DOC: Supervisory ratios
What factors determine the different levels of
recommended inspector: trainee ratio? Why were supervisory ratios
highest in the Army? Has the best practice ratio target now been
reached in all three Services? What indicators will be used to
ensure that, once reached, this ratio is maintained and that supervisory
ratios do not once again slip below an acceptable level?
An arbitrary supervisory ratio is thought to
be too blunt an instrument, given the variation in maturity of
the recruit cohorts across Defence and the differing requirements
of a training day that encompasses working hours, off-duty hours
and silent hours. While ratios between 1:12 and 1:40 are acknowledged
as the benchmarks for the working day, the actual supervisory
arrangements are determined as a result of the Unit Commander's
Risk Assessment and each unit is to publish a Supervisory Care
Directive, to be reviewed annually. Guidelines list the factors
for determining appropriate levels of supervision, including inter
alia, the age and maturity of the trainees, the nature and
distribution of their accommodation, the homogeneity of the cohorts,
and the proximity of the duty supervisor. An aide-memoire supplements
the guidelines, highlighting the key tasks to ensure the adequate
supervision of recruits and trainees. The Services agreed the
guidelines,[41]
which are designed to ensure that COs set in place a supervisory
care regime tailored to local circumstances, throughout the day.
They provide a baseline against which units can be held to account,
subject to an appropriate application of their risk assessment
and the Supervisory Care Directive.
Following the most recent comments by DOC additional
information is being gathered to explore the issue of daylight
and silent hours supervisory ratios further. In order to ensure
that appropriate supervisory ratios are maintained COs are directed
to conduct risk assessments and regularly review the unit supervisory
care requirement.
41 D/DGTE/4/20 dated 26 February 2004. Back
|
