Well my lot is under 70% strength of which less than half are effective against their KPIs. The lads who are unemployed or students have milled through man days given the demand for RDF resources, so much so that some won't be available for camp having already hit the 28 man day cap, whereas nearly 2/3rds of my lot have yet to do one single man day.
Just because someone does a man day, doesn't mean they've achieved any training objective either.
The average might well be 13.7 man days per man when accounting for those who did man days, but when compared against the establishment of the RDF (which was apparently over-subscribed for a while), it means that across the RDF the average is 5.8 man days.
I'd wager that the breakdown of those man days is the vast majority of those effective Reservists are barely clearing up to 7 man days for a camp, those on or running career courses doing about 14-21 man days, and a cohort of the unemployed, students, old and bolds applying for or manufacturing every man day that they can possibly avail of accumulating around 28-42 man days each.
Had we retained the grat, we'd have a far better understanding of how many Reservists are actually effective. These stats mean that even if you only did one man day, you're in the stats. By the 2013 figures, it assumes that about 57% of the RDF is ineffective; I'd bet that figure is higher.
Does this make the RDF look better on paper? Yes, sort of, but it doesn't address the problems of retention, insufficient remuneration and incentive or the lack of support for Reservists and their employers to meet the demands beset the RDF. It's masking the perpetuation of a lot of problems that haven't been adequately addressed, and should the same figures come under further scrutiny or analysis, it could easily be used to build another case for abolition in the 2016 VFM review.
Just because someone does a man day, doesn't mean they've achieved any training objective either.
The average might well be 13.7 man days per man when accounting for those who did man days, but when compared against the establishment of the RDF (which was apparently over-subscribed for a while), it means that across the RDF the average is 5.8 man days.
I'd wager that the breakdown of those man days is the vast majority of those effective Reservists are barely clearing up to 7 man days for a camp, those on or running career courses doing about 14-21 man days, and a cohort of the unemployed, students, old and bolds applying for or manufacturing every man day that they can possibly avail of accumulating around 28-42 man days each.
Had we retained the grat, we'd have a far better understanding of how many Reservists are actually effective. These stats mean that even if you only did one man day, you're in the stats. By the 2013 figures, it assumes that about 57% of the RDF is ineffective; I'd bet that figure is higher.
Does this make the RDF look better on paper? Yes, sort of, but it doesn't address the problems of retention, insufficient remuneration and incentive or the lack of support for Reservists and their employers to meet the demands beset the RDF. It's masking the perpetuation of a lot of problems that haven't been adequately addressed, and should the same figures come under further scrutiny or analysis, it could easily be used to build another case for abolition in the 2016 VFM review.
Comment