Probation and After-Care Service

The purpose of the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), fulfilled through the Jersey Audit Office (JAO), is to provide independent assurance to the people of Jersey on the extent to which public money is spent economically, efficiently and effectively and on whether the controls and governance arrangements in place within public bodies demonstrate value for money. The C&AG's remit includes the audit of financial statements and wider consideration of public funds, including internal financial control, value for money and corporate governance.

This report can be found on the Jersey Audit Office website at https://www.jerseyauditoffice.je/

If you need a version of this report in an alternative format for accessibility reasons, or any of the exhibits in a different format, please contact [email protected] with details of your request.

All information contained in this report is current at the date of publication.

The Comptroller and Auditor General and Jersey Audit Office are not responsible for the future validity of external links contained within the report.

All information contained in this report is © Copyright Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Jersey Audit Office, with the exception of extracts included from external sources, which are © Copyright to those external sources.

The information contained in this report is for non-commercial purposes only and may not be copied, reproduced, or published without proper reference to its source. If you require the material contained in the report for any other purpose, you are required to contact [email protected] with full details of your request.

Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General: October 2026

This report has been prepared in accordance with Article 20 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Jersey) Law 2014.

Contents

Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4

Key findings ................................................................................................................................. 6 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 8

Objectives and scope of the audit .................................................................................................... 9 Detailed findings ...................................................................................................................................10

Strategy and risk ......................................................................................................................10 Budget and resource allocation .........................................................................................16 Governance and assurance arrangements .....................................................................19 Organisational development and improvement ..........................................................30 Technology and innovation .................................................................................................35 Capacity and capability .........................................................................................................39

Appendix One – Audit Approach ....................................................................................................42

Appendix Two – Summary of Recommendations, Work planned that should be prioritised and Areas for consideration ........................................................................................45

Summary

Introduction

1. The Jersey Probation and After-Care Service (the Service) exists to provide the parishes, courts and prisons with a high quality information service and to supervise those offenders entrusted to it in order to reduce re-offending, allow restitution and protect the public. In family proceedings, the Jersey Family Court Advisory Service (JFCAS) provides the Royal Court with reports and advice about the best interests of children.
2. The Service is a department of Jersey's Judiciary and is a non-Ministerial department. The Probation Board is appointed by the Bailiff on behalf of the Royal Court to provide a governance framework for the Service. The Board consists of Jurats with the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs and Assistant Chief Minister invited to attend as non-voting participants.
3. The following exhibit shows the Service's performance against budget for 2025 and 2024.

Exhibit 1: Net Revenue Expenditure and Budgets 2024 and 2025

Net Revenue  Net Revenue Expenditure 2025  Expenditure 2024 £000  £000

Estimate in the Government Plan  3,324  2,951 Final Approved Budget  3,441  3,163 Outturn  3,000  2,863 Difference from Final Approved Budget  441  300

Source: States of Jersey Accounts 2025 and 2024

4. In 2025 the Service recorded a net underspend of £441,000. Some of the key work of the Service is shown below.

Exhibit 2: Probation and After-Care Service data from 2025

Source: Probation and After-Care Service Annual Report 2025

Key findings

5. The Service has clearly articulated and agreed strategic objectives. While the Service can evidence change and improvement, formalising an aspiration in a vision statement would enable the Service to build on the current baseline performance with a focus on continuous improvement in a more structured way.
6. The Service is the 12th department to have completed a risk maturity assessment and the first non-Ministerial department. The results indicate good progress since 2023. The Service demonstrates a greater level of maturity when measured against Government departments assessed so far by the central risk team.
7. The budget for the Service is £3.47 million in 2026. An underspend has been reported in each of the last seven years including a sum of £441,000 or 12.8% in 2025. The budget since 2023 includes growth funding for posts to support introduction of post-custodial supervision. Until this is introduced, the posts remain vacant and the Service anticipates reporting an underspend in 2026. At a States of Jersey level, the allocation of a budget to a Service for a business case that is not going to be implemented in that year does not represent good practice.
8. The Probation Board (the Board) is appointed by the Bailiff to provide effective governance for the Service and JFCAS. There is an opportunity for the Board to review its effectiveness including compliance with the Terms of Reference, and the capacity for Jurats to participate consistently.
9. The Service is headed by the Chief Probation Officer (CPO) who is responsible for the structure and for strategic and operational management. Operational arrangements are documented, or are in the process of being documented or updated, in all areas of the Service. There are well-established processes in place for casework and quality assurance within the team although there are no published performance indicators that relate to timeliness and quality of casework reports.
10. A significant amount of data is provided quarterly to enable the Board and Management Team to review performance. The Service publishes the

performance report online at the half year period and the full year position with graphics, and brief narrative is included as part of the Annual Report of the Service. The presentation of key data has been improved under the tenure of the current CPO and the openness and transparency represent good practice.

11. Some performance targets are routinely achieved and should be revised to focus on continuous improvement. The performance indicators for the Service contain limited reference to cost or value for money.
12. The current case management system has limitations which result in inefficiencies, data quality issues and incompatibility with the Prison system. A joint procurement process with the States of Guernsey to replace the system commenced in 2022. This project is still in progress after the initial procurement process was halted at contract stage in 2025 and a new process commenced. Elements of the first procurement process and project management arrangements did not comply with the Public Finances Manual and I am surprised that a new company with no assets was able to satisfy the Government's due diligence requirements. The first procurement exercise resulted in expenditure of around £43,000, use of officer time, and significant delays to the replacement system. A subsequent exercise is ongoing and has identified an alternative preferred provider.
13. The Service and JFCAS employ 35 full-time equivalent officers. There are pressure points in some service areas, and risks where there is reliance on key personnel. An initial draft workforce plan has been prepared and actions are being progressed.
14. Statistics show that new cases referred to the Service and JFCAS have increased since 2021. Community service hours ordered are also increasing which has resulted in a backlog. Supervisor roles are difficult to recruit to and an exercise is in hand to review the role and remuneration.

Conclusion

15. The Probation and After-Care Service faces the inherent challenges typical of small organisations. These include balancing strategic development with operational priorities, and risks associated with individuals in key roles with limited support. Alongside these pressures, there is evidence that caseloads are increasing in number and severity. The priority is doing business as usual' well. While there are good examples of change and improvement, operational priorities result in less focus on opportunities for innovation towards an aspirational vision.
16. The data analysis and information system currently used for case management is a barrier to efficiency including through a lack of integration with the Prison system. Capital funding has been approved to replace this system since 2023 but a solution is still to be delivered.

Objectives and scope of the audit

17. The audit has evaluated how well the Service uses its resources to manage risk, and to ensure it delivers an efficient, effective and economic service.
18. The criteria in Exhibit 3 were used to assess the relative performance of the Service.

Exhibit 3: Audit criteria

Effective processes

Governance and  are in place for

assurance  continued

arrangements  organisational

The budget and  ascutipvpitoierst adnedlivtehrey koefy  development and  coTnhseidSeersrvhicoewacchtiavnelgyes resource allocation for  strategic objectives  improvement in line  in technology and

the Service are  with priorities future innovation may proportionate and  affect risk, and it

support the activity set  exploits opportunities

out in the strategic  presented by these to objectives improve efficiency and

effectiveness

The Service ensures

effective performance

management and

The Service identifies  accountability,  The Service has the its strategic risks. Its  including a focus on  capacity and capability

objectives are aligned  value for money. It can  it needs to improve to risks. Strategies,  demonstrate effective  performance and has

objectives, actions and  delivery of its risk  the skills needed to

targets are clearly  based objectives achieve sustainable linked change

19. Appendix One contains more details of the audit approach.

Detailed findings

Strategy and risk

Strategy and business planning

20. The Jersey Courts website includes the following statement to summarise the work of the Service:

The Jersey Probation and After-Care Service exists to provide the parishes, courts and prisons with a high quality information service and to supervise those offenders entrusted to it in order to reduce re-offending, allow restitution and protect the public'.

21. This mission statement is delivered through six strategic objectives. The strategic objectives have been stable over recent years and are largely unchanged from those published in the Service's Annual Report 2020.
22. The Annual Report 2025 includes detailed narrative on actions completed and future targets to support the strategic objectives. The latter will require change and improvement alongside those actions which reflect business as usual'.
23. The Service has not articulated a vision statement to describe its aspiration for the next five to ten years. The Service can evidence change and improvement, and formalising an aspiration in a vision statement would enable the Service to build on the current baseline performance with a focus on continuous improvement in a more structured way. This could be reflected in future objectives for the Service as well as personal objectives and targets of individual officers.
24. Some examples of vision statements which focus on quality and improvement through probation interventions are provided in Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 4: Examples of Probation Service vision statements

Source: Jersey Audit Office research

25. The Service does not produce a formal Business Plan but the actions to support delivery of the strategic objectives are documented and monitored using a spreadsheet. This includes narrative describing progress with a red, amber and green rating (RAG) for use by Board and the Management Team. The spreadsheet represents an efficient and effective process for monitoring delivery of strategic objectives. However, there appear to be some inconsistencies in the interpretation of the RAG ratings. In some areas, actions in progress to be completed later in the year are classified as green' and other instances are shown as amber'. A description of what exactly the RAG categories mean would be helpful in promoting consistency in interpretation.
26. The spreadsheet includes five JFCAS actions where change is proposed. Outside of these actions within the overall plan, the JFCAS Team Manager has a separate set of detailed goals and ambitions for delivery in 2025 and 2026. The following vision statement applies to JFCAS:

Our vision is to achieve positive change for children that continues long after family court proceedings are over. To achieve this, we must shine a strong light on children's needs, and our recommendations to court should play a part in helping children's lives to improve'.

27. This statement has clarity and a positive focus on the work of JFCAS leading to improvement in children's lives. However, it is not referenced on the JFCAS part of the Courts website which includes an alternative mission statement that Children and young people should be at the centre of all proceedings'.
28. JFCAS also has a values statement, a description of what good looks like', a detailed aspiration for JFCAS and agreed principles. The process that has been adopted to develop JFCAS priorities and an implementation plan reflects good practice. The output is used by the Team Manager to monitor delivery of actions which are at a more detailed level than those captured in the wider business planning spreadsheet.
29. The JFCAS action plan is dated up to November 2026. At this point, the Service may wish to take the opportunity to integrate this into the wider strategic planning of the Service so that there is a single operational delivery plan divided into each of the four areas of Criminal Justice, Community Service, JFCAS and Directorate.

Risk management

30. The Service follows the Government of Jersey Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) approach with four stages of risk management:

• Identification

• Assessment

• Mitigating controls; and

• Monitoring and reporting.

31. At the time of my fieldwork in July and August 2026, the Service was engaged with the Government of Jersey Central Risk Team to assess its maturity in relation to overall risk management. This process involves a self-assessment alongside the Central Risk Team's assessment of a range of criteria including:

• Leadership and governance

• People and accountability

• Process integration

• Monitoring and assurance; and

• Outcomes and innovation.

32. The Service is the 12th department to have completed the risk maturity assessment and the first non-Ministerial department. The results indicate good progress since 2023 and the Service demonstrates a greater level of maturity when measured against Government departments assessed so far. The Central Risk Team's conclusion from the assessment is that Jersey Probation and After-Care Services scored significantly higher than the Government of Jersey average in both the self-assessed score and the central KPIs [Key Performance Indicators]. Since the assessment, a number of improvement actions have been completed, which are expected to further enhance this already positive outcome.'
33. The risk profile is reviewed at bi-monthly Management Team meetings which allows opportunity for discussion and mitigation measures to be put in place. A Jurat from the Probation Board has specific responsibility in relation to oversight of risk. The engagement of the Service with the Central Risk Team is evidence of a positive approach to risk management.
34. The headline risks reported in the Annual Report for 2025 include particular reference to ensuring safety. The risks are shown in Exhibit 5 below together with the risks identified in 2022.

Exhibit 5: Top level risks reported in 2025 with a comparison to 2022

Annual Report 2022  Annual Report 2025

Securing a suitable replacement for the  Being without a new case management Service's electronic data management  system until late 2026

system

Annual Report 2022

Challenge in recruiting Probation Officers

Serious reoffending by a client of the Service

Community staff shortages for weekend work parties

Annual Report 2025

Risk of aggression or violence to staff

Serious reoffending by a client Community Service staff shortages

Introduction of post custodial supervision without necessary resources and operating model

Increased demands for regulatory compliance

Cyber attack

Source: Probation and After-Care Service Annual Reports 2022 and 2025

35. It has not been possible for the Service to fully mitigate key risks over the three year period, most notably the risks associated with the case management system and Community Service staffing.
36. Since my fieldwork, work has been undertaken by the Service to review and consolidate the risk register into 24 risks (including 12 health and safety risks). Three of these risks however are overdue for review.
37. Multi-agency risks in relation to Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA) are presented to the Board by the JMAPPA co- ordinator and reported in the JMAPPA Annual Report.

Recommendation

R1  Review and update the strategic objectives action plan to ensure

completeness, clarity and consistency in progress reporting.

Area for consideration

A1  Agree an aspirational vision statement for the Service with a focus on

continuous improvement from the current base. Publish the vision for the Service and JFCAS on the website.

Budget and resource allocation

Revenue budget and expenditure

38. The annual budget for the Service is developed by the CPO and Executive Manager in liaison with the Finance Business Partner. The States of Jersey Budget for 2026 included a total of £3.48 million for the Service which has since been increased to £3.56 million following allocation of the 2026 pay award and pension cost adjustments. The budget includes 88% in respect of staff costs. The remaining budgeted costs include rent, IT costs, training and equipment and supplies, including those required for the Community Service.
39. The original budget was allocated over the Service's cost centres as shown in Exhibit 6.

Exhibit 6: Probation and After-Care budget analysis 2026

Source: Probation and After-Care Service Management Accounts report June 2026

40. The budgets for the period to 2029 show stability in subsequent years with the exception of an additional growth element of £65,000 for one year in 2027 for the cost of a voluntary external inspection to be commissioned from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation.
41. The CPO is responsible for performance against budget in his role as Accountable Officer for the Service. The CPO meets regularly with the Finance Business Partner. The Probation Board receives regular financial update

reports. These updates are a brief summary of performance to date and the expected outturn with reasons provided for variances. The standard Operational Management Team agenda does not include finance although a discussion of finance does take place.

42. My review of annual expenditure compared to budget since 2019 shows that the Service has reported an underspend for each of the last seven years (Exhibit 7).

Exhibit 7: Actual expenditure and budget 2019 to 2025

£000

3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000

1,500 1,000 500 0

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Final Approved Budget Outturn

Source: Jersey Audit Office analysis of States of Jersey Annual Report and Accounts 2019 to 2025

43. In 2023 the budget included specific growth funding of £77,000 to meet the cost of an additional Probation Officer to support the introduction of post- custodial supervision for prisoners sentenced to six months or more. A further post at the same cost was included in the budget for 2024. The introduction of mandatory post-custodial supervision had previously been paused during the Covid-19 pandemic and plans recommenced in 2023. At the time of my fieldwork in August 2026, work remained in progress to agree policy principles and to draft the appropriate legislation. There was at this stage however no timetable for implementation.
44. Until mandatory post-custodial supervision is introduced, the posts remain vacant. The Service anticipates reporting an underspend in 2026 of around £365,000 which includes the underspends on post-custodial supervision posts as well as other underspends.

45. At a States of Jersey level the allocation of a budget to a Service for a business case that is not going to be implemented in that year does not represent good practice. The CPO recognises that a budget allocation that will not be spent is an anomaly.

Capital budget and expenditure

46. The Government Plan for 2023 included a capital allocation of £770,000 to meet the costs of a new Probation Case Management system. The initial capital allocation continued until 2026. This project is still in progress after the initial procurement process was halted at contract stage in 2025 and a new process commenced. The Budget for 2026 indicates that the project sum is now £756,000 with completion anticipated in 2027.

Recommendation

R2  Ensure that budgets are allocated only when there is certainty that business

cases will be implemented.

Governance and assurance arrangements

47. The governance arrangements overseeing performance of the Service are shown in Exhibit 8.

Exhibit 8: Probation and After-Care Service and JFCAS structure 2026

Non-Ministerial Departments Audit Committee

Criminal Justice 2 x Probation Team Managers

Probation Board Chief Probation Officer

Community Service

Manager

Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements

Jersey Family Court Advisory Service Manager

Directorate

InformMataionna gaenrd Data  Executive Manager  

Source: Jersey Audit Office interpretation from Probation and After-Care Service Annual Report 2025

48. I have considered the following aspects of governance and assurance arrangements:

• the Probation Board

• the Non-Ministerial Departments Audit Committee

• Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and partnership working

• management oversight

• operational arrangements

• performance monitoring and reporting

• feedback and complaints; and

• external scrutiny.

Probation Board

49. The Probation Board (the Board) is appointed by the Bailiff to provide effective governance for the Service and JFCAS. It has no statutory basis but operates under delegated authority of the Royal Court which does have statutory responsibility for the Service. The CPO reports to the Royal Court through the Board. The CPO is also an Accountable Officer under the Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019.
50. The Board has a detailed Terms of Reference (ToR) which was introduced by the current Chair in January 2023. The ToR including the role of the Chair is reviewed annually. The latest review was on 30 March 2026.
51. I reviewed the Board minutes from 2025 and early 2026. The minutes are of a high quality. Many items considered by the Board focus on receipt of information. There is limited evidence of actions arising or change following intervention by the Board members.
52. The standard agenda and minutes provide evidence that most of the items listed in the ToR are addressed through Board meetings. I found however that:

• there is limited evidence of monitoring of the budget planning process

• there is no evidence in the minutes to demonstrate approval of a business plan or new key performance indicators

• some of the dialogue at the Probation Board drifts towards operational matters, particularly on human resources issues; and

• the ToR suggests an annual review of Board effectiveness as well as the annual review of the ToR. There is no evidence of such a review being reported to the Board.

53. The Bailiff appoints a minimum of six Jurats to the Board. These appointments are for a term of three years but can be extended. Two States Members are also invited to attend Board meetings in a non-executive capacity.

54. The current Chair is due to retire towards the end of this year and a succession plan has been agreed so that another Board member can assume the role with a further Jurat being appointed by the Bailiff to fill the vacancy.
55. For the three Board meetings from December 2025 to March 2026, I note that two or three Jurats were unable to attend, including two Jurats who did not attend any of the three meetings.
56. While the ToR specifies that the Bailiff will appoint Jurats to the Board, as the Board is non-statutory, there may be an opportunity to consider whether a wider recruitment pool to include an independent lay person may be advantageous in the future. The current Jurats on the Board bring experiences from backgrounds including finance, law and the civil service. An exercise to agree desirable skills and competencies for the Board may identify skills gaps which may be more appropriately filled from outside of the current Jurat group.

Non-Ministerial Departments Audit Committee

57. The Non-Ministerial Departments Audit Committee is an advisory committee and was established in response to a recommendation made by my predecessor in 2019.
58. Due in part to a turnover of staff supporting the committee, there had been no meetings of the committee in 2026 at the time of my fieldwork.
59. As I reported in Financial Management and Internal Control – Follow up (July 2025) the responsibility of the Committee under its Terms of Reference to assess whether the resources allocated to non-Ministerial departments have been used efficiently and effectively has not been addressed in the work undertaken to date. This continues to be the case with the relevant recommendation from my 2025 report yet to be implemented.

Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and partnership working

60. Outside of direct Service responsibilities, the CPO is also part of the Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (JMAPPA). JMAPPA is in place

to protect the public and help individuals not to offend or reoffend. It allows agencies to assess and manage individuals on a multi-agency basis by working together, sharing information and meeting, as necessary, to ensure that effective plans are put in place.

61. The JMAPPA process is overseen by a Strategic Management Board (SMB). JMAPPA is currently chaired by the CPO and in 2025 included Chief Officers or their representatives from:

• States of Jersey Police

• Prison Service

• Customs and Immigration

• Honorary Police

• Employment, Social Security and Housing

• Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance

• Children, Young People, Education and Skills Department

• Health and Care Jersey

• Victim Services; and

• Andium Homes.

62. The number of individuals managed under JMAPPA has increased steadily since 2020. As well as a growth in overall caseload, consistent with the overall criminal justice data, there has also been growth in serious offences involving violence, domestic abuse and sexual offences.
63. The nature of the work of the Service is such that it involves significant work and engagement with partners. For example, the Service undertakes the chairing role for the Children and Young Persons Placement Panel.
64. The Service recognises the importance of joint working in its Strategic Priority to Develop effective partnerships'. While relationships are considered by

officers to be effective, further work is required in some areas to improve joint-working with key agencies.

65. The 2026 Business Plan for the Justice and Home Affairs Department (JHA) includes two key objectives for 2026 related to the Prison, which include input from the Service: The JHA Business Plan includes actions to advance a joint Probation and Prison Rehabilitation and Resettlement Strategy as well as an objective which includes recommendations related to violence against women and girls (VAWG)'.
66. While there is a reference to VAWG among the Service's Strategic Objectives, the detail does not align with the detail in the JHA Business Plan. There is no reference to the forthcoming joint Probation and Prison Rehabilitation and Resettlement Strategy.
67. Similarly, the Annual Report of the States of Jersey Prison Service for 2025 includes an aim to Provide a rehabilitative ethos for prisoners to address all seven pathways to reduce the risk of reoffending that is fully integrated with Probation and After-Care Services'. There is no corresponding reference in the Service's Strategic Objectives.
68. Among the data included in the performance reports produced by the Service are the following examples which are published for the year in question as well as recent trends being available:

• factors contributing to offences in pre-sentencing reports; and

• risk of reconviction and criminogenic need using the LS-CMI (Level of Service/Case Management Inventory) psychometric tool developed by Canadian criminologists and psychologists and used widely in criminal justice.

69. There is limited evidence to demonstrate how this data is used within the Service or JMAPPA in a structured way, and also how it is shared more widely so that it can be used in wider Government policy and strategy work. For example, the Jersey Mental Health Strategy 2026-2030 does not indicate any contribution from the Service although it holds powerful and relevant data related to influencing factors for offenders. Conversely, the Substance Use Strategy 2023–2033 produced by Public Health Jersey did include consultation

with the Service, although there is no evidence within the Strategy to indicate how any data may have been used. This Strategy includes a range of actions assigned to a variety of stakeholders. It makes reference to the specialist Substance Misuse Officer employed by the Service, but none of the actions include any contribution from the Service.

Management oversight

70. The Service is headed by the CPO who is responsible for the structure and strategic and operational management. The CPO and managers meet as the Management Team at least monthly. Separate meetings are held to consider strategic matters (including risk, workforce, finance and policies) and operational matters (significant cases, complaints, detailed workforce issues). The standard agenda for each of the Management Team meetings includes some common areas and there is evidence of the boundaries between operational and strategic matters becoming blurred with strategic meetings focussing on operational issues.
71. The ToR for the Management Team is dated April 2019 and a review is recommended to put in place an updated ToR which aligns with the structure and conduct of future management meetings.
72. The CPO as Accountable Officer completed the Annual Governance Statement for 2025 for submission to the Government's Head of Corporate Governance. The statement is thorough and well-evidenced. It confirms that the Service has complied with the States of Jersey Governance Framework and no significant weaknesses were reported. The 2025 self-assessment refers to the failure to comply with the Government's project management process in respect of the new case management system. The CPO had taken Treasury advice and did not report this as a breach. This matter was rectified retrospectively once reported by Internal Audit and, in my view, failure to comply with the requirement in the Public Finances Manual (PFM) while incurring expenditure should have been reported as a breach.
73. JFCAS is included within the overall structure of the Service and reports to the CPO. JFCAS has no criminal justice role but is too small to be a stand-alone department. Inclusion within the Service ensures independence, efficiency, a

link to the Courts and the opportunity for networking with Probation Officers on areas of common interest relevant to Family Court proceedings.

74. A Board member leads on issues related to JFCAS and the Team Manager is periodically invited to present updates to the Board.

Operational arrangements

Probation and After-Care Service operating procedures

75. An exercise is ongoing led by the Information and Data Manager to document all policies, legislation sources and forms and templates used by the Service. These are maintained on a database which categorises all policies and procedures with review dates. At the time of my fieldwork some reviews were outstanding.
76. In 2025, a total of 444 probation reports were produced which is reasonably consistent with previous years. The types of report are shown in Exhibit 9.

Exhibit 9: Probation report types produced 2021 to 2025

Source: Probation and After-Care Service Annual Reports 2021 to 2025

77. There are well-established processes in place for casework and quality assurance within the team with Microsoft Forms used for data recording. There are no published performance indicators that relate to timeliness and quality of casework reports. Feedback on quality of reports provided by the Court is not captured in a structured manner. The percentage of sentencing recommendations accepted by the Court is also not recorded systematically.

78. At the time of my fieldwork, the Service was considering the output from a case audit carried out by three Probation Officers based on work undertaken between February and May 2026. The output describes a marked improvement since a similar exercise in 2022. Strengths and areas for improvements have been reported to the team so that the learning can be applied to future case files.

JFCAS operating procedures

79. Although the overall service database for policies and procedures includes a reference to JFCAS, no documents are included. The Team Manager has documented many JFCAS processes including a Practice Manual for Private Law and Public Law cases. Other areas are in hand including revisions to leaflets and letter templates. It is important that all other areas of JFCAS operational activity are documented and added to the database as soon as possible, particularly as much of the responsibility and knowledge is with the Team Manager.
80. The Operating Framework for JFCAS is included on the Courts website. It includes a substantial volume of both internally facing and externally facing information. There is merit in considering separating the framework into:

• an operational practice manual for internal use; and

• detailed guidance for children and families to be drafted using an accessible and plain English style of language which can also be provided in printed form. It would also be helpful to translate the guidance into other relevant languages.

81. Case audits within JFCAS are the responsibility of the Team Manager. At the time of my fieldwork, there was a backlog in these audits. Feedback from the Courts on the quality of reports produced by JFCAS is not routinely captured in a structured way.

Performance monitoring and reporting

82. A significant amount of data is provided quarterly to enable the Board and Management Team to review performance. While the data is subject to senior review and reasonableness checks, the limitations within the DAISy system mean that data quality remains a risk and production of the data reports is inefficient. The Information and Data Manager helps mitigate this risk by maintaining separate spreadsheets and manual records to support the reasonableness checks as well as using data from the Prison system which is independent from DAISy.
83. The Service publishes the performance report online at the half year period and the full year position with graphics, and brief narrative is included as part of the Annual Report of the Service. The presentation of key data has been improved under the tenure of the current CPO. The openness and transparency represent good practice.

Feedback and complaints

84. The level of complaints is relatively low and feedback and learning from complaints are fed back to the Board and Management Team. The Probation pages on the Courts website include a link to the Feedback and Complaints policy with an embedded link to the Government Customer Feedback Management System. At the time of my fieldwork, this link did not work. The JFCAS pages on the Courts website include a link to access the feedback and complaints process. This link was also not working at the time of my fieldwork. Both links have subsequently been fixed.

External scrutiny

85. In 2022, the Service agreed to commission an independent inspection of its operational activity from His Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation. This followed previous voluntary inspections of performance and administration frameworks and offender management in 2005 and the Community Service Scheme in 2012. The inspection has however been deferred until 2027 due to the procurement of the case management system.

86. JFCAS is not regulated and there is no inspection regime covering its services. The Courts website includes the output from a voluntary external inspection by the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills in England which dates from 2019. The report included recommendations which have now been implemented, the final one being the establishment of the Jersey Family Justice Council as a cross-agency forum in 2024.
87. No further inspections or reviews are currently planned of JFCAS.

Recommendations

R3  Commission or carry out a review of the effectiveness of the Probation Board

against the current Terms of Reference to identify areas for improvement in future years.

R4  Review the Terms of Reference and update the standard agendas for the

Management Team meetings to ensure a clear distinction between strategic and operational matters.

R5  Prepare a plan within the JFCAS team to ensure that time is available for

routine case audits on a monthly basis.

R6  Agree common strategic objectives with Justice and Home Affairs and other

partners where there are initiatives of common interest.

R7  Communicate with all relevant departments to improve awareness of data

held by the Service and offer input to future strategy development in relevant areas.

R8  Ensure that links to enable clients to provide feedback are working and

periodically checked.

R9  Review options for periodic external, independent reviews of JFCAS.

Work planned that should be prioritised

P1  Ensure that all outstanding reviews of policies and procedures are completed

and documented as soon as possible in respect of the Probation and After- Care Service and JFCAS.

Areas for consideration

A2  Consider the benefits of appointing a lay-person to the Probation Board.

A3  Review the JFCAS Operating Framework on the website and consider

separation into guidance for Officers and a more accessible guide for children and families, including alternative formats and languages.

A4  Consider introducing qualitative key performance indicators that reflect

structured feedback from the Courts on the work of the Service and JFCAS. A5  Make use of the Government of Jersey Customer Feedback Management

System.

Organisational development and improvement

Service performance measures

88. A wide range of data on activities of the Service and JFCAS is produced for review by managers, Management Team and the Board. Much of this relates to case volumes and trends which will be useful for the new workforce planning initiative. There is less focus on use of data to inform judgments on efficiency and effectiveness of the Service as well as overall value for money.
89. There are no Probation performance indicators reported in the States of Jersey suite of Service Performance Measures (SPMs). Within the SPMs, there are prison indicators related to occupancy and post-release indicators which are relevant to the Service. I have seen no evidence that these are reviewed as a contribution to the overall performance review of the Service.
90. The Annual Report for 2025 includes four KPIs which are considered to be the headline messages from the whole Service performance. These are shown in Exhibit 10. In 2024, there were seven headline indicators and in 2023, there were five. The reduction to four KPIs was to provide a focus on indicators which are easy to understand and measure, and do not require further context. The Service should however consider adding the Probation Order client satisfaction back into the headline KPIs so that both Probation Orders and Community Service have a qualitative measure to report.

Exhibit 10: Probation headline KPIs reported 2023 to 2025

KPI  Target  2023  2024  2025 Probation orders completed  75%  85.7%  79.2%  80.9% Community Service orders completed  75%  85.6%  88.7%  85%

Children made subject to Parish Hall

supervision to complete successfully  75%  100%  100%  98.2% Clients at end of community orders satisfied

with service received  80%  N/A  N/A  92%

KPI  Target  2023  2024  2025 Clients reassessed at end of probation

demonstrating a reduced risk of reconviction  66%  59.7%  60.8%  N/A Prisoners subject to conditional early release

completing supervision  80%  100%  71%  N/A Community service beneficiaries satisfied/very

satisfied with service  90%  N/A  100%  N/A Clients at the end of probation order

satisfied/very satisfied with service  90%  N/A  100%  N/A

Source: Probation and After-Care Service Annual Reports 2023 to 2025

91. The analysis above shows that each of the four current headline KPIs reported since 2023 has exceeded the target, in some cases comfortably. All targets should be reviewed and revised where appropriate to a level which is realistic, aspirational and incentivises improvement.
92. There are no indicators reported which demonstrate cost effectiveness of the Service or JFCAS. Developing financial metrics would provide the Service with the opportunity to monitor trends and also benchmark with other jurisdictions.
93. Some suggested cost indicators include:

• cost of Service per head of population

• cost of Service per report completed in year; and

• cost of Community Service sentence.

JFCAS KPIs

94. There are no targets or headline KPIs reported for JFCAS. The only data reported in the Annual Report and other performance reports relates to case volumes and trends, split into private law, public law and adoptions.
95. The opportunity should be taken to identify KPIs which demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness of JFCAS. This could include duration of cases from start to

finish and client and Court feedback on satisfaction of service or quality of intervention.

Comparison with other jurisdictions

96. The Service is a member of the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) and takes part in its activities in order to learn from a wider network. The Service and JFCAS officers also have good relationships with the States of Guernsey Probation Service and the Guernsey Family Proceedings Advisory Service. Liaison with colleagues in Guernsey includes reciprocal work in cases where there may be a conflict in one jurisdiction. Both jurisdictions are also working together on procurement of a new case management system which will contribute to pan Island resilience.
97. There is no evidence of benchmarking with other jurisdictions with a view to demonstrating value for money. The Service produces a range of performance data and may wish to consider opportunities for benchmarking once the new case management system is introduced.
98. I have compared performance of the Service with published data from Guernsey and Northern Ireland. Some detail is provided in Exhibit 11.

Exhibit 11: Comparative costs and case load

Cost per  Cases per Cost  Caseload  MAPPA  head of  1,000

 Jurisdiction  Population  £000  year end  cases*  population   population Jersey  104,000  2,600  411  258  £25  4.0 Guernsey  64,000  1,883  265  183  £29  4.1 Northern Ireland  1,927,900  25,025  3,953  706  £13  2.1

*Not all MAPPA cases involve Probation Officers.

Source: Jersey Probation and After-Care Service Annual Report 2025 (excl JFCAS), JMAPPA Annual Report 2025, States of Guernsey Probation Service Annual Report 2025, Probation Board of Northern Ireland Annual Report 2025/26.

99. The comparative data shows that the cost of the Service per head of population is £25 compared to £29 in Guernsey and £13 in Northern Ireland, which will benefit from economies of scale. The number of cases per 1,000 population is very similar to Guernsey. Other comparisons with Guernsey are shown in Exhibit 12.

Exhibit 12: Example data comparisons with Guernsey Probation Service (2025)

Source: Jersey Probation and After-Care Service Annual Report, States of Guernsey Probation Service Annual Report 2025

100.  Reviewing data from comparative exercises provides the opportunity for

reasonableness checks as well as considering why there are outlying positions. While this example just uses one comparator jurisdiction, it does indicate that workloads in Jersey are higher in terms of reports and Community Service orders are more widely used and longer on average. It also shows that the Community Service hours worked are higher as a percentage when measured against new orders.

Recommendation

R10  Review and revise all current Service targets and in doing so:

• ensure they focus on improvement and aspiration

• include published targets and measures to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of JFCAS; and

• agree the headline dataset to be reported for 2026 performance and beyond.

Area for consideration

A6  Consider developing cost and other quantitative KPIs that can be used to

monitor trends and value for money, including benchmarking opportunities with other jurisdictions.

Technology and innovation

Case management system

101.  The current case management system (DAISy) has been used by the Service

since 2004 including an upgrade in 2018. The system is also used by the States of Guernsey Probation Service. The system is described by officers as cumbersome and inefficient to use. Data extractions require reasonableness checks, and concerns about data quality result in separate records being maintained to support data integrity.

102.  In 2022, the supplier notified the Service that it would not support the system

beyond December 2024. A business case was prepared to procure a replacement system in 2022 which described the following reasons for change:

• inefficient retrieval of data leading to inefficiency and frustration for stakeholders. This has included delay in providing public protection and safeguarding data to partners about the VAWG related work of the department

• vulnerability to cyber-attacks and data breaches

• staff would be left with outdated and inefficient solutions to carry out their work;thus,impactingonworkloadandstaff morale; and

• operational efficiency and collaboration with other critical service areas would become inhibited.

103.  It was agreed that a joint procurement exercise with the States of Guernsey

Probation Service would be beneficial to both Services. The business case also included use of the new system by Jersey Prison as the Prison's existing Prison Information Management System (PIMS) is not compatible with DAISy, leading to inefficiencies in exchange of information.

104.  A sum of £770,000 was provided in the Government Plan 2023–2026 to meet

the cost. A Request for Information (RFI) was issued in 2022 which resulted in full system demonstrations from seven suppliers. None of these could accommodate both probation and prison requirements and the Prison Service

withdrew from the process in 2023. The Procurement Strategy submitted in August 2023 anticipated project completion by January 2025. The system is yet to be delivered and inefficiencies due to incompatibility with the prison system remain.

105.  A preferred supplier was agreed following the procurement process and bid

evaluation at the end of 2023. The preferred supplier was a new company incorporated in February 2022 with its three directors appointed in February 2023 and January 2024. At least two of the directors were known to the Service as they had previously worked with the current system provider. The company accounts for the year ended 28 February 2023 show that it was dormant and the accounts for the year end 29 February 2024 show that the company had £3 in assets. To mitigate the liquidity risk, the Procurement Lead requested evidence of funding prior to any contract.

106.  From correspondence provided to me, it is evident that the directors were

planning to invest liquid funds into the business. However, in early March 2025, prior to signing the contracts, the directors advised that there was a problem in sourcing this funding. This resulted in the process being terminated by both Probation Services with a joint letter dated 12 March 2025. The first procurement exercise resulted in expenditure of around £43,000, use of officer time, and significant delays to the replacement system. Some of this expenditure was relevant to the later procurement exercise.

107.  The Government of Jersey Procurement Best Practice and Procedures: User

Guide and Toolkit (the Toolkit') notes that Due diligence means checking that your supplier is:

• who they claim to be

• financially sound

• capable and experienced in the delivery of the requirement

• has the systems, processes and capacity to be able to deliver the requirement; and

• understands the requirements and the deliverables'.'

108.  I am surprised that a new company with no meaningful assets was able to

satisfy the due diligence requirements and get to the latter stages of the procurement process.

109.  I have reviewed the first Procurement Strategy document but I am advised

that there is no record of a Recommendation to Award (RTA) Report' being prepared after the bid evaluation. The Toolkits states that an RTA report should be completed and submitted for approval for projects over £100,001.

110.  An Internal Audit report found that the project management for the first

procurement exercise did not use the Government of Jersey Corporate Portfolio Management Office (CPMO) Project Delivery Framework. The Project Manager was not aware of the Project Delivery Framework and requirements. As a result, the first project was not listed on the Government of Jersey approved project reporting tool. Therefore initial progress was not recorded or monitored, and documentation requirements were not met.

111.  The Internal Audit report took over ten months to finalise with the final report

issued in May 2026, almost two years after the Internal Audit work commenced. An independent Project Assessment Review was commissioned by the States of Guernsey Probation Service and was completed in September 2024. The report included a range of critical and essential recommendations to be addressed by the Project Board and concluded that the Delivery Confidence Assessment was Red'.

112.  A second procurement exercise was agreed following the termination of the

original process. This used the G-Cloud UK government procurement framework, as this framework was deemed to provide a balance of speed and transparency to enable competition between the suppliers who had responded to the Request for Information.

113.  The G-Cloud process was initiated on 17 November 2025. The Procurement

Strategy which is mandatory for projects over £100,001 has been completed but was prepared on 30 April 2026 and signed off on 7 May 2026. The procurement process and evaluation has been completed and the Recommendation to Award report was signed on 11 June 2026.

114.  The Procurement Strategy shows forecast development, licensing and support

costs over a four year contract period to be £1.47 million shared with the States of Guernsey. The share for the Government of Jersey is £730,000.

115.  The Budget for 2026 to 2029 only includes estimates totalling £545,000 in

2026 and 2027. Accounts for 2023 to 2025 show expenditure to date of £162,000, some of which relates to the aborted procurement. Following evaluation of tenders, the final procurement cost was within the available budget. The CPO has advised that no additional budget will be requested for the project and any shortfall for ongoing running costs will be met from efficiencies in existing budgets.

Other developments

116.  The Service's focus on developments in technology has been on the DAISy

replacement in the last three years. The Service is also starting to consider use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within clear guidelines as part of the wider States initiative. Where Probation Officers use AI to help draft reports, this must be disclosed.

Capacity and capability

Workforce planning and resource management

117.  At the time of my fieldwork, the Service establishment was 37.44 full-time

equivalent (FTE), including two Criminal Justice vacant posts.

118.  2025 was the busiest year for the Service since 2021. Resource capacity has

increased in the period but there is now an opportunity to use the data collected on volumes, types of supervision and reports to feed more systematically into workforce planning.

119.  The number of new JFCAS cases in 2025 was 66% greater than 2021 and 19%

greater than 2024. The number of cases outstanding at the year-end has also increased every year since 2022. The workload at the end of December 2025 is equivalent to nearly 23 cases per FTE. The workload per FTE will increase further due to planned changes in the team. Without adequate mitigation, there is a real risk that a backlog will develop and other work including audit and strategic priorities in JFCAS will slip.

120.  Community Service hours ordered were also higher in 2025 than the previous

four years at a level of 21,039 hours. A backlog of Community Service work built up during the Covid-19 pandemic but this was largely addressed by the end of 2024. In 2025, a backlog has once again become evident with hours worked of 15,180 being equivalent to 72% of new hours ordered. This compares to a figure of 94% in 2024.

121.  In 2022, the Community Service team comprised a Manager, Assistant

Manager and seven part-time supervisors. The team in 2026 is the same Manager and seven part-time supervisors, five of whom are the same as in 2022. The annual hours ordered over the same period has increased by 40% and there is a backlog in Community Service sentence delivery.

122.  The Team Manager is due to retire in September 2026, and a supervisor is also

due to leave the Service in the near future. While I understand that a plan is in place to recruit a Team Manager, the pressures in Community Service are likely to continue and these posts can be difficult to recruit to.

123.  The pressures on capacity result in prioritising operational activities with less

focus on strategic issues, change and improvement.

124.  The risk of loss of key personnel is reflected in the Service's risk register. The

difficulty in recruiting Community Service supervisors is also recognised as a risk in the Jersey Probation and After-Care Service Annual Report for 2025. The mitigation includes job evaluation and a remuneration review which is planned for the current year.

125.  The resourcing impact of introducing mandatory post-custodial supervision

will need to be evaluated if and when introduced to confirm whether the two vacant FTE posts currently budgeted is appropriate for the additional work.

126.  The Service has carried out some initial work to develop a draft Workforce

Plan. The work undertaken to date has enabled the Service to employ trainee probation officers who are supported through to qualification and beyond. The draft Plan includes the following five areas of focus:

• recruitment and resourcing

• talent development

• learning and skills

• well-being; and

• diversity, equity and inclusion.

127.  The Service has reported good progress is being made against the areas of

focus identified.

Recommendation

R11  Prepare and implement a plan to address the backlog of Community Service

Orders within a reasonable timescale.

Work planned that should be prioritised

P2  Complete the Community Service Supervisor job evaluation exercise and act

on the outcome as soon as possible.

Appendix One Audit Approach

This audit used a:

• result-oriented approach (is the Probation and After-Care Service meeting the States' objectives and ambitions?); and

• system-oriented approach (are robust systems / processes in place for the Probation and After-Care Service to support performance and value for money?).

To assess relative performance during our audit, we used the following criteria.

Governance and  Effective processes

assurance  are in place for

arrangements  continued

support delivery of  organisational  The Service actively The budget and  activities and the  development and  considers how changes

resource allocation for  key strategic  improvement in line  in technology and the Service are  objectives  with priorities future innovation may proportionate and  affect risk, and it

support the activity set  exploits opportunities

out in the strategic  presented by these to objectives improve efficiency and

The Service ensures  effectiveness effective performance

management and

The Service identifies  accountability,  The Service has the its strategic risks. Its  including a focus on  capacity and capability

objectives are aligned  value for money. It can  it needs to improve to risks. Strategies,  demonstrate effective  performance and has objectives, actions  delivery of its risk  the skills needed to

and targets are clearly  based objectives achieve sustainable

linked change

The approach included the following key elements:

• Document request followed by review and analysis, and

• Interviews with key officers and contractors

The documents reviewed included:

• Agendas and Minutes of Probation Board and Management Team 2025 and 2026

• Annual Governance Statements from Accountable Officer 2024 and 2025

• Case Management System Business Case, updates and Procurement documentation

• Finance Report and Management Accounts 2026

• Half yearly and Quarterly Performance Reports 2026

• Internal Audit Report on Case management Project

• JFCAS Strategic plan

• JMAPPA Annual Report 2025

• Justice and Home Affairs Business Plan 2026

• Management Response to external review of Case Management System Procurement

• Probation and After Care Service report to Confederation of European Probation 2014

• Probation and After-Care Service Annual Report 2025 and prior years

• Probation and After-Care Service Risk Register

• Probation Officer Job Descriptions

• Risk Maturity Assessment

• States of Guernsey Probation Service Annual Report 2025

• Strategic Objectives Action Plan 2026

• Strategic Workforce Plan draft July 2026

• Summary of complaints 2024 to 2026

• Terms of Reference for Probation Board and Management Team

The following people contributed information through interviews or by correspondence:

• Chair of the Probation Board

• Chief Probation Officer

• Community Service Manager

• Executive Manager

• Head of Risk

• Information and Data Manager

• JFCAS Team Manager

• Officers in Commercial Services

• Probation Team Managers

The fieldwork was carried out by an affiliate working for the Comptroller and Auditor General, in July to August 2026.

Appendix Two

Summary of Recommendations, Work planned that should be prioritised and Areas for consideration

Recommendations

R1  Review and update the strategic objectives action plan to ensure

completeness, clarity and consistency in progress reporting.

R2  Ensure that budgets are allocated only when there is certainty that business

cases will be implemented.

R3  Commission or carry out a review of the effectiveness of the Probation Board

against the current Terms of Reference to identify areas for improvement in future years.

R4  Review the Terms of Reference and update the standard agendas for the

Management Team meetings to ensure a clear distinction between strategic and operational matters.

R5  Prepare a plan within the JFCAS team to ensure that time is available for

routine case audits on a monthly basis.

R6  Agree common strategic objectives with Justice and Home Affairs and other

partners where there are initiatives of common interest.

R7  Communicate with all relevant departments to improve awareness of data

held by the Service and offer input to future strategy development in relevant areas.

R8  Ensure that links to enable clients to provide feedback are working and

periodically checked.

R9  Review options for periodic external, independent reviews of JFCAS. R10  Review and revise all current Service targets and in doing so:

• ensure they focus on improvement and aspiration

• include published targets and measures to demonstrate the efficiency and effectiveness of JFCAS; and

• agree the headline dataset to be reported for 2026 performance and beyond.

R11  Prepare and implement a plan to address the backlog of Community Service

Orders within a reasonable timescale.

Work planned that should be prioritised

P1  Ensure that all outstanding reviews of policies and procedures are completed

and documented as soon as possible in respect of the Probation and After- Care Service and JFCAS.

P2  Complete the Community Service Supervisor job evaluation exercise and act

on the outcome as soon as possible.

Areas for consideration

A1  Agree an aspirational vision statement for the Service with a focus on

continuous improvement from the current base. Publish the vision for the Service and JFCAS on the website.

A2  Consider the benefits of appointing a lay-person to the Probation Board.

A3  Review the JFCAS Operating Framework on the website and consider

separation into guidance for Officers and a more accessible guide for children and families, including alternative formats and languages.

A4  Consider introducing qualitative key performance indicators that reflect

structured feedback from the Courts on the work of the Service and JFCAS. A5  Make use of the Government of Jersey Customer Feedback Management

System.

A6  Consider developing cost and other quantitative KPIs that can be used to

monitor trends and value for money, including benchmarking opportunities with other jurisdictions.

LYNN PAMMENT CBE
Comptroller and Auditor General

Jersey Audit Office, Jubilee Wharf, 24 The Esplanade, St Helier, Jersey JE2 3QA T: +44 1534 716800 E: [email protected]

W: http://www.jerseyauditoffice.je