Scale absolutely makes a difference.85 sworn divided over five days, twice per year. We do not have our own range, so we lose an 60-90 minutes to travel time (a past practice that I cannot get changed), an hour to lunch, and about an hour to range cleanup and weapons cleaning. It makes the training day more like five hours long. We generally see as few as 8 or as many as 20 officers per day and run 3-5 instructors.
I would generally reject the thought that the department size is a controlling factor and agree more with some of the things that [MENTION=12714]AMC[/MENTION] suggests as the big factors. You need a range staff that has the knowledge, ability to articulate, and time and patience to get it done. You need leadership that is willing to support that staff. You need access to the right supplies. Ultimately you need somebody with passion to push it forward and the people above them to enable them.
I have been very, very fortunate to be supported at least as far as being given some freedom in lesson plan creation. Pushing our program this way has required considerable personal time and expense in attending classes, personal skills development, and material procurement. When I wanted to integrate vehicles, it took paying out of pocket to have junk cars towed in and out to show the benefit to the point that the agency would pay for it next time. When I wanted to shoot steel and then B8s and then USPSA silhouettes, it took paying out of pockets for the first range session or two worth. A lot of that probably seems minor, but stringing together some of those wins is how a program changes.
And again, if you let people compete a little bit, you may be surprised at the increase in engagement.
Sorry for the continued thread drift...
Gently soaking the bread into the froth……