Member Safety Training and Mandatory Reporting Question

[ironlips]

22 minutes ago, Weaklefthand4ever said:

Just as an aside, a LOT of study has been taken place on adult learning theory over the years as you can imagine. Video presentation comes in towards the bottom of the list when designing curriculum (still above lecture alone.) Adults tend to have limited recall of what they have seen and heard without additional learning methods to reinforce the skill transfer. 

My Tennessee colleague makes an important point here. Having taught at various levels for many years (from elementary school through college, and drum corps throughout), using virtually every method in the book (lecture, seminar, clinic, video, symposium, individual mentoring, ...etc.), I am aware that people have a wide variety of learning styles.

The best overall strategy for imparting knowledge is to use multiple methods, of course, but even more important is reinforcement. Whether one is learning the F# Major Scale or practical techniques for protecting your charges, once is not enough. The mantra I repeat to my students of every level is "Repetition is your friend. Repetition is your friend. Repetition is your friend".

That said, it is also vital to vary the approach to the material when reinforcing the main principles. Watching the same video yearly, over and over, is just promoting OCD. In the particular case of drum corps, their staffs and performers, it will be helpful to utilize live presenters and enacted role play scenarios as well in follow up.

As a society we are just beginning to get our collective head around the importance of these ethical issues and how to address them. Drum Corps has made a good start (generally), and would do well to remember the mantra.

[Weaklefthand4ever]

33 minutes ago, rmurrey74 said:

I’m sure it’s not perfect. It seems comprehensive to me but I’m not an expert. It reviews signs to look for, mandatory reporting, multiple scenarios with questions/quizzes throughout. To me, I had to pay attention throughout.  It’s a 3rd party and yes, it’s enforced.  It’s  also a WGI requirement and probably for other circuits as well.  

I also had in person training/policy review early in spring training, reminders throughout the season, reiterated through member and staff contracts and DCI did a full town-hall event for all drum corps on the topic last year.  

I’m sure it could be much more, but It’s far and beyond anything I’ve ever had at any of my non-band/drum corps related jobs that I’ve held during my career. I work for a Fortune 500 and it’s a 15-20 minute training video once a year for Managers/Directors. 

Thank you for contributing to the conversation @rmurrey74. It's always good to have voices in conversation that are open enough for some constructive discourse to take place. 

I would be interested in hearing how the SS model does their certification of facilitators for in person learning (ILT - Instructor Led Training) as well as for participants and how the participation and completion for enrollees is tracked. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Weaklefthand4ever
I can't even figure out where that spelling came from...

[JimF-LowBari]

1 hour ago, ironlips said:

That said, it is also vital to vary the approach to the material when reinforcing the main principles. Watching the same video yearly, over and over, is just promoting OCD. 

Or as the government puts it, watching the same bleeping thing year after year is a “refresher”. 🤮 Or as the workers would put it “oh #### not this again”. Amazing how the eyes and ears can be tuned in to the video but the mind is somewhere else. 😵‍💫

[Weaklefthand4ever]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Or as the government puts it, watching the same bleeping thing year after year is a “refresher”. 🤮 Or as the workers would put it “oh #### not this again”. Amazing how the eyes and ears can be tuned in to the video but the mind is somewhere else. 😵‍💫

The worst part Jim, is that I still have to TAKE the exact curriculum that I write same as everybody else. So after all the UAT before rollout, I figure I've probably seen and edited that content 15 to 20 times lol. 

We do try to keep up with adult learning principles though. This year we took the "big enchilada" 4 hour corporate governance training and built the majority of it around gamification. The results were FAR better with first time scores in the 90's. Previous years, the first time testing was around 82%.

[IllianaLancerContra]

4 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Or as the government puts it, watching the same bleeping thing year after year is a “refresher”. 🤮 Or as the workers would put it “oh #### not this again”. Amazing how the eyes and ears can be tuned in to the video but the mind is somewhere else. 😵‍💫

Thinking about my own DoD experiences gets me thinking.  Is it a good idea to ‘test’ the reporting system by pulling a member aside, give them information to pass on that something happened, & see if the system works properly?   We would do this for things like ‘suspicious packages’, but for SA or member abuse I can see it doing both good and bad.  But perhaps the idea does merit discussion.  It would have to be overseen by SafeSport (or whomever the overseer is), not a couple of rogue instructors or members.  Good idea or not?

[Weaklefthand4ever]

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Thinking about my own DoD experiences gets me thinking.  Is it a good idea to ‘test’ the reporting system by pulling a member aside, give them information to pass on that something happened, & see if the system works properly?   We would do this for things like ‘suspicious packages’, but for SA or member abuse I can see it doing both good and bad.  But perhaps the idea does merit discussion.  It would have to be overseen by SafeSport (or whomever the overseer is), not a couple of rogue instructors or members.  Good idea or not?

Typically I would say yes as part of the UAT. We do that with corporate compliance especially for overseas work. If you don't pressure test the system then you're really only doing half the work. That being said, I was never part of that specific piece of the puzzle. We would sometimes be asked to make adjustments after UAT but rarely did we get a reason as to why the adjustment was necessary. 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Weaklefthand4ever

[IllianaLancerContra]

33 minutes ago, Weaklefthand4ever said:

Typically I would say yes as part of the UAT. We do that with corporate compliance especially for overseas work. If you don't pressure rest the system then you're really only doing half the work. That being said, I was never part of that specific piece of the puzzle. We would sometimes be asked to make adjustments after UAT but rarely did we get a reason as to why the adjustment was necessary. 

Thinking more on how to do it, you would need to make certain that the individual(s) at the end of the reporting chain knew it was an exercise; probably law enforcement as well in case that they are called.   I suppose the place to try it is spring training as it is a more familiar & predictable backdrop.  
 

And afterwards absolutely everyone would need to know that it was an exercise to test the system.  

[JimF-LowBari]

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Thinking about my own DoD experiences gets me thinking.  Is it a good idea to ‘test’ the reporting system by pulling a member aside, give them information to pass on that something happened, & see if the system works properly?   We would do this for things like ‘suspicious packages’, but for SA or member abuse I can see it doing both good and bad.  But perhaps the idea does merit discussion.  It would have to be overseen by SafeSport (or whomever the overseer is), not a couple of rogue instructors or members.  Good idea or not?

In my converted warehouse, oops office building we had a few hundred people. Did have a few fired or retired quickly due to offenses. But no idea what might have slipped through the cracks or ignored.

[Richard Lesher]

2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Thinking about my own DoD experiences gets me thinking.  Is it a good idea to ‘test’ the reporting system by pulling a member aside, give them information to pass on that something happened, & see if the system works properly?   We would do this for things like ‘suspicious packages’, but for SA or member abuse I can see it doing both good and bad.  But perhaps the idea does merit discussion.  It would have to be overseen by SafeSport (or whomever the overseer is), not a couple of rogue instructors or members.  Good idea or not?

My Army units do this now. They throw a random simulated harassment issues at a random first line leader and follow the process through to conclusion. They follow up with the entirety of the unit at the end of the simulation. The first question asked of the whole unit is did anyone get wind of the complaint and were all sensitive things that are supposed to have remained sensitive actually remain so. 

The only ones that know it's a simulation is the Harassment Rep. and the victim and offender role players. The poor sucker is the first line leader that gets the complaint and has to respond and escalate as trained. 

Results get pushed up the entire chain of command to the Department of Army/Defense. 

That way................ When something reaches Congress the 4 star generals can say there is a system in place, and look at the 3 stars, then the 3 stars can provide their results and look at the two stars and it just keeps going down until a break is found. 

The worst place to be is the commanding officer of the lowest level where investigations indicate there is a break in the system. If one cannot kick the can down, then they better act in accordance with the regulations and laws. 

 

[Jeff Ream]

i'm 95% remote now and i just took the same online training with videos for the 3rd time this year. no noticable updates either