Hosted by the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
Tropicana Hotel, Atlantic City, New Jersey
September 12-16, 2005
COMMENTS
State
 | Course was well run and organized. Followed the agenda well. |
| Very well done! Cranberry Farm was really interesting. |
| The work groups were excellent opportunities to understand what Regions/States do. Great ideas came up during discussions. |
| It got to be too long – a hard week – planning for the future is hard work. |
| Excellent format. Although it may not be our role it would have been better if we could have come up with more consensus given the need. |
| Excellent Prep course – appreciated the input toward development of program goals. |
| Overall discussion was good and I’m glad I was able to participate. Information overload! There is only so much info you can productively talk about in 1 day. |
| UC Davis staff is excellent. Suzanne Forsyth and Debbie Roberts go out of their way to accommodate this large and diverse group. We appreciate everything they do to make the courses vital and dynamic. Everything was organized and well thought-out. Thanks. The field trips were on point and very well executed. The panel discussion format was excellent for me to ask and answer questions – very interactive and very useful in mining ideas for my program development. One of the best PREP classes I have ever attended – excellent course and content. I hope the message to EPA Headquarters and Regions would be well-defined goals, consistent measures, and constructive, detailed evaluation to State programs. The mid and end-of-year reviews are an EPA commitment to the State, useful as a tool in directing and targeting the bull’s eye on priority issues. It is important to this program but goes much further to the entire Cooperative Agreement process. |
| UC Davis reps did a great job a long way from home. NJ people were a great help. Course moved along on time and smoothly. |
| Helpful to get differing views and experiences w/ WPS and future direction of program and what needs to be done to keep it up to speed w/ expectations. |
| Overall a very good conference. I learned a great many things and took lots of ideas from the many conversations. |
| The breakout session should be continued. It provides an opportunity to have State, Region and HQ perspectives of the problems we all face. |
| Topic 2 was disorganized – papers being passed discussing w/o being in hand – before is better – pre-planning. |
| By taking out field trip subject matter could be covered in 4 days. Field trips good for PIRT not PREP, especially when formulating policy. |
| Overall course was effective. Don Baumgartner had too many handouts and too much info – not recommend in future. Very much enjoyed Kevin’s review and input on the daily discussions; need more of that at Regional level. |
| Tropicana is a confusing site. Good food and rooms. Don’t like per diem approach on meals (w/ receipts). Should have established max value/amt. and let us implement on our own or just give cash equivalent. |
| These evaluation forms don’t fit this course. Overall I found the PREP course valuable in rounding out my understanding on a national |
| As always, a job well done by UC Davis and host!! Agenda well developed; field portion very informative; would have like to have more time devoted to the "intro" portions of sessions – may have made breakouts more directed and productive. Enjoyed the format of this course – gave State opportunity to affect future direction of program. Hope to see timely outcomes from this work. Ultimately, best part of course is participants!! Thank you J |
Region
| I thought switching the groups was good but I would have lengthened the time in the breakout sessions, to report and made 5 breakouts rather than 6. Also 5 days is long! If 5 days, maybe shorten the days. I enjoyed the field trip mid-week, it broke up the week. |
| Overall the course was very good. |
| Pleased with service and response from UC Davis. Topics of value at PREP: field trip, R4 farm interview material, WPS retaliation, WPS regulation changes proposed, measures breakouts, re-inspection evidence, Haz-comm discussions. Least value topics: Vision Statement discussions, advocacy presentations. These course evaluation sheets should have been specific to PREP and not some specific form. |
| Was provided all information need register and prepare for course. |
Other
| It was a great learning opportunity for everybody. The exchange of issues and needs between states and EPA was necessary. |
| The workshop format worked very well, kept the participants engaged. Excellent PREP! |
| Excellent PREP. |
| Very engaging, informative. |
| Great conference, very organized, and good discussions. |
| The weakest part was the location’s accessibility by air. |
| I was unsure what I was gathering into when I arrived. I expected to learn what was being appreciably changed, not to be quizzed about what the changes should be. It was hard for me to transition my expectations. |
WHAT WERE THE STRENGTHS OF THIS COURSE? WHAT DID YOU VALUE MOST?
State
| Clearly defined course structure and course topics. |
| The breakout sessions resulted in good dialogue and brain storming. Resulted in improved interaction. |
| Great opportunity to network with others at all levels. Valuable discussions. |
| Small group discussion – followed by the large group was excellent, thoroughness. Format was good!! |
| The opportunity to exchange comments. |
| Open dialogue. Importance of perception of our programs. Need to focus on positives and the qualitative value of work other than just inspections. |
| I liked that we shuffled the attendees through the breakout groups rather than being in same group each time – It helped to share ideas/different experiences/better networking. |
| The opportunity given to participants to participate and discuss on possible changes to WPS. |
| Talked about issues that seriously affect all of the States and Regions. Great networking! |
| The breakout group was excellent, learned a lot from various States and Regions. |
| Breakouts were beneficial – open discussion reinforced breakout findings. |
| Breakout sessions were quite good. I most valued the contact w/ EPA and other State program people. |
| Field trips to both farms were very educational. I would recommend keeping the field trips as part of the PREP. |
| Great discussion/ perspectives. Learned much – good contacts. |
| Liked the breakout session format – shuffling persons in each breakout. |
| Breakouts and group discussion opportunity to interact w/ other States and see how they do business. |
| Liked the ability to influence future policy directions. However, felt approach was not as good as it could have been. Liked having so many Regions present. Also liked networking opportunities w/ other States. Liked picking up new material on interviewing. |
| Hearing everyone else’s complaints and views. |
Region
| The interaction with the attendees showing difficult views and principles. |
| Strengths of PREP was networking, sharing experiences, ideas and concerns. |
| Breakout discussions provided great in depth discussion of issues - State/EPA views. |
Other
| The format of reading and then discussion was a good change from the classroom. |
| Strengths: dialogue, different perspectives presented. |
| Interaction with colleagues, achievement of goals together. |
| Great exchange of knowledge and expertise amongst participants. |
| Focus on language & culture in regards to WPS, breakout sessions. |
| I liked the format of the course; everyone benefited from the workshop discussions. |
HOW COULD THIS COURSE BE IMPROVED?
State
| Fewer issues should be addressed during breakout sessions. |
| Breakout groups should have different questions – less repetitions. Some questions could have been clearer. |
| Some questions were not too clear. A suggestion should be giving an idea of where the discussions should go. Some sessions/speakers were too fast. |
| Shorter by a day – 1 or 2 less small groups. |
| Additional focus on determinations to questions through consensus. Fewer questions, more answers. Record dialogue to clarify, due to lack of space to write on forms. |
| Allowing more time to the breakout sessions – this was a very good format, but definitely we need more time for discussion. |
| Focus on one or two issues per session – stay within time. Go from 8-4pm, maybe ˝ hr. lunch. Productive discussion drops late into PM. |
| Monitor speakers’ time more closely and keep the conversation moving when getting repetitive. |
| I can think of nothing. |
| Course root objectives and expectations. |
| Perhaps a day shorter. |
| WPS and Compliance Management Course personnel would provide a benefit to all that work in this area. Breakout sessions should be allowed a little more time. |
| Questions out to groups earlier – some confusion in homework and questions and the questions to discuss here. |
| Always include motivational speaker which reinforces the notion "what you do is important." |
| Yes – multiple regional courses w/ participation from tribes, field staff & compliance/ enforcement and C & T Managers; not one or the other. Breakfast was poor. Needed some change/ variety, from day to day. Not the same old donuts, bagels & limited fruit. |
| Far more upfront time should have been spent on what the goals - actionable tasks were for each breakout. Questions were often confusing and the background setup not clear. Also suggested advance materials just didn’t fit that well w/ breakout session activities. Not clear enough, opening discussions were somewhat helpful, but they were not focused toward breakout session needs. Always liked open discussions after breakouts. Brought out State approaches and materials. I don’t like this evaluation form!! It does not relate to our breakout approach. This was not instruction. Would have like to have at least 1 session devoted to "resource exchange." Would give States a chance to share information in a more structured way. Don B’s talk was terrible. Too much, too fast, too chaotic. Should put best people in front to explain and direct a topic. Would like to have seen an extended panel on worker issues/ worker advocacy. |
| EPA staff needs to complete their sessions in advance not while here. Handouts should be in notebooks in advance. |
Region
| Increase the length of time for breakout sessions and reduce the number of items that need to be achieved. |
| Should’ve organized a Sunday night meet and greet get together for States on arrival night. |
| Very good, not sure field trip was necessary, but a good break. Like to see follow through on addition terms. |
Other
| Having all materials passed out with course binder. Having it done during class wastes time and distracts. |
| Continue the homework assignments prior to attending the course. |
| Ensure that there is follow through on action items and ideas to keep credibility and momentum! |
| Quieter location (like a State Park lodge). |
| Evaluations could be more fitting for the course. Workgroups you could better distribute regional folks. |
| I am a production person and not a process person. A clearer statement of the objective in the beginning would have been better. |
HOW WILL THIS COURSE HELP YOU IN YOUR JOB/CAREER?
State
| Sharing with others, awareness of what will be coming forward in the future. |
| A better national implementation focus. How all our efforts and reporting affect the perception of other programs. |
| Learned a lot of practical ways to improve my State program – also, networking with other States/Regions was very valuable. |
| Better on understanding about different issues. |
| Aware of issues, implement what it can now, future considerations. |
| Multiple ideas for programs and inspection improvement were found. |
| Gives me inside understanding of thought progress on how decisions are made. |
| All material covered will be useful because it is all practical knowledge. |
| Strategic Planning and the exercises that we participated in should provide guidance to the Regions and HQ. Several materials and especially the Spanish Document prepared by the Agency will be very helpful to the State Inspector. |
| Took good notes – certain program elements successful in other states. |
| Help me to better understand what our SLA must go through to run the program. Have breakfast with protein. |
Region
| Insightful and knowledge that was gained through the attendee interaction and issues development. |
| Obtained more feedback and real world grounding on regulation WPS implementation. |
| Job - improved understanding of issues and positions. |
Other
| It has given me a better perspective on what the issues to other States, Regions are and what needs to get done. |
| Help manage my program better. |
| Understanding of other State programs. |
| Knowledge of what is being discussed and what may become reality helps me prepare my people for change. The course was worthwhile for that purpose. |
WHAT OTHER PROGRAMS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE US OFFER?
State
| Overall safety program or the lack thereof in agriculture. |
| Locate PREPs in locations that are closer to a major airport, more easily accessible. |
| I like the ideas about inter-state training and mentor training. I think it would be valuable to extend more basic inspector training to newer inspectors in this way. |
| PREP = measure reporting = more like this as we move forward on these issues. |
| Future PREPs– Special Programs PREP, Endangered Species, Container Recycling, Clean Day Together. Cooperative Agreements and Performance Measures. |
| WPS course for HQ and Regional staff taught by staff representatives. |
| I would like States to have opportunity to inter-regionally get together and share WPS implementation and program experiences in general. There seems to be many commonalities in way WPS falls short of realities in same cases and same States have been very effective in implementing changes in policy to fix this. I think being able to identify and publish success that EPA and States are having can not succeed in "assuring" safety for workers. Can document behavioral changes of workers as result of WPS. |
| Training to bring us closer to standard type practice and expectations when working w/ WPS. |
| Lab issues. |
| Travel arrangements were not easy from west coast. |
| When and if a new plan emerges, a 2006 PREP course could be devoted to an internal review. A panel on worker issues/ worker advocacy. |
| Cooperative Agreements/ Grants (include reporting and performance measurements); Water Quality; Specialty (Disposal, Recycling, etc.) |
Region
| Measures Development, Registration, WPS, C & T. |
| Many more PREPs with both OPP and OECA improves this. Need more assistance to Regions to send staff to PREPs and PIRTs. |
| WPS – to expand on finding of this workshop. |
Other
| Developing another reporting template for WPS and inspections like how was done with CAT 5700. |
| Inspector interviewing technique workshop. |
| Inspectors, coordinators for both EPA and States. |