Report - S.R.16-2021 Government Plan 2022-25 Review Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel - 8 December 2021

Post-16 Education Government Plan

2022 – 25 Review

Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Presented to the States on 8th December S.R.16/2021

1  CHAIR'S FOREWORD  1 2  INTRODUCTION / METHODOLOGY  2 3  FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  3

Findings  3 Recommendations  7

4  DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS  11

Departmental Budgets  11 Departmental Heads of Expenditure  12

5  EFFICIENCIES  16

Rebalancing and Efficiencies  16 Minister for Children and Education  17 Minister for Home Affairs  20

6  SUMMARY TABLES OF SCRUTINY RAG' RATINGS  30

Previously reviewed programmes and capital projects (GP 2020-23 / GP 2021-24)  30 New programmes requiring additional revenue expenditure (GP 2022-25)  34 New capital expenditure (GP 2022-25)  35

7  PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED PROGRAMMES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS: UPDATE REPORTS  36

Programmes  36

Education Reform Programme  36 Independent Jersey Care Inquiry P108 – Recommendation Five: Legislation – Legislation – Children's Policy and Legislative Programme  41 Independent Jersey Care Inquiry P108 – Recommendation Seven – The Jersey' Way  43 Policy/Legislation Service Delivery – Care Leavers Entitlement  45 Policy/Legislation Service Delivery – Children in Need / Early Help  48 CAMHS Service Redesign  51 Improving Educational Outcomes – Early Years  53 Higher Education  58 Funding of Senior Posts within Justice and Home Affairs  62 Policing 2020-23  63 SARC Dewberry House  65 Probation Service Additional Funding  66 Probation – BASS Funding, Regrading and Trainee Post  67

Capital Projects  68 Combined Control IT  68 North of St. Helier Youth Centre  71

8  NEW PROGRAMMES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS IN GP 2022-25: REPORTS

73

Programmes  73 GP22-CSP1-1-09 --- Young People Intensive support  73 GP22-CSP1-2-06 --- Education Demographic Pressures  75 GP22-OI3-28 --- Jersey Police Authority (JPA)  77 GP22-OI3-22 --- Defence Funding  79 Fund as Required --- Brexit Transition - Legal and Policy Support  80 GP22-OI-Non-12 --- Probation Service Inspection  82

Capital projects  84 CSP 1 --- School Estate  84 None --- Ambulance, Fire & Rescue Headquarters  86 CSP 1 --- Army and Sea Cadets Headquarters  88

9  CONCLUSION  90 10  WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE GATHERED  93 APPENDIX 1  94

Terms of Reference  94 Panel membership  95

1  Chair's Foreword

The  Panel  has  undertaken  a  thorough  review  of  this  year's Government Plan at a time when significant reports that will determine the long-term future of Education are to be finalised by Government departments across CYPES and Home Affairs. In addition, influential reviews of  sites that will determine schools and/or the Fire and Ambulance station are also due. The Panel has concerns over the absence of these reports and the subsequent effect on adequate information to scrutinise funding initiatives in significant areas. The Panel has made important recommendations around these and other areas of the Government plan specific to the Ministers scrutinised.

Covid-19 continues to provide challenges for face-to-face Scrutiny and required flexibility in our approach to engage as many stakeholders as possible. I would like to pass my personal thanks to all who have contributed evidence. There have been important contributions from participants which helped inform and shape the report. The Panel thanks the Ministers for their time  and  input.  We  look forward to  positive responses  to the  challenging,  yet  positive recommendations made.

I would like to thank the Scrutiny team for the huge amount of work they have undertaken to produce this timely and detailed report. Without their work, the important process of scrutiny would be debilitated, and our democracy diminished.

Deputy Rob Ward

Chair,

Children, Education and Home Scrutiny Panel

1

2  Introduction / Methodology

The proposed Government Plan 2022 sets out the approach the Government of Jersey has taken in responding to COVID-19 whilst continuing to invest in the Common Strategic Policy priorities:

1. Put children first
2. Improve Islander's wellbeing and mental and physical health
3. Create a sustainable, vibrant economy
4. Reduce income inequality and improve the standard of living
5. Protect and value our environment.

The Plan outlines the investment proposed in each of these five strategic priority areas and also includes a number of proposed efficiencies within the Government.

The Government Plan Financial Annex has also been lodged which contains supporting information for the Government Plan 2022-2025.  

The Scrutiny review of the Government Plan has taken a thorough approach, looking at the projects identified for additional revenue expenditure and capital expenditure last year, as well as new projects requiring additional revenue expenditure and capital expenditure in 2022. The Panel has undertaken this review in as much detail as possible with the information provided by Government.

A summary table of all business cases is provided in Chapter 6, along with the Panel's RAG rating.

In line with the methodology used during previous reviews, all Scrutiny Panels have agreed to use a common system to report on the status of each business case, as follows:

The Panel has reviewed the background information and is satisfied with the business case.

The Panel has reviewed the business case and either has concerns or considers that it needs more work, or further detail should be provided. It might also mean that the Panel considers it too early to make an informed decision. This may or may not lead to recommendations and/or amendments.

The Panel has reviewed the business case and is not satisfied or does not agree with the proposal. This may or may not lead to an amendment.

3  Findings and Recommendations

Findings

FINDING 1

The Minister for Children and Education has confirmed that the removal of a social worker role in Children's Services is as a result of a redesign of the service and the early help service providing better support that historically would have been dealt with by Social Workers. It was further stated that the increased caseload and reduction in capacity was a risk relating to the efficiency but was not currently an issue.

FINDING 2

The reduction in non-staff and staff spend within the Integrated Services and Commissioning service of Children, Young People, Education and Skills is defined as a streamlining of the service in order to remove various hurdles for individuals accessing services through the Children and Families Hub. It has been stated that this will not have an impact on service delivery.

FINDING 3

The Minister for Home Affairs has explained that a target of a £406,000 reduction in non-staff expenditure across the Department for Justice and Home Affairs has been set and is intended to identify waste and duplication across the service. This is intended to be confirmed by the middle of 2022.

FINDING 4

The Minister for Home Affairs has confirmed that an estimated £184,000 income in respect of visa, work permit and passport applications has been profiled for 2022 by the Customs and Immigration Department as part of the rebalancing measures. There is, however, no certainty at this stage as to whether this target is  achievable,  and  the  Minister  will  be  required  to  monitor  this  carefully throughout 2022.

FINDING 5

It is intended for a recurring spend reduction of £315,000 from 1st January 2022 (3% of the services budget) to be made within the States of Jersey Prison Service as part of a new target operating model for the service. However, this new operating model has yet to be finalised and there is a presumption that it will be undertaken with a view to achieving this level of saving.

FINDING 6

It is intended for the States of Jersey Police Force to make savings totalling £459,000 across the non-staff budget of £3.1 million. Taking into the account the transfer of Police IT which occurred earlier in 2022, this would reduce the non- staff budget to £2.9 million in 2022. The Chief of Police has identified several areas where these savings can be found and is confident that they can be achieved.

FINDING 7

It is intended to make an efficiency saving of £377,000 within Civilian Roles in the States of Jersey Police Force in 2022. This does not relate to a removal of posts, but to posts which have been frozen following a staff review into civilian roles within the Police Force. It is noted that the savings are not as a direct result of the staff review but have been put in place due to the requirement for all Government Departments to make 3% savings across budgets in 2022.

FINDING 8

Throughout its review of the Government Plan, the Panel has not received any information in relation to the new funding formula for schools that is intended to be in place from 1st January 2022, despite repeated requests to have sight of this information. It is the view of the Minister for Children and Education that the work to produce a new funding formula is not connected to the additional funding provided in the Government Plan around the Education Reform Programme. The Panel does not agree with this statement.

FINDING 9

The Panel is unable to state whether the "increased" funding of £11.2 million in 2022 is sufficient to cover the existing deficits, training for teachers and any identified increase in demographics that may arise from the new funding formula.

FINDING 10

There has been an 18-month delay in relation to policy work within the Children's Legislative Programme due to Policy Officers being seconded to other areas to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of pieces of legislation are due to be brought forward towards the end of the current Assembly, however, there is no certainty at this stage whether they will be lodged in time for debate prior to the election.

FINDING 11

The Panel is concerned that responsibility for oversight of implementing the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry recommendations now falls to a number of Ministers, whereas in previous discussions around this area responsibility was clearly placed on the Minister for Children and Education (formerly the Minister for Children and Housing) to act as a champion in this area. This does not appear to be the case at present. There needs to be greater clarity over the role of the Minister for Children and Education so that accountability is clear as to where the overall responsibilities lie.

FINDING 12

There has been further take up of the Care Leavers entitlement, with 78 people currently being supported by Children's Services. Work is ongoing to establish an endowment fund which is expected to be finalised within the coming months following the Government Plan debate.

FINDING 13

The Project Design of the Children in Need/Early Help project has now been completed and the additional the £1.7 million recurring funding in respect of the project relates almost entirely to staffing costs and commissioning of other services in respect of the Children and Families Hub. 11 roles are still to be recruited to at this stage and development of the Key Performance Indicators for the Early Help service is ongoing.

FINDING 14

The initial service design for the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service has been completed with a number of roles identified to be recruited to during 2022. The overall number of roles within the service is increasing from 28 to 64. There is, however, concern that this significant number of roles will prove difficult to recruit to expediently.

FINDING 15

The funding identified for the Improving Educational Outcomes: Early Years Project in 2022 (£1.27 million) does not cover the total estimated funding level of £3.32 million estimated for the Nursery Education Fund (NEF) support for 3- 4-year-olds. This is due to a funding reduction of £1.43 million in 2021 for Early Years and the decision taken by the Minister for Children and Education earlier in 2021 to increase the NEF hours from 20 to 30 per child per week and increase the hourly rate to £6.70 per hour.

FINDING 16

Due to the increase in the Nursery Education Fund Hours from 20 to 30 hours per week per child, and the increase in the hourly rate to £6.70 per hour agreed by the Minister for Children and Education in 2021, there is no additional funding within the Early Years budgets to implement targeted support for 2-3-year-olds as per the recommendation of the Early Years Policy Development Board.

FINDING 17

Funding to assist in the implementation of the recommendations arising from the Early Years Policy Development Board has been identified from the Covid Health and Social Recovery Fund which sits under the Heads of Expenditure for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance. This funding is to be allocated to the Best Start Partnership to assist with workforce training, a best start co- ordinator role and expansion of the Best Start Nursery Plus Scheme by 20 families. This does not, however, cover funding for degree level courses for practitioners in the private nursery settings as per policy area six of the Early Years Policy Development Board report.

FINDING 18

The grant allocated to the Jersey Child Care Trust in 2022 has been reduced by £30,000 due to previous agreement in the Medium-Term Financial Plan 2016- 2019 with the planned reduction from 2019 never being brought forward. This reduction will result in the charity not being able to deliver the accredited nanny service in 2022.

FINDING 19

The funding levels allocated to Higher Education have exceeded take up since the scheme was introduced in 2018. Changes to the manner in which parental income is assessed in 2021 by Order have raised concern that some students may be affected in terms of the amount of grant available to them from the start of the 2021/22 academic year.

FINDING 20

It is still intended for the States of Jersey Police Force to recruit with the intention of meeting the target of 215 Police Officers and proposed efficiency savings do not impact the funding for this target. There is, however, concern that the impact on police officers will still be felt as a result of civilian roles not being recruited to which will need to be monitored closely by the Minister for Home Affairs.

FINDING 21

A new people model for the Combined Control Room is due to be consulted on during November 2021 with a view to identifying the model to be implemented. It is intended for the new Computer-Aided Dispatch System to be purchased and implemented in 2022 with funding allocated to the capital project. It is expected that both of these changes will realise efficiency savings.

FINDING 22

There is currently not clarity over the siting of a new North of St. Helier Youth Centre. Whilst funds are attributed to this project in 2022, the Panel is concerned that the project has not been suitably prioritised in the capital programme to date.

FINDING 23

The additional funding for the Young People Intensive Support Programme is being brought forward to provide targeted support for a small cohort of young people with the greatest needs. This will help to support a multi-agency team to with training, additional staff and increase the support available in the school setting.

FINDING 24

The funding allocated to the Education Demographics Pressures project is required to fund increased numbers of students moving through the school system via the Average Weighted Pupil Unit. The funding also provides a catch up on funding for students at Mont à l'Abbé where an increase has not happened for a number of years. There is £2 million allocated to demographic SEN within Government  Reserves  in  the  event  need  exceeds  demand.  The  Panel  is concerned, however, that without details of the new funding formula being developed, the level of funding within the Government Plan cannot be identified as sufficient or not.  

FINDING 25

The new revenue funding allocated to the Jersey Police Authority (JPA) within the Government Plan 2022 – 25 is in order to increase the resources available to it in order to ensure the States of Jersey Police Force is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible. It is also noted that the funding provided in the Government Plan is one third of what was requested by the JPA. This will require monitoring by the Minister for Home Affairs to ensure the funding is adequate for the role of the JPA.

FINDING 26

The additional funding for the Jersey Field Squadron has been identified in order to cover an historic issue whereby funding of £1 million was provided on an annual basis that did not take into account RPI, salary increases and inflation. The additional funding is intended to bring the overall budget up to date.

FINDING 27

The fund as required project Brexit Transition – Policy and Legal Support' seeks to provide funding for reactive work in relation to implications arising from Brexit. An estimate of £172,000 has been set aside for 2022, however, there is no certainty over this level of funding.

FINDING 28

The Jersey Probation and After-Care Service (JPACS) has submitted a funding request for an external inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) to take place in 2023 due to workload of the inspectorate. Whilst the service has undergone a number of inspections in recent years, JPACS has not been inspected by HMIP since 2005.

FINDING 29

There are a number of capital projects within the Education portfolio that are being progressed in 2022, however, there is still uncertainty in relation to the outcome of the School Sites Review which has yet to be presented. Until such time as the outcome of this review is known, there is uncertainty over the level of funding allocated to the Schools Estates programme for 2022.

FINDING 30

The allocated funding for the Fire and Ambulance Headquarters in 2022 is based on the Rouge Bouillon site being allocated for the project. At present, the school site review is ongoing and there is no certainty as to which project the site will be allocated to as it is dependent on the outcome of this review. In the event the site is not allocated to the Fire and Ambulance Headquarters project, further work and funding will be required to identify and carry out pre-feasibility work on a new site.

FINDING 31

A new site for the Army and Sea Cadets Headquarters is due to be selected so that pre-feasibility work can be undertaken in 2022. The current details of the site are commercially confidential, so the Panel cannot state at this time whether the funding identified will meet the requirements for the project in 2022 at this time.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Panel is concerned about the rationale for the removal of a social worker post which is planned as a £50,000 recurring spend reduction. The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that the impact of the cost reduction is assessed through the quarterly performance report for the department for Children, Young People, Education and Skills and an update provided to the Panel in advance of the Government Plan 2023-2026.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that the proposed efficiency savings  are not  impacting  service  delivery  within  the  Integrated Services and Commissioning service. An assessment of this reduction should be undertaken on a bi-annual basis against the new people strategy and any negative impact on services or wellbeing of staff rectified.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Minister for Home Affairs should ensure that no front-line service is directly affected as a result of efficiency savings made in respect of non-staff spend and that any structural budget concerns arising from this saving are addressed as a matter of priority.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Minister for Home Affairs should monitor on a monthly basis the number of applications for visas, work permits and passports and associated income against the rebalancing target of £184,000. Should this figure not be achievable, then the Minister must take action to identify additional income from across other areas of the department.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The  Minister  for  Home  Affairs  should  provide  a  briefing  to  the  Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel as soon as the new Target Operating Model for the Prison Service is completed, outlining the structure of the service and the total level of funding required in order to implement it by end of January 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Minister for Home Affairs should, in collaboration with the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, Jersey Police Authority and States of Jersey Police Force Association monitor the impact of the non-staff budget spend reduction within the Government Plan on a monthly basis to ensure it is not directly impacting front line services within the police.

RECOMMENDATION 7

In the event that the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police identifies a significant impact on the operation of the police force as a result of the £377,000 rebalancing measure in civilian roles, the Minister for Home Affairs should immediately seek to release funding in order for the frozen posts to be recruited to as a matter of priority.

RECOMMENDATION 8

The  Minister  should  also  report  to  the  Panel,  on  a  quarterly  basis,  an assessment of how the cuts are affecting Police Officers. Consultation with the Jersey Police Authority States of Jersey Police Force Association should be undertaken on a regular basis to inform this assessment.

RECOMMENDATION 9

The Minister for Children and Education should publish the new funding formula for  schools  to  the  States  Assembly  as  a  matter  of  priority  prior  to  the Government Plan debate taking place.

RECOMMENDATION 10

The Minister for Children and Education should publish an action plan alongside the Inclusion Review report as a matter or priority with clear financial and human resources implications identified in respect of each action. This should be completed by the end of January 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 11

The Minister for Children and Education should report, by the end of January 2022 and thereafter on a quarterly basis, the status of the outcomes from the Independent School Funding Review. This should include updates on the policy initiatives being brought forward as a result.

RECOMMENDATION 12

The Chief Minister should formally delegate responsibility for actions in relation to the response to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry to the Minister for Children and Education as per previous arrangements made with the Minister for Children and Housing. This should be undertaken and confirmed to the Panel as a matter of priority before the end of 2021.

RECOMMENDATION 13

The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that there is a clear plan for the recruitment of the additional roles within the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service. This should be provided to the Panel by the end of 2021 alongside quarterly updates on the uptake of the roles. This update should also include details of the impact of the new roles and how they have reduced waiting times within the service.

RECOMMENDATION 14

The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that the full grant amount given to the Jersey Child Care Trust is maintained over the next four-year period of the Government Plan and that funding is identified from 2023 onwards for this.

RECOMMENDATION 15

The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that budget allocations for Early Years are revisited in the Government Plan 2023-2026 to ensure that all funding identified to support the recommendations of the Early Years Policy Development Board is placed within the Departmental Base budget in future years.

RECOMMENDATION 16

Following the publication of the Early Years Policy Development Board report, the Minister for Children and Education should publish an action plan for how the recommendations will be implemented by the end of January 2022. This should  outline  the  financial  and  human  resources  implications  of  each recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION 17

The Minister for Children and Education should continue to monitor the take-up for higher education funding as a result of the changes made in the Education (Discretionary Grants - General) (Jersey) Order 2021 to ensure that no students are adversely affected by the change in assessment of parental income.

RECOMMENDATION 18

The Minister for Home Affairs should, in partnership with the Jersey Police Authority, Jersey Police Force Association and Chief of Police, monitor the impact of the proposed efficiency savings in respect of civilian roles on a monthly basis and report to the Panel on a quarterly basis the outcomes of these discussions and any actions taken as a result.

RECOMMENDATION 19

The Minister for Home Affairs should provide details of the final people model in respect of the Combined Control Room to the Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel as soon as the consultation process is completed.

RECOMMENDATION 20

Should any efficiency savings in respect of the Combined Control room be identified as a result of the new people model' then the Minister for Home Affairs should  ensure  that  these  are  included  within  the  next  iteration  of  the Government Plan 2023-2026.

RECOMMENDATION 21

The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that work is progressed in 2022 as a matter of priority to build the new North of St. Helier Youth Centre.

RECOMMENDATION 22

The  Minister  for  Children  and  Education  should  establish  a  baseline measurement from which to assess the Intensive Support programme in order to demonstrate its effectiveness and the tangible outcomes for children and young people. The progress of this project should be reported back to the Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel on a quarterly basis.

RECOMMENDATION 23

The Jersey Police Authority should, within its annual report, make a statement as to whether the funds provided to it are sufficient for it to meet its duty in regard to the States of Jersey Police Force Law 2012.

RECOMMENDATION 24

The Minister for Children and Education should, by the end of January 2022 provide the outcome of the school sites review to the Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel and provide a private briefing to the Panel on its outcome.

4  Departmental Budgets  

Departmental Budgets

The Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Panel scrutinises the work of two Ministers: the Minister for the Children and Education and the Minister for Home Affairs. Therefore, the project policy work contained in the programmes and capital projects assigned to the Panel predominantly sit under:

Minister  for  Children  and  Education,   Deputy   Scott Wickenden

Minister for Home Affairs, Deputy Gregory Guida

It should be noted that the States of Jersey Police fall under the Minister for Home Affairs, however, their budget is extracted for the purposes of the Government Plan.

Departmental Heads of Expenditure

In the Government Plan 2022 - 2025, the States Assembly has been asked to approve the proposed amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Fund for 2022, for each head of expenditure. The tables below provide a summary of the proposed "Heads of Expenditure" allocated to the Departments for 2022 and estimates produced for 2023 - 2025:

A further breakdown of these figures was provided on pages 24, 32 and 35 of the Annex to the Government Plan 2022-24:[3]

The 2022 resources allocated to the Ministers which fall under the Panel's remit are as follows:

5  Efficiencies

The Government Plan 2020-2023 set out the ambition to achieve £100 million of efficiencies, with the first £40 million to be achieved in 2020. The plan for £40 million in 2020 was published in October 2019 and a performance update was included in the Government 6-month report, published in August 2020. The Government Plan 2021 – 2024 set out the 2021 plan to deliver £20 million of efficiencies and other rebalancing measures.

Rebalancing and Efficiencies

The Government Plan proposes £21 million of rebalancing measures in 2022, with the intent that a further £40 million of savings will be delivered across 2023 and 2024. The table below shows the efficiencies and rebalancing totals for each Minister under the Panel's remit:

The summary description of proposals reviewed by the Panel for each Minister are set out in the table below:

Panel analysis

Minister for Children and Education

Children's Safeguarding and

Minister for  Care: Remove one social  Spend

Children and  CYPES  worker role. This will slightly  Recurring  Reduction:  50 Education  increase caseload and reduce  Staff

capacity across the team

The Panel's main concern in relation to the efficiencies within CYPES centred around the removal of a social worker role, making a recurring saving of £50,000 per year. The Panel questioned this during a public hearing with the Minister for Children and Education and suggested that, given the need for social workers and previous issues identified in relation to the recruitment and retention of them, this may be a counterintuitive decision. It was provided with the following rationale by the Director for Safeguarding and Care:

Director, Safeguarding and Care:  

You might say it is counterintuitive, but we are talking about kind of developing services. In the past in social care one of the answers was to throw more social workers at it. What we have done as part of our service redesign is we have taken around 10 social workers out of our head count and we have increased the number of family support workers. They stay on the Island longer. The family support staff often are local and they are able to provide more continuity of care and direct work to support families to help with many of the practical tasks. So while we are able to take out social workers from social care, we are seeing less children in social care because they are now in Early Help. One of the key indicators in terms of Early Help is we have less pressure on our service because of Susan's Early Help service.[10]

The Panel noted the following concerns raised by JCSA Prospect in their submission to the Panel:

The proposed loss of a social work position within children's safeguarding and care, is of significant concern, not only could this impact on the care and wellbeing of children, but additional workload placed on remaining staff could also impact both on their wellbeing and the quality of service they can provide. Additionally this could have a knock on effect on recruitment and retention of social workers, an area the GoJ has been struggling with for a number of years.[11]

The Panel noted that the description of the efficiency within the Government Plan suggested a reduced capacity across the social work team and an increase in caseload for social workers as a result. It was explained that the nature of the service redesign mean that this was more of a risk than it was a fact, and it was not, in fact causing an issue in the service.[12] The Panel is concerned that, whilst the impact may not be currently felt, there is significant potential for this to cause capacity and caseload issues across an important service. The Panel notes that this impact should be kept under review and therefore recommends that this is closely monitored to ensure that any impacts are mitigated accordingly.

FINDING 1

The Minister for Children and Education has confirmed that the removal of a social worker role in Children's Services is as a result of a redesign of the service and the early help service providing better support that historically would have been dealt with by Social Workers. It was further stated that the increased caseload and reduction in capacity was a risk relating to the efficiency but was not currently an issue.

RECOMMENDATION 1

The Panel is concerned about the rationale for the removal of a social worker post which is planned as a £50,000 recurring spend reduction. The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that the impact of the cost reduction is assessed  through  the  quarterly  performance  report  for  the  department  for Children, Young People, Education and Skills and an update provided to the Panel in advance of the Government Plan 2023-2026.

The  Panel  also  examined  the  changes  proposed  within  the  Integrated  Services  and Commissioning service of CYPES. It is noted that the savings within this area cut across both staff and non-staff spend. The Panel questioned the rationale for the saving, specifically how many roles would be affected by the £224,000 saving on staff spend:

Group Director, Integrated Services and Commissioning:  

What I also did was because we have got the C.A.M.H.S. (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service) coming in, where there is early intervention elements around that I have looked to make sure that we have absolutely squeezed the money as best as possible. If I can give you an example of that, we have early intervention money for C.A.M.H.S. and early intervention money for more generic children in need. What we have then done is streamlined some of our referral processes, so people who now refer to C.A.M.H.S. from January via the Children and Families Hub, we will have a C.A.M.H.S. practitioner in there, so we will reduce the kind of hurdles that people go through. We have tried to make efficiencies in that regard and it has no impact on services[13].

Furthermore, the Minister for Children and Education confirmed that the rationale behind the saving was to limit the number of hoops' that would be required to jump through as a result of the setting up and operation of the Children and Families Hub. Therefore, the efficiency saving is mainly targeted around streamlining services to reduce expenditure, rather than reducing service offering. It was confirmed that the saving would have no impact on service delivery. Again, the Panel would caution that any spend reductions could have an impact on service delivery if not monitored effectively.

Concern was raised by JCSA Prospect in relation to the savings having an impact on staffing as follows:

The proposed savings within Early Intervention and Therapeutic provision, the cost reductions of £280K are clearly going to have a significant impact on the service. A reduced level of service in this area will negatively impact on children and could create longer term issues. I am concerned on the effect on staff if these staff savings are being made by redundancies, and also the effect on remaining members of staff I don't understand how this is putting children first?

The Panel would highlight this concern to the Minister and recommend that impact on staffing within the service is monitored closely as well.

FINDING 2

The reduction in non-staff and staff spend within the Integrated Services and Commissioning  service  of  Children,  Young  People,  Education  and  Skills  is defined as a streamlining of the service in order to remove various hurdles for individuals accessing services through the Children and Families Hub. It has been stated that this will not have an impact on service delivery.

RECOMMENDATION 2

The  Minister  for  Children  and  Education  should  ensure  that  the  proposed efficiency  savings  are  not  impacting  service  delivery  within  the  Integrated Services and Commissioning service. An Assessment of this reduction should be undertaken  on  a  bi-annual  basis  against  the  new  people  strategy  and  any negative impact on services or wellbeing of staff rectified.

Minister for Home Affairs

The first efficiency outlined in respect of the Department for Justice and Home Affairs is stated as continue the best practice of reviewing and securing recurring reductions in the non-staff budget'. This is noted as relating only to non-staff expenditure within the department and has been estimated at a total cost of £406,000 recurring. The Panel questioned what is meant by the term best practice or reviewing and securing recurring reductions in the non-staff budget' and was provided with the following information by the Minister during a public hearing:

The Minister for Home Affairs:

Hunting waste I think is something we should all be doing and any organisation should have that in the back of their mind. So there are different ways of doing things. We cannot skimp on training so all of the services need to be trained. They need to be trained in the right way but there are different ways of doing it. One of the things, it is just an example because it has been unfortunately one of the most expensive ones, but firearms training cost us about £150,000 a year just to send people to the U.K. (United Kingdom) regularly, and it is something that will almost completely disappear once we have a proper range in the Island. So we are making a large investment into the range but then those recurring expenses will not happen. There might be other ways to save in training just by doing it a little bit better.[14]

The Panel notes that this relates to the department overall, however, it questioned whether this reduction would come into effect from 1st January 2022. It was confirmed by the Minister that this would take place from the middle of 2022, subject to all things going to plan.[15] The Panel notes the issue in relation to the funding for the Jersey Field Squadron (discussed later on in the report), whereby funding had been allocated of £1 million each year without taking

into account RPI and salary increases over previous years. The Government Plan seeks to address this, however, it questioned how the risks were managed within each of the services. The Minister provided the following response:

The Minister for Home Affairs:

It is a very fair question and we do have an example. When the ambulance service was transferred to Home Affairs the Health Department had promised £150,000 of savings and they came to us with that cut already effected in the budget. They said: "Okay, here is a transfer for your budget." There is £150,000 savings. The ambulance service had never done anything to save that money. So it became a structural issue that we have to integrate in their budget. They have a little bit of over spend this year so we need to find out which part is due to exceptional circumstances because operating the ambulance has been much more difficult during COVID than many other services. So we have to find what part of this is exceptional and what part of it might be structural, and then maybe we integrate this in the budget so that they have the budget that they need. Yes, we were quite aware of that. We have done it for one service and I hope that we can do it for the other services.[16]

The Panel notes that there is no certainty at present as to where these spend reductions are likely to come from within the department. As such, it cannot state whether the efficiencies are achievable within 2022 in this particular area. There will be a high probability that a reduction in non-staff budgets will result in reduced service due to cost of living and potential for higher inflation during 2022.

FINDING 3

The Minister for Home Affairs has explained that a target of a £406,000 reduction in non-staff expenditure across the Department for Justice and Home Affairs has been set and is intended to identify waste and duplication across the service. This is intended to be confirmed by the middle of 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 3

The Minister for Home Affairs should ensure that no front-line service is directly affected as a result of efficiency savings made in respect of non-staff spend and that any structural budget concerns arising from this saving are addressed as a matter of priority.

The Panel notes that the £184,000 income identified through this programme relates to an increase in the forecast for numbers of applicants for visas, work permits and passports within Customs and Immigration. The Panel questioned how this figure was arrived at and what review was undertaken in order to identify it. It was provided with the following information from the Acting Director General for Justice and Home Affairs at a public hearing:

Acting Director General, Justice and Home Affairs:

This year's increase has been a combination of increased visa applications and quite significantly increased passport applications. Some of that is a bounce back from COVID where people just were not applying for passports. Some of it also at that point had been some people realising that they needed a passport to register for Yoti, to do their online tax application. We think it was not just passports for travel, it was passports for I.D. (identification), and the £184,000 is the customs and immigration teams profiled assumption of what the increased income will be next year and that therefore we can use that as part of our efficiency commitment, that we will make more money.[17]

Furthermore, the Panel questioned what contingencies would be in place should it look like the estimate of £184,000 was unlikely to be met during the year:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Given  it  is  a  forecast  are  their  contingencies  in  place  if  that  money  does  not materialise? Because it is part of your efficiency with income, if that income does not happen are you going to make more cuts elsewhere to make up for that? Balancing seems to come to mind all the time.

Acting Director General, Justice and Home Affairs:

We would have to balance it, as you suggest, so the initial position would be that if the department does not make the £184,000 income then we would have to perhaps increase the contribution on one of the other efficiency lines or find it somewhere else. If we really cannot do that then it would be a similar process to what we have outlined. These things are obviously monitored very closely monthly and income forecasts are monitored extremely closely month on month. So, we would have a good feel for how that is going throughout the year.[18]

It is noted that the Government has introduced a framework for charges and fees more broadly and, as such, it is important to note whether this would have an impact on this proposed efficiency. It was confirmed by the Acting Director General that this particular efficiency does not relate to an increase in fees, more so the expectation of fees being paid as they currently stand. It was further explained that, whilst passport fees had been increased last year in line with UK fees, the main focus of this income was in relation to the expected volume of applications submitted.[19]

The Panel notes that this is based on an estimate and, therefore, it is not possible at this stage to clarify how many applications will be made in 2022. There is also concern that due to the changes arising from Brexit, the Immigration Rules and the impact of Covid that the number of visas required will be less than estimated. As such, the Minister will need to monitor this closely and, should the estimated income level appear to not be on track, take action in regard to finding alternative income.

FINDING 4

The Minister for Home Affairs has confirmed that an estimated £184,000 income in respect of visa, work permit and passport applications has been profiled for 2022 by the Customs and Immigration Department as part of the rebalancing measures. There is, however, no certainty at this stage as to whether this target

is achievable, and the Minister will be required to monitor this carefully throughout 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Minister for Home Affairs should monitor on a monthly basis the number of applications for visas, work permits and passports and associated income against the rebalancing target of £184,000. Should this figure not be achievable, then the Minister must take action to identify additional income from across other areas of the department.

The Panel notes that this rebalancing measure relates to a review of the States of Jersey Prison Service (SJPS) Target Operating Model (TOM). The Panel understands that this was previously undertaken within the overall TOM for Justice and Home Affairs under the previous Prison Governor, however, since the appointment of the new Prison Governor, she has been reviewing the current structure to take a further look at how to make the service more efficient. It was noted by the Department for Justice and Home Affairs that only minimal changes had been made to the structure of the prison service as a result of the first TOM. Noting that a figure of £315,000 has already been identified for this rebalancing measure, the Panel questioned how this figure had been identified in the absence of the second review of the TOM taking place:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Can I just get a context for the timeline of the reductions? So the £315,000 spending reduction has been identified before this target operating model has been processed, the second version of it?

Acting Director General, Justice and Home Affairs:

Yes, so that is a high-level assumption of a reasonable reduction that will be able to be  made  in  the  prison  budget  from  the  beginning  of  2022  because  of  the implementation of the target operating model. We have to take that high level view in order to account for it as an efficiency and then deliver against it. It will clearly be refined as we implement the target operating model. But that will be the aim.[20]

The Panel further questioned whether the outcome of the TOM had been defined already as a result of the identified rebalancing measure:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

To some extent, has the outcome of that not already been determined before the process starts, i.e. at the end of this target operating model you will be spending £315,000 less on staffing? The target operating model process now is find those staffing savings.

Acting Director General, Justice and Home Affairs:

To an extent, yes. That is what we found ourselves ... all departments have found themselves in a similar situation, I think, through target operating model processes. They are finding themselves and setting themselves an efficiency target and then using other very good reasons to get the right structure for the prison as a way to deliver

those savings. As I say, it will be refined. In reality it may not be £315,000, as we work through it. It may be more, it may be less.[21]

It is noted that the £315,000 figure has been identified from the new Prison Governor's initial work in this regard. It was also confirmed, in response to questions about a wing of the prison being shut down (as reported in the media) that there were a number of vacancies with the Prison Officer roles at present which were being recruited to. The Panel raised this concern in light of the proposals to further reduce the staffing costs as per the indicative figure in the rebalancing programme:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

But you can see how, if you are in the prison service, you might think: "Oh, we have just been through one (a TOM) and we came to a conclusion now all of a sudden we are going to have another with the presumption of an efficiency saving of £315,000" would be a very worrying time for them.

Acting Director General, Justice and Home Affairs:

Yes, and Susie has been in dialogue with all the staff about that and, as I say, the associations ... we have had good, initial conversations and she is working very closely with the management team and the associations on the development of the model.[22]

Furthermore, the Panel notes that, whilst there is no site of the proposals at present, the face value of the rebalancing measure does suggest that it will lead to less staff roles within the prison service. The Minister for Home Affairs gave the following explanation of the process and plans that would be brought forward:

The Minister for Home Affairs:

Yes, the new governor has come in with some very ambitious plans to change the way that you process prisoners. The ultimate aim is of course to reduce reoffending but the principle is to design a very different process of how people go through prison, especially a softer release system. So it is something that we are backing up with legislation One very important aspect of it. Another aspect of it is the way that probation now integrates with the prison so that probation continues following somebody as they go through prison, and it is a much more managed process towards the time where they leave instead of open the gate, get them out and close the gate. They will be followed as they leave. They will be helped as they leave. In any case, it is quite exciting. It is quite an exciting project because it really changes the way that we consider prisoners in Jersey. It is her project. She really wants to see that done. What we are doing here is saying we did not change the structure of the prison radically in the first one so you still have this opportunity of changing it and making it what you want it to be. However, we do not want a more expensive service. We want an efficient service. So you are starting with this notion that when you redesign it you make it efficient. That is the 3 per cent, that is the £300,000 that she has to find. The officers' posts will be filled. Those are necessary. They are missing. She is quite desperate to get them. So those will be filled as soon as possible.

The Panel notes the Ministers point that the restructuring of the service in general will be based on a new pathway for Prisoners moving through the system, however, this is intended to be based on a presumption of the service not costing more as a result. It is reassuring to note that the Prison Officer posts which are currently vacant will be recruited to and it is vital that these posts are maintained within any new structure. Given that the outcome of the

operating model is yet to be finalised, the Panel cannot state at this stage whether the £315,000 rebalancing measure is achievable, however, it would express concern that the presumption of building in an overall 3% saving prior to this process being completed does highlight potential risks associated with the effective operation of the prison which must be dealt with accordingly to ensure front line services are not affected as a result.

FINDING 5

It is intended for a recurring spend reduction of £315,000 from 1st January 2022 (3% of the services budget) to be made within the States of Jersey Prison Service as part of a new target operating model for the service. However, this new operating model has yet to be finalised and there is a presumption that it will be undertaken with a view to achieving this level of saving.

RECOMMENDATION 5

The Minister for Home Affairs should provide a briefing to the Children, Education and Home Affairs Panel as soon as the new Target Operating Model for the Prison Service is completed, outlining the structure of the service and the total level of funding required in order to implement it by end of January 2022.

The Panel notes that a total of £459,000 has been identified by the States of Jersey Police Force (SoJP) in relation to spend reduction in the non-staff budget. The Panel questioned the Chief Officer of the SoJP on what areas were anticipated to be included in relation to the improvement in supplier contract maintenance and reduction in non-staff contract spend. It was provided with the following example within a public hearing:

Making up that £247,000, it says contractual. Some of it is contractual I guess, but it is how we can properly look at those areas where we think we can make savings. For example - and I have a list of things to help the panel - meals and entertainment. When I say "meals and entertainment" it is meals as a result of staying on duty for extended periods of time, that sort of additional cost, stationery and postage, training, including conferences. Now, that figure contributes to the £247,000.[23]

Furthermore, the following examples were given in relation to the reduction in learning and development course costs and associated travel (noting that this was an area for concern for the Panel given the requirement for training for Police Officers in certain areas):

How we were able to make some of those training savings; there was an example only a couple of weeks ago. I mention these just to add context to the savings. We trained around 20 prospective detectives, but we trained them in the Island, so we brought the trainers to us. That was 2 trainers for 2 weeks, providing training to approximately 20 staff. Approximate figures are that that would cost around £80,000 to send those officers out of Island to other places in the U.K. (United Kingdom). The actual cost was £20,000. In recognition of the important letter that you received from the Association around training and the costs of those sorts of things, what COVID has done is allowed us to look at how we can better deliver, in other words, bringing training to us. We cannot currently do that for firearms officers for reasons that we understand, and you will understand that we are hopeful of getting a new range. I use that example just to provide a degree of context.[24]

It was acknowledged by the Chief of Police that there were some disbenefits to the proposed idea  of  bringing  training  on-island,  including  limiting  networking  opportunities  for  Police Officers.[25] Another example of how contractual and non-staff spend could be reduced was provided as follows:

Moving on, things like, for example, technical support, which is a rather sort of wide title, but that is how we get technical support, particularly for our digital forensics' teams this is an expensive part of the business, but we believe we can make savings in our technical support areas. Also police doctors is another area where there is a contractual arrangement. We think we can make around about £15,000 savings.[26]

The Panel notes that the overall savings identified for the Police total £836,000 in 2022, of which this particular area is related to non-staff expenditure. The Chief of Police explained that £3.1 million out of circa £26 million funding for the police related to non-staff expenditure. When factoring in the £459,000 being made in relation to non-staff expenditure, the Panel notes this would bring the non-staff budget down to a total of £2.6 million. During factual accuracy checking, it was confirmed by the Chief of Police that as the Police IT was transferred to Modernisation & Digital earlier in the year and with the £459k rebalancing target factored in, the SoJP non-pay budget for 2022 is just under £3m. Whilst the Panel is grateful for the examples provided by the Chief of Police as to where these savings will be found, it would caution that this is a significant amount being reduced from the non-staff budget. As such, the Panel recommends that the Minister for Home Affairs monitors this closely with the Chief of Police, Jersey Police Authority and States of Jersey Police Force Association and addresses any shortfalls in the non-staff spend budget should they occur.

FINDING 6

It is intended for the States of Jersey Police Force to make savings totalling £459,000 across the non-staff budget of £3.1 million. Taking into the account the transfer of Police IT which occurred earlier in 2022, this would reduce the non- staff budget to £2.9 million in 2022. The Chief of Police has identified several areas where these savings can be found and is confident that they can be achieved.

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Minister for Home Affairs should, in collaboration with the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, Jersey Police Authority and States of Jersey Police Force Association monitor the impact of the non-staff budget spend reduction within the Government Plan on a monthly basis to ensure it is not directly impacting front line services within the police.

This particular rebalancing measure, upon first glance, raised significant concerns with the Panel. Whilst it is noted that the information in the Government Plan highlights that this is in relation to civilian posts, concerns were also raised by the Jersey Police Force Association and JCSA Prospect as to the impact of these proposed savings:

JCSA Prospect

The Police civilian staff underwent a TOM this year, however it is unclear whether these savings are as a result of this TOM or whether further cuts are planned. The Police civilian staff TOM has left staff morale at an all-time low already, there are a number of staff signed off with stress, and recruitment and retention is likely to become problematic. A number of roles have been downgraded, so are unlikely to attract applicants with police backgrounds, as was previously the case. One therefore has to question whether this will impact on crime investigation.[27]

Jersey Police Force Association:

£800,000 if divided by a £51,000 salary (approximate wage of an officer having passed their probationary period) would equate to 15.6 police officers for one year. This level of resilience would provide more police presence on the streets of St Helier and within the parish communities, reducing crime whilst increasing faith and reassurance for the public.[28]

The Panel questioned the Minister for Home Affairs on the overall savings in relation to the SoJP and also questioned the Chief of Police further during public hearings. The point that was raised by the States of Jersey Police Force Association in relation to overall impact of the savings on the ability of the police to keep Islanders safe was pressed with the Minister, to which he gave the following response:

The Minister for Home Affairs:  

Certainly. As I said, it is a concern. On one hand almost any organisation can shave 3 per cent off their work if they are careful, if they do not waste. On the other hand, for front line services it is dangerous if you go too far. It is something that I will obviously personally, for all the services, very carefully for the last remaining months of my time. I think they can do it. They have accepted to do it. But we have to be very careful that we do not cut too close.[29]

Furthermore, the Panel questioned the Minister on whether the proposed cuts would put officers' well being at risk and the public at risk:

The Minister for Home Affairs:

The heads of departments have accepted them so they say they can deliver them. It is just at the edge where it becomes a political matter. The heads consider they can run their organisations properly that way. Now it is a political issue to say do we want to go that far or do we actually want to maybe pad it a little bit and be safer and have

the services that we need? Again, we will let them try but we will have a very close look at how it is done.[30]

The Panel looked in further detail at the impact on staffing within the police as a result of these savings with the Chief Officer of the SoJP. It was confirmed that the roles affected by the £377,000 savings were not frontline Police Officers and that number of officers would remain on target to be 215 posts as set out in previous iterations of the Government Plan.[31] It was confirmed by the Chief of Police that a staff review specific to civilian roles had been undertaken, although this was not undertaken in the context of making 3% savings as set out by Government for 2022.[32] The following information was provided to the Panel in respect of the staff review by the Chief of Police during a public hearing:

Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police Force

However, the timing was a challenge, and in that we agreed on what the staff review was going to look like. Just as we were about to start to recruit to new posts, because the lion's share of the £836,000 saving is police staff posts, not to be confused with police officer posts, which I think the panel is clear on. We were looking to recruit more at that stage, but then we were advised of the request from Government to find 3 per cent, which was alluded ... well, in fact, not alluded it, it was the comment made in the letter from the Jersey Police Association to the panel, where it talked about the £800,000 saving. It is £836,000, as the panel will know, and the majority of that is through police staff. We were looking to recruit more at that stage, but then in many ways the timing was very bad and in many ways the timing was very good. The timing was bad because we had just gone through quite a difficult process, which impacted on all our staff, our police staff in particular, about to recruit some more posts and as we were about to, we then realised that we had to make a contribution to the 3 per cent. So we did not recruit as many as we wanted to and we put some of those posts ... we froze some of those posts.[33]

The Panel notes that the staff review and the 3% savings are not linked, however, this can be seen as an interaction of reviews and efficiencies coming together. It also notes that this rebalancing measure does not involve removing staff roles, but not recruiting to them. It was confirmed by the Acting Director General for Justice and Home Affairs that the total number of posts affected totalled 9.[34]

Whilst the Panel notes that this reduction in staff spend does not relate to Police Officer roles, it raised the question on whether removal of civilian posts will have a knock-on effect on frontline officers. The Chief of Police gave the following response and reassurance about concerns in this area:

Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police Force

There will be a knock-on effect and I think my team, who may be listening to this, and indeed other members sat around the room, there has to be an impact. Do I think that that impact will be felt by front line officers? Yes, I do think there will be a degree of impact, but I will monitor it closely. I do not believe that impact will be significant, and particularly around training; all the accredited training will still be delivered because I have to do it. For example, firearms officers must be maintained, and to use a phrase we use in policing, they must be "in ticket". In other words, they must have a valid training card, which would be scrutinised very carefully should there be a police

shooting or an incident. So all the training that I have to give will be provided, but there will be an impact, and it is my job to monitor that over 2022.[35]

The Panel questioned whether there would be a certain point where that impact would come as such, for example, in terms of the public making complaints, and whether there would be a certain trigger point at which time the impact would need to be addressed:

Chief of Police:

I think there will be. I am not sure what that trigger point might be, but I think all of those, for want of a better phrase, proxy measures that you have described are those that I will be alive to in 2022. Police officers cannot deliver a service to Islanders without police support, without the background stuff being done. All that stuff that often gets lost and forgotten, they cannot operate, so suffice to say I will monitor that closely. Of course, the Jersey Police Association, it does not represent police staff. You may be aware of that, it represents exclusively police officers, but it works hand in glove, because we are all one team, so this letter, quite rightly, is alerting you to that fact. But the final point is I will look at that carefully over the next year.[36]

The Panel understands that the impact of this civilian role spend reduction will be monitored closely by the Chief of Police over the coming year. It would, however, express concern over the, as of yet unknown, impact that could occur for front-line police officers without the support of the frozen civilian roles. As such the Panel has recommended that the Minister for Home Affairs maintains a regular dialogue with the Chief of Police in relation to the impact of these savings and, should the impact start to be felt negatively, immediately addresses these concerns by releasing funding in order for the frozen roles to be recruited to.

FINDING 7

It is intended to make an efficiency saving of £377,000 within Civilian Roles in the States of Jersey Police Force in 2022. This does not relate to a removal of posts, but to posts which have been frozen following a staff review into civilian roles within the Police Force. It is noted that the savings are not as a direct result of the staff review but have been put in place due to the requirement for all Government Departments to make 3% savings across budgets in 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 7

In the event that the Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police identifies a significant impact on the operation of the police force as a result of the £377,000 rebalancing measure in civilian roles, the Minister for Home Affairs should immediately seek to release funding in order for the frozen posts to be recruited to as a matter of priority.

RECOMMENDATION 8

The  Minister  should  also  report  to  the  Panel,  on  a  quarterly  basis,  an assessment of how the cuts are affecting Police Officers. Consultation with the Jersey Police Authority States of Jersey Police Force Association should be undertaken on a regular basis to inform this assessment.

6  Summary tables of Scrutiny RAG' ratings

The Panel has undertaken review of the various programmes and capital projects that were assigned to it by the Government Plan Review Panel, and passed comments were necessary. Following its review's Terms of Reference, the Panel carried out scrutiny of projects based upon the following guideline criteria:

• Where funding over £500,000 has been allocated

• Where funding has been withdrawn or decreased significantly from the previous year

• Where funding has been increased significantly from the previous year

• Projects which the Panel consider are of most concern (as a result of, for instance, delays, deferrals, overspends or because they are not in keeping with Common Strategic Priorities)

• Projects which have been identified as of concern by stakeholders

• Projects which are contentious and/or in the public eye.

• Projects where insufficient information has been provided and more information is sought

• Concern is held on the project's alignment with Common Strategic Priorities, social impact and impact upon children.

This section provides a summarised overview of the Panel's RAG ratings assigned to both previously reviewed programmes (GP 2020-23 / GP 2021-24) and new ones which have been identified in the Government Plan 2022-25.

Previously reviewed programmes and capital projects (GP 2020-23 / GP 2021-24)

The tables immediately below identify the programmes included in previous iterations of the Government Plan, which will continue to be invested in in 2022, and indicates whether the projects are Complete', On Track', Reduced', Delayed', Deferred' or subject to Partial Deferral'.

New programmes requiring additional revenue expenditure (GP 2022-25)

The table below identifies the programmes that will receive first-time investment in 2022 and were therefore not included in previous iterations of the Government Plan.

New capital expenditure (GP 2022-25)

The table below identifies new capital projects that will receive first-time investment in 2022 and were therefore not included in previous iterations of the Government Plan.

7  Previously  reviewed  programmes  and  capital  projects:

update reports

This section provides an update on the Programmes and Capital Projects that were previously reviewed by the Panel that it has carried out further scrutiny of in concordance with this review's Terms of Reference.

Programmes

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

Mid-Year Report Update

The Education Reform Programme was established at the end of 2020 following the approval of funding in the Government Plan 2021 – 24. The objective of this three-year programme is to reform the education system and improve outcomes for children. Early focus has been on investing additional funds in schools to reduce structural deficits initiating a review of inclusion and setting out the overarching education strategy for the island within which policy can be developed.  Work  to  improve  the  quality  of  teaching  through  increased  investment  in professional development has also made good progress.

Panel analysis

The Panel received representations from the Board of Governors at Haute Vallee School raising concern over what was being done to address (in their words) the funding crisis' within schools in Jersey. The Panel met with the Chair and former Chair of the Board of Governors who explained that there was a £23 million shortfall in funding across education.[37] This figure was challenged by the Minister for Children and Education who explained the following during a public hearing:

Deputy Rob Ward :

The school funding formula has been undertaken as a consultation with head teachers and representatives from schools who believe they have an agreement on the way it will look. That school funding formula uncovered a deficit of around £23 million for base funding of schools. Is that something that is familiar to you from what you have seen from the school funding review?

The Minister for Children and Education:

I have not heard that £23 million funding deficit number raised to me at all until I heard it in your scrutiny hearing on Monday with the board of governors.[38]

However, further into the hearing, the Minister explained that the figure came from consultation with Head Teachers with the aim of identifying a suitable level of funding across schools.

The Minister did, however, confirm that this process and outcome was not to be taken as read, and further quality assurance' of the consultation process and funding formula was required.[39] It was confirmed to the Panel that this process would be undertaken by CYPES directorate, Treasury  and  the  PSC  (formerly  2020  Delivery, the company that  had  undertaken the Independent School Funding Review. The Project Director confirmed the following points in relation to the project team:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Okay. That project team that you talk about, are they people who are on the front line of education? Are they facing those funding pressures every day? Who are that project team?

Project Director:

Yes, absolutely. So the scope of this first part of the funding formula review was for primaries and secondaries so excluded Highlands and excluded some of the special schools. That decision on scoping was so that we could deal with the bulk of the schools in the system first of all. It includes head teachers from both the primary and the secondary phases, among others, to make sure that we have some, as you say, front line input into some of the pressures that are being felt. That consultation, that engagement, was felt to be critical while we are developing this funding formula.[40]

The Panel notes that head teachers are involved in the quality assurance process alongside other senior roles, however, it has not had any indication that teachers on the front line have been involved in this process. There is a concern that this process is top down' rather than bottom-up and that the staff on the frontline of education may not have as much input into the funding formula. This is a concern for the Panel.

When questioning the progress of the funding formula, the Panel was informed that the new formula would be shared with the Panel and schools before the end of December 2021.[41] It was also explained that the additional money in 2022 for schools would be directed to schools through the new formula.[42] The Panel questioned whether this was the full £11.2 million identified for 2022 within the Education Reform Programme, and the Project Director confirmed that not all of that funding was directly related to schools as some related to Highlands College and some related to Teacher Continuous Professional Development. It was also confirmed that the funding formula project did not carry any incremental funding with it in isolation:

Project Director:

So the independent schools funding review set out a series of incremental funding as agreed in the Government Plan that will be implemented and put into schools in line with the Government Plan over the next 4 years. Where that funding is directly into schools as opposed to Highlands or into teacher C.P.D., that will be undertaken through the funding formula. The funding formula project itself, if I refer you back to the recommendations in the Government Plan, does not carry any incremental funding with it in isolation. It is around distributing the existing funding. As the Minister pointed out, if the funding formula work, however, determines that there is a further shortfall in school funding, then he will consider how that should be positioned through the Government Plan in future cycles of extra funding.[43]

The Panel, therefore, notes that the new funding formula itself has no additional funding identified to it in this iteration of the Government Plan for 2022.

The Panel questioned the difference between the number identified for 2021 (£7.9 million) and 2022 (£11.2 million). The Project Director gave the following response to this during the public hearing with the Minister for Children and Education:

Project Director:  

Of course, and you are quite right to call out those differences. What I have done is I have just subtracted from the numbers that you quoted funding that is not going directly into schools. So I will give you an example. In each of those numbers that you have quoted, there are some one-off funds that go into the project implementation costs, so I have excluded those. I have also excluded some of the money that will be invested centrally, for example, in bolstering the educational psychology team or in bolstering some of the S.E.N. services. I have also excluded some of the money that is going into Highlands as opposed to the primary and secondary schools, and some of the money that is going into teacher C.P.D. where that is being run centrally as opposed to being given directly to schools. So I can provide that reconciliation to you if that is a help, but the reason there is a difference in what you are describing, Senator, and what I have quoted is I have looked to quote just the money that will be allocated to schools on to their budgets.[44]

The Panel notes that additional money for schools will be in place for 1st January 2022 and this was confirmed as £7.8 million in 2022. This will be allocated through the funding formula. This raised concern, noting that the funding formula was yet to be completed, however, was expected to be in place so that money could be distributed from 1st January 2022. The Panel also requested an update on the amount of funding that was required within the £7.8m to cover existing deficits within the Education budget. This was outlined as follows:

Business Finance Partner:

At the moment, schools added up ... secondary schools are forecasting £1.2 million overspent, primaries £1.1 million, so that is £3.3 million, roughly £3.3 million, and the special schools about £900,000.[45]

The Panel was informed that, in total, due to offsetting of underspends in other areas, the total deficit within the education directorate (including some additional COVID pressures) sat at £2.9 million for the end of 2021.[46] The Panel was provided with the overall additional funding going directly to schools in 2022 above that provided in 2021 as follows:

Project Director:  

Can I just be clear about the numbers? I want to quote the subset of the numbers that are going directly into schools, which is my answer to the Senator earlier. We will be putting £6.2 million into schools this year and that number increases to £7.8 million next year. So, Chair, when you were talking about the forecast deficit for schools this year, that includes the money that has already been added. So, I think the important figure that you are trying to get to in terms of extra money in schools' budgets in 2022 from the education reform programme, the answer is an extra £1.6 million. That is the difference between the £6.2m added to the Government Plan this year and the figure of £7.8m, which is the equivalent for 2022, the difference being £1.6m extra money into schools in 2022 over 2021 from the reform programme.[47]

The Panel notes that an additional £1.6 million of extra money is going directly into schools above that which was in place in 2021. This is on top of the funding which has been identified within the Education Reform Programme to manage the deficit in schools. The Panel also notes that, without the revised funding formula to identify any further additional funding, there is no certainty that the additional amounts provided for 2022 will be sufficient to meet the aims of the programme.

At the time of writing this report, the Panel had requested the funding formula and Inclusion Review in order to assist it in its deliberations on the additional funding. However, it was not provided with this information.

Whilst the Minister has explained that the Inclusion Review and School Funding Formula do not directly relate to funding in the Proposed Government Plan 2022-2025 (this was received as a result of an urgent question in the States Assembly on 26th November), the Panel would argue that this is not an accurate statement. The Inclusion Review, as the Panel understands, has reviewed the current structure for inclusion in the Islands Schools (including Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision), and as such will provide information as to the potential gaps in the services and recommendations to improve upon them. The Panel has been informed that this report does not in itself provide recommendations or estimates for funding requirements and it has also been told that work will need to be undertaken in order to ascertain whether additional funding is required or not. Furthermore, the school funding formula (which is intended to be in place on 1st January 2022) is replacing a model that is nearly thirty years old and may well identify that the allocated funding within the Government Plan is not sufficient to meet its needs. The Panel would conclude (without the full details being provided) that it is highly likely that additional funding will be required in order for any gaps or issues to be resolved. Therefore, to state that the funding for education in 2022 is not related to these projects is not, in the Panel's view, an accurate statement. The Panel has therefore lodged an amendment to the Government Plan in order to provide an additional £10 million in 2022 to CYPES in order to implement the recommendations arising from the Inclusion Review and any shortfall in funding identified by the new funding formula.

From the evidence received by the Panel in this review of the project, it holds concerns that the Education Reform Programme appears, at this stage, to be a structural reform of the current education system rather than a reform of the pedagogical approach that then informs the structure of education. The additional funding, whilst welcomed, is apportioned to projects which mainly focus on project implementation, continuous professional development and training for teachers, reducing the structural deficit within education and bolstering SEN services. In terms of additional funding going directly into schools to support teachers and students, beyond the additional £1.6 million 2021 identified in the hearing, the Panel is not able to provide any certainty as to whether the amount allocated in the Government Plan will meet the outcome of the new funding formula. Furthermore, without the outcome of the Inclusion Review, the Panel cannot state at this stage whether the additional funding provided in the £11.2 million for SEN provision is adequate. It has therefore rated the project as red at this stage and has brought forward an amendment as a result.

The Panel notes the requirements under the public finances law in relation to sustainable wellbeing and the legal duties of the Minister in relation to SEN provision.

FINDING 8

Throughout its review of the Government Plan, the Panel has not received any information in relation to the new funding formula for schools that is intended to be in place from 1st January 2022, despite repeated requests to have sight of this information. It is the view of the Minister for Children and Education that the work to produce a new funding formula is not connected to the additional funding provided in the Government Plan around the Education Reform Programme. The Panel does not agree with this statement.

FINDING 9

The Panel is unable to state whether the "increased" funding of £11.2 million in 2022 is sufficient to cover the existing deficits, training for teachers and any identified increase in demographics that may arise from the new funding formula.

RECOMMENDATION 9

The Minister for Children and Education should publish the new funding formula for schools to the States Assembly as a matter of priority prior to the Government Plan debate taking place.

RECOMMENDATION 10

The Minister for Children and Education should publish an action plan alongside the Inclusion Review report as a matter or priority with clear financial and human resources  implications  identified  in  respect  of  each  action.  This  should  be completed by the end of January 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 11

The Minister for Children and Education should report, by the end of January 2022 and thereafter on a quarterly basis, the status of the outcomes from the Independent School Funding Review. This should include updates on the policy initiatives being brought forward as a result.

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

 Panel analysis

The Panel questioned the Minister on the impact of Covid on the Children's Legislative Programme and was informed of the following:

Senator T.A. Vallois:  

In terms of the actual legislation though, I am trying to understand the rationale for the £400,000 that is being proposed for this particular area, which is on page 188, which is under recommendation 5. It is the case that the legislation will be finalised. What is that £400,000 going towards in 2022?

Senior Policy Officer, S.P.P.P. (2):  

The experience of responding to the pandemic meant that policy officers within our department were deployed to do COVID policy work for varying lengths of time. That has produced a knock-on both in policy officers returning to their substantive posts in the areas of children's legislative development. I think there has also been a knock-on in the demands within the law drafting area because they have had an enormous amount of legislation to proceed with. We have approximately an 18-month delay that had been experienced in some of these key pieces that have been described; the children and young people's legislation and the children convention of rights legislation that will be coming forward shortly.

Furthermore, the Panel was updated that over 5,000 individuals working with children and young people had now been trained in the Jersey Children First Practice model which formed part of this funding.[48]

The Panel also requested an update on the progress of the youth justice work, noting that this sat not only within CYPES but across Justice and Home Affairs and the Chief Ministers remit. It was informed that policy support had been seconded in from probation to consult in this area.[49]

The legislative programme leading up to the election in 2022 has been shared with the Panel and it notes that it is intended for a number of pieces of legislation falling out of this area to be lodged in time for debate prior to the election. The Panel is in the process of arranging briefings on these areas with a view to conducting further reviews as required. It should be noted that the funding provided within this area has not changed as a result of the delays from COVID, and the Minister for Children and Education has maintained the view that funding will not be removed in this area. Given the mitigating factors around COVID and policy officer resources, the Panel still cannot give a definitive view on whether the funding is adequate to bring forward all of the necessary legislation. Furthermore, the election will understandably place some delays on legislation that is not lodged in time to be debated in March 2022.

FINDING 10

There has been an 18-month delay in relation to policy work within the Children's Legislative Programme due to Policy Officers being seconded to other areas to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic. A number of pieces of legislation are due to be brought forward towards the end of the current Assembly, however, there is no certainty at this stage whether they will be lodged in time for debate prior to the election.

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

 Panel analysis  

The Panel notes that this particular policy area crosses over a number of Ministerial areas. Previously the Panel was informed that the Minister for Children and Education (formerly the Minister for Children and Housing) held responsibility for enacting the work in respect of the response to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry. During the hearing with the Minister for Children and Education on 22nd October, the Panel questioned whether the Minister still retained responsibility in this area. It was confirmed that the Minister held responsibility in relation to the work of the Citizen's Panel, however, the Director for Safeguarding and Care explained the following:

Director, Safeguarding and Care:

It sits within the Chief Minister's overall remit because there are a number of elements of government that need to be involved. For example, the survivors are adults, adult services are delivered by Health and Community Services, and the £1 million in terms of the trauma network, trauma sits with the Health and Community Services. There are, of course, elements for learning in respect of what we do and that is why I meet with the Citizens' Panel in the way in which we think about Children's Day. It is really important that the Government of Jersey see this as a government responsibility, and it does not sit with any one Minister outside of the Chief Minister's office.[50]

The Panel notes that this reports back to the concept of Corporate Parenting and identifying a clear structure for responsibility is key to ensuring this. Furthermore, there is concern from the Panel that not having a clear role with responsibility in this area could lead to a watered- down approach.

The Panel noted from the Mid-Year review that this particular programme has been delayed. It questioned the Minister on the rationale behind this delay:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Okay. The mid-year review notes the programme was delayed. What was the rationale for the delay in some of the programmes around that work in recommendation 7, or would that be

The Minister for Children and Education:

I would say that would be one for the Chief Minister as an overall oversight. Some of the areas that we have been responsible for the delays have been because so the work, there were 2 different groups that needed to get together and start coming up with a joint plan, which they did amazingly with their recommendations. Children's Day has been going on. There was no delay apart from we would have loved to have done more if it was not for COVID.

The Panel is concerned that in previous discussions around the Government Plan and the projects relating to the IJCI, that a clear responsibility was placed on the former Ministers for Children and Education (and Children and Housing) to act as a champion in this area. From the evidence received during this review, the Panel is concerned that this does not appear to still be the case and responsibility appears to be shared out amongst a number of Ministers instead.

Given this finding, the Panel has recommended that this responsibility is delegated directly to the Minister for Children and Education as per previous arrangements by the end of 2021. As such the Panel has rated this project as amber at this stage.

FINDING 11

The Panel is concerned that responsibility for oversight of implementing the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry recommendations now falls to a number of Ministers, whereas in previous discussions around this area responsibility was clearly placed on the Minister for Children and Education (formerly the Minister for Children and Housing) to act as a champion in this area. This does not appear to be the case at present. There needs to be greater clarity over the role of the Minister for Children and Education so that accountability is clear as to where the overall responsibilities lie.

RECOMMENDATION 12

The Chief Minister should formally delegate responsibility for actions in relation to the response to the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry to the Minister for Children and Education as per previous arrangements made with the Minister for Children and Housing. This should be undertaken and confirmed to the Panel as a matter of priority before the end of 2021.

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

 Panel analysis  

The Panel notes that within the mid-year review, this project had been delayed. This was questioned during a public hearing with the Minister for Children and Education and the following response was provided by the Director for Safeguarding and Care:

Director, Safeguarding and Care:

Certainly in terms of the way in which we are leading on this work, there have not been any delays. We are now currently supporting 78 care leavers. The care leaver offer was launched at the beginning of last year as an entry level offer. We recognised it was only the start of this journey for the Government. Since the start of this year we have seen an increase of 27 per cent in the care leavers we are supporting and from March last year to the end of last year, we saw over 100 per cent increase in the number of care leavers that we were supporting.[51]

Furthermore, it was explained that the total 78 care leavers compared to 76 children in care at the moment, which was explained to be a significant number. A further breakdown was provided in relation to the Care Leavers being supported as follows:

• 42 per cent of those are in employment and education,

• 85 per cent are in stable accommodation,

• 42 per cent are accessing income support and:

• 29.5 per cent are actively accessing Back to Work services.[52]

In partnership with Customer and Local Services it was confirmed that Children's Services had just undertaken a collective self-assessment using a self-assessment tool that is used by 152 local authorities in England to look at the care leaving services with the intention of that report being published. It was confirmed that this would be shared with the Panel.[53]

The Panel recalled that, in the previous Government Plan, it had made an amendment to the plan to not reduce the funding available for the Care Leavers offer as part of the efficiencies and rebalancing programme. This was accepted by the States Assembly. However, in the mid- year review update on efficiencies, the Panel notes that the full amount of £330,000 identified (of which only £100,000 related to the Care Leavers Entitlement) had been met during 2021. The Panel questioned how this had happened given the decision of the States Assembly:

Head of Finance and Business Partnering:

I think that is just because that was the title originally on that saving. The result of the amendment to the Government Plan, P.130, was that the £100,000 was put in reserves for us to access if we needed it and the £330,000 as a whole came out of the services, but in fact we did not take anything from care leavers. We took the other 2 items from where they were meant to come from, which was £180,000 that we had for the antenatal services in P.82 and was not needed because we had a separate allocation that covers it. A little bit of intensive fostering because we did not have the numbers and that £100,000 remains in central reserves untouched but we just realigned all our budgets to cover it at this point. It remains in reserve for us to call down if we need it.[54]

The Panel is pleased to note that this budget was not in fact reduced and that the amount relating to that efficiency (£100,000) remains in central reserves to be drawn down if required. A further question was raised in regards to the work that was being done to promote the Care Leavers entitlement and the following response was provided:

Senator T.A. Vallois:

I know historically, particularly with income support, the promotion of what the entitlement is and people knowing where to go and what they are entitled to. Are we actively promoting that?

Director, Safeguarding and Care:

The fact that we have had such a significant increase so March last year we were only supporting 35 care leavers, we are now supporting 78. In terms of those that have come forward and we have documentary evidence that we have approached every single care leaver that we have been able to ascertain both from our computer records and from our paper files, which we have had for decades and approach them directly to let them know about the offer and some of those will come forward if they need it in due course. But to be really clear in terms of how ambitious we are being, we have someone who is on the other side of the world, who is slightly older than 25, who is a care leaver of Jersey who is wanting to access university provision in their home country. We are actively working with them to enable them to do that. We are going far and beyond just considering those that are turning up to La Motte Street.[55]

The Panel notes that the Care Leavers entitlement is approaching the 2-year mark since implementation. As such it was felt important to understand whether any trends had developed

whereby care leavers were requiring support for specific things or at specific times of the year. It was explained that, whilst there had been an increase in capacity and capability around informatics, as this funding was only 18-months old, it was difficult to discuss particular trends at this time. The Director for Safeguarding and Care did explain that, whilst set criteria was applied to the funding, there was some agility within the exceptions panel that dealt with applications. Concern was, however, raised that there were some issues in relation to systems and legislation that responded to care leavers needs (an example was given of providing on and off island accommodation for care leavers attending university). In response to this, the Director for Safeguarding and Care explained the following:

Director, Safeguarding and Care:

So we are, at the moment, using sensible and appropriate workarounds, which is at the discretion of the accounting officer. Mark Rogers is the director general of the department. We always approach it with a "can do" attitude. So we have a care leaver, for example, who needs accommodation in both home town, university town, and here. We are working hard to enable that to happen.[56]

Finally, the Panel noted within the mid-year review that work to establish an endowment fund in respect of care leavers in the legal definition (up to the age of 25) and older care leavers (who have experience of care in Jersey), was due to be completed in the second half of 2021. It was questioned what progress had been made in that regard now that it is well into the second half of the year. The Panel was provided with the following information:

Senior Policy Officer, S.P.P.P. (2):

We took a paper very recently to C.O.M. and so we have agreement that we will progress towards an appropriate procurement process being undertaken with regard to setting up a fund. The fund will be benefiting both care leavers in the legal definition, up to the age of 25, and older care leavers who have had experience of care in Jersey. As others have described, they may not be living in the Island any more but we are still their corporate parent. This is a fund that has been released through the soon sale of the Aviemore site, next to the former Haut Le Garenne Children's Home. So it is seen as a Care Inquiry legacy project and we will have a reasonably substantial envelope of money that is going to be purposed exactly to target some of the needs and wants experienced by our care leavers to assist them and to improve their outcomes. We are in the middle of the policy work at the moment to scope exactly how that will be targeted and exactly what the operating model will be, and there should be some news in the next couple of months.[57]

The Panel is pleased to see that work is continuing in this area and it shall be monitoring developments in relation to the endowment fund further as they progress. It is also important to note that the take up of the entitlement has increased and contingency funding as per the Panel's previous amendment to the Government Plan is in place should it be required.

FINDING 12

There has been further take up of the Care Leavers entitlement, with 78 people currently being supported by Children's Services. Work is ongoing to establish an endowment fund which is expected to be finalised within the coming months following the Government Plan debate.

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

 Panel analysis  

It was identified in the mid-year review, that this particular project had been identified as complete'. The following update was provided in the review:

This project was established to address the need to strengthen Early Help in Jersey. The service specification and structure for the new Family and Community Support Service  was  implemented  following  formal  consultation  in  February  2021  and recruitment is underway to build the new service to deliver early help to children young people and families. Data from the Children and Families Hub demonstrates that it is effectively addressing the Jersey Care Commission's 2019 recommendations for the development of early help services. This ensures that the Multi-Agency Support Hub (MASH) responds appropriately to referrals in respect of safeguarding concerns only and that all requests for early help and intervention are processed effectively and separately from the MASH.

Having noted that the project was listed as complete, the Panel wanted further clarity over the costs associated with the project and what had been achieved to date so that it could be considered complete'. The Minister for Children and Education gave the following update during a public hearing:

The Minister for Children and Education:

So the project that we say was complete was the design and the strategy for the early help. Now we are going into implementation of getting that moving forward. We have had an initial recruitment drive; we have had 13 new appointments that have been

made to build the family and community support services. We have a further 11 posts that need to be filled and we are doing a second recruitment drive, which has commenced already. That is where we are.[58]

The Panel further questioned whether the programmes aim had been met by the funding allocated to date (£1.7 million recurring since 2020) and was informed that the early help project was still in its infancy, but the project work to design the service was now complete. The Group Director for Integrated Services and Commissioning further explained that this was done on a multi-agency basis. Furthermore, the rationale behind the work was outlined as follows by the Group Director:

Some of our big target outcomes were around getting children and families who started to struggle some help very early on. We developed the practice framework that supports that work, a team around the child approach, lead worker, making sure there was consistency, a quick response, clarity about where to get services, so hence the Children and Families Hub.[59]

Noting that the project was marked as complete' but that this related solely to the groundwork for the service, the Panel questioned what the £1.7 million recurring allocated was related to. It was confirmed that the majority of this funding was in relation to staffing the service, alongside other commissioned partners:

Deputy R.J. Ward ,

Can I just ask, there is £1.76 million over the next 4 years, and I know that is an estimate when it comes to the Government Plan and the next 4 years. Is that virtually always all staffing?

Group Director, Integrated Services and Commissioning:

Pretty much. For instance, we are commissioning a training course for our family partnership workers. They used to be called family support workers. We wanted to call them family partnership workers because it was about doing what it says on the tin, so we have commissioned training for 60 staff, so we are spending some money on that. We are also commissioning, as I said, from the third sector, like Family Nursing & Homecare, Brighter Futures, substance misuse and H.C.S. (Health and Community Services), so it is a combination, but a big chunk of the £1.7 million is staff.

The Panel also questioned whether any metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) were in place to measure the success of the programme. The following information was provided to the Panel at this stage:

Group Director, Integrated Services and Commissioning:

Yes, so the performance framework that we are getting to is a work in progress and we have been able to link in to use Mosaic. That is being used by Children's Social Care, so there is an early help module comes with that, which will allow us to measure performance to get much better information and data. On an individual basis, we are using consistent tools about outcomes for children, so we are doing that on an individual basis and then wanting to try to, I suppose, scale that up so that at some point we are able to say 90 per cent of children were safer than they were before, they are healthier than they were before and doing better at school. We have recently employed an analyst who can help us with that, but we have been working on that

across the partnership. So this has been a really good example of the third sector and the Government working together, but it is work in progress, Senator.[60]

The Panel does note that the design phase of this project is now complete, and the funding allocated from 2022 onwards applies mainly to staffing costs. It is noted, however, that there are 11 roles still to be recruited to within the Children and Families Hub which will be vital to ensuring the service is able to deliver its aims and meet the KPI's associated with it. Without these roles in place it is not possible to state whether the funding allocated will meet the requirements of the service. Therefore, the Panel has rated the project as amber at this stage.

FINDING 13

The Project Design of the Children in Need/Early Help project has now been completed and the additional the £1.7 million recurring funding in respect of the project relates almost entirely to staffing costs and commissioning of other services in respect of the Children and Families Hub. 11 roles are still to be recruited to at this stage and development of the Key Performance Indicators for the Early Help service is ongoing.

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

 Panel analysis  

The Panel noted the following update from the mid-year review in relation to the progress of the CAMHS Service redesign:

A new Head of Health and Wellbeing has been recruited and is in post and new roles have been identified which are currently being evaluated. A proposal for health and wellbeing service has been drafted and development of a dynamic framework for creative therapies is underway.[61]

The Panel questioned the Minister for Children and Education on the progress that had been made in relation to evaluating and identifying new roles within the service and was provided with the following information:

Deputy R.J. Ward :

C.A.M.H.S. service redesign. Minister, can you update the panel on the progress of identifying and evaluating the new roles within the service? Head of Health and Well- being is one of the posts, for example.

The Minister for Children and Education:

The C.A.M.H.S. detailed redesign model was signed off - I think it was the draft Children and Young People Mental Health Strategy, if I am correct - in October 2021, so the beginning of this month, 9th October 2021. The proposal is to significantly increase the C.A.M.H.S. F.T. (full-time) from 28 to 64, but we are looking for the recruitment now.[62]

It was also confirmed that it was intended for recruitment to the roles to commence so that many of the new roles would be in place in the new year. Of the £1.75 million allocated to the

redesign project for 2022, it was also confirmed that the majority of this funding would be in respect of staffing costs. The staffing roles were broken down as follows:

The Minister mentioned that we are increasing to just shy of 64 posts. We are under 30 just now, so there is an extra 35 posts. We will have 11 duty and assessment teams, so they will be doing short-term work, initial triage, and then where people need a longer-term therapy or treatment, they will move into specialist C.A.M.H.S. We are increasing that to 30 posts, so they will do things around, for example, eating disorders, which is a big issue, family therapy and the like. They will also offer a service to looked- after children.[63]

The Panel subsequently raised concern over the number of posts that are required to staff the service, not from a financial perspective, but from a recruitment perspective. Noting the current pressures on recruitment in mental health services generally, the Panel would stress the success of the service will depend entirely on the strength or its recruitment and retention.

Furthermore, the Panel questioned how the reshaping of the service would affect waiting times for accessing services. The Minister explained that there had already been some improvement from the initial stages of the restructure, however, explained more was still to be done:

The Minister for Children and Education:

But we are already seeing with the duty and assessment team a reduction in the length of time to access therapies. The neurodevelopmental waiting list remains quite long and people have bandied that about in terms of the length of months, whether that has been 18 months, then down to 12. We are now sitting at 4 months with that. That is not good enough, but we have bought services to try and get into that, so it is coming down. It needs to be better[64].

The Panel notes that the service is undergoing significant changes as a result of this restructure and it is pleased to see that a number of additional roles are being recruited to. It would, however, caution that recruitment challenges within this area exist at present and this must be considered and factored in as the service develops over the coming year. The Panel has therefore rated the project as amber.

FINDING 14

The initial service design for the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service has been completed with a number of roles identified to be recruited to during 2022. The overall number of roles within the service is increasing from 28 to 64. There is, however, concern that this significant number of roles will prove difficult to recruit to expediently.

RECOMMENDATION 13

The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that there is a clear plan for the recruitment of the additional roles within the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service. This should be provided to the Panel by the end of 2021 alongside quarterly updates on the uptake of the roles. This update should also include details of the impact of the new roles and how they have reduced waiting times within the service.

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):

Funding allocation approved in Government Plan 2021-2024 (£000):

Funding allocation requests in Government Plan 2022-2025 (£000):

 Panel analysis

The Panel notes that, within the mid-year review, there is no update provided in relation to the funding for early years. The report of the Early Years Policy Development Board (EYPDB) was presented on 28th September 2021 and set out six key policy recommendations for the future of early years in the Island. Whilst this has been accepted by the Chief Minister, there is still no action plan or timescale for the implementation of the recommendations. At the end of 2020, the former Minister for Education announced that the number of hours available through the Nursery Education Fund (NEF) would be raised from 20 to 30 hours.

The Panel notes that within the Government Plan 2022-25, only £1.27 million is allocated in relation to the Early Years setting. Upon further discussion during a public hearing, it was confirmed that this funding is solely in relation to the NEF funding for 2022 within private nursery settings.[65] This was also confirmed by the Minister as being at a higher rate and to account for the increase in hours from 20 to 30.[66] It should be noted that the allocation of £1.27 million is less than the original estimate for 2022 of £2.7 million outlined in the 2020-23 Government Plan.

Noting that the funding did not have any relation to implementing the work of the EYPDB, the Panel requested an update on what was happening in relation to bringing this work forward:

Thank you. Under a guidance and a request from the Minister, we have pulled together all of the recommendations from the Early Years Policy Development Board and also a host of other recommendations in the early years centre, which drive different sources. For example, there are a number of COVID bits which provide some single or multi-year funding. There are also some existing action plans from the Best Start Partnership and also, of course, the business-as-usual change. A long story short, there is an awful lot of intended activity, some of which is funded on a recurring basis, some of which is funded on a one-off basis, some of which is unfunded. In order to try and crash through this into something which makes it nice and clear and simple, we have engaged a programme manager to lead a piece of work to pull together a long list of all of those activities to determine what is funded and what is not, through an engagement process of a wide number of stakeholders come up with a specific action plan which looks at what we will be delivering. I think at the moment we are going to keep it quite simple, so look on a half-year basis, starting first half of 2022 and then being re-planned on a 6-monthly basis. We are engaging the Best Start Partnership as our lead consultation group because that is a well-formed group, it has good representation. It also has some independence in there through the independent chair. That is our consultation group and we intend, by the end of this month, possibly the first week or 2 in December, to conclude on what our half-2022 action plan will be in the context of the early years group and we will be looking to present that to the Minister for his support.[67]

The Panel understands that work is ongoing to identify a clear action plan in relation to the findings of the EYPDB, however, given that no funding has been attributed to it for 2022 within this project, it holds concerns about the feasibility of implementing any of the recommendations within the report. The Panel requested further information from the Minister and was informed that a best start co-ordinator role is due to be recruited to in order to drive, co-ordinate and implement the programme of Covid recovery activity for children and families in the early years.[68] The Panel notes that this role will be funded through the Covid Health and Social Recovery Fund until 2024, when funding will cease. At this stage, the Minister has stated an application will need to be made to the Government Plan in order to maintain that role.[69] Upon further questioning, the Panel was informed that a total of £330,000 has been allocated from the Covid Health and Social Recovery Fund to support the work of the Best Start Partnership. This includes the following funding to support the implementation of the EYPDB recommendations:

• Best Start Co-ordinator role and administrative support for the programme amount required this would be circa £80,000 per year

• Professional development courses amount required this would be £85,490 for professional courses delivered in partnership with Highlands College; approx. £20,000 per year to fund CPD courses across the children's workforce and approx. £8,750 to support a programme of coaching and mentoring.

• Best Start Nursery Plus scheme amount required this would be £82,097 to expand the programme each year for 20 more families[70]

The Panel notes that the Covid Health and Social Recovery Fund sits under the Heads of Expenditure for the Covid-19 Response with oversight from Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) and is allocated by a Political Oversight Group chaired by the Chief Minister.[71] Given the overall budget for Early Years sits within CYPES, the Panel believes that this funding should sit within the Heads of Expenditure for CYPES rather than the Covid-19 Response. Noting from a response from the Minister for Children and Education that the Accountable Officer for CYPES (the Director General) holds ultimate accountability for this funding through the Children's Strategic Partnership Board, the Panel has therefore agreed to bring an amendment which would place the funding within the Heads of Expenditure for CYPES in order to clarify where ultimate accountability rests.

Furthermore, in a response from the Minister, it was noted that the increased hourly rate for the NEF (£6.70 per hour) and additional hours from 20 to 30, has meant that the budget for Early Years is exclusively for supporting children in the 3-4 year age group, however, the total estimated amount for the NEF for 3-4-year olds in 2022 has been stated as £3.32 million in a subsequent response from the Minister. This comes in at £2.05 million less than the allocated funding in the Government Plan for 2022.[72] Given this significant shortfall in funding for the estimated maximum requirement, the Panel has agreed to bring an amendment which would increase the allocation for Early Years (NEF 3-4-year olds) to £3.32 million overall (an increase of £2.05 million).

It was also noted in the response from the Minister that, had the reduction in funding and increase in the hourly rate and hours not occurred, there would have been an additional £1.84 million to provide funding for targeted support from the NEF for 2–3-year-olds with specific needs (the Best Start Offer Plus).[73] This figure was further estimated to be £2.25 million for 2022 to purchase all necessary hours in the private sector[74]. Given there is no funding available to implement this recommendation from the EYPDB, the Panel has agreed to bring an amendment that would allocate £750,000 for 2022 (a third of the estimated £2.25 million) to implement this recommendation. Noting that work is still required in order to develop the action plan around this area, the Panel has agreed to provide a third of the total funding so that any offer can be implemented from September 2022, leaving the first two thirds of the year to finalise and develop the scheme.

The Panel understands that policy six of the EYPDB relates to the introduction of a transformation fund to recognise and enable a graduate workforce in private nursery settings providing pedagogical leadership within each setting.[75] Noting that no additional funding within the Government Plan has been allocated to allow for degree courses (it should be noted the funding previously discussed for training through the Best Start Partnership relates only to Level 3, 4 and 5 courses), and in the absence of a full action plan for it, the Panel has agreed that additional funding should be provided in the Government Plan in order to advance this policy aim. It has, therefore, agreed an amendment which would provide for one practitioner from each private nursery (28 private registered nurseries currently operate in Jersey), to undertake a degree course. The Panel notes that the one-year full time degree course in Childhood Studies at Highlands College costs £8,295 per year. Taken as a benchmark, the Panel notes that this figure multiplied by the 28 private nurseries would require funding of £232,260 in 2022. It has, therefore, brought an amendment to allow for this to take place during 2022.

One final area of concern for the Panel was received in a submission from the Jersey Child Care Trust in relation to a proposed cut of £30,000 to the grant they receive from the Government.[76] It is noted that this will result in the accredited nanny scheme not being viable for the charity in 2022. The removal of this funding identified a number of issues for the JCCT including a serious impact on, amongst other issues, safeguarding as well as financial implications for families. Noting the importance of the charity sector in relation to early years services, the Panel is especially concerned that this grant reduction is being made in relation to the services offered by the JCCT in the current COVID climate. The Panel questioned the rationale for the reduction of funding with the Minister for Children and Education and was provided with the following information:

The rationale for the 2022 grant reduction comes from the States adoption of P68.2016 MTFP addition for 2017 - 2019. The reduction was to total £90k, with a £45k reduction in 2018, followed by a further £45k in 2019. The 2018 reduction of £45k was carried out but the 2019 reduction was not. This £30k reduction is therefore part of the previous commitment to reduce the grant by £45k in 2019. Please note the JCCT will benefit from additional funds in the region of £39K for 2022 and 2023 from the successful COVID Health and Social Recovery bid for Early Years and Best Start programmes.[77]

Whilst the Panel is thankful for the Ministers response in this regard, it is still concerned about the grant reduction in the current climate, especially the impact of COVID on young children's development. It has therefore agreed to bring an amendment that would re-instate the full amount of grant funding in 2022. This will need to be maintained over the rest of the Government Plan period and the Panel has recommended that the Minister brings forward plans to fully fund this grant from 2023 onwards.

The Panel has, therefore, brought forward amendments to the Government Plan which seek to allocate funding to meet the overall estimated costs of the NEF for 3-4 year-olds in 2022, provide further funding for the targeted support for 2–3-year-olds from the NEF, reinstate the full grant amount for the JCCT, move the Best Start Partnership Funding from the Covid-19 Heads of Expenditure to CYPES and provide additional funding for degree level training courses in the private nursey settings. As such, the Panel has rated this project as red given the concerns raised.

FINDING 15

The funding identified for the Improving Educational Outcomes: Early Years Project in 2022 (£1.27 million) does not cover the total estimated funding level of £3.32 million estimated for the Nursery Education Fund (NEF) support for 3- 4-year-olds. This is due to a funding reduction of £1.43 million in 2021 for Early Years and the decision taken by the Minister for Children and Education earlier in 2021 to increase the NEF hours from 20 to 30 per child per week and increase the hourly rate to £6.70 per hour.

FINDING 16

Due to the increase in the Nursery Education Fund Hours from 20 to 30 hours per week per child, and the increase in the hourly rate to £6.70 per hour agreed by the Minister for Children and Education in 2021, there is no additional funding within the Early Years budgets to implement targeted support for 2-3-year-olds as per the recommendation of the Early Years Policy Development Board.

FINDING 17

Funding to assist in the implementation of the recommendations arising from the Early Years Policy Development Board has been identified from the Covid Health and Social Recovery Fund which sits under the Heads of Expenditure for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance. This funding is to be allocated to the Best Start Partnership to assist with workforce training, a best start co- ordinator role and expansion of the Best Start Nursery Plus Scheme by 20 families. This does not, however, cover funding for degree level courses for practitioners in the private nursery settings as per policy area six of the Early Years Policy Development Board report.

FINDING 18

The grant allocated to the Jersey Child Care Trust in 2022 has been reduced by £30,000 due to previous agreement in the Medium-Term Financial Plan 2016-2019 with the planned reduction from 2019 never being brought forward. This reduction will result in the charity not being able to deliver the accredited nanny service in 2022.

RECOMMENDATION 14

The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that the full grant amount given to the Jersey Child Care Trust is maintained over the next four-year period of the Government Plan and that funding is identified from 2023 onwards for this.

RECOMMENDATION 15

The Minister for Children and Education should ensure that budget allocations for Early Years are revisited in the Government Plan 2023-2026 to ensure that all funding identified to support the recommendations of the Early Years Policy Development Board is placed within the Departmental Base budget in future years.

RECOMMENDATION 16

Following the publication of the Early Years Policy Development Board report, the Minister for Children and Education should publish an action plan for how the recommendations will be implemented by the end of January 2022. This should  outline  the  financial  and  human  resources  implications  of  each recommendation.

Funding allocations approved in Government Plan 2020-2023 (£000):