must begin the development of a simulation-training program with a needs assessment. On what do their officers need to spend their simulation training time? Although shootouts with heavily armed bank robbers need to be addressed, officers must train for all use-of-force levels. In fact, in a recent series of statewide instructor updates conducted in Wisconsin, Bob Willis, a nationally recognized trainer, found the most glaring need of the 1,800 instructors was communication skills. Train for the needs of your officers — not just the high-risk fun stuff.
Step 2: Levels of SimulationAll too often instructors go too fast, too soon in their simulation training. You can’t teach officers new skills and then, with little or no practice, expect them to do well in high-level, high-stress, decision-making scenarios. After introducing the new skills, instructors should use seven levels of simulation to prepare their officers for high-level, decision-making simulations. These levels include:

1. Shadow training
2. Prop training
3. Partner training
4. Dynamic movement training
5. Relative positioning training
6. Environmental-factors training
7. High-level simulations

Step 3: Creating the Simulation Format Next, an instructor must work from a written simulation worksheet to provide the necessary documentation of what officers were trained to do. Besides the individual officer-evaluation form, these simulation worksheets should consist of a title page listing scenario type, objectives, overview and equipment; a page for student instructions; a page for role player instructions; and a page with a diagram of the scenario. These worksheets are essential for documenting training and can help you defend against failure-to-train allegations.
Step 4: Designing the Simulation After the needs assessment, the instructor will begin designing the simulation, which consists of:

1. Developing the simulation
2. Choreographing the simulation
3. Rehearsing the simulation
4. Implementing the simulation
5. Debriefing the simulation
6. Evaluating the simulation

Carefully design, choreograph and rehearse your simulations, or they can lead to training injuries, the adoption of poor tactics and liability exposure.
Step 5: Training & Controlling DemonstratorsThe most important component of successful, meaningful simulation training remains the development of well-trained, fully controlled demonstrators. Instructors must assign these demonstrators roles that are specific, limited and carefully supervised to prevent a deviation-from-role that can lead to poor training and injuries. Tell demonstrators specifically and in writing what they can do and, equally important, what they can’t do.
Remember: If you use officers for role players (and most of us do), they love to win. With adrenalin dumping, it’s hard for an untrained, unsupervised role player to remember that the ultimate goal of the demonstrator is eventually to lose (i.e., be controlled by the officer in the simulation). Yes, demonstrators need to be challenging and realistic, but if the trainee performs effective tactics, the demonstrator should give realistic responses and allow the technique to succeed.
Step 6: Providing the TrainingOnce the simulation is designed and practiced with demonstrators who understand their roles, the instructor can begin the simulation training. Follow this checklist:

1. Conduct an initial wellness check
2. Explain the training safety rules
3. Conduct a physical warm-up
4. Explain the simulation drill’s format
5. Conduct the simulation drill
6. Conduct a debriefing session
7. Conduct a current wellness check

Finally, instructors should make their training a positive learning experience. Properly explain what you expect of the student, conduct a fair, winnable scenario and properly debrief the student.
Step 7: Equipment & Safety ProceduresAlthough simulation training helps prepare our officers to survive and win encounters on the street, it must be conducted safely — there are no acceptable casualties in corrections, especially in corrections training. Wellness checks, training safety rules and safety procedures make this happen.
Simulation safety begins with the development of appropriate safety procedures, the development and use of safety officers, and the enforcement of stringent safety procedures. Many equipment manufacturers have developed safety procedures to use in conjunction with their equipment. Instructors should always follow these guidelines to prevent unnecessary liability.
Instructors must keep their officers safe from live-fire training accidents.
Step 8: Creating Multidimensional Scenarios One of the most critical issues facing instructors of corrections tactics training is the difficulty in finding the time to focus on multi-dimensional scenarios that allow their officers to train for the full range of corrections responses. Most simulations now focus on using one of the use-of-force options (i.e., verbal, empty hand control, intermediate weapons or firearms). This creates two challenges: 1) Training officers to respond effectively to the approach, intervention and follow-through phases of any encounter, and 2) preventing officers from getting caught in a single force option loop, unable to move up or down the available force options.
To address the first issue, instruct officers to finish their simulation training with at least one full-length scenario that takes them from initial contact to debriefing the subject at the end of the incident. Address the second issue by teaching the officers transition drills that take them from verbal to empty hand tactics, empty hand to aerosol spray, baton to firearm, etc.
These multi-dimensional scenarios will assist officers in preventing the gridlock that often occurs when facing stressful situations because no bridges have been built between the multiple techniques and tactics officers are trained to use.
Step 9: Creating Multiple-Use Scenarios Another challenge facing trainers: Over time, their scenarios are soon burned by their officers letting other officers know the scenario prior to taking the class. To combat this, create scenarios with multiple outcomes. Of course, over time even a scenario with a couple of different outcomes can be compromised.
To limit the number of scenarios needed to keep your officers honest, develop a subject-resistance matrix that gives all role players five separate roles, including:

1. Compliant
2. Shell-shocked
3. Physically resisting
4. Presenting a deadly threat
5. Fleeing

Once you define each one of the roles, you can easily change scenarios by switching the role player’s role. This effectively gives you five versions of each scenario when using one role player.
It gets even more fun when you add a second role player, which allows 25 separate scenario versions. This adds an exciting, time-saving dimension to your scenario training because now, instead of creating a whole series of scenarios on a certain topic (e.g., domestic disturbances), you can create one scenario with 25 separate responses. So what if the officers know we are working on domestic disturbances? They don’t know what version they will have to respond to.
Even more important, they will start to place the subjects that they deal with in these five separate categories and learn preplanned tactics for dealing with them more effectively. As an added bonus, officers start transferring these multiple lessons-learned in training scenarios to the real world. They begin to think about multiple endings for those routine dispatches and start to ask, “What’s different this time?”
Step 10:  The DebriefThe last step consists of debriefing the officer’s responses in these decision- making, scenario-based simulations. Debriefing is a critical tool in changing and improving an officer’s future performance, but it’s often not done or done badly.
Debrief in a positive manner. The old way of reading the officer the riot act, telling them everything they did wrong and putting them back into line is both destructive and counterproductive. Instead, conduct debriefing in a team-building atmosphere that includes the following components:

• Are you OK?
• How do you think you did?
• Positive comment, if possible
• What would you do differently?
• Role player, and/or peer jury comments
• Instructor summation

In addition to this team debriefing or as a part of it, review a videotape of the incident. Because articulation (having the officer explain why they did the right thing) is an important part of the training process, include it at this point. Many training facilities add report writing and even courtroom testimony to this section.
Take officers out of the scenario and, prior to debriefing, instruct them to make an immediate verbal report to their supervisor — kind of like the real world. Finally, if the officer did not complete the scenario in a satisfactory manner, provide remedial training to bring them up to a satisfactory performance level. Document this remedial training.
Go beyond merely asking your officers what they did; ask why they did it.  Make sure you listen to your officers’ perceptions and reasons for responding as they did prior to telling them what you think they should have done.
Several years ago, we designed a scenario that tested officers’ ability to use their firearm to stop a threat. Two officers responded to a domestic disturbance involving two brothers fighting. Upon the officers’ arrival, one brother was straddling the other on the floor while hitting him on the head multiple times with a steel pipe. The assaultive brother refused to stop. We interpreted this scenario as a clear shoot situation, but we were shocked that less than 20 percent of the officers fired their firearms. They used a whole range of other force options.
When we asked them why they didn’t shoot the assaultive brother, we received numerous answers, including:

• The subject wasn’t attacking them
•  This was a domestic
• They weren’t sure what was going on
• They could have unintentionally shot the apparent victim
• The subject was turned away from them
• The baton was in the their hand
• Liability concerns

Some of their perceptions and tactical responses were very enlightening. Several ways they stopped the threat were especially interesting, including striking the assaultive brother on the back of the neck with a baton, which we thought was an innovative way to end the assault without potentially shooting the brother on the ground. This led us to ask officers in future classes what they saw and why they responded the way they did before giving our “right” answer to the scenario.
ConclusionDocument your scenarios and evaluations of the officers’ performance in the training, along with any remedial training given to each officer as a result.
Conduct safe simulation training. Ask yourself this question before an investigator puts it to you during a formal inquiry: “What would other well-trained, experienced instructors have done to keep themselves and their officers safe in this type of training simulation?”
What’s the difference between a tragedy and negligence?
Repetition.
Too many repetitions of needless, preventable training injuries and death have occurred. A developing standard-of-care exists and, as a trainer, you will be held accountable.
We need to conduct decision-making scenario training, but we must do it right.  

---

Gary J. Monreal contributed to this article. Monreal has more than 18 years of law enforcement experience in corrections, patrol, SWAT and training. As a police officer with the City of New Berlin (Wis.) Police Department, his duties include SWAT team leader, specializing in explosive entry. Monreal is an instructor-trainer and currently teaches chemical munitions, defensive tactics, firearms, TASER, vehicle contacts, high-level simulations, submachine gun and SWAT. He was instrumental in the development of the RedMan Integrated Use-of-Force Simulation Instructor Development program. Contact him at monreal@swatcop.com.

About the author

---

Gary T. Klugiewicz is retired from the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department where he served three tours of duty "inside the walls" as a Correctional Officer, Deputy, Sergeant, and Captain. Gary has served as a Shift Supervisor, A CERT Team Commander, and a Special Management Team Security Supervisor for mentally ill inmates. Gary has developed defensive tactics training programs for Police, Corrections, Mental Health, and Tactical Teams. He is an instructor trainer for the State of Wisconsin’s correctional Principles of Subject Control (POSC®) Program, the ACMi® Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT®) Program, and the Active Countermeasures (Dynamic Entry Training) Program for SWAT Personnel. Gary may be reached by email at: GTKlugiewicz@cs.com

Leadership and the Jellyfish

I once read a book called “The Leadership Challenge” by Kouzes & Posner which I found very profound when I started an introspective look at myself. Not just as a leader but from the perspective of a follower as well.

I wanted to know where I stood as well as where others stood that were supposed to be “leading” me. Early on I realized one very important thing: I was not being led. I didn’t have a leader and what I really had was a manager. Talk about a slap in the face. Even though I already knew that my “leader” had no backbone and was a walking jellyfish (I had to find out later on how in the world “he” could perform such magic), everything that a leader was supposed to be is exactly what “he” was not. “He” was the complete and total opposite. Not even close.

Imagine the frustration that we all felt. Decisions could not be made and when decisions were made, it was just a matter of time (very short time in most cases) before “he” changed his mind. “He” had no inner voice. All information that was given was regurgitation from someone else. There was no direction to be followed except going in circles and this was not the way that we wanted to go.

Out of all of us that were being “led”, or shall I say managed (and “he” wasn’t even good at that), 90% of us wanted to leave our job and find something else, ANYTHING else. I didn’t care if I went to work at McDonald’s. I just wanted out.

If this jellyfish could not do what “he” was supposed to do, someone had to. Someone had to get the ball rolling and that was something that “John” was willing to do.

We all have our own values and belief system and of course there will be some differences. The differences are always welcome since it allows us to see things from a different perspective. Some of us are willing to take a stand for what we believe in while others won’t. They will roll over and play nice. Those that know ”John” know that he will tell you that your head is up your rear end if that is what you need to hear.

I have learned that there are two types of people in this world: Those that will tell you what you want to hear and those that will tell you what you NEED to hear.  There are enough people out there to tell you what you want to hear. “John” will give it to you with both barrels if that is what is needed. Some will call him every name in the book except the one his mother gave him for being that way and he is OK with that. He will even tell you that. He is strong-willed in his beliefs and a true knucklehead if he thinks that you are full of it. Don’t sugar coat things with him, just tell him straight out. And if you have no integrity, get out of his face.

“John” is what I consider to be a true leader. He may not be in the position of leadership but that does not negate the fact that he has more leadership skills than most people that I have met and worked either with or for. What qualities does he possess that make him a leader?  How did we recognize it? For us it was easy. John would take the time to help other people out when needed. He would take the time to talk to us and give advice when needed but never try to shove his beliefs down someone’s throat. He would not ask anyone to do anything that he would not do himself. People would go to him when there was doubt about the direction that we needed to go in and seek his opinion. When the mundane tasks needed to be done he would volunteer to do them or if someone was in the process of doing it, he would help out if he had nothing else going on. His actions and words were synergistic.

“John” recognized that someone had to take the bull by the horns and take charge of the crap that was going on around us. It was out of control. We looked at him, inadvertently, to lead us.

The first thing that he did was find out where we stood as a group. The result was that we were dysfunctional, demoralized and lost.

The second thing that he did was find out where we wanted to go as a group. After our knee jerk reaction of “get the hell away from jellyfish!” we realized that although we really loved our job and did not really want to go somewhere else, we needed to find a way to work with jellyfish in an efficient manner that did not involve a sentence of 25-life. We wanted cohesion, teamwork and a sense of value to what we do. We wanted to know where we stood in our “leadership’s” ability to back us when decisions were made and not try to blame us for their failure to do what they were supposed to do.

The third thing that “John” did was have all of us, as a group, figure out how we were going to get there. This is where it was going to get interesting. Since we had not really been a group as a “whole” but more like mini work groups joining together every now and again, it was going to pose some unique challenges.

As with any group, we had gone through some of the stages of group development: forming, storming, norming and performing. I can honestly tell you that as a whole we never reached the performing stage. Some of the mini groups had reached this stage, but as a whole, we had not. The closest we ever got was to the norming stage. For the most part, we remained at the storming stage. Now why did we stay at the storming stage? We remained at this stage mostly because of 2 people. One individual did not want to be part of any team and the other thought that he knew it all and that we were all idiots. The second individual would try to make himself look intelligent in front of the jellyfish but only made himself look like an even bigger idiot in front of everyone else. These two challenges are what we had to overcome in order to get to where we wanted and perform at the level that we knew was possible.

First things first. We had to get rid of our preconceived notions about both these individuals. No matter how ignorant you believe someone to be they still have something to bring to the table. The positive qualities that they possessed are where we focused our energy. Had we continued to focus on the negative aspects that they possessed (and believe me when I tell you that there were many), we would have been doomed from the start. We were not about to let this happen and John made it very clear from the onset that this would not be something that could be allowed if we were to achieve success.

At the beginning we all sat down and figured out, as a group, where it was that we wanted to go. We all had our opinions and they were all written down. We looked to see which ones we had in common therefore giving us our “buy-in.” We set short-term goals that we wanted to achieve, both individual and as a group, and included a time-frame in which to complete it. We also set our long term goals and the steps that it would take us to achieve it.

Since we had accepted that jellyfish had never been, and would never be a real leader, one of our goals was to lead from the bottom up and incorporate him into the plan. It’s not that we really wanted to (at least not at first) but we realized that he was the skipper of this doomed ship that was going to go down in one quick hurry.

In a nutshell, this is what we did: We overrode the ships controls from the bridge and took control from the engine compartment. Since he thought that he was in charge, we continued to let him think that he was including turning that wheel in his hand that lead to nothing.  If it sounds like a mutiny, well it really wasn’t. We needed to get the ship back on course before it was completely doomed. Jellyfish had ZERO confidence in any of us although he said he did but alas, his actions spoke volumes.

Slowly but surely we started to bring him along without him realizing that it was happening. Morale started to improve slightly and the momentum continued in a positive direction. This process did not happen overnight. It took months to correct it and every now and again he still needed to be steered back on course. He still continued to be a jellyfish but then again, we know that it would not change.

I am not suggesting in any way that you stage a mutiny in order to get things done and if that is what you took out of this then start reading again. What you need to get out of this is the following:

1.      No matter how dim-witted some people may be, they still have something positive to bring to a team.

2.      Work together as a team in order to achieve what you think is impossible. Nothing is impossible. Some things are just harder to do and will take longer to achieve.

3.      Leaders do not have to be in a “leadership” position in order to lead.

4.      If you get stung by a jellyfish, pee on the sting site. The ammonia in the pee will help the stinging.

Breaking From The Pack

There will always be people that will tow the company line. Although this is a necessary evil sometimes, at what point do you break from the pack? What if you are a person in a position of authority?

Hypothetical situation for you to contemplate:

Your supervisor is talking to you about a task that was due on a certain day. During this conversation your supervisor tells you that his supervisor knew nothing about a project. Your supervisor also informs you that his supervisor informed his supervisor (3 rungs up from you) that he knew nothing about it.

As you start to tell him that his supervisor was present during the assignment of the project and a conversation about it that took place afterwards, your supervisor tells you that he does not want to hear about it and that his supervisor is always right and will always do the right thing. Now, at this point you are completely flabbergasted at the fact that your supervisor does not want to know all the facts, only what he wants to hear. Do you keep your mouth shut or do you stand up for your beliefs?

This scenario has played out many times over the years and will always continue to play out. Unfortunate as it is, some people are just like that. What can possibly lead them to abandon their principals (assuming that they had some to begin with) just to fall in line with everyone else? Is it the possibility of a future promotion? Is it that they may not want any type of conflict? I am sure that the answer will vary from person to person.

I am going to paraphrase here from a great book that I read years ago: Every Man a Tiger by Gen Chuck Horner, USAF Retired. The true virtue of an individual is the ability to make decisions when everyone else is unwilling to make one. The true testament of an individual is the ability to make a decision that you know is right even when everyone else thinks that you are wrong.  

This passage from his book has stuck with me throughout the many years since I first read it and I am reminded of it every time someone either refuses to make a decision or is unwilling to make the right decision because they do not want to be seen as going across the grain.

I believe that it is truly sad that so many of our so-called leaders these days lack the intestinal fortitude to make a decision, albeit the right decision, for fear of either being wrong or having a complete lack of integrity and succumbing to the pressure of the popular opinion.

These “leaders” (in some cases they are barely a manager) have not found their own voice yet and do not truly believe in what they say. How can we trust, follow and believe in a leader that does not believe in themselves?

It can be argued that having the ability to lead is something that we are either born with or can be taught. Others believe that you can’t teach leadership. If we truly look at ourselves, we will find that we are all leaders at some point in our lives.

I believe that it having the ability to lead in a successful manner boils down to having the ability to look beyond oneself and see the bigger picture on how we are affected by the circumstances around us as well as the effect that not acting will have. We may be thrust into a position of leadership and never had wanted it, yet be more successful than someone that wanted it in the first place.

Acting on behalf of the greater good is something that we may not want to do but may have to do. The most effective leaders of our times, past and present, all had something in common. They truly believed in what they were doing. They believed in their message even though they faced a great opposition from society. They knew what had to be done and were willing to do it. They took the bold step and continued their fighting for the plight with their values, morals and ethical beliefs intact in the face of adversity, whether we personally agree with their message or not.

These leaders were willing to listen to what others had to say, especially their critics and understand their point of view even when few wanted to understand them and their point of view. They were able to ask others about how they are viewed and accept the criticism in order to improve themselves.

The type of leader that you want to be should reflect who you are and not what someone else wants you to be. You have to be able to articulate what it is that you want and how you are going to get there. Be true to yourself. When you believe in yourself and find your inner voice others will believe in you and willingly follow.

What type of leader are you? Do you even have a voice?