An appraisal of initial training in the Armed Forces has concluded that the Ministry of Defence could have “considerable confidence” in the system – although two areas were identified where improvements could be made.

The study, carried out by two senior officers at the request of ministers, used 2,450 questionnaires and more than 1,500 interviews, as well as discussions with recruits and trainees, in the last quarter of 2002.

The overall assessment is that the MOD has “a lean, hard-worked Initial Training system in which it can have considerable confidence.”

The report notes that “it is administered and staffed by professional men and women, with a strong sense of duty and purpose, who have proved consistently successful in providing highly-effective training for about 23,000 recruits a year.”

The report points out that the enduring success and reputation of the British Armed Forces at home and abroad are “impressive testaments” to the vitality of the training organisation.

The system also compares well to those of other nations’ forces, and to civilian regimes with similar volumes of trainees.

However, despite the fact that “morale, ethos and motivation, among both trainees and staff, are predominantly buoyant”, the report concedes that “in a number of areas, strains are evident as a result of the sheer size of training task and the unremitting throughput of trainees.”

One area which needs addressing is the need to ensure that young people in training are managed proficiently, treated fairly and given appropriate levels of support.

In order to achieve this, suggestions include:

Guaranteeing absolute and confidential access to an empowered commissioned officer for every recruit and trainee

Inviting every recruit and trainee to complete and sign a confidential questionnaire about his or her experiences during initial training

The creation of a simple training ‘covenant’ or other document setting out the obligations of both the recruit or trainee and the Initial Training system

‘Realistic’ supervisory ratios should be determined, established and resourced by each Service.

The second area which needs attention is in terms of corporate governance, where “the department requires more rigorous assurance mechanisms, to provide regular monitoring, to expose risk and to promote best practice. In order to achieve this, the report suggests establishing an assurance body outside the single-Service chains of command, which could also administer the questionnaires and compose the training covenant proposed in the report.

Other major recommendations include using the varied social, familial and educational backgrounds, and the nature of the recruit or trainee’s potential employment, to build up an early personal profile of individuals, enabling career paths and training to be matched to individual needs, abilities and aspirations.

Also, disciplinary standards and best practice should be harmonised throughout the initial training stream, and as far as possible, across the three Services. A tri-Service champion has also been proposed, although it emphasises that initial training regimes must remain single-Service.

Among the minor recommendations are the need for the Armed Forces to track and analyse their recruiting pools, the need to definitively assess physical standard needs on entry, to lower wastage through injury, and allow trainees early exposure to their chosen branch of Service, with greater emphasis placed on visits to and interaction with the front line.

It is also suggested that physical training classes should be streamed according to ability in a bid to reduce injuries and encourage challenge and physical development for the fitter candidates.