I don't see how it can be expressed that way; after all, as far as I understand it, it isn't the training itself that is secure (suggest you are going to lock the youngsters up!)

'training and security contract' just might work, but in a way, I think you really DO need to keep the idea of 'job-security' in there, to avoid misinterpetation in relation to 'security'

Taking an example from the UK govt., there seem to be plenty of exmples of "Contract for...", so I think you could do worse than reconsider that formulation

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 33 mins (2006-08-09 21:46:08 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

From the language point of view alone, I wouldn't read it that way; and from what little I know of the political situation, I don't believe that's what it means either. I don't think there's anything specially 'secure' about the contract, it is only the job that needs to be secure, if the demise of the CDI is on the cards, spelling an end to the automatic job security that has so long been fought for.

As I was saying, all i could find in English related to this subject was here :
http://www.lefigaro.fr/english/20060228.WWW000000386_archais...

I do prefer w/a's addition of "job" as a qualifier, though, given that practically bloody anything these days seems to be branded "security" with the implication that we'd all better sign up if we don't want to suffer a messy end.

I'm surprised though that the English-language press (rather than the Eng version of Le Figaro) doesn't seem to have reported this at all. Do my search skills need honing? :-)