| State | Approach to evaluating training | How successful are evaluation methods in securing support for training | How effective are evaluation efforts in securing funding for training? | Use both qualitative and quantitative measures? Are these effective? | How do you use evaluation results to revise training | How do you link evaluation process to funding/ performance? |
| AR | Comparing our results to neighboring states' results | Somewhat | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| AZ | Kirkpatrick four levels for training effectiveness; training administration uses other methods | Very | Very | Yes, Yes | Training revised annually using feedback from Level 2, two evaluations, and a summary instructor evaluation | - |
| ID | Return on Investment questionnaire at 30-, 60-, 90-day intervals; Evaluations at the end of each training event | Not effective | Not effective | No | All training revised given direct trainee input regarding effectiveness. | Not been able to do this |
| LA | Pilot courses, participant feedback, district training specialist feedback, monitoring | Excellent | Funding maintained at $2M+ each year | No | Revised as necessary | N/A |
| MD | Kirkpatrick four levels of evaluation | Somewhat | Somewhat | No | Using evaluations | Evaluations are tracked and measured by both the participant and the instructor |
| MI | Kirkpatrick Level 1 evaluations and best practices | Not effective | Minimal | No | Informal and based on ability to respond | N/A |
| MO | Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2 | Effective | - | - | - | - |
| MT | Kirkpatrick Level 1 evaluations. Use a combined form for some classes that encourage skills implementation on the job. Many classes include assessments of learning, pre- and post-test assessments | Not a factor, however management is very supportive of training | Not a factor, however management is very supportive of training | With the exception of individual course evaluation, most measures are qualitative. Have not conducted return on investment studies. | Trainers consider participant reactions in class and adjust within a class. Post-training evaluations used; specific feedback invited if necessary | Not done at a dept-wide level |
| ND | Post-course evaluations | Strong support for training | Strong support for training | No | Participant comments considered in revising courses | N/A |
| OH | Post-course evaluation completed immediately; 30-day post-course Likert 1-5 Customer Satisfaction survey; 90-day post-course Liker 1-4 Customer Satisfaction survey sent to supervisor. Results are complied and reported on monthly and quarterly Statewide Fo | Very | Very | Yes. Cost analysis is continuously done on training programs. | Post-course evaluation completed immediately; 30-day post-course Likert 1-5 Customer Satisfaction survey; 90-day post-course Liker 1-4 Customer Satisfaction survey sent to supervisor. Results are complied and reported on monthly and quarterly Statewide Fo | Use a 2-year Employee Development Plan (EDP) which is created using following criteria:
* employee will use training in current position
* training will help increase employee's productivity
* training is linked to organization's and employee's work goals |
|
