States Assembly | Report - Performance Management

The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.

The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.

PDF version

Performance Management Review

Public Accounts Committee 8th March 2022

P.A.C. 2/2022

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 19 Background and context............................................................................................... 19 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 20 Clarification of identity of the Chief Executive ............................................................ 20 Structure of the report................................................................................................... 20
Modernisation of Jersey's public service.................................................................... 21 The implementation of OneGov.................................................................................... 22 Departmental Target Operating Models ....................................................................... 22 Costs associated with Target Operating Model Programme ...................................... 30 Full time equivalents and spot salaries......................................................................... 32 Vacancies: Health and Community Services ................................................................ 33 Evaluation of Target Operating Models ....................................................................... 35 Team Jersey................................................................................................................... 37
Modernisation and Digital - Information Technology ................................................. 40 Integrated Technology Solution................................................................................ 40 Key Performance Indicators ......................................................................................... 41 Lack of an overall IT strategy .................................................................................... 42
Performance management initiatives within Government ......................................... 47 Recommendations Tracker ........................................................................................... 47 How does the Recommendations Tracker work? ......................................................... 47 Current status of the Recommendations Tracker ......................................................... 49 Performance Framework............................................................................................... 52 Service Performance Measures ................................................................................... 53 Customer feedback and complaints handling ............................................................. 54 Complaints process: Health and Community Services ........................................... 56 Complaints process: Children, Education, Young People and Skills .................... 56 Customer experience - reporting .............................................................................. 57 Employee feedback and people management ............................................................. 60 Be Heard Survey.......................................................................................................... 61 People Strategy ........................................................................................................... 63
Performance management within the civil service ..................................................... 65

Performance management within the Government ................................................. 72 Government Departments............................................................................................. 72 Relationship with Non-Ministerial Departments .......................................................... 72 Relationship with Arm's Length Organisations and Specified Organisations .......... 74 Relationship with non-Government organisations ..................................................... 76
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix 1 - Public Accounts Committee Membership ................................................. 81 Appendix 2 – Terms of Reference.................................................................................... 82 Appendix 3 – Evidence Used for Report ......................................................................... 83 Documents ...................................................................................................................... 83 PAC Public Hearings ....................................................................................................... 84

Chair's Foreword

Good performance management processes should be transparent and fair, and ultimately lead to better decision making and improved overall performance. Any initiatives introduced by the Government should demonstrate how they lead to better, cost-effective outcomes and improved services for the public.

In 2018, Target Operating Models (TOMs) were used to implement and embed the new OneGov structure. The TOM programme was designed to create efficiency and effectiveness but, in hindsight, the complexity of applying these new structures was underestimated.

The TOM programme was entered into without a single explicit business case. We found no evidence of baseline costings, efficiency or performance targets for tracking the impact of changes to individual departmental TOM programmes.

Although most of the TOMs have now been implemented, we had difficulty identifying how successful the transfers have been in some Departments and we could find no criteria to establish when the successful transfer to the OneGov reform programme was completed.

We have found no formal evidence to demonstrate savings or whether the changes represented value for money. In fact, the number of full-time equivalent personnel within Government has grown, particularly in the more senior roles, between 2017 and 2021. This data does not match-up to the Government's aim of creating a more effective and efficient public service.

The Government should ensure that each division establishes clear performance benchmarks for improving the economy and creating efficiency and effectiveness. These should be reported yearly against measurable Key Performance Indicators and include subjective measures (customer and employee feedback) with a view for continuous improvement. The Committee considers it important to establish clearer links between money spent on our Government and the performance of public services.

The Committee welcomes the inclusion of Service Performance Measures within each Departmental Operational Business Plan and the consistent approach to monitoring service performance across the organisation which enables the public and the Assembly to hold the Government to account.

The introduction of a more co-ordinated approach to customer feedback and complaints handling across Departments is also welcomed. However, we note that two major Departments (Health and Education) have implemented their own mechanisms to capture customer' experience and deal with complaints. Different mechanisms in different Departments can become confusing for customers and it will be important for the Government to ensure that all feedback is captured so that common themes can be identified and addressed.

We are also concerned that Ministers are able to disregard the findings of the States of Jersey Complaints Board or fail or refuse to implement its findings. We have recommended that a formal process should be initiated to ensure outstanding complaints by members of the public into any matter of administration by a Minister or a Department are investigated and appropriately addressed in a timely fashion.

In terms of staff feedback, we note that the OneGov reform changes have had an impact on staff wellbeing. The results of two staff surveys show that staff have felt under pressure at work to perform well and morale has suffered as a result of the wide-scale change, as well as the pandemic.

Although a Team Jersey Programme was created to deliver a positive workplace culture following the OneGov reforms, the negative results of the staff surveys suggest that the aim of Team Jersey has not been delivered effectively. In that regard, the Committee welcomes the Government's plan to concentrate on building a Jersey based team so that the programme can continue to be delivered internally, without an external contractor.

As part of the OneGov reforms, there was an aim to modernise the current IT infrastructure within Government. This work includes an Integrated Technology Solution (ITS) which intends to replace a number of outdated and unsupported IT systems. The ITS has not been accompanied by an overall IT Strategy for the States of Jersey which shows how technology investment will support and impact services, including the departmental and service changes implemented through the OneGov programme and Target Operating Models.

The Committee encourages the Government to ensure that all future major technology solutions and related projects are accompanied by sufficient reporting of delivery against contract Key Performance Indicators and that reporting is undertaken on benefits realisation or on progress made in delivering benefits in practice.

Although the majority of the performance related changes have been implemented, the impact of them now needs to be determined. As they continue to be embedded, I would encourage the next PAC to follow the process and its outcomes, which should include evaluation of ongoing Key Performance Indicators and overall performance results to see if these major changes are achieving the positive performance improvements as

envisaged through the OneGov reforms.

The Committee welcomes the Government's commitment to undertake a review of the TOM Programme, which is due to be completed before the end of June 2022. We hope that as the reforms continue to be embedded, the Government will take into account our recommendations to allow for a more effective, collaborative means of measuring performance within the organisation and as result the public will receive improved services.

Deputy Inna Gardiner , Chair of Public Accounts Committee

Executive Summary

This report presents an overview of the recent changes to the Government's structure and how new performance management processes within Government and non-Ministerial Departments have been embedded and applied. Guided by the Terms of Reference (appendix 2) the Committee has sought to assess the degree to which these changes and processes have impacted performance.

The former Chief Executive, Charlie Parker, introduced a new structure termed One Government' (OneGov) at the start of his tenure in 2018. This new structure included an overarching Target Operating Model for the Government which set out the desired future state of the organisation. Individual departmental TOMs were then established and put in place to embed the new OneGov structure.

The implementation of the OneGov modernisation programme was a significant change for the Government and the Committee wanted to assess how the changes might have improved performance management within the public service. The changes proved controversial in parts and the sheer complexity of establishing and implementing these changes across the Government and public administration was underestimated when the programme was first introduced.

One of the biggest concerns highlighted in this report is that the Government did not develop a single costed plan or business case for the restructuring process made through the TOMs. Although the Minister for Treasury and Resources identified that savings would be achieved, there is no formal evidence to access and demonstrate successfulness or whether the changes represented value for money.

In that regard, data shows that the number of full-time equivalent personnel within Government has grown substantially, particularly in the more senior roles, between 2017 and 2021. The Committee has found this particularly concerning given that the TOM process was designed to create efficiency and effectiveness.

OneGov IT Modernisation

As part of its modernisation programme, the Government acknowledged in 2018 that modern IT infrastructure and systems were a critical component in delivering modern, integrated and value-for-money public services. The Government also acknowledged that it did not have enough in-house capacity and expertise to deliver the scale and pace of transformation whilst also maintaining day-to-day support for public services.

An Information Technology Solution programme was launched in 2020 which is due to replace a number of outdated and unsupported I.T systems. The Government Plan 2020-23 identified the I.T.S programme as a major project to be funded from the Consolidated Fund. It provided an allocation of £28 million for the capital costs of the programme in line with an Outline Business Case. When the Full Business Case was completed in March 2021, the estimated total capital and revenue costs of the programme was quoted as £67.8 million, up 242%.

The Comptroller and Auditor General found that the I.T.S programme has been accompanied by insufficient reporting of delivery against contract Key Performance Indicators. The C&AG also found that no reporting has been undertaken on benefits realisation or on progress made in delivering benefits in practice. The Committee is concerned that the I.T.S programme has not been accompanied by an overall IT Strategy for the States of Jersey which shows how technology investment will support and impact services, including the departmental and service changes implemented through the OneGov programme and TOMs.

The Committee identified an example of where a key I.T initiative has failed, despite the investment made within the Modernisation and Digital function. The project Automatic Voter Registration' was due to be delivered in time for the 2022 Election but because there were deficiencies in project management to deliver the project, it has subsequently been closed and remains undelivered. The failure of the project highlights the impact of poor performance on the public and the Island as a whole. The Committee believes that the enhanced capabilities provided to M&D, through significant investment, should have placed M&D in a better position to deliver the project.

Performance management tools

Following the implementation of the OneGov and TOM process, a number of performance management tools and methods were introduced. The three main performance areas explored by the Committee in this report are:

The Recommendations Tracker
The Jersey Performance Framework
Customer feedback and complaints handling

The Recommendation Tracker

The Recommendations Tracker was introduced in 2019 and is used by the Government to track the recommendations made by the PAC and the C&AG. Recommendations are monitored by using a Red, Amber (including Amber 1, 2 and 3), and Green system. The Committee has found that there are issues with progressing agreed recommendations into actions to completion. This seems to be based primarily on dependencies and staff shortages. Where dependencies have been listed as a reason for non-completion of a recommendation on the Tracker, the Committee believes that there should be clear, co-ordinated intervention from the Chief of Staff and Directors General to ensure collaboration across Government to deliver on accepted recommendations.

The Department of the Treasury and Exchequer have introduced a Key Performance Indicator for the implementation of the recommendations on the Tracker. The Committee welcomes this approach and understands that a target of closing 80% of PAC and C&AG recommendations has been introduced in each Department's Operational Business Plans for 2022. The Committee welcomes the inclusion of this target particularly as the C&AG has previously raised concerns that, although recommendations are usually accepted, action to implement them is often slow and many recommendations are yet to be implemented.

The Jersey Performance Framework

The Jersey Performance Framework was announced by Government in 2020 and shows Jersey's progress in achieving sustainable wellbeing related to community wellbeing (the quality of people's lives), environmental wellbeing (the quality of the natural world) and Economic wellbeing (how well the economy is performing).

The Framework has been supplemented with Service Performance Measures which are used to monitor how services are performing, financial reporting, corporate risk registers, complaints, sickness and health and safety. Each Departmental Operational Business Plan includes a section on Monitoring service performance - Our service performance measures'. The Committee welcomes this consistent approach across Departments which enables the public and the Assembly to hold Government to account.

Customer feedback and employee satisfaction

During the Committee's various discussions with the Directors General, customer feedback was cited as a way of measuring how each Department was performing. In that regard, a Customer Strategy and Customer Feedback Policy was introduced which focuses on improving the approach to managing complaints from the public.

Historically, Departments have adopted different processes for measuring levels of success when dealing with feedback from customers and how a Department is performing. As part of the OneGov approach, the Government aims to put customers "at the heart" of services and therefore the Policy sets out how customers and the public can express their views about how services are provided.

The Government developed a "customer experience measurement" as part of its Customer Strategy although it is at different stages of rollout in different Departments and volumes are low in some areas compared to the volume of interactions. Work is progressing to increase customer experience feedback across Government as the measurement becomes more embedded.

In addition to customer feedback, the Government has undertaken two staff surveys (OneVoice in 2018 and Be Heard in 2020). The results of the 2020 survey show that, amongst other wellbeing issues, staff felt too much under pressure at work to perform well. This shows that staff morale has suffered as a result of the reforms and wide-scale change as well as the pandemic.

The Committee finds the overall morale of the organisation a concern particularly as a Team Jersey Programme was created in conjunction with the implementation of the OneGov reforms which aimed to deliver a positive workplace culture. The Programme was created with the assistance of an external contractor at a cost of £3.5 million. There is no tangible quantitative data to demonstrate whether the Team Jersey Programme and the appointment of an external contractor has been value for money. In respect of staff morale in the organisation, the Committee believes that the results of the staff surveys would suggest that the aim of creating a positive workplace culture has not been delivered effectively.

Performance management processes of senior officers

The performance management of Directors General is the responsibility of the Chief Executive. This is undertaken in a number of ways including regular face-to-face meetings and performance appraisals through My Conversation, My Goals. The former Chief Executive introduced a more coordinated approach across the organisation to facilitate the performance management of Directors General. This includes financial reporting, corporate risk registers, complaints, sickness and health and safety.

The performance of the Chief Executive Officer is managed by the Chief Minister, as line manager. The C&AG highlighted a number of weaknesses in policies and procedures in relation to the employment of the former Chief Executive. The Government has committed to undertaking several actions in order to improve the situation including the development of a Disciplinary Policy and updating the States Employment Board's scheme of delegation to formally document a policy in respect of the line management of the Chief Executive as an employee. The Committee has yet to see these documents.

The introduction of resilience measures within the senior management structures of Government have been particularly important following the implementation of the OneGov reforms and structural changes within the civil service. In that regard, the Government has enhanced succession planning (the succession planning toolkit), long-term illness cover (moving away from single person dependency), deputising responsibilities (the introduction of the Governance Framework) and emergency contingency planning (though business continuity and emergency planning).

Performance management in Departments is co-ordinated by the Office of the Chief Executive. The Department's Operational Business Plan sets out a range of activities from a corporate perspective that underpins the whole of Government. This includes working strategically and in collaboration with other Departments to support the Council of Ministers to deliver Jersey's long-term strategic objectives.

Non-Ministerial Departments, Non-Government Organisations and Arm's Length Organisations

There are a number of Non-Ministerial Departments within the States of Jersey where accountability does not sit with a Minister. In 2019, the C&AG found that there were different approaches to performance monitoring across Non-Ministerial Departments reflecting their circumstances. The Government is taking a number of actions to improve working in partnership in order to support good governance and improve accountability.

The Government works with a number of Arm's Length Organisations (ALOs) and Specified Organisations. ALOs are organisations which fulfil a role or function the States of Jersey would otherwise perform, and Specified Organisations are organisations where the Principal Accountable Officer has appointed an Accountable Officer under the terms of the Public Finances Law.

The Committee has highlighted the importance of the Government's relationship with ALOs and Specified Organisations which should be aligned with the key strategic priorities of the Council of Ministers and States Assembly. For example, the desired goals and outcomes of the Carbon Neutral Strategy will only be achieved by both the Government and Jersey Electricity working towards the same aims.

In addition to ALOs, the Government works in partnership with a number of non-Government organisations such as registered charities. These organisations are generally defined as being independent of Government influence although they may receive Government funding. There were mixed views from non-Government organisations about how effective their relationships were with Government. Organisations who expressed mostly negative views were from child/family-based organisations.

There were also some inconsistencies in the views expressed by non-Government organisations in terms of the Government's handling of complaints or issues in the services they deliver. Some organisations said that complaints are handled well by Government and others said there was no set process for complaints or that contacting Government officials about an issue could be difficult. The Committee encourages efforts to improve working relationships with non-Government organisations and anticipates that the next PAC will test for improvements in this area.

Overall OneGov Modernisation

The Committee has aimed to assess whether the modernisation programme through the OneGov reforms and subsequent performance initiatives have improved ways of measuring, monitoring and reporting on performance. Although good progress has been made, the Committee has not been able to effectively determine if they have resulted in overall improvement to performance which remains to be determined as the reforms continue to be embedded.

The Committee believes that there is still work to do in terms of financial reporting within the Treasury and Exchequer in demonstrating and tracking the ongoing running costs of the public services over a number of years and the extent to which the increase in the workforce (and ultimately public spending) is filling in the gaps (i.e. staff shortages). In general, the Committee encourages a much clearer linkage in this reporting between money spent on the Government and the performance of the public service.

The Committee concludes that the majority of the performance related changes have been implemented, but the impact of these changes now needs to be determined.

Key Findings and Recommendations

Key findings

KEY FINDING 1: The implementation of the OneGov reforms was a significant change for the Government. The Interim Chief Executive's view was that the changes proved controversial in parts and the sheer complexity of the Government and public services was underestimated when the programme was first introduced in 2018.

KEY FINDING 2: The OneGov reforms have impacted on governance and accountability lines within Departments.

KEY FINDING 3: The Target Operating Model for the Office of the Chief Executive created a new role Chief of Staff'. The Chief of Staff has a Government wide remit and provides a supporting role in a number of areas.

KEY FINDING 4: The transfer of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service out of Health and Community Services has created a lack of clarity about which Department has ultimate responsibility for CAMHS.

KEY FINDING 5: There has been no measurement to assess the patient experience of the transfer of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service out of Health and Community Services into Children, Young People, Education and Skills.

KEY FINDING 6: There was a lack of an evidenced business case for the proposed Target Operating Model for Justice and Home Affairs. The final TOM for this Department bears little resemblance to what was originally proposed.

KEY FINDING 7: The concerns raised during the consultation process regarding the TOM for Justice and Home Affairs were not adequately resolved which led to a States Member lodging a Proposition to halt the changes.

KEY FINDING 8: The Target Operating Model for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment has seen a number of changes since 2018. These changes have modified the overall shape of the Department and have impacted on the relationship with some Arm's Length Organisations.

KEY FINDING 9: The Government did not develop a single costed plan or business case for the restructuring process made through the Target Operating Models.

KEY FINDING 10: There was no explicit baseline for change for the overarching TOM or for any of the departmental TOM programmes; without a baseline, performance tracking over time is limited within the set of Guiding Principles for the Target Operating Model programme.

KEY FINDING 11: Data shows that the number of full-time equivalent personnel has grown, particularly in the more senior roles, between 2017 and 2021.

KEY FINDING 12: Although the Target Operating Model for Health and Community Services has been implemented, the Department still experiences high levels of vacancies in some areas.

KEY FINDING 13: A post-implementation review of the Target Operating Model Programme did not form an integral part of the original OneGov proposals. A review is due to be completed before the end of June 2022.

KEY FINDING 14: A partner organisation (TDP) was chosen to deliver the Team Jersey Programme through a contract for £3.5 million. The contract is due to expire in March 2022 when the Government is expected to continue to deliver and embed the programme.

KEY FINDING 15: There is no tangible quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate whether the Team Jersey Programme and the appointment of an external contractor has been value for money.

KEY FINDING 16: The Integrated Technology Solution has been accompanied by insufficient reporting of delivery against contract Key Performance Indicators.

KEY FINDING 17: The Integrated Technology Solution has not been accompanied by an overall IT Strategy for the States of Jersey which shows how technology investment will support and impact services, including the departmental and service changes implemented through the OneGov programme and Target Operating Models.

KEY FINDING 18: The project Automatic Voter Registration' was due to be delivered in time for the 2022 Election, however, has been closed due ambiguity in responsibilities of the project.

KEY FINDING 19: The failure to deliver the Automatic Voter Registration project highlights the impact of poor performance on the public and the Island as a whole.

KEY FINDING 20: A Recommendations Tracker was introduced in 2019 and is used by the Government to track the recommendations made by the PAC and Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG). Recommendations are monitored by using a Red, Amber (including 3 levels), Green system.

KEY FINDING 21: The responsibility of maintaining, updating, and organising the Recommendations Tracker sits jointly within Treasury and Exchequer and the Office of the Chief Executive. The Chief of Staff provides oversight of prioritisation for each recommendation and provides constructive challenge if there is insufficient information to support the recommendation.

KEY FINDING 22: There are issues with progressing agreed recommendations on the Recommendations Tracker into actions to completion. This is based primarily on dependencies and staff shortages within Government.

KEY FINDING 23: There are plans to incorporate recommendations made by scrutiny into the Recommendations Tracker but this work has not yet been completed.

KEY FINDING 24: There are different arrangements for capturing complaints and feedback in two major Departments. Health and Community Services operates a separate process within the hospital in order to give patients a choice on how they provide feedback and Children, Young People, Education and Skills are due to introduce a separate mechanism in schools due to incompatibility with the Government's corporate policy.

KEY FINDING 25: The Government has developed a "customer experience measurement" as part of its Customer Strategy. It is at different stages of rollout in Departments and customer feedback volumes are low in some areas compared to the volume of interactions.

KEY FINDING 26: The customer experience measurement for customer sentiment (Green) and customer effort (Green) have improved over the last 4 quarters. The measurement for customer satisfaction (red) means that the indicator is not within 5% of the target.

KEY FINDING 27: Across the Government, Customer and Local Services has identified three main themes regarding complaints from customers. These are issues in processes, errors and customer service.

KEY FINDING 28: Ministers are able to disregard the findings of a Complaints Board or fail or refuse to implement its findings.

KEY FINDING 29: The results of the 2020 BeHeard survey show that staff morale has suffered as a result of covid, the reforms and wide-scale change.

KEY FINDING 30: The Code of Conduct for the civil service dated 2002 is available online but is considerably out-of-date given the significant changes to the Government's structure.

KEY FINDING 31: The performance management of Directors General is the responsibility of the Chief Executive.

KEY FINDING 32: The former Chief Executive introduced a coordinated approach to financial reporting, corporate risk registers, complaints, sickness and health and safety which has facilitated the performance management of Directors General.

KEY FINDING 33: The States Employment Board (SEB) is the employer of the Chief Executive. In practice, the Chief Minister acts as line manager to a Chief Executive.

KEY FINDING 34: The Chief Minister published the performance appraisal of the former Chief Executive, Charlie Parker, but it is unclear whether this will become normal practice for future Chief Executives.

KEY FINDING 35: The Government has committed to the development of a Disciplinary Policy and updating the States Employment Board's scheme of delegation.

KEY FINDING 36: In order to address the governance arrangements with Arm's Length Organisations, the Government has set up an Arm's Length Body Oversight Board.

KEY FINDING 37: Since the implementation of the Target Operating Model, the Jersey Childcare Trust believe that many knowledgeable, skilled, respected, experienced and well- qualified individuals have been lost.

KEY FINDING 38: Digital modernisation has formed part of the OneGov reforms but has impacted on the elderly who are less likely to be digitally connected.

KEY FINDING 39: There were mixed views from non-Government organisations about how effective their relationships were with Government. Organisations who expressed mostly negative views were from child/family-based organisations.

KEY FINDING 40: There are inconsistencies in the views expressed by non-Government organisations in terms of the Government's handling of complaints or issues in the services they deliver.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1: The Government's review of the Target Operating Model programme should include an assessment of governance and accountability lines in Departments and clarity on how they align with political accountability.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The role of Chief of Staff and the lines of responsibility and accountabilities to the role should be clarified during the post-implementation review of the Target Operating Model Programme in order to ensure that there is no overlap in responsibilities.

RECOMMENDATION 3: A service level agreement should be introduced between Health and Community Services and Children, Young People, Education and Skills to ensure consistency over the level of service expected between the two Departments.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Given the concerns regarding the transfer of CAMHS between Departments, a formal review of this specific TOM driven transfer should be included in the Government's overall review of the programme to determine whether the anticipated benefits have been realised.

RECOMMENDATION 5: There should be greater clarity over Government consultation processes, particularly when consulting with staff on structural change. In instances when feedback is not being taken forward, justification should be clearly provided and documented.

RECOMMENDATION 6: When a need is identified for restructuring or modernising Government, the changes should always be accompanied by a baseline for change/business case.

RECOMMENDATION 7: There should be a standard requirement and processes for the capturing, validating and reporting of data on vacancy levels.

RECOMMENDATION 8: For any future proposed structural changes, the Government should identify at the outset metrics and associated targets for measuring success and identify a clear process for post-implementation review.

RECOMMENDATION 9: The Government should undertake a review of the success of the contract with TDP in delivering the goals of Team Jersey.

RECOMMENDATION 10: For any future similar programme, the Government should identify relevant metrics for evaluation and associated data sources at the commencement of the programme.

RECOMMENDATION 11: The Government should ensure that all future major technology solutions and related projects are accompanied by sufficient reporting of delivery against contract Key Performance Indicators and that reporting is undertaken on benefits realisation or on progress made in delivering benefits in practice.

RECOMMENDATION 12: Following a recommendation made by the C&AG, the Government should develop an overall IT Strategy for the States of Jersey which shows how technology investment will support and impact services.

RECOMMENDATION 13: In delivering the OneGov vision of a joined up modern and efficient public service for islanders, there should be clear responsibility and reporting lines between Modernisation and Digital (M&D) and Departments including Non-Ministerial. The code of engagement should be clarified to include responsibilities for ownership and management of digital projects between M&D and all Departments.

RECOMMENDATION 14: In maintaining and updating the Recommendations Tracker, the Government should provide more information to the Committee about how each recommendation is being prioritised. This should be included as part of the regular update sessions.

RECOMMENDATION 15: Where dependencies have been listed as a reason for non- completion of a recommendation on the Recommendations Tracker, there should be co- ordinated intervention from the Chief of Staff and the Directors General to ensure collaboration across Government to deliver on accepted recommendations. This should be a standing agenda item at Treasury and Exchequer Executive Leadership Team meetings.

RECOMMENDATION 16: The Red-Amber-Green rating on the Recommendations Tracker includes Amber 1, 2 and 3 on a sliding percentage scale. These categories are too complex and should be simplified.

RECOMMENDATION 17: The Government should undertake an analysis of the Recommendations Tracker and identify common themes. This would enable corrective action to be put in place in order to deliver more effectively on recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION 18: All scrutiny recommendations should be incorporated into the Recommendations Tracker and formally reported on.

RECOMMENDATION 19: An update on the Recommendations Tracker should be provided to the Council of Ministers and the Scrutiny Liaison Committee on a regular basis.

RECOMMENDATION 20: Every patient should be provided with the opportunity to submit feedback via the MyExperience' survey managed by the Patient Advisory Liaison Service within Health and Community Services.

RECOMMENDATION 21: A formal process should be initiated to ensure outstanding complaints by members of the public into any matter of administration by a Minister or a Department are investigated and appropriately addressed in a timely fashion.

RECOMMENDATION 22: The Government should undertake another staff survey in 2022 which should include the same measures as the BeHeard survey. This will ensure that improvements in all areas can be identified as well as the areas that require greater attention, such as staff morale.

RECOMMENDATION 23: The Government should ensure communication of the People Strategy to all staff and ensure that related implementation plans are initiated.

RECOMMENDATION 24: Given the significant changes to the Government's structure the Code of Conduct for the Civil Service (2002) should be updated in line with the People Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION 25: The C&AG's recommendation that a formal policy should be documented in respect of the line management of the Chief Executive as an employee, including any specific delegation of responsibilities from the States Employment Board, should be implemented as a priority. This should explicitly address the process for the appraisal of the Chief Executive.

RECOMMENDATION 26: The Government should ensure that the 11 recommendations made by the C&AG and the recommendations made by PAC relating to the employment of the Chief Executive are fully implemented.

RECOMMENDATION 27: The Government should prioritise the recommendations made by the C&AG on formalising the relationship between the Government and Non-Ministerial Departments including the high level statement, Terms of Reference for liaison meetings, Memoranda of Understanding and Service Level Agreements.

RECOMMENDATION 28: The Arm's length Body Oversight Board should ensure that the Government's work and relationship with Arm's Length Organisations and Specified Organisations is aligned with the key strategic priorities of the Council of Ministers and States Assembly.

RECOMMENDATION 29: As the Government becomes more dependent on digital technologies, policy attention should be given to the importance of digital inclusion.

RECOMMENDATION 30: The Government should introduce key targets for how it works in partnership with non-Government organisations, including key points of contact in services and clarity in how it deals with issues and complaints.

1. Introduction

The Public Accounts Committee (the Committee) considers that good performance management processes should be transparent and fair, ultimately leading to better decision making and improved governance and overall performance. Any initiatives introduced by Government should demonstrate how they lead to better, cost-effective outcomes and improved services for the public.

Background and context

The Committee began its review in February 2021 in order to assess performance management within the Government following a number of significant changes to modernise public services. The former Chief Executive, Charlie Parker, introduced a new structure termed One Government' (OneGov) at the start of his tenure in 2018.

This new structure included an overarching Target Operating Model for the Government which set out the desired future state of the organisation. Individual departmental TOMs were then established and implemented to embed the new OneGov structure.

As part of the OneGov and TOM process, a number of performance management tools and methods were introduced. The Committee wanted to gain an understanding of whether the overall structural changes to public services and the initiatives introduced were fully implemented and have improved the performance of Government. The three main performance areas explored by the Committee in this report are:

The Recommendations Tracker: A Tracker was introduced in 2019 and is used to track responses to the recommendations made by the PAC and the C&AG. Recommendations are monitored by using a Red, Amber, Green system.
The Jersey Performance Framework: The Jersey Performance Framework was published in 2020 and is used to measure the progress Jersey makes towards achieving sustainable wellbeing. Sustainable wellbeing includes community wellbeing (the quality of people's lives); environmental wellbeing (the quality of the natural world) and economic wellbeing (how well the economy is performing).
Customer feedback and complaints handling: The Government launched a new Customer Feedback Policy in September 2019 which sets out the expectations of the complaints procedure and timescales for resolution of issues. The ethos of the Policy is about learning from feedback, especially in relation to complaints.

The PAC has aimed to assess whether the changes introduced by OneGov and the performance initiatives have been fully implemented and subsequently improved ways of measuring, monitoring and reporting on performance. The Committee has also considered whether further improvements need to be made to ensure alignment with the Government's strategic objectives to deliver improved public services and value for money, particularly as the new Chief Executive will be tasked with continuing to embed the OneGov structure and monitoring the Government's performance.

Methodology

As part of its research, the Committee considered a number of documents such as the Departmental Operational Business Plans and Annual Report and Accounts. A list of the documents considered during this review can be found in appendix 3.

As the Committee's role is to receive reports from the C&AG and to report to the States upon any significant issues arising, a number of the C&AG's reports and findings have also been considered in this report (see appendix 3).

To inform the review, the Committee wrote to all of the Directors General asking a number of questions about performance management within their Departments in general, as well as specific questions about the implementation of the OneGov changes and the TOMs. In order to gain external views of performance management within Government, the Committee also wrote to a number of non-Government organisations, regulators, Non-Ministerial Departments and ALO's. All submissions/correspondence, unless received in confidence, can be found here.

Public Hearings were also held with the Interim Chief Executive, Directors General and the Chief of Staff during 2021. The Committee also questioned the former Chief Executive on performance management; however this was prior to the start of the Committee's formal review of the topic. The transcripts from these hearings can be found here.

Clarification of identity of the Chief Executive

At the time of publication, the current Chief Executive is Suzanne Wylie, who joined the Government of Jersey on 1st February 2022, replacing the Interim Chief Executive, Paul Martin, who served as Interim Chief Executive from 1st March 2021 to 31st January 2022. The former permanent Chief Executive, Charlie Parker, left the Government of Jersey on 31st March 2021. During the review, the Committee received submissions and held Public Hearings with both the former Chief Executive and Interim Chief Executive.

Structure of the report

Chapter 2 of this report explains the modernisation of Jersey's public service including the OneGov reforms and rollout of the Target Operating Models.

Chapter 3 describes the Government's programme of digital modernisation including the Integrated Technology Solution.

Chapter 4 focuses on the introduction of a number of performance management tools and methods following the modernisation of public services. This includes the Recommendation Tracker, the Jersey Performance Framework and the processes in relation to customer feedback and complaints handling.

Chapter 5 focuses on individual performance management within the civil services, particularly the most senior Government officers and the Chief Executive.

Chapter 6 provides an analysis of performance management within Government including how it interacts with non-ministerial departments, Arm's Length Bodies and non-Government organisations such as charities.

Modernisation of Jersey's public service

Overview

The purpose of OneGov (One Island, one community, one future') was to reorganise the public service, focusing on collaborative working, eliminating silos and improving services. This new structure included an overarching Target Operating Model for the Government which set out the desired future state of the organisation. Individual departmental TOMs were then established and implemented to embed the new OneGov structure:

In April 2019, the former Chief Executive published OneGov: One Year on' which outlined the progress made in modernising and improving Jersey's public services. It summarised improvements to the long-term strategic approach including the Common Strategic Policy (setting out the Council of Ministers' five strategic priorities), a new Government Plan (a rolling four-year plan, updated annually) and preparation for a new Island Plan 2021-30 (an integrated, strategic and spatial approach to challenges and opportunities in Jersey).

The update also outlined progress in restructuring the organisation and improving its governance structures. This included approval of new financial management processes through P.1/2018, new senior leadership forums and changes to the structure of Government at departmental, group and function levels (which implemented the TOMs).

The Interim Chief Executive told the Committee in January 2022 that the OneGov programme and TOMs rollout was an "enormous" change which had been "underestimated" in 2018:

Interim Chief Executive:

"I think the most important highlight to bring out from that event is the sheer complexity of the Government and our public services was probably underestimated in 2018. So the scale of the change that was undertaken might have been biting off more than we could chew at that point. An enormous programme of change was unveiled 4 years ago which, in practice, has proven both controversial in parts but also difficult to implement in the kind of timely way that everybody would wish"[1].

The implementation of OneGov

Consultation process

The Government undertook a consultation exercise on the overarching TOM between March and June 2018 with subsequent consultations taking place with staff on the departmental TOMs. The Interim Chief Executive explained that, as the consultation encompassed the entire organisation, it was recognised at the time that the changes would affect some colleagues more than others. A communication plan was put in place to ensure that employees were aware of the changes and received details about the consultation [2].

A number of consultation briefings were provided to all line managers in advance of the formal consultation process. Staff sessions were held at department level to launch the consultation with a presentation by Directors General, supported by the Departmental Leadership Team [3].

All employees received an opening of consultation' letter and supporting documents and were offered one-to-one meetings alongside drop-in sessions to raise any concerns or questions. Similarly for the close of consultation stage, managers were briefed in advance and held formal consultation meetings with employees affected by the changes. If the service or job had changed significantly, job specific training was provided, or support was provided for internal recruitment.[4]

Following the consultation process, Directors General began moving teams into the new organisational structure which took several months. In some cases, this led to further consultations with staff.

The implementation of the overarching TOM followed a consultation process with staff. The move into the new organisational structure took several months (and in some cases years) which required further consultations with staff. Although a consultation process was undertaken, it is unclear how effective this was, particularly in relation to the TOM for Justice and Home Affairs and the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service which is explained in further detail in the next section.

Departmental Target Operating Models

The OneGov programme replaced the previous Departmental structure with a smaller number of Departments each headed by Directors General who are accountable to the Chief Executive. In 2020, the Chief Minister presented a Report to the States Assembly which explains that the public administration as a whole is led and co-ordinated by the Office of the Chief Executive, with "the senior leadership of the public service working collectively to deliver effective administration". The report explained that this is supported by a number of corporate departments:

• Strategic Policy, Performance and Planning - working with Ministers and their lead departments to develop strategy, policy and legislation across ministerial portfolios.

• Customer and Local Services - provides services to customers across ministerial

portfolios, improving ease of access for customers and value for money for the taxpayer.

• Chief Operating Office - provides a range of support services, such as Information Services, Human Resources, and Procurement.

• Treasury and Exchequer - provides financial guidance, management, and reporting services.

The Committee notes that, although Government Departments and officer structures have changed, Ministerial structures remained the same. In the previous structure, nearly all Departments were accountable to a specific Minister:

Previous department structure	Political lead
Chief Minister's Department, including the Ministry for External Relations	Chief Minister Minister for External Relations
Department for Community and Constitutional Affairs	Chief Minister Minister for Home Affairs Minister for Housing
Department for Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and Culture	Minister for Economic Development, Tourism Sport and Culture
Department for Education	Minister for Education
Department for the Environment	Minister for the Environment
Department for Health and Social Services	Minister for Health and Social Services
Department for Infrastructure	Minister for Infrastructure
Department for Social Security	Minister for Social Security
Department for Treasury and Resources	Minister for Treasury and Resources

This has added an element of complexity within the new structure (which is shown in the organisation chart below). Some Departments have several Ministers exercising political responsibility within them which may create a level of confusion on governance and accountability lines.

When the new Officer structures were introduced, there was no corresponding change to Ministerial structures which has added an element of complexity to the system. The public administration is now led and co-ordinated by the Office of the Chief Executive supported by a number of corporate Departments.

KEY FINDING 2: The OneGov reforms have impacted on governance and accountability lines within Departments.

The Committee received a number of submissions from Directors General providing information on how their respective Departmental TOMs had been implemented and how any changes to them are made. It is not necessary for the Committee to go into the detail of every departmental TOM, but there were a number of areas where the implementation of some them may not have been as effective as it could have been or there are areas within civil service structures which require further explanation. The Committee goes into further detail in the following sections.

TOM for the Office of the Chief Executive

The Office of the Chief Executive is a new Department created by the OneGov reorganisation. It brings together the Chief of Staff, External Relations and the Communications directorate.

The Chief of Staff was one of the new roles introduced through the OneGov reforms. The Government's website explains that the Chief of Staff (Government business and Ministerial support) supports the Council of Ministers by providing "advanced, detailed, high-quality and impartial briefing information for Ministers to support their decisions, and provide challenge where appropriate".

The Government also advised that the Chief of Staff role leads on behalf of the Chief Executive the overall governance and management of Government business to ensure the right governance arrangements are in place to better join-up the machinery of government and embed a culture of continuous learning and performance management in a consistent manner. The Government further advised that the Risk Management function became part of the Office of the Chief Executive, placing risk management within Government. The Internal Audit function remained part of the Treasury and Exchequer Department, therefore, the Internal Audit Team operationally report into the Chief of Staff on behalf of the Treasurer, reflecting recommendations made for Internal Audit to be closer aligned to the Office of the Chief Executive.

The Committee held a Public Hearing with the Chief of Staff in November 2021 and asked her about her role. She explained:

Chief of Staff:

"Primarily in my substantive role I am responsible for the Ministerial Support Unit and the relationship with the Comptroller and Auditor General for the whole of Government and the Public Accounts Committee. I also have a relationship with Scrutiny and the States Assembly. I am also responsible for some of the major projects. I can get involved right across Government in various projects where they need supporting. For example, I was involved in the office modernisation project when it first began. I chair the Team Jersey board. While I am not the senior responsible officer - that sits with the Chief Operating Officer - I am the critical challenge there and we have representatives on the board from right across the Government, including at various grades so it is not just senior leadership."[5]

The Government also explained that the Chief of Staff role supports the Executive Leadership Team to function effectively and provide strategic advice to Ministers on policy and operational implications. The role also manages the relationship with and co-ordinates the implementation of recommendations of the C&AG and the Committee, with the aim of promoting strong governance arrangements across the organisation.

The Committee questioned the Chief of Staff on the purpose of having three senior separate roles for a Chief Executive Officer, a Chief Operating Officer and a Chief of Staff, from a public benefit point of view. The Chief of Staff explained that her role was broad and could encompass the whole of Government:

Chief of Staff:

"So I think from my perspective I can work right across Government, so I have a Government-wide remit whereas the Chief Operating Officer has a department in his own right and he has services that work directly to him, so he is directly responsible for certain services in that department, whereas my remit can go right across Government. I work quite closely with the Chief Operating Officer on the I.T.S. programme, so I chair the Business Change Forum on his behalf and work with him on that. As I already outlined, I chair Team Jersey, but mine is more of a corporate role. So my work in particular with the Comptroller and Auditor General and yourselves is about driving improvements across the organisation and supporting change and transformation, just in terms of the services we produce but also the culture and behaviour element of staff progression. I support in a number of areas right across Government".[6]

The Committee notes that the Chief of Staff chairs Team Jersey Board but Team Jersey sits within the Chief Operating Office under People Services (HR) and is led by a Programme Director. Similarly, the Chief of Staff has responsibility for the Ministerial Support Unit (MSU), but this is operationally managed by the Head of the MSU. The Chief of Staff jointly manages the Recommendations Tracker with the Treasury and Exchequer but the Committee has been advised to contact Director Generals directly when requesting updates. The Committee considers that the role of Chief of Staff requires some clarity, particularly around areas of responsibility in order to ensure that there are no overlaps in lines of responsibility and management.

TOM for Children, Young People, Education and Skills

Through the OneGov reform process, the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) was transferred from Health and Community Services (HCS) to Children, Young People, Education and Skills (CYPES). The Committee considers that this service redesign demonstrates an example whereby the new structures have not enhanced services for the public.

The TOM for CYPES combined a number of related functions which had previously sat in different Government Departments. The aim of bringing these services together was for better coordinated, integrated and targeted services to create more impact when working with children, young people and their families and carers [7].

As part of these changes, CAMHS was moved to HCS. This meant that CAMHS was overseen by the Group Director of Children's Services rather than the Group Managing Director Hospital and Community Services.[8]

At that time, the Health and Social Security Panel received a submission from CAMHS as part of review: Assessment of Mental Health Services in Jersey'. CAMHS raised concerns about the transition: We have always been a small part of a larger organisation with high expectations placed upon what it is possible for us to deliver. We are unclear as to how it will improve service provision for us to sit under a children's umbrella. We need to maintain professional links with our colleagues in health. Tier 3 CAMHS services are traditionally viewed as health services as they offer medication, support for inpatient treatment, nursing and therapeutic interventions.

The Managing Director of Contact consulting, Stephen Appleton, also raised concerns that separating CAMHS from other mental health services increased the risks around transitioning people between mental health services. He said: The risk inherent in placing child and adolescent mental health services away from the mental health system is that you widen that gap and make it harder to bridge it for transition. That is my principle reservation about it. I can see that there is sense, particularly thinking You can kind of see the logic. It breaks the connection with the rest of the system, in terms of mental health. It gets in the way of that continuum and, for me, it increases that risk around transition.

In February 2019, the Government confirmed its intention to transfer responsibility for CAMHS from one ministerial portfolio to another and the TOM was developed in March 2019 which reflected this change.

The Committee received a submission from Family Nursing and Home Care (FNHC) who commented on the transfer. They believe that this has added complexity to communication and service delivery (different processes/leadership) which is exemplified by child and family services being driven by HCS in some respects yet commissioned by CYPES.

The Committee held a Public Hearing with the Directors General for HCS and CYPES in November 2021 to talk about the transfer in services and whether any improvements had been made to the service. The Director General for HCS acknowledged that there had been some challenges including around lines of management between the two departments.

The Committee asked about how the two Departments work together to deliver the service and the Director General for HCS explained:

Director General, Health and Community Services:

"We work together particularly around our quality performance metrics. [] because the clinicians who deliver care for C.A.M.H.S. sit within H.C.S., which is right and appropriate, the service sits within C.Y.P.E.S. So we have to have a really clear quality governance structure around that, and we manage that through our quality performance report, which is our report that we published this year for the first time. If you look in that report, you will see we have really clear metrics around deliverables for C.A.M.H.S. That goes through our governance structure, through our quality and safety committee through to our board. [The Director General for CYPES] has similar governance structures within C.Y.P.E.S. and we communicate across that governance framework. Because our predominant concern in H.C.S. is that the care that is being delivered is measurable, qualitative and safe, whereas [the Director General for CYPES] is responsible for the business and for the finance, et cetera.

[.]

At the quality and safety committee we have the lead clinician who sits on that committee, but there is nobody from C.Y.P.E.S. that sits on the Health and Community Services board. That has been highlighted as an issue by the work that was done by the C.A.G. (Comptroller and Auditor General) and it is something we are seeking to address next year. What we have been doing is refreshing the membership of the board because, although from the very start of it we invited community partners on to that board, we have not looked wider and the C.A.G. has quite rightly said to us that is what we need to be doing. So, from next year we will be inviting partners from within Government to sit on our board [9]."

The Committee is unclear on who is ultimately responsible for the service. When asked, the Director General of CYPES said that it is a joint responsibility between CYPES and HCS but in the quote above, he explained that there is no representative of CYPES that sits on the Health and Community Services Board. Although this matter is being actioned, the Committee believes that it should have been standard practice when the transfer first occurred to ensure representative membership.

The Committee also believes that one Government official should have ultimate responsibility for CAMHS in order that there is a clear line of accountability. Particularly as concerns were expressed before the transfer occurred about whether professional links would be lost between health and CAMHS and whether there would be increased risks around transitioning people between mental health services.

The Committee asked about measuring the performance from a customer perspective when a patient goes from one area of the service to another, particularly as one of the drivers for the transfer was for better coordinated, integrated and targeted services to create more impact when working with children, young people and their families and carers:

Director General, Children, Young People, Education and Skills:

So from the customer's perspective, 2 key elements. The first is each of our children or young people will have a care plan. So within that plan itself will be the particular outcomes that are agreed upon for that young person, and then at a kind of organisational level, as my colleague has mentioned, we will have metrics around time taken from referral, for example, to assessment, assessment to treatment, et cetera.

The Director General for HCS acknowledged that there is not enough in place to capture patient experience in the services they access:

Director General, Health and Community Services:

From the H.C.S. perspective, we do not have enough around patient experience, which I think is what you are asking about. That is part of our work plan going forward, and that is across our services. We do not do enough asking patients how they have experienced our service. We are not proactive enough about that.

Given that there were concerns prior to the move, the Committee believes that the Government should have put in place ways to measure patient satisfaction in order to evaluate the change and to ensure that the transfer worked effectively and as intended for children, young people and their families and carers.

This lack of feedback limits the ability to assess whether this TOM change is effective in improving the service provided and if anticipated efficiency improvements have negatively impacted customer service.

TOM for Justice and Home Affairs

The Committee notes that the Justice and Home Affairs TOM was implemented during 2019, 2020 and 2021 and originally consisted of [10]:

• Public Protection and Law Enforcement – includes blue light services (Police, Fire and Rescue, Ambulance Service, Customs and Immigration, Field Squadron, Emergency Planning and Coastguard).

• Criminal Justice and Offender Management – includes Prison Service and

Probation, police complaints, the Independent Prison Monitoring Board and custody visitors.

When the TOM was first published in 2019, a number of concerns were raised about merging services and the lack of an evidenced business case for the proposed changes. In that regard, Deputy Trevor Pointon lodged a proposition (P.24/2019) which asked that any necessary legislative changes needed to implement the TOM would be brought before the Assembly for debate and agreement first, and prior to any further work to implement the new structures taking place.

An amendment was lodged by Connetable Deirdre Mezbourian which built on Deputy Pointon's proposition and aimed to further strengthen the democratic oversight of the proposed reforms of the JHA Department. Deputy Pointon's proposition was approved by the States, as amended in March 2019 and requested that the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs ensured that the final operating model for the department maintained:

• an independent, recognisable and dedicated States of Jersey Police Force, led by a Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer as required by Article 8 of the States of Jersey Police Force Law 2012 and appointed in accordance with Article 6 of the States of Jersey Police Force (Chief Officer and Deputy Chief Officer) (Jersey) Regulations 2017;

• a clearly recognisable and dedicated Jersey Customs and Immigration Service, led by a Head of Service who will also be the Agents of the Impts, appointed in accordance with Article 4 of the Customs and Excise (Jersey) Law 1999, and who shall not be the same person as either the Chief Officer or Deputy Chief Officer of Police;

• a clearly recognisable and dedicated Jersey Fire and Rescue Service, led by a Chief Fire Officer, as provided for by Article 4 of the Fire and Rescue Service (Jersey) Law 2011;

• a clearly recognisable and dedicated States of Jersey Ambulance Service, led by a Chief Ambulance Officer as at present, who shall not be the same person as the Chief Fire Officer.

Consequently, changes were made to the Public Protection and Law Enforcement function within the TOM and the Criminal Justice and Offender Management stream was scrapped altogether.

TOM for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment

The Director General for Infrastructure, Housing and Environment explained that the Department has experienced several impacts in the implementation of an overall TOM which relates to the Economy function moving from Growth, Housing and Environment to the Office of the Chief Executive in February 2020 [11] and then becoming its own Department in 2021. These impacts have changed the overall shape of the Department.

The Committee received a submission from Jersey Sport who commented on the impact the changes had on its organisation. They said that the support they have received from Government across four and a half years has been "patchy" with many changes including the Partnership Manager and the Department to IHE only to be returned to the Economy Department in a matter of months. They said that these frequent changes have caused inconsistency and irregular attendance at Jersey Sport Board meetings leading to the officer having a "surface deep" understanding of Jersey Sport priorities and outcomes. Although they said that the recent appointment of Sector Lead - Arts, Culture, Heritage and Sport and a new Head of Local Economy has now improved this.

Costs associated with Target Operating Model Programme

The budgets for the new Departments under the TOMs were contained within the overall spending limit for 2019, established in the Medium Term Financial Plan. Through the TOM process, departmental budgets were aligned to match the new structures.

The Minister for Treasury and Resources presented a Transition Report 2019' on 17th December 2018 which supported the transition to the Government Plan (following the modernisation programme and the move away from the Medium-Term Financial Plan). The report explains that the agreed cash limit for 2019 in terms of the new departmental structures would become the budgets against which the financial performance of Directors General would be measured.

Value for money

The Committee asked the Treasurer of the States how the Government could assess whether the changes initiated by the implementation of the TOM represented value for money. The Treasurer explained that it was the responsibility of the Accountable Officer and Principal Accountable Officer to be confident that the changes made delivered value for money:

Mr. A. Lane:

"..how does Government satisfy itself that the implementation of T.O.M.s across the piece represented value for money?"

Treasurer of the States:

"It would fall for each A.O. (accountable officer) and through the P.A.O. (principal accountable officer) to be confident that the changes they have made deliver value for money. The changes that were made in the target operating models did, in many cases, allow greater productivity, more in the way of, in particular, major projects to be delivered. I think the changes to the target operating model undoubtedly served us well during COVID, much better working together than would have been the case were the target operating model not to have been in place, and so that is a significant plus there. If I come back to finance, as I say, recommendations came from various pieces of work. We do think that we are a more efficient organisation as a result of that. Indeed, I think it is incumbent upon all of us to come back to those target operating models on a regular basis. Indeed, the changes I made recently were partly driven by the need to deliver efficiencies out of the organisation and hence you saw that we removed the director of risk and audit role."

Mr. A. Lane:

"Was there ever a single business case for the delivery of the target operating models?"

Treasurer of the States:

"The business case or the vision, if you like, was put in the document but the vision that the chief executive at the time put in place in terms of the achievements that we wanted to deliver through the One Government model; going digital, having the customer at the heart of our services, in particular, and the values and behaviours that we have also put in place since then. I think each of the departmental T.O.M.s had to demonstrate the benefits against that vision when it was also taken and given quite a degree of scrutiny by the States Employment Board on a case-by-case basis".

Mr. A. Lane:

"But, by the sounds of it, never a single costed plan."

Treasurer of the States:

"There was never a single costed plan for the whole of Government; it was for each department to put in place their own plan, as I understand it. It was originally a target of 10 per cent for savings at tier 1 and tier 2. I do not think that was quite delivered but that was what we were looking to deliver initially or the target was originally set."[12]

The Committee also questioned the Interim Chief Executive about this matter who confirmed that there was no business case but reducing costs was never part of the OneGov programme:

Interim Chief Executive:

"Now if you look back to what the goals of the OneGov programme and the T.O.M.s that followed from that were back in 2018, although many people may think that it was about efficiency savings and reduced cost, that is not particularly prominent in what was set out at that time. You are right. There was not a business case in the way that we would do now but there were 8 key principles that were identified which would drive OneGov, and reducing costs was not one of them. This is remarkable to me coming from outside, especially coming from a U.K. context and the career I have had in recent decades. It is very notable because for the most part, the reforms I have been involved in have been about reduced cost invariably with a target that this is the maximum pay bill that we can afford, but that did not form part of the OneGov changes. It was never part of the OneGov changes"[13].

It is disappointing that there was no single costed plan or business case for the whole of Government during the restructuring process. This is particularly disappointing following the Committee's accepted recommendation made in its report Recurring Themes: Decision Making'. The Committee recommended that: Business cases and investment appraisal documents should demonstrate consistent and objective measures (e.g. Using KPIs) of how they meet overarching strategic objectives.

In response to the recommendation, the Chief of Staff [14] advised the Committee that the Government had implemented a business case process modelled on the UK Treasury's 5 case model (strategic case, economic case (including option appraisal and assessment of value for money), the commercial case, the financial case and the managements case). Unfortunately, this model was not used at the beginning of the restructuring process.

The Committee would like to see evidence of the cost of Government at the beginning of the process, when the need was identified to restructure/modernise and improve processes. The Treasury Minister's Transition Report 2019 states that savings would be achieved through modernisation of the States by better commercial contract management, consolidating assets, workforce management, stopping duplication and digitising and automating routine tasks and services. Although the implementation of the TOMs was not principally a cost-saving exercise, the Committee believes that it is in the public's interest to demonstrate whether the structural changes and changes to services were successful and represented value for money.

KEY FINDING 9: The Government did not develop a single costed plan or business case for the restructuring process made through the Target Operating Models.

The Interim Chief Executive explained that the former Chief Executive articulated a set of Guiding Principles for the TOM programme which were used by Directors General when progressing their respective departmental TOM reviews. At this time, the Interim Chief Executive advised that there was no explicit baseline for change for the TOM, or for any of the departmental TOM programmes.

RECOMMENDATION 6: When a need is identified for restructuring or modernising Government, the changes should always be accompanied by a baseline for change/business case.

Full time equivalents and spot salaries

The Committee notes that, although the TOM programme was entered into without a single explicit business case, it was designed to create efficiency and effectiveness. In terms of efficiency, the Committee was provided with data on the number of full-time equivalent personnel employed by the Government which has increased over time. It has increased faster in the civil service and in particular in the more senior grades 12 to 15. In January 2017, before the TOM programme was implemented, there were 5,976 employees and in December 2021, after the TOM programme was implemented, there were 6,871 employees. This represents around a 15% increase in the workforce. The Committee asked the Interim Chief Executive about the increases:

Interim Chief Executive:

"Well, I suppose the starting point is that that kind of growth going forward is inconceivable so, I think in terms of the trajectory, I do not think it is plausible that that will continue in the years ahead. I believe - and time will tell if I am right or not - that the high point of that growth has been reached and that it will, at some pace yet to be determined - and of course all these things are politically driven - ultimately be reversed. So I do not think that we could continue in that way. There are risks for us though in the public service, which are what I can see over the last year is that the development and improvement of public services has become synonymous with growth, and I think that is quite a significant thing both for the Council of Ministers and for us as officials. Almost an assumption for anything new to happen we need a new team or we need an extra resource and extra people. That needs to be understood, so I think we need to observe that as being where we are and we need to confront it and say there are other ways of getting development and improvement that do not have to be driven by increases in cost or more staff."[15]

The data provided to the Committee also shows that in 2017 there were 33 employees on a spot salary, which has increased to 105 [16] (51 at senior level) in 2021. The Committee understands that a spot salary is an appointment to a specific, precise pay level which is usually higher than a grade 15 (£96,164 per annum). This demonstrates that, since the implementation of the TOM programme, the public services and the numbers of staff, particularly more senior staff has grown substantially over the modernisation period.

KEY FINDING 11: Data shows that the number of full-time equivalent personnel has grown, particularly in the more senior roles, between 2017 and 2021.

Vacancies

Health and Community Services

Vacancy levels and staff shortages remain a challenge within Health and Community Services. The Committee notes a recent Freedom of Information response which provides an overview of vacancy levels within the Department. The table below shows the number of clinical level vacancies at the Hospital as at 1st November 2021 which are being covered by locum arrangements:

	Department		Number of Vacancies
	Anaesthetics		3

Child & Adolescent Mental Health 1 Dental 2 Diabetes 2 General Surgery 2 Mental Health 2 Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1 Oncology 1 Orthopaedic & Trauma 1 Respiratory 1 Sexual Health 1 Medicine (including general medicine, acute medicine) 28 Total 45

The response also shows that between 1st January 2021 and 1st November 2021, 513 nursing and administrative staff were signed off sick at some time during that period ("signed off" refers to if they have had a period of continuous absence longer than three days). During the same period, 9 doctors and consultant level clinicians left the department as did 7 social workers. Overall, the Department has 353 vacancies across all posts including support colleagues (porters and administrative employees) clinical (doctors, nurses, midwives, dentists), managerial roles and allied health professionals.

One of the long-term approaches to the OneGov reforms was about services. In his speech announcing the OneGov reforms, the former Chief Executive said that "We have to deliver modern, quality, value for money public services for all islanders, protecting and improving their health and well-being, in a fair and balanced society." The vacancy levels within HCS are a concern for the Committee, particularly as the Minister for Health and Social Services advised in November 2021 that there are challenges in recruiting to some speciality roles:

Minister for Health and Social Services:

"There is no recruitment crisis in H.C.S. (Health and Community Services). The organisation has a vacancy rate of 5.3 per cent currently, which is not unusual for an organisation of that size. However, we do have areas in some specialties in which recruitment is a challenge as we are competing in a highly competitive labour market, and of course Members have asked me about the issues in many previous questions. As to what is being done, much could be said of the various training programmes run by H.C.S. but I have limited time to do so. In the last 3 months we have recruited more staff than leavers. Wider than H.C.S., we do need to recognise the pressure in the residential and domiciliary care sector for staff that support homecare, residential and nursing care. [] Many staff appear to have left the Island, perhaps as a result of Brexit or COVID. It is also pertinent that in primary care, G.P.s (general practitioners) are working exceptionally hard in the face of increased attendances and surgeries and they report difficulties in attracting G.P.s to work in the Island."

In addition, in response to a Written Question in January 2022 the Minister said that there is a high level of vacancies in certain areas within the Health Department:

Minister for Health and Social Services:

"While we do not believe there is evidence of people leaving in large numbers, there are areas (such as theatres, radiography and AHP support to mental health services) that do have a high level of vacancies, which impacts on that area of service and has a knock-on effect on other areas. As a result, we have developed plans to specifically target recruitment into these areas."

The Committee notes that a number of Written and Oral Questions have been asked by States Members on the vacancy and turnover rates within Health and Community Services. It has been acknowledged by the Minister in some responses that there have been issues in the gathering, validation and reconciliation of some vacancy information [17]. The Committee believes that there should be a central requirement for how data on vacancy levels is measured and reconciled across Health and Community services.

KEY FINDING 12: Although the Target Operating Model for Health and Community Services has been implemented, the Department still experiences high levels of vacancies in some areas.

Infrastructure Housing and Environment

During the Committee's review of Estate Management (published in October 2021), it was concerned about the vacancy levels within IHE and Jersey Property Holdings, which, at the time, were running at a vacancy rate of 30% and 25% respectively. The Committee recommended that filling vacancies in IHE/JPH needed to be given top priority which was subsequently accepted by the Government. In January 2022, the Government advised that options were being pursued in three areas to address the pressures caused by the recruitment and capacity issues within JPH. The Government also advised that it would seek greater assistance from the central HR Resourcing Team to access different recruitment pools / markets, and by working with the central Commercial Team establish a framework of rates for tasks that can be outsourced. The Committee anticipates that the next PAC will continue its work on Estate Management including following-up on the vacancy rates within IHE/JPH.

RECOMMENDATION 7: There should be a standard requirement and processes for the capturing, validating and reporting of data on vacancy levels.

Evaluation of Target Operating Models

The Interim Chief Executive explained that the Government will complete a detailed review of the TOM programme before the end of June 2022. This followed a recommendation by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel in its report People and Culture Review' (S.R.12/2021). The Panel recommended: There should be a review or report commissioned, and made publicly available, reflecting on the restructuring of the public service to date which includes advice received from third parties to channel the future mandate and the timing of decision making. This should take place by the next Government term.

The States Employment Board (SEB), in its response to the Panel's report, accepted the recommendation and acknowledged that, following any significant organisation change, a review should be undertaken to improve organisational change in the future. The Interim Chief Executive advised the Committee that the scope and terms of the review will be agreed with the SEB in February 2022 in order that an independent and external organisation be commissioned to conduct the review and report findings within the agreed timeframe [18].

The Committee anticipates that the next PAC will follow-up on the evaluation process for the OneGov reform programme and TOM rollout.

Service Reviews

The States Employment Board explains in its Annual Report 2020 that, to ensure that TOMs have met the needs of the Island and to achieve the objectives in the Government Plan, service reviews within functional areas will take place as part of business as usual. The Committee understands that service reviews are undertaken during Senior Leadership Team meetings within each Department.

The Committee asked the Interim Chief Executive how the effectiveness of the TOMs programme is assessed in terms of improving performance management. The Interim Chief Executive said the TOMs programme will develop and evolve through incremental adaptions over time through experience and in line with customer and staff feedback:

Interim Chief Executive:

"I think that the overall assessment must be around its contribution to the effects of delivery of quality services and value for money. I think that that in a rounded sense, it is our capacity and ability to deliver on the States-approved Government Plan. Within that I think that the model of change probably will adapt a little bit as we go forward in the sense that the OneGov programme and the associated T.O.M.s sort of implied that each department was moving from one stable state to another stable state in a new target operating model, whereas I think that often in organisations they develop and evolve through incremental adaptations. People can see there are more things to be done, we can work better, that maybe there is an investment in technology which can help better ways of working or sometimes with staff turnover or leadership turnover it generates opportunities or different options and acting in the light of experience. I think that what I am trying to say, in summary, is that although the States has gone through a very big change over the last few years, I think that going forward it may be that we will have sort of more gradual incremental change that builds on the experience of the last few years and adapts and modifies, especially in line with customer feedback and

the feedback from our own staff."[19]

Most departmental Target Operating Models were implemented during 2019, 2020 and 2021. It is envisaged that the TOMs programme will develop and evolve through incremental adaptions over time through experience and in line with customer and staff feedback.

Team Jersey

In September 2018, the Team Jersey Programme was developed as part of OneGov. Its purpose is to deliver a positive workplace culture, connecting people and services, building trust and upskilling the workforce.

During the implementation of OneGov, Team Jersey provided sessions to all states employees to learn about new ways of working, performance management, respect in the workplace and development to improve the quality of leadership and line management.

The Programme Director for Team Jersey explained that Team Jersey is a cultural change programme with the aim of embedding a positive culture across the Government of Jersey. The programme works with all departments (including non-executive areas)[20]. TDP was chosen as the partner organisation to deliver the Team Jersey Programme and the contract with them was £3.5 million:

Programme Director, Team Jersey:

".we procured TDP to act as our partner organisation, they undertook phase one, which was a piece of work basically where they spoke to as many stakeholders and people across Government to understand what the culture looked like at that time. So they ran a series of workshops, they talked with external stakeholders as well as internal stakeholders. They produced a report - we just call it the phase one Team Jersey report - which outlined 9 recommendations of things that could be improved, to improve our culture as an organisation. Also as part of that contract they were then required to develop and design a programme to help us address and respond to those 9 recommendations. So a programme was built and that commenced in 2019" [21].

A report prepared by Government officers to the One Government Political Oversight Group provided a table of the Team Jersey programme spend to the end of 2020 and the budget agreed for 2021/22:

This indicates that the overall spend of the programme to the end of 2020 was £3.7 million with an additional £1.8 million required for 2021/22.

The Programme Director explained that Team Jersey has a team of 6 and TDP have a team of 3 on-island which is supplemented by additional trainers who are brought over to Jersey to help support the delivery of the programme [22]. The Programme Director also explained that, over 2021, the Government had focused on building a "Government of Jersey team so that when TDP step away in March [2022] we will be able to continue to deliver and embed the programme." [23]

The Committee welcomes the Government's plan to concentrate on building a Government of Jersey team so that the programme can continue to be delivered internally, without an external contractor.

The Committee notes that in the Government Plan 2022-25, the annex includes a proposed recurring efficiency of £87,000 through the reorganisation of Team Jersey. The Chief Operating Officer advised the Committee that the efficiency saving would be delivered once TDP's contract expired in March 2022. The Committee questions why this has been identified as a cost saving when investment was required to deliver the programme in 2018. Although the Team Jersey programme is important in trying to initiate a positive culture change after the implementation of OneGov, its benefits have been largely intangible.

In that regard, the Committee asked how the Team Jersey Programme is monitored and measured in order to ensure value for money, particularly in respect of the £3.5 million contract with TDP. The Programme Director, Team Jersey explained:

Programme Director, Team Jersey:

"We have a programme board that meets monthly. As a programme director, I am required to report to that programme board on a monthly basis a progress report against all the deliverables agreed for the programme. I also have K.P.I.s (key performance indicators) which are both operational and strategic, and I am required to report on the operational K.P.I.s at that monthly programme board as well. That holds to account things such as attendance, quality of provision, whether we are meeting target dates for the delivery aspect. Obviously, most of those will mirror the contract delivery requirements. [24]"

The Programme Director also explained that the Covid-19 pandemic has had an impact on the way in which the Team Jersey programme has been delivered. For example, the original intention was for colleagues to come together in an environment where they had the opportunity to meet different people and get different perspectives. The Chief Operating Officer explained that these sessions work less well when they are held virtually on Teams' and in 2020 this part of the programme was lost all together:

Chief Operating Officer:

"During 2020 bringing large numbers of staff together for face-to-face meetings was not the most advisable thing to do so we virtually lost from mid-March 2020 towards to probably December 2020 the programme in terms of that part of it."

Senator T.A. Vallois:

"In 2020, in the annual report and accounts, it noted Team Jersey sessions were delivered to over 900 colleagues, and 247 sessions for our leaders in that year, over 130 active leads support a delivery of cultural change across the Government. In terms of average attendance for Team Jersey sessions in 2020 what would that be?"

Programme Director, Team Jersey:

"At the moment we have dropped below our K.P.I. So 75 per cent was our K.P.I. we set for attendance and during 2020 that dropped below because of the fact that just the amount of pressure in the organisation, ability for people to attend. It is currently rising and we are now nearly up to K.P.I. I was looking at the figures today. We are on 70 per cent now for leaders and we are on 68 per cent for colleagues. It is improving but we did drop below K.P.I. as a result of the impact of the pandemic." [25]

The Committee believes that it is important for public to understand the benefits of the Team Jersey Programme, particularly as the contract with TDP was for a significant sum of money (£3.5 million). The Programme Director explained that Team Jersey has impacted how public services are delivered because employees are now in a better position to be able to perform in their roles. The Committee notes that there is no tangible quantitative and qualitative data to support this view and as such questions whether it was value for money in contracting an external company to undertake this work.

KEY FINDING 15: There is no tangible quantitative and qualitative data to demonstrate whether the Team Jersey Programme and the appointment of an external contractor has been value for money.

RECOMMENDATION 9: The Government should undertake a review of the success of the contract with TDP in delivering the goals of Team Jersey.

RECOMMENDATION 10: For any future similar programme, the Government should identify relevant metrics for evaluation and associated data sources at the commencement of the programme.

Modernisation and Digital - Information Technology

Overview

The Government acknowledged in 2018 that modern IT infrastructure and systems were "a critical component in delivering modern, integrated and value-for-money public services". The Government also acknowledged that it did not have enough in-house capacity and expertise to deliver the scale and pace of transformation whilst also maintaining day-to-day support for public services.

To that end, the Government appointed EY (Global professional services firm) in November 2018 as an expert partner to speed up delivery of the Government's digital modernisation and change agenda. Part of EY's role was to assist in the development of a Target Operating Model for the Modernisation and Digital Function within Government. The value of EY's contract was £3.6 million which ran for a period of 27 months.

Since 2018, the Government has set out to deliver a programme of digital modernisation which includes the Integrated Technology Solution (I.T.S). The I.T.S programme intends to enable the Government to use modern, cloud-based systems for finance, human resources (HR), procurement and asset management.

The Committee will include the consideration of a review of the I.T.S and whether it provides value for money in its legacy report for the next PAC. In terms of performance management, however, the Committee considered that it was important to provide an initial overview of the I.T.S and the concerns to date, as they directly relate to the modernisation of public services and the structural changes associated with the TOMs.

Integrated Technology Solution

The I.T.S programme was launched in 2020 and is being delivered by the Chief Operating Office to replace a number of outdated and unsupported IT systems. The aim of the I.T.S is to deliver a "modern, fit for purpose technology solution and best practice processes that a fit for future generations" providing support for finance, human resources and procurement activities by replacing the JD Edwards, Peoplelink, Talentlink and Supply Jersey systems.

The Committee held a Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer in November 2021 and asked about the governance arrangements around the I.T.S programme:

Chief Operating Officer:

Yes, so in terms of the programme governance, the programme has a partnership board which I chair, and that includes key Government of Jersey people plus key members from each of the supplying organisations. Below that we have a programme board, which is chaired by the programme director, and that includes all of the leads from People Services and Corporate Services, Commercial Services, Finance, I.T., as well as the programme office. Deliverables are submitted by the delivery partner to the programme management office. They are then sent out to the relevant Government of Jersey people for review and comments are provided back either accepted or not accepted. If they are accepted they then go to the programme board for final ratification.[26]

The Committee notes that the I.T.S programme does not sit specifically under Modernisation and Digital. The Chief Operating Officer explained that M&D is the I.T. function within Government and covers delivery of I.T in departments as well as schools, health and the police. The Committee is unclear why the delivery of the I.T.S programme does not specifically come under M&D but notes that the Programme Director for I.T. sits on the I.T.S Programme Board.

The Government Plan 2020-23 identified the I.T.S programme as a major project to be funded from the Consolidated Fund. It provided an allocation of £28 million for the capital costs of the programme in line with an Outline Business Case. When the Full Business Case was completed in March 2021, the estimated total capital and revenue costs of the programme was quoted as £67.8 million, up 242%.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) published a report on the I.T.S programme in October 2021 (ICT Cloud Implementation - Integrated Technology Solution') and found that although expenditure of £28 million was approved in the Government Plan in line with the OBC, the assumptions underpinning the OBC estimate of expenditure were "overly optimistic". Consequently, the C&AG explained that the OBC excluded significant costs of the programme that should have been better understood and quantified at the time that the OBC was approved. The fact that these costs were not identified and quantified until the FBC meant that they were not included in the Government Plan 2021-24.

The C&AG also found that the processes for the identification and quantification of costs at the OBC stage were not "sufficiently robust" and that some contingency allocation should have been made in the OBC.

The C&AG's report explains that neither the OBC nor the FBC articulated clearly the link between the I.T.S programme and other active programmes aimed at modernising Government services. In this regard, the Committee notes that the TOM programme did not take into account the I.T.S programme. The Interim Chief Executive advised that this was because the TOM programme was largely completed before the I.T.S Programme had started. He did, however, acknowledge that the I.T.S programme would have an impact on the departmental TOMs particularly for enabling Departments such as the Chief Operating Office and the Treasury and Exchequer.

The Committee was advised that work is currently being undertaken through the programme to consider the impact of successful I.T.S implementation on the COO and T&E but it is not proposed to implement a significant organisation wide change programme as was undertaken in 2018.[27]

Key Performance Indicators

The C&AG also found that the I.T.S Partnership Board and the I.T.S Programme Board received regular reports on performance of the programme including:

• progress and milestone achievements against plan

• reports on individual work packages/streams

• overall resources and funding used to date; and

• key risks and issues.

The C&AG commented that the parameters against which the status of the programme is reported are set out within the reports to each board. These reports include comments to support the judgement as to the status of the programme and I.T.S component parts, but it is not clear how cost and delivery indicators are aligned or integrated to provide an overall value measure for the programme.

Whilst the C&AG saw evidence of formal documentation being prepared to support the sign off for each delivery milestone, there was insufficient formal reporting of delivery against contract Key Performance Indicators.

KEY FINDING 16: The Integrated Technology Solution has been accompanied by insufficient reporting of delivery against contract Key Performance Indicators.

Lack of an overall IT strategy

The C&AG also found in her report on the I.T.S programme that an overall strategy and supporting plan for benefits realisation had not been documented. Although the overall programme does include a number of key deliverables in respect of benefits realisation plans, there has been no tracking of the outcomes and the realisation of benefits against the business case.

The lack of overall strategy was also identified by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel during its review of the Government Plan 2021-24 published in December 2020. The Panel found that "there is no published strategy covering all IT spending in the Government Plan although this was mentioned as an action by Government following the recommendations put forward by the Panel in the previous Government Plan 2020-23".

The Panel recommended that "In order to build public confidence and allow for public scrutiny the Assistant Chief Minister with responsibility for digital technology should give priority to publishing a strategy that clearly sets out how technology investment will support and impact services for the next four years and beyond. The strategy should be completed in 2021 and include a timeframe for delivery".

In its response to Panel's report, the Government stated that it would commence work in Quarter 1 of 2021 to prepare a Technology Investment Strategy for the coming years that will be available to the public. It stated that the strategy will include details of the principles under which IT investment is supported and the anticipated timeframe for major initiatives.

The C&AG found that a draft document had been prepared in 2019 that set out an overview of how the elements of technology investment that were planned at that time linked to one another and to an overall approach, however, this document was not finalised or approved. The C&AG recommended that an overall IT strategy for the States of Jersey should be documented.

In response to the C&AG recommendation, the Government said that: "The Technology Transformation Programme Business Case developed in 2019 set out the strategic approach to the transformation of critical core technology in Government and provided a potential roadmap for future investment once the initial phase had been achieved. Whilst not formally published, this document was the basis for the technology investment included in the Government Plan 2020-23 and the subject of briefings to both CSSP and the Assembly. In response to this recommendation and similar requests, an updated document is being prepared for publication."

The Committee notes that this document is due to be published by 31st March 2022. When asked to comment on the lack of an IT strategy, the Interim Chief Executive said:

Interim Chief Executive:

"A strategy is not necessarily a panacea. I can tell you what I think, which is really what you want to know, is it not? What I think is we have taken a view in the I.T.S. programme of the need to prioritise investments in our systems in the underlying and legacy systems on which the States are dependent. That must be the right thing to do. We have not sufficiently taken a view from an Islander perspective, a resident user perspective, of what Government and public services look like from their point of view".

As the project is projected to cost just over £67 million, the Committee believes that having an overall strategy in place is important, not only for the public but also internally. There should be an overall direction of travel for IT services which is clearly set out and understood by those who work within Government.

Case Study: Automatic Voter Registration

When considering modernisation and digital plans holistically across the Government, the Committee believes that the recent postponement of the automatic voter registration project demonstrates that there are ambiguities over responsibilities within M&D and its relationship with other Departments. These ambiguities have led to a project being not being delivered in time for the 2022 election.

The Committee provides an overview below of the automatic voter registration project and then its analysis of the ambiguities.

In 2013, PPC commissioned the UK's Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) to consider new ways of compiling the election registers. The AEA set out a number of issues for the States to consider if it wished to reform electoral registration. This was followed up in 2016 by a more in-depth study by TCB Consulting into global best practice and how it could be adopted in Jersey. This study recommended that:

Jersey goes for automatic and permanent elector registration, making best use of the new People Directory being developed by the e-Gov programme whilst retaining the central role of the parishes in owning the electoral registration system and data, as soon as the dependencies identified are in place. Almost without exception, this recommendation was supported by the parishes and other key stake holders in the States.

PPC published these studies in December 20 16 and informed the Assembly that it would take steps to introduce electoral registration following States Assembly approval of a proposition in March 2016.

Modernising election registration was included in the Common Strategic Policy adopted by the States in 2018, following an amendment by the then PPC Vice-Chair Deputy Scott Wickenden of St. Helier .

Funding of £100,000, spread across three years, was included in the Government Plan 2020- 23.

The Greffier undertook a proof of concept project in 2019/20 which compared the existing electoral registers in St. Helier No. 1 and St. Mary with registers which could be generated using Populus data. This showed that centrally-held data could be used to capture over 95% of people on the current registers, as well as many more people who are currently not registered. Law drafting instructions were issued and a draft law was drawn up: the Public Elections Law has also been amended to allow for reform of the electoral registration process by means of regulations.

After delay due to Covid-19, a project board was set up in late 2020, bringing together staff from the States Greffe, Judicial Greffe, Modernisation and Digital, Customer and Local Services and the Comité des Connétable s, with the Greffier of the States as Senior Responsible Owner, and a project manager was engaged to scope out the proposed new electoral registration system in more detail.

A considerable amount of work was undertaken during the first half of 2021 to draw up detailed requirements for the new system. However, when the project manager changed in summer 2020 the Greffier expressed concerns about whether a new system could be introduced in time for the 2022 election and invited the incoming project manager to conduct a project health check. This work found that the estimated cost of introducing the new system was likely to be considerably in excess of the existing budget; an estimated 56 weeks' work would be required to create, test and introduce the new system; and additional staff resources would be required in some areas, such as testing.

Given these findings, and the lack of funding for extensive further work, the Greffier closed the project and reported the outcome to PPC. PPC advised the Assembly that it has written to the Minister for Treasury and Resources to draw her attention to what would appear to be troubling deficiencies in project and financial management, albeit in relation to a relatively small project [28].

The Committee received a submission from the Greffier which outlines a timeline of the project and the various difficulties there were in progressing with the project. The Greffier explained that he submitted a project mandate' to Modernisation & Digital (M&D) in early May 2020 which was a "crucial" step for the project to be formally constituted and to enable a project manager to be recruited. The Greffier said:

Greffier of the States:

"Progress in appointing a project manager was slow and TCB also reported delays with their work, because, they said, M&D staff were fully engaged with Covid-19 work. On 16 June 2020 PPC escalated its concerns to the then Assistant Minister with responsibility for M&D (copied to the Chief Operating Officer), asking him to ensure that the project was given a higher priority within the department. He responded positively orally but no written reply was received and PPC escalated this further to the Chief Minister on 16 September 2020".

In August 2020, the Greffier was asked to review CV's of potential project managers and an appointment was made in early September 2020. The Greffier explained:

Greffier of the States:

"the project manager was formally appointed by M&D and worked on two projects. At that time I had a clear point of contact in M&D in respect of the oversight of the project manager and we agreed that the project manager would devote two days' per week to electoral registration. The person in this role moved on, after which I did not have a clear contact point in respect of project management. With hindsight, this underlay the concerns I later raised about expenditure and invoicing for project management as well as the processes for the recruitment of the two subsequent project managers appointed in October 2020 and summer 2021".

The Committee held a Public Hearing [29] with the Chief Operating Officer and asked about the project. The Chief Operating Officer explained that the role of M&D for this project was that they were the "supplier" so if the project had gone ahead, M&D would have overseen, as a supplier to the Greffier, the development of the IT solution.

The Chief Operating Officer also explained that the replacement Project Manager was external and shared between the M&D and the Greffier:

Chief Operating Officer:

".so the project manager was supplied by an external party to reduce the costs and because it was felt that it was not a full-time role for this project. Then an agreement was made that we would use that project manager on another project as well to reduce the cost of the project."

Senator T.A. Vallois:

". I am trying to get to the point, we have got the chief operating officer basically saying that the accounting officer for the budget is the Greffe but then at some point there was an agreement for shared project management."

Chief Operating Officer:

"Simply we agreed that we would bring in an external party, we would pay half of their costs to do our project and they would pay half of their costs to do their project".

The Chief Operating Officer maintained that the project was not an M&D project, however the Committee would challenge this view particularly as M&D was created to supply IT requirements in line with Government policy. The Chief Operating Office section on gov.je explains that M&D is responsible for "developing innovative technology to help simplify internal processes and speed up how customers access our services. It supports the One Gov vision of a joined up modern and efficient public service for islanders".

The Committee notes that, in delivering OneGov, the Government committed, through the Government Plan 2020-23, to develop and implement enhanced capabilities for M&D in:

• business architecture

• Information management

• IT Service support

• Change management

The Committee believes that the enhanced capabilities provided to M&D, through significant investment, should have placed M&D in a better position to deliver the project.

The Committee considers that M&D is the delivery partner for IT projects within Government and as such should have advised the Greffier at an earlier stage that the budgeted amount for the project was insufficient. It seems that there was a lack of dedicated project resource for this project within M&D which meant that it was competing with other projects. This impacted on communication between M&D and the States Greffe particularly in respect of project status and budget monitoring.

The Committee also believes the lack of an overall IT strategy, as identified by the C&AG, has contributed to the failure of this project. If there was a tangible strategy, lines of accountability would be made clear in terms of responsibility for delivering projects and showing how investment in technology will support and impact services.

KEY FINDING 18: The project Automatic Voter Registration' was due to be delivered in time for the 2022 Election, however, has been closed due ambiguity in responsibilities of the project.

KEY FINDING 19: The failure to deliver the Automatic Voter Registration project highlights the impact of poor performance on the public and the Island as a whole.

RECOMMENDATION 13: In delivering the OneGov vision of a joined up modern and efficient public service for islanders, there should be clear responsibility and reporting lines between Modernisation and Digital (M&D) and Departments including Non- Ministerial. The code of engagement should be clarified to include responsibilities for ownership and management of digital projects between M&D and all Departments.

Performance management initiatives within Government

The former Chief Executive introduced a number of performance management tools and methods following the modernisation of public services. Three of the main initiatives were the Recommendations Tracker, the Jersey Performance Framework and processes in relation to customer feedback and complaints handling. On the latter initiative, the Committee has also explored staff morale following implementation of OneGov and the new People Strategy'.

Recommendations Tracker

Overview

A Recommendations Tracker was introduced in 2019 and is used by the Government to track the recommendations made by the PAC and C&AG. Recommendations are monitored by using a Red, Amber, Green system.

The Tracker was developed in order to address issues that were raised in the C&AG's Annual Report for the year-end 31 December 2017. The C&AG raised concerns that, although recommendations had usually been accepted by the States, action to implement them had often been slow and many recommendations had yet to be implemented. The C&AG further commented that a clear focus on driving and monitoring the implementation of agreed actions was needed.

The former Chief Executive told the Committee that the new process ensures all departments across the Government respond to C&AG reports and recommendations in a more open and transparent manner. He also advised that recommendations are addressed through an action plan rather than through the previous process of detailed 1:1 consideration of each recommendation.[30]

How does the Recommendations Tracker work?

The Recommendations Tracker is a spreadsheet-based system which uses Power Bi software for reporting. The Tracker keeps track of C&AG and PAC reports issued since 2014. It is used to record and manage the recommendations and the Executive Response to each recommendation made [31]. It lists a number of reasons for non-completion as follows:

• Dependencies

• Lack of resources

• Needs discussion at Executive Leadership Team

• Requires a political decision

• Requires and IT solution

• N/A

The responsibility of maintaining, updating, and organising the Tracker sits jointly within Treasury and Exchequer and the Office of the Chief Executive. This enables the Committee to advise on improvements but the responsibility for undertaking the recommendations sits within Government [32]. Reports are presented to the Committee on a quarterly basis, but the Committee tends to request updates from Departments on the status of their recommendations on a regular basis, particularly before Public Hearings with Directors General/Chief Executive.

The Government presents reports on a quarterly basis to the Operating Committee (a Sub- Committee of the Executive Leadership Team) by the Chief of Staff. The cross-departmental Tracker Group meets every quarter and is made up of representatives from ministerial and non-ministerial departments, the Head of Financial Governance and the tracker controller. The aim of this group is to collectively discuss the process around tracking recommendations and act as conduit between their department and the group [33].

When questioned on the effectiveness of the Recommendations Tracker, the Interim Chief Executive said:

Interim Chief Executive

"I think the tracker is universally acknowledged as being good practice, incorporating, as it does, the recommendations made from various places and enabling a comprehensive and transparent accountability for the progress that we are making. It is a really good system. Towards the end of last year [2020], but prior to my arrival, we had over 600 open recommendations which dated back to 2015. Work at the end of last year and the beginning of this year [2021] prior to my arrival closed down 300 of those."[34]

The Chief of Staff explained that when a report is published by the Committee or the C&AG, it is circulated to the Executive Leadership Team. The recommendations are inputted into the Tracker and a responsible officer is identified within each Department to ensure that the Tracker is kept up to date. The Chief of Staff owns the Tracker and is responsible for due diligence around recommendations which are pending closure':

Chief of Staff:

"every quarter we pull down a report but as part of that report there is what is known as closed recommendations. However, when we go to do the quality assurance we get what is known as pending closure. What we do is once we draw down the pending closure recommendations, we will go through those and do the due diligence on those in discussion with the departments. For example, this time we have had 32 recommendations that have closed. However, we have got 22 recommendations that we sent back to the departments, 21 that are P.A.C. and one that is C. and A.G., not because we thought they had not done the work to close them but we did not think there was sufficient evidence for us to make a judgment on that, because we are clearly doing it on a paper exercise. That is to assure you that we do not automatically just tick them off. There is the due diligence that is done on the closed recommendations, so there is the toing and froing between the departments" [35].

The Chief of Staff also explained that she provides constructive challenge if there is insufficient information to support the recommendation. In terms of prioritisation of recommendations, the Chief of Staff acknowledged that further work could be done to share how each recommendation is being prioritised with the Committee:

Chief of Staff:

We will also look at it in terms of the prioritisation. That is something that again is work in progress at that moment. Departments do prioritise them but we do not share that prioritisation with yourselves so that is something that we need to look at going forward [36].

Current status of the Recommendations Tracker

The Committee received a comprehensive update on the Recommendations Tracker in September 2021 and since then has been provided with a series of snapshots of departmental recommendations for its reviews and before Public Hearings. As of September 2021, the recommendations status across the board was:

Status	Meaning	Number	%
Red	No Progress	4	2%
Amber 1	1% to 33% Complete	87	35%
Amber 2	34% to 66% Complete	92	37%
Amber 3	67% to 99% Complete	66	27%
	Totals	249

The Committee requested an update to the comprehensive update in September 2021, and received the table below on 26th January 2022:

Status	Previous report	Current report	%
Red	4	0	0%
Amber 1	87	127	43%

Amber 2	92	85	29%
Amber 3	66	81	28%
Totals	249	293

The most common reasons for non-completion are because of dependencies and lack of resources. The Departments with the largest number of outstanding items as of January 2022 were Treasury and Exchequer and Infrastructure, Housing and Environment.

The Committee notes that the Red-Amber-Green rating includes Amber 1, 2 and 3 on a sliding percentage scale. The Committee believes that there should be clarity over the ratings provided and where recommendations have only been progressed 1% - 33% and 34% - 66% they should be rated Red, not Amber 1 and 2.

RECOMMENDATION 15: Where dependencies have been listed as a reason for non- completion of a recommendation on the Recommendations Tracker, there should be co-ordinated intervention from the Chief of Staff and the Directors General to ensure collaboration across Government to deliver on accepted recommendations. This should be a standing agenda item at Treasury and Exchequer Executive Leadership Team meetings.

RECOMMENDATION 16: The Red-Amber-Green rating on the Recommendations Tracker includes Amber 1, 2 and 3 on a sliding percentage scale. These categories are too complex and should be simplified.

The C&AG published a report Tracking Comptroller and Auditor General Recommendations' in December 2021. The report considers the arrangement made by the States of Jersey to monitor and implement agreed recommendations. The report made 8 recommendations which were accepted by the Chief Executive and Chief of Staff (one element of recommendation 2 was partially accepted subject to a review).

The C&AG found that the States of Jersey are ahead of many other jurisdictions in implementing arrangements to track C&AG and PAC recommendations and that the implementation of the Tracker is good practice.

Although senior management and the Financial Governance team in the Treasury and Exchequer have made good progress in promoting active ownership and update of the Tracker by Departments, the C&AG found that there remains a significant number of open' recommendations as well as a significant number of overdue recommendations (not implemented within target dates for implementation). In that regard, the C&AG suggested there is a need for some focussed work to be undertaken to reduce the number of longstanding and overdue recommendations.

The Committee notes that there are nearly 300 outstanding recommendations on the Tracker which cover a wide range of issues affecting one or more departments. The Committee questions the extent to which the Government is monitoring the implementation of recommendations and believes that it would be beneficial to group them into common themes. By doing this analysis, the Government would be able to identify where there are common barriers to implementation across departments. The Committee has undertaken a high-level analysis of the active recommendations and identified the following main themes:

Main themes

Failure to learn lessons, benchmark or learn from reviews

Financial management or control

Governance, MI or performance measurement

HR practices. training, competence or staffing

Information technology

Insufficient financial or human resources for delivery

Internal control, risk management or non-compliance

Legal or Government policy change required

Oversight, scrutiny, review or reporting

Policies, process or procedures

Procurement or contract management

Programme, project or business case management

Roles, responsibilities or codes of conduct

Stakeholder engagement or communications

Strategy, plans or objectives

The theme which accumulated the highest number of recommendations was oversight, scrutiny, review or reporting' which would suggest that there may be common barriers in implementing recommendations in this area.

The C&AG also found that Departments and Accountable Officers are not always able to demonstrate "effective, diligent and timely implementation of recommendations" and that Departmental teams need to improve the explanations provided within the Tracker when target dates for implementation are revised and where actions are delayed. The C&AG suggested that recommendation owners should be held to account where reporting is not being updated and where timely progress is not being made in the implementation of agreed recommendations.

The Treasurer explained that the Department has a Key Performance Indicator for the implementation of the recommendations on the Tracker. Performance against the KPI's in terms of the recommendations will be published in the Department's Operational Business Plan which needs to complete a minimum target of 80% of outstanding recommendations in place at the start of the year [37]. The Committee welcomes this approach and understands that this will be introduced in each Department's Operational Business Plans for 2022.

However, it is clear that issues exist with progressing agreed recommendations into actions to completion. This is currently based on dependencies and lack of resources which are the most common reasons why some recommendations have not been actioned or are delayed. Where dependencies occur, the Committee would like to see further intervention from the top which could be a formalised approach agreed across the Government.

The Committee notes that, at the time of the Recommendations Tracker's implementation, it was also envisaged that Scrutiny recommendations would be included and would be monitored in the same way as C&AG/PAC recommendations. Although the Tracker is being developed to include all Scrutiny Panels' recommendations since June 2018, they are not yet formally reported on. The Committee believes that this work should be completed as soon as possible as it would ensure the effective and efficient monitoring of all recommendations issued to Government. It would also promote collaborative working across the scrutiny function which could lead to less duplication during reviews and requests for information from the Government.

KEY FINDING 23: There are plans to incorporate recommendations made by scrutiny into the Recommendations Tracker but this work has not yet been completed.

RECOMMENDATION 18: All scrutiny recommendations should be incorporated into the Recommendations Tracker and formally reported on.

RECOMMENDATION 19: An update on the Recommendations Tracker should be provided to the Council of Ministers and the Scrutiny Liaison Committee on a regular basis.

Performance Framework

Overview

On 17th January 2020 the Jersey Performance Framework was announced by Government and published on gov.je showing Jersey's progress in achieving sustainable wellbeing. The Government explained that sustainable wellbeing is a way of measuring progress of a society and is a more holistic concept than measuring Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross Value Added (GVA) to monitor how well a country is performing. Sustainable wellbeing measures:

• Community wellbeing (the quality of people's lives).

• Environmental wellbeing (the quality of the natural world).

• Economic wellbeing (how well the economy is performing).

The Jersey Performance Framework measures the progress that Jersey makes towards achieving sustainable wellbeing. The Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019 requires the Council of Ministers to take into account sustainable wellbeing during the development of the Government Plan.

At the time of its announcement, the Government explained that the first stage of the performance framework would focus on Island-wide outcomes and the indicators that provide a view of how Jersey is performing. In the second stage, the Government would start to add performance measures for public services, which would show how its activities and actions contribute to improving Island-wide outcomes.

The Director of Strategic Planning and Performance, explained that the Island- wide outcomes were broad statements of aims across community, economic and environmental wellbeing, for example, children have the best start in life; Islanders benefit from healthy lifestyles; Islanders enjoy living in a vibrant and inclusive community.

Service Performance Measures

The Director General of Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance (SPPP) explained that the Jersey Performance Framework, which uses Outcomes Based Accountability methodology, monitors sustainable wellbeing of Islanders over successive generations using Island Outcomes and Indicators. Furthermore, he explained that monitoring the sustainable wellbeing of Islanders over successive generations uses objective measures (those that include data and figures) and subjective measures (those that include what people think and feel)[38].

The identification of Island Outcomes and Indicators was completed in 2021 and the Director General of SPPP advised the Committee that monitoring them was necessarily long-term and enduring and that it was anticipated that they would require ongoing review to ensure they remained relevant and useful [39].

The Committee notes that Island Outcomes are generally outcomes that the whole Island (government, business, and Islanders) determine. There is therefore no single person or organisation that is accountable for the outcome indicators. Taking an Outcomes Based Accountability Approach, the Departments contribute to the Island Outcomes and Indicators through the policies, services, programmes for which they are responsible. The Departmental Operational Business Plans for 2021 identifies the Island Outcomes and Indicators which are most closely related to the work of each Department and which the Departments are aiming to positively impact.

In 2020, the Jersey Performance Framework was supplemented with Service Performance Measures which are used to monitor how services are performing. The Service Performance Measures were included in the 2020 Departmental Operational Business Plans and were reported on for the first time in the 2020 Annual Report and Accounts. The Director General explained that it was important that a clear distinction is made between the Island Outcomes and Indicators (which are used to monitor how the island is doing) and Service Performance Measures (which are used to monitor how Government services are doing).

The Committee examined each Departmental Operational Business Plan and they each contain a section on Monitoring service performance - Our service performance measures'. Tables are included in each and provide the following headings:

Lead service/directorate

Performance Measure Description

Data Availability

Reporting frequency

Baseline

What we want to achieve

International Benchmarking possible

The Committee welcomes this consistent approach to setting out each service performance measure across the departments which enables the public and the Assembly to hold Government to account.

The Director General of SPPP explained that further work is required to continue to develop the Service Performance Measures which includes defining some baselines/targets. He explained that this would ensure that the Service Performance Measures were optimal for departments monitoring their own performance, and for the public to hold Government to account. It is anticipated that this further work would lead to identification of new Service Performance Measures for inclusion in the 2022 Departmental Operational Business Plans [40].

In terms of following up the Service Performance Measures, the Director General of SPPP advised that, where information is available, performance is reported on a quarterly basis to the Executive Leadership Team. This will enable the ELT to identify any issues where performance is not at the standard desired and take in-year remedial actions. Quarterly reporting against the Service Performance Measures (on the Government of Jersey website) was introduced during 2021. The annual outcome for the Service Performance Measures will be reported on in the 2021 Annual Report and Accounts. The Committee anticipates that the next PAC will look at these measures when it undertakes its report of the Annual Report and Accounts.

Customer feedback and complaints handling

During the Committee's various discussions with the Directors General, customer feedback was cited as a way of measuring how each Department was performing. The C&AG published a report in July 2020 Handling and Learning from Complaints' and explained that effective management of complaints from members of the public about public bodies can provide valuable information about weaknesses in programmes of work, policies and services delivery. It can also stimulate improvement, enhance accountability and transparency and reassure the public that an organisation is committed to improving performance and resolving problems. In June 2018, the then Executive Management Board (later to become the Executive Leadership Team) discussed a number of issues around managing feedback from the public within Government. The issues included [41]:

• each department had adopted a different process with varying levels of success – there was not a single, shared policy;

• there was a fragmented and inconsistent response to customer feedback;

• for customer complaints in particular, there were no agreed standards for:

quality and speed of response;
identifying, recording and analysing complaints; and
co-ordinating service improvement

This led to the development of a Customer Strategy and Customer Feedback Policy which focuses on improving the approach to managing complaints from the public. The Policy explains that the Government is committed to providing high standards of service and aims to deliver quality services with consistency.

The Policy contains a three-stage model for the resolution of complaints with a focus on early resolution of a complaint where possible, with the option for the complaint to be escalated if required. Should a complaint reach the third stage of the policy then this is ultimately escalated to the Director General of the respective department who may in turn refer the complaint to another Director General to resolve.

It also says that, historically, Departments have adopted different processes for measuring levels of success when dealing with feedback from customers and how a Department is performing. As part of the OneGov approach, the Government aims to put customers "at the heart" of services and therefore the Policy sets out how customers and the public can express their views about how services are provided.

If a complaint has been through all the stages of the customer feedback process, and the customer is not satisfied with the outcome, they have the option to request that the complaint is considered by the States of Jersey Complaints Panel. The Complaints Panel was established under the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982 which can consider complaints against Ministers, Departments and those acting for them. Boards of the Complaints Panel consider complaints in public, report their findings publicly and may recommend reconsideration of a matter. Following States Approval in 2018, it was agreed in principle that in place of the Complaints Panel there should be a Public Services Ombudsman for Jersey. Work is currently being undertaken to establish a Public Services Ombudsman following a three-month consultation in July 2019.

The C&AG's report on complaints handling commented that the vast majority of complaints are dealt with within Government and do not reach a Complaints Panel stage and so are unlikely to reach an Ombudsman.

Complaints process: Health and Community Services

The Committee notes that, although Health and Community Services are part of the corporate customer feedback process, the Department also operates a process within the hospital in order to give patients a choice on how they provide feedback or complain:

Director General, Health and Community Services:

"So we were very clear that we wanted to maintain our own process as well so that if you want to, of course you can complain via the corporate complaints process, but if you want to complain into the hospital, to us, you can also do that. It gives patients a choice".

Director of Improvement and Innovation, Health and Community Services: "But it is the same timeframe, the same kind of process, it is aligned".

Dr. H. Miles :

"It is the same, so the corporate one and the H.C.S. one is the same?"

Director of Improvement and Innovation, Health and Community Services: "Yes."[42]

The Director General acknowledged that the response rates required improvement and work was being undertaken by the Patient Advisory and Liaison Services:

Director General, Health and Community Services:

"... there is a whole culture that we should try to stop it getting to a complaint, so encouraging patients to feed back in the moment and making it safe for them to do so, even if it is negative feedback, so that we can try and stop a complaint, not because we do not want the patient to complain but because there is so much bureaucracy around it. If there is some learning we can get in the moment, then that is really valuable, but we are at the beginning of that journey".

The Committee welcomes the further work and acknowledgment that mechanisms for patient feedback require improvement. The Committee has received a submission from an individual who had not received information on how to provide feedback. The Patient Advisory Liaison Service section of the Government website explains that the MyExperience' survey is available to provide the opportunity for feedback on patient care and treatment experience.

Complaints process: Children, Education, Young People and Skills

Although all Departments are part of the corporate customer feedback policy, the Director General of CYPES informed the Committee that it does not "perfectly fit with the education system":

Director General, C.Y.P.E.S.:

"We do not want the complaint to start with an official in Broad Street. We want the complaint to start with a parent or a carer feeling that they can be confident enough to raise it with the class teacher or the key stage lead or the head of department or whatever.

[]

.what we do want to happen is for that process of escalation to start in the school. Then if it reaches a point of not being able to be resolved, clearly then that is when the Education Department at the centre will have a role. We are just trying to kind of tease that one out because the corporate complaints policy is a good generic policy but it does not perfectly fit the education system, just as you have also seen that while we have got good children's data we have a tailored approach in the Children's Service as well."[43]

The Director General explained that the Department was running a pilot within some schools which aimed to record across all schools the level and types of complaints being received which would be fed into a dashboard. The Committee understands that this would be a separate mechanism specifically designed for schools in order to capture complaints and feedback.

The Director General also advised that when the Department does receive complaints and compliments through the corporate system, they are entered into the Customer Feedback Management System which is reviewed by a Complaints Officer. Themes and outcomes are then discussed at monthly performance meetings [44].

Customer experience - reporting

The Government developed a "customer experience measurement" as part of its Customer Strategy. The Government has indicated that it is at different stages of rollout in different Departments and customer feedback volumes are low in some areas compared to the volume of interactions. The gov.je website explains that work is progressing to increase volume across Government as the measurement becomes more embedded.

The Government has published a number of indicators, which are available up until Q4 2021. The results are set out below for all departments and are accompanied by a Red, Amber or Green indicator for each measure:

• Green - the indicator is on or exceeding target

• Amber - the indicator is at or within 5% of the target

• Red - the indicator is not within 5% of the target

Customer Sentiment Indicator - Customers are provided with the opportunity to indicate how their interaction with people and services made them feel. Using a scale of emoticons, customers select the emoticon that best represents how they are made to feel. It is calculated using a five-point scale with answers ranging from "difficult" to "easy". The closer to five, the better the customer's score.

Customer Effort - This measures how much effect a customer has to exert to get an issue resolved, a request fulfilled, or a question answered.

Customer Satisfaction - this is used to quantify the degree to which a customer is happy with a service or experience. This is calculated by asking how a customer feels about a particular service or interaction, with answers between "very unsatisfied" and "very satisfied" to choose from. Scores are measured as a percentage of respondents who are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the service.

The Group Director for Customer Services within Customer and Local Services explained to the Committee that there were three main areas regarding complaints at a corporate level:

Group Director, Customer Services:

"So corporately the main areas are similar to what they are departmentally for us. Broadly, we are looking at processes; is an area where customers feel like the process has been difficult for them. Either it has been confusing or it has taken far longer than it should have been. Error has been a theme. The third-largest area would be around customer service in terms of how people feel they have had that service. So there is a lot that we are doing to address those through a lot of the customer strategy work. The customer strategy is focused on 4 key principles, which we badge as A.C.E. plus (Accessible, Consistent, Easy and think ahead). A lot of those are things to try to improve the processes. It is around making it easy for customers, making our services more accessible. So a lot of the work we are doing in those areas is also addressing the highest area that we are seeing complaints in at the moment."[45]

The Group Director also explained that there was "extensive buy-in at a senior level" in the customer feedback system and that there was a good network of departmental feedback managers. In terms of the recommendations made by the C&AG, the Group Director explained that they had been grouped into 6 main themes, one of which was training for colleagues. In that regard, the Government has introduced an advanced complaint handling course which focuses on how to do high-level responses to complaints, undertake good investigations and how to offer apologies.

KEY FINDING 27: Across the Government, Customer and Local Services has identified three main themes regarding complaints from customers. These are issues in processes, errors and customer service.

States of Jersey Complaints Panel

As previously mentioned, the States of Jersey Complaints Panel deals with any complaint by members of the public about a decision or administration process by any Minister or department of the States. The Panel sits independently from the Government of Jersey.

The Committee wrote to the Complaints Panel asking a number of questions about the complaints process within Government. The Chair of the Complaints Panel explained that it has the power to determine its own procedures, and these have adapted over time to minimise delay in dealing with complaints, to minimise the burden on Departments in responding to complaints, and to maintain as accessible, informal and flexible a process as possible to ensure transparency and independence [46].

The Complaints Panel considers that at the heart of its function is the improved efficiency of public administration and decision making. Whilst no doubt all Departments and Government generally would claim to share that desire constantly to improve Government decision making, in reality, the Chair said that sometimes a Complaints Panel's enquiry into a complaint can be met with "defensiveness" and "prevarication". Some Departments have had to be chased for their responses to a complaint after the period for submission has expired and the Chair advised that it is not uncommon for Departments to seek to limit or deflect the scope of a particular enquiry.

The Complaints Panel acknowledges that steps have been taken across Government to improve its complaints-handling procedures. The Chair advised that those steps have not involved the Complaints Panel directly and it appears that Government does not know how it wishes to "deal" with the Complaints Panel. The Complaints Panel has been invited (once) to attend a Council of Ministers meeting, with the suggestion that it should become a regular occurrence (this has not been actioned). The former Chief Executive promised closer dialogue with the Complaints Panel, but there has been none.

The Chair explained that the Complaints Panel does not seek authority to override a decision taken by or on behalf of a democratically appointed Minister. However, the Complaints Panel is aware that the decision of a Minister to disregard the findings of a Complaints Board or to fail or refuse to implement those findings, becomes a political, rather than an administrative matter, and that it therefore falls to the States Assembly to hold the Minister to account in those circumstances.

Presently, the Chair explained that it appears there is no established process for that to happen, apart from when the Minister concerned is obliged to make a statement and answer 15 minutes of questions in the Chamber from Members, and a Minister can therefore ignore the findings of the enquiry "with impunity", or alternatively expect to ride out a very brief political squall should an individual Member of the Assembly attempt to highlight matters arising from an upheld complaint [47].

KEY FINDING 28: Ministers are able to disregard the findings of a Complaints Board or fail or refuse to implement its findings.

Employee feedback and people management

In addition to the initiatives to collect customer feedback, the Government also introduced measures to collect employee feedback following the implementation of the OneGov reforms. The former Chief Executive commissioned a One Voice survey in 2018 which asked staff what they think about working for the Government of Jersey and how they felt about their job and working environment. 62% of staff (4,321) completed the survey which was run independently by ORC International. The results showed:

• 25% said the executive management team communicates a clear and compelling vision for the States of Jersey

• 28% believed senior managers in their department would take action on the results from the survey

• 32% felt their pay was reasonable compared to people doing a similar job in other organisations

• 36% felt a strong personal attachment to the States of Jersey

• 36% would recommend the States as a great place to work

• 51% said their department motivates them to contribute more than was normally required in their work.

Following the One Voice Survey, the former Chief Executive explained in his first 6-monthly report that he was committed to more regular surveys in the future. The follow-up Be Heard' survey was undertaken in 2020 which supplied a benchmark at the start of the OneGov implementation.

Be Heard Survey

Between June and September 2020 the Be Heard survey was undertaken which asked staff how they felt about working for the Government. 56% (2,793) of employees completed the survey and the results showed:

• 37% saw a positive change from the Team Jersey programme, 43% were neutral in their answers and 18% were negative about the impact of Team Jersey.

• 37% said that they supported the changes of OneGov vision and 43% were neutral in their position.

• 24% would leave the organisation if they had another job.

• Leadership scores across all questions were below the expectations of the States Employment Board.

• Wellbeing scores demonstrated the impact of the COVID-19 response and large organisational change programmes.

The heat map below shows the response patterns and indicates how many people responded at each point of the strongly positive' to the strongly negative' scale. The number on the right- hand side represents the overall mean score for a question. The higher the score, the better Government has done on a statement (the highest possible score was 7):

The results show that, amongst other wellbeing issues, staff felt too much under pressure at work to perform well too much time working and feeling exhausted most days. The Interim Chief Executive acknowledged that staff morale has suffered as a result of the wide-scale change and said: "I think that the drivers of morale might be slightly different so I suspect that the way you have skills shortages and high vacancy levels, that is where there might be particular concern because people are carrying unrealistic workloads or because they are struggling to deliver according to the expectations of the Government and the States Assembly"[48].

During a Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer, the Committee asked what level of buy-in staff had about the changes to the public service, given the potential issues with morale.

Chief Operating Officer:

I think the buy-in is pretty high. I think you are right that if you look at the timing of the survey it was right in the midst of a pandemic response and it was when we had 2 of the target operating models that had just been completed and one was still underway. It was a time of great uncertainty. I think what I took away from the survey, one of the big learning points, and we had already somewhat identified this, but it reinforced it, was what people are looking for is commitment and opportunity to progress and develop. People join the Government of Jersey not for a job but for a career and we have deliberately, with our target operating models, and you will notice in the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel report that the M. and D. target operating model was the one that was called out as best practice. What we have done is tiered our roles, so that rather than necessarily always going out and getting the finished article at a grade we can bring people in at a lower level as the unfinished article and put in place training and development to allow them to aspire to the role. That commitment to development is probably one of the most important things we have put in place in terms of boosting morale [49].

Following the results of both surveys, the Government Plan 2020-23 invested £5.4 million in 2020 and £7.9 million in 2021 in the People and Corporate Services directorate which included the development of a new People Strategy.

KEY FINDING 29: The results of the 2020 BeHeard survey show that staff morale has suffered as a result of covid, the reforms and wide-scale change.

People Strategy

The C&AG issued a report on the role and operation of the States Employment Board in March 2019 and recommended a fundamental review of the framework for the oversight of human resources of the States. The C&AG found that the SEB had not adopted an overarching People Strategy in which it can undertake its statutory responsibilities.

The Government Plan 2020-23 acknowledged that effective people management both at line management level and through the corporate centre' affects the productivity, engagement and effectiveness of service delivery. It noted the C&AG's findings, which highlighted the need to improve people management to deliver the longer-term reform agenda and committed to delivering a People Strategy.

The Chief Operating Office is the lead department on people management and performance which includes the delivery of the People Strategy. During a Public Hearing in November 2021, the Group Director, People and Corporate Services explained "we are putting the employee voice at the heart of the people strategy, so the Be Heard survey and our employee strategy

are absolutely linked because, quite frankly, if employees say it is a great place to work it is a great place to work. If they say otherwise, then we have got to listen to that"[50].

The Chief Operating Officer advised that a key focus for the Department was "bringing the People Strategy to life" so that four main commitments are owned and understood by states employees:

Your Experience
Your Development
Our Organisation
Our Future

The Committee is aware that the People Strategy was published in November 2021. If employees are looking for a document which sets out the expectations of staff working for the Government of Jersey, however, the current code of conduct for the civil service is still available on gov.je but it is considerably out of date (2002) given the significant changes to the Government's structure as described in this report.

RECOMMENDATION 23: The Government should ensure communication of the People Strategy to all staff and ensure that related implementation plans are initiated.

KEY FINDING 30: The Code of Conduct for the civil service dated 2002 is available online but is considerably out-of-date given the significant changes to the Government's structure.

RECOMMENDATION 24: Given the significant changes to the Government's structure the Code of Conduct for the Civil Service (2002) should be updated in line with the People Strategy.

Performance management within the civil service

This chapter focuses on individual performance management within the civil service, particularly the most senior Government officers and the Chief Executive.

Overview

Performance is generally managed within the civil service by conducting My Conversation, My Goals (MCMG) meetings. MCMG replaced the Performance Review and Appraisal process during the implementation of the modernisation programme. The purpose of MCMG is to provide states employees with the opportunity to discuss their career and development aspirations with their manager. It also aims to demonstrate the link between the job role of the employee, their departments goals and the organisations overall goals.

When asked how the Jersey Performance Framework is integrated into performance appraisals, the former Chief Executive advised that MCMG was a consistent approach to documenting performance conversation. He explained that there are learning and development leads within the Department to ensure a "golden thread" between the Departmental Operational Business Plans, individual officer contributions and their continuing professional development as a civil servant [51].

Senior Government Officials

In terms of the performance of Directors General, the Committee was advised that this was the responsibility of the Chief Executive who does this by undertaking regular face-to-face meetings including My Conversation, My Goals [52] for personal objective setting.

The former Chief Executive explained that a new framework for senior official appraisal was rolled out in 2021 alongside "a revamped accountable officer route":

Former Chief Executive, Charlie Parker

"There is a new framework that has been produced for the appraisal regimes linked to senior officers, which is being rolled out in 2021 alongside a revamped accountable officer route. Plus, obviously, there being all the other improvements that have been taking place over the last 2 years to look at the way in which chief officers are overseeing, whether that is My Conversation, My Goals, whether that is through the departmental reporting plans, whether that is through the monitoring of performance that takes place at a departmental and service level, both at S.L.T. (senior leadership team) levels, departmental management group levels, and the executive leadership team levels. All of those have been put into place. All of those have been reported on back to yourself and will form part of what I presume will be further changes in 2021 that have been planned as part of the improvements that have been agreed with S.E.B. (States Employment Board)."[53]

The former Chief Executive explained that there had been limited appraisals consistently delivered across the Government's services when he joined Government in 2018. The finance performance management reporting into the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) was also limited. He went on to advise that a project delivery performance framework has been introduced which is seen by the ELT monthly. He also said:

Former Chief Executive, Charlie Parker:

"There is finance and budget monitoring and efficiencies monthly monitoring to the executive leadership team, which was not there before. Corporate risk registers are monitored quarterly. Recommendations of the C. & A.G. and the P.A.C. are monitored and reported quarterly, which were not done before. Customer feedback and complaints are reported quarterly, which was not done before. There is a people dashboard that looks at a whole raft of issues from sickness to attendance to vacancies, which is reported quarterly, but also goes through departments on a much more regular basis at monthly. Then there are things like health and safety reporting, which never went through at a corporate level as regularly, and that is done quarterly now." [54]

The way in which Government Departments manage their performance is explored further in the previous chapter. The frameworks described by the former Chief Executive do indicate that there is now a more coordinated approach to performance management in terms of financial reporting, corporate risk registers, complaints, sickness and health and safety. Following the Committee's analysis of each departmental TOM, it has observed that improvements have been made in relation to risk management. Each Director General provided their top 5 risks to the Committee and the ways in which they were being mitigated. This shows that risk management has become more embedded within Government Departments through the OneGov reforms.

KEY FINDING 31: The performance management of Directors General is the responsibility of the Chief Executive.

Chief Executive Officer

The role of Chief Executive Officer is threefold - it encompasses the Head of Public Service (requiring leadership across all States entities and ensuring the Codes and policies of the States Employment Board are complied with), Chief Executive Officer to the Council of Ministers (providing principal advice to CoM, ensuring that policy is properly informed and delivered) and Principal Accounting Officer (ensuring governance, probity and custodianship of public finances).

How is the performance of the Chief Executive managed?

The States Employment Board is the employer for the Chief Executive. As explained in the C&AG's report "States Employment Board - follow up: Employment of the former Chief Executive", the SEB has a statutory right to delegate its functions as employer to a member of the SEB and to the Chief Executive. In practice, the Chief Minister acts as line manager to a Chief Executive.

Process followed for the performance of the former Chief Executive

In June 2019, the Chief Minister presented the former Chief Executive's performance appraisal report to the States Assembly. Prior to that report, the Chief Minister had agreed 6 strategic objectives for the former Chief Executive to cover in 2018 - 2019. These were:

deliver One Government and modernise public services
lead organisational change and secure culture change through Team Jersey
develop a stronger focus on customer services
continue to build and develop good working relationships with the Council of Ministers, States Members and Scrutiny Panels
deliver effective financial, performance and business management
promote and support the economy of Jersey both internally and externally

A report by an independent assessor (Dr John Nicholson) was appended to the Chief Minister's report. This was the only published performance appraisal of the former Chief Executive (or any Chief Executive) before he left office in 2020 and it is unclear whether this will become normal practice for future Chief Executives.

KEY FINDING 33: The States Employment Board (SEB) is the employer of the Chief Executive. In practice, the Chief Minister acts as line manager to a Chief Executive.

Employment of future Chief Executives

The C&AG in her report States Employment Board - follow up: Employment of the former Chief Executive' made a number recommendations to improve the policies and procedures in relation to the employment of a Chief Executive going forwards.

Following the C&AG's report, the People and Corporate Services directorate and Department for the Treasury and Exchequer responded to the recommendations made by the C&AG. The Government listed several actions which would be carried out including the development of a Disciplinary Policy specific to the post of Chief Executive. The Government indicated that this would be brought into force prior to the start date of the new Chief Executive but may be an interim measure dependent on the outcome of a review of the States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law 2005.

The Committee also made a number of recommendations about the employment of the Chief Executive in its report Financial Report and Accounts 2020'. In particular, the Committee recommended:

• The announcement of the appointment of a new Chief Executive should not be made until contract negotiations have been completed and the contract signed (accepted).

• The line management of the Chief Executive should be reviewed and updated in time for the appointment of the next, permanent Chief Executive (accepted).

• A process dealing with conflicts for the Chief Executive (when the States Employment Board is dealing with disciplinary matters relating to him or her), should be documented as a matter of good governance (accepted).

• The Chair of the States Employment Board must inform the States Employment Board within two days of any approach by a Senior Officer requesting secondary employment, where the contract of that officer requires written permission from the employer (rejected).

• All key agreements directly relating to Senior Officers, including secondary employment, advisory positions and membership of boards should be made in writing with a clear understanding that verbal approval is insufficient and does not imply or substitute formal approval (accepted).

• The States of Jersey should take the necessary steps to inform the workforce about the employment status of the Chief Executive should his or her original contract be terminated prior to the date of departure initially agreed, and more widely advise who is responsible for the positions occupied by the Chief Executive if no-one is in post (accepted).

• The identity of the Chief Executive and Principal Accountable Officer, or the individual deputising in one or both of these roles, should be publicly available at all times (accepted).

• The holder of the role of Chief Executive (and its attendant functions as Principal Accountable Officer and Head of Public Service) should be publicly clarified during periods where there are two employees with equal claim to the position (i.e., an outgoing and incoming Chief Executive) (accepted).

The majority of the Committee's recommendations were accepted and some of them had already been implemented.

KEY FINDING 35: The Government has committed to the development of a Disciplinary Policy and updating the States Employment Board's scheme of delegation.

Resilience of senior management

The Committee wrote to the Directors General asking a number of questions about resilience within the senior management structures of Government. This is particularly important following the implementation of the OneGov reforms and structural changes within the civil service. The Committee asked about succession planning, long-term illness cover, deputising responsibilities and emergency contingency planning.

Succession Planning

The former Chief Executive advised the Committee that the structure and grading of roles within Government has been designed in such a way to enable career progression both with directorates but also across departments. A succession Planning Toolkit has been developed by People and Corporate Services to support a Workforce Plan which is led by the Senior Human Resources Business Partner and Chief of Staff [55].

The Chief Operating Officer advised the Committee that the toolkit has been shared with all Departments through presentations delivered at their respective Senior Leadership Teams. The toolkit is structured to provide support, guidance prompts and templates to use at each of the six stages of the strategic workforce planning process:

Stage 1 - Define the plan: This stage provides an approach to help clarify the scope and context of the plan, the planning period to be used, roles and responsibilities, how to categorise the workforce and to determine any evidence that will be needed to support the planning process.

Stage 2 – Analyse current workforce: This section provides tools and techniques to help analyse the composition of the current workforce within service / division areas and identify problem areas or potential issues.

Stage 3 – Forecast future needs: This section provides tools and techniques for assessing the future workforce requirements and should consider any future changes that will impact upon the staffing within services.

Stage 4 – Gap analysis: Guidance on how to conduct a gap analysis is included to help recognise the key areas to address, the challenges or gaps identified between the current workforce and the forecasted future needs.

Stage 5 - Plan strategies: This section provides guidance and support for pulling the overall plan together, being clear on the objectives set for focused areas and to address the challenges or gaps identified in the gap analysis.

Stage 6 – Monitor and evaluate: The final section provides guidance on how the workforce plan should be reviewed and evaluated annually as a minimum as part of the business planning process; more frequently for the larger and / or more detailed plans.

The Committee welcomes this consistent approach and the development of a Government wide toolkit for succession planning management.

Long-term illness cover

The former Chief Executive explained that the Government does not have a significant issue with long-term illness. He advised that the investment in the TOMs helped mitigate single person dependency. In the event of long-term illness, the former Chief Executive explained that the initial arrangement would be to deputise responsibilities wherever possible and practical. Depending on the length of absence, secondments may be made in order to fill the role. If a secondment was not possible, an interim appointment may be made if the role was critical [56].

Deputising responsibilities

The Committee asked the former Chief Executive about succession planning specifically in relation to the Chief Executive role as it has observed that there is no named senior officer within Government that acts as deputy CEO. The former Chief Executive explained that responsibility is delegated to each of the Directors General on a monthly basis.

Former Chief Executive, Charlie Parker:

When I first arrived, it was made clear that there was a recognition that they did not want to have lots of different deputies or whatever. What I did was I have a deputy for the month. Each of the senior directors-general act for that month. Therefore, if there is any incapacity or illness or any other arrangements where I cannot attend a meeting, they step in and chair. There are delegations that are given accordingly for a variety of different roles and responsibilities. That has always been pretty successful. The situation that occurred was pretty unique. I do not necessarily think that would have resulted in the deputy necessarily acting up. That would have been a matter for the Council of Ministers and the States Employment Board about how they wanted the role to be filled. That was the operational arrangement, and it has worked very well. There has never been a problem about somebody deputising on a rolling basis every month and it has been giving each of the D.G.s exposure to the role, which has been good for their own personal development. It has also helped in terms of being able to share the load across different members of the group so that it does not all fall on one individual [57].

The former Chief Executive also advised that the Office of the Chief Executive's Governance Framework sets out the scheme of delegation for financial matters and also Delegated Authority for Decision Making [58].

The Committee recommended that a formal structure of deputising should be developed in its report on the States Annual Report and Accounts. The Committee suggested that a structure should be developed and published to identify clear continuity of business in the event of the CEO being incapacitated or otherwise unable to fulfil the functions of this role (including as Principal Accountable Officer and Head of the Public Service). This was accepted as action for the Chief of Staff to undertake by 31st December 2021.

Emergency contingency planning

The former Chief Executive advised the Committee that Business Continuity Plans are co- ordinated from the centre. In an emergency, the centrally held co-ordinating function will determine the resources required across the Government. He explained that it depended whether the incident affected a specific area, one department or multiple departments. As part of business continuity and emergency planning, the Government has established a priority group for essential services and recovery time [59].

The Government has introduced a number of resilience measures within the senior management structure. This includes succession planning (the succession planning toolkit), long-term illness cover (moving away from single person dependency), deputising responsibilities (the introduction of the Governance Framework) and emergency contingency planning (though business continuity and emergency planning).

Performance management within the Government

This chapter focuses on performance management within Government since the implementation of the OneGov reforms. It includes how the Government interacts with non- ministerial departments, Arm's Length Bodies and non-Government organisations such as charities.

Government Departments

The former Chief Executive advised that the Office of the Chief Executive (OCE) Departmental Operational Business Plan sets out a range of activities from a corporate perspective that underpins the whole of Government.[60]

The OCE ensures the day-to-day operation of the organisation runs effectively, overseeing the governance arrangements of the organisation through managing the key decision-making groups such as the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) and Operating Committee (OpCo), which are made up of the most senior officers within Government [61]. Performance is managed at a Corporate level through regular corporate reporting at both ELT and OpCo on a regular basis through:

• the use of Perform which monitors all department progress and risk on big projects

• Finance Monthly Monitoring reports

• Annual reporting as part of the Government's Annual Report and Accounts

• monitoring the delivery of PAC and the C&AG reports and recommendations across the public service to secure continuous improvement in the way Government operates is developed, through embedding a culture of continuous learning and performance management.

Therefore, the OCE provides a co-ordinating role and works strategically and in collaboration with other Departments to support the Council of Ministers to deliver Jersey's long-term strategic objectives.

Relationship with Non-Ministerial Departments

There are a number of Non-Ministerial Departments within the States of Jersey where accountability does not sit with a Minister. The Non-Ministerial Departments comprise:

• Bailiff 's Chambers

• Law Officers' Department

• Judicial Greffe

• Viscount's Department

• Office of the Lieutenant Governor

• Office of the Dean of Jersey

• States Greffe and Legislative Drafting Office

• Probation and After Care Service

• Comptroller and Auditor General

The C&AG published a report on Non-Ministerial Departments in 2019 and explained that, for constitutional reasons, Non-Ministerial Departments sit outside the Government of Jersey. However, corporate functions, such as Human Resources, Information Technology and Estates Management as well as Finance, sit within the Government. There is therefore an important interaction between Non-Ministerial Departments and the Government.

In terms of performance management, the C&AG found that there were different approaches to performance monitoring across non-ministerial departments reflecting their circumstances. For example:

• the Law Officers' Department has developed and is monitoring performance against service standards;

• the Probation and After-Care Service reviews key statistics, including changes in the risk of reconviction, at monthly management team meetings; and

• Court Services developed more than 70 service pledges' and monitors performance through approximately 30 key performance indicators. However, performance against these is not routinely discussed at senior management team meetings.

The C&AG found that there were no formal arrangements for monitoring of performance in place for the Bailiff 's Chambers and States Greffe. The C&AG highlighted a number of areas where the Government and Non-Ministerial Departments can improve the ways in which they work in partnership to support good governance and improve accountability.

The Interim Chief Executive welcomed the C&AG report and acknowledged a number of areas where the Government of Jersey and Non-Ministerial Departments can improve the ways in which they work in partnership to support good governance and improve accountability. As part of the actions to improve the working relationship with Non-Ministerial Departments, the Government revised the Terms of Reference for a Non-Ministerial Departments Forum. The Forum brings together the Accountable Officers from the non-ministerial departments with representatives from the Government. Following the C&AG's report, the Government agreed to develop a high-level statement which properly reflects the relationship and respective responsibilities between Accountable Offices for Non-Ministerial Departments and the wider public sector governance arrangements.

The Committee wrote to a number of Non-Ministerial Departments, including the C&AG, asking about their relationship with Government. The Greffier of the States explained that, for the most part, the States Greffe has a good working relationship with Government colleagues. The Greffier made reference to the C&AG's 2019 report, and her recommendation that a high- level statement on the operation of business partnering should be agreed. The Greffier said that the completion of this work would clarify the level of service to be provided to the Greffe by the Government and enhance accountability.

The Greffier also explained that a longer-term effect of the TOMs has been the tendency for some in Government to see the Non-Ministerial Departments as a single entity, due to the decision to consolidate the Non-Ministerial Departments in various Government publications. This has caused some confusion about reporting lines and the constitutional status of the different departments. The creation and effective operation of the Non-Ministerial Departments forum in 2020-21 has helped to improve communication between Government and the Non- Ministerial Departments and tackle any misunderstanding.

In her response, the C&AG explained that the Office currently has a service level agreement in place with Treasury and Exchequer in respect of financial services which requires updating. The C&AG commented that, since the implementation of the TOM programme there seems to have been a strengthened focus within Treasury and Exchequer on support for Non- Ministerial Departments.

RECOMMENDATION 27: The Government should prioritise the recommendations made by the C&AG on formalising the relationship between the Government and Non- Ministerial Departments including the high level statement, Terms of Reference for liaison meetings, Memoranda of Understanding and Service Level Agreements.

Relationship with Arm's Length Organisations and Specified Organisations

The Government works with a number of Arm's Length Organisations (ALOs) and specified organisations which are defined in the Public Finances Manual. ALOs are organisations which fulfil a role or function the States of Jersey would otherwise perform. ALOs include organisations such as (but not limited to):

Digital Jersey Jersey Heritage Trust

Visit Jersey Limited Jersey Legal Information Board

Jersey Sport Jersey Employment Trust

Jersey Arts Trust Jersey Finance Limited

Jersey Arts Centre Association Jersey Business Limited

Jersey Opera House

Within Arm's Length Organisations are Specified Organisations; these are organisations where the Principal Accountable Officer is able to appoint an Accountable Officer under the terms of the Public Finances Law". The Chief Executive as PAO is responsible for the appointment of an Accountable Officer in a Specified Organisation and for determining their functions. This is to ensure that there is accountability for the best use of public resources even when service delivery is conducted at arm's length to the Government's administration. The Specified Organisations are:

• Andium Homes Limited and its subsidiary companies (if any)

• Jersey Post International Limited and its subsidiary companies (if any)

• JT Group Limited and its subsidiary companies (if any)

• Jersey Overseas Aid Commission

• Ports of Jersey Limited

• States of Jersey Development Company Limited and its subsidiary companies (if any)

The previous C&AG published a report Oversight of Arm's Length Organisations' in June 2017 and said: "Jersey is no different from other Governments in having a number of ALOs. But the establishment or funding of an ALO does not relieve Government from a responsibility for ensuring that good governance is being demonstrated, effective internal control is in place and value for money is being secured. Where funding flows from Government to an ALO, the relevant Accounting Officer has a personal responsibility for the application of public funds and, ultimately, the relevant Minister has a political responsibility. It is essential that the organisations funded by the States are not regarded as out of sight and out of mind".

The C&AG concluded that a consistent corporate framework for review of the continued operation of ALOs and their ability to deliver was required and that the framework for the governance arrangements for ALOs needed strengthening. The C&AG also found that oversight of ALOs was variable with differing practices on, for example, documentation of meetings and use of performance indicators to monitor delivery.

The Committee asked the Interim Chief Executive about the Government's approach, and in particular, the role of the Chief Executive, in working with ALOs:

Interim Chief Executive:

"I think that we need to develop the sophistication of our approach. I will not say too much about that because the C. and A.G. has reported on it very comprehensively. I think ideally the chief executive would have a greater capacity to help him or her with working with arm's length organisations and States-owned entities to ensure that we were getting, between us, absolutely the best value for money and the greatest impact"[62].

In September 2021, the Interim Chief Executive advised the Committee that the Government was undertaking a review of ALOs and has set up an oversight board (Arm's Length Body Oversight Board) to undertake this work. The Committee welcomes this approach to improving the governance structures around ALOs and anticipates that the next PAC will consider the outcomes of the work of the Oversight Board.

KEY FINDING 36: In order to address the governance arrangements with Arm's Length Organisations, the Government has set up an Arm's Length Body Oversight Board.

The Interim Chief Executive also explained that it was important that the work of ALOs and Specified Organisations aligned to the Government's and States Assembly's priorities. He provided an example of Jersey Electricity and the Carbon Neutral Strategy:

Interim Chief Executive:

"If we take climate change as a crucial part of the Government's and States Assembly's priorities going forward some of the most significant capacity that we have at our disposal in the Island to support the development of our carbon neutral goals is with, for example, Jersey Electricity. How we - that is the Government of Jersey - work with Jersey Electricity to ensure that together we achieve the maximum progress that we can in our climate goals; that is a piece of work on its own. I know my colleagues in Jersey Electricity are very seized of this and they are very keen to make the fullest contribution, we just need to be sure we have the resource and capacity to work with them to translate that potential into practice.[63]"

The Panel wrote to a number of ALOs/Specified Organisations asking about their relationship with the Government of Jersey. Jersey Finance said that the Government individuals with whom they come into contact are generally "diligent, dedicated and talented, working in support of the island and Government policy". Jersey Finance also explained that they operate under the terms of a partnership agreement with Government and their KPIs and performance management are agreed and monitored stringently, which suggests to them that the Government's own TOM and performance framework are being delivered in practice.

The States of Jersey Development Company explained that it is the Government's property development company. The SoJDC's arrangement with Government (as Shareholder) is contained in the Articles of Association and Memorandum of Understanding. The SoJDC explained that their primary contact within Government is via liaison with the Treasury and Exchequer and they are "very satisfied" with the level of service they receive.

The Comptroller and Auditor General published a report in 2020 States of Jersey Development Company', which found that the MoU between the Government and SoJDC lacks clarity in places and is open to interpretation. The Treasury and Exchequer advised the Committee that a revised MoU was currently being developed and was due to be signed "imminently" after consultation with the Economic and International Affairs Scrutiny Panel.

In its Executive Response to the C&AG report, the Executive advised that the recommendations regarding the MoU would be addressed as part of a wider review into the MoU of all States Owned Entities.

The Chief Executive and Director General for the Treasury and Exchequer confirmed that the new MoUs would include a focus on how States-Owned Companies contribute to Island outcomes by delivering Government policy objectives. Policy documents for each Company will be expected to be part of the delivery and be identified and referenced within the MoU.

The Response also confirmed that a process for setting Key Performance Indicators will be formalised as part of the new MoUs and monitoring will be included as part of a strengthened Strategic Business Plan agreement.

Relationship with non-Government organisations

In addition to ALOs, the Government of Jersey also works in partnership with a number of non-Government organisations such as registered charities. These organisations are generally defined as being independent of Government influence although they may receive Government funding. The Committee wrote to a number of non-Government organisations to seek their views on their relationship with Government in terms of performance management. This includes communication and how complaints are handled.

Although some of the submissions were received on a confidential basis, the Committee has summarised the main messages in the following sections and has grouped the submissions into two main areas - children/family and care for the elderly.

Children/family-based organisations

Family First provide support to families of children in Jersey with illnesses who require off- Island treatment. Family First said that they do have good contacts and communication within the Children's Development Centre, Social Security, Health Department and travel department but when staff members change, they are not notified. The Children's Development Centre and the Special Care Baby Unit are the departments where they feel they have the greatest support in communication on matters which affect the families they support.

Family First told the Committee that they have not been satisfied when trying to resolve problems which are then escalated to the point of complaint:

Family First:

"We have not been satisfied when trying to resolve a problem and it has escalated to the point of complaint. It is very hard to know who to speak to - we don't know who to contact within the relevant department. We must approach known contacts and get an introduction to the right person to speak to. This is particularly with regards to the travel department, social security, and social workers. It took one of our families to take the matter to the Minister for Health for anything to happen and for anything to change. This should not be the precedent. Family First as a charitable organisation filling a much-needed gap in support services and advocating for that family was ignored"[64].

Family First also commented on the strategic priority "Putting Children First" and raised concerns about the lines of accountability for delivering on this States wide policy:

Family First:

"Who is accountable for Putting Children First? We are unclear as to any objectives of what the policy aspires to achieve, let alone any complaints procedure. In our opinion there needs to be a go to person (or team) who works closely with charities and other organisations working with children to ensure effective policy delivery.

There needs to be more visibility on who our main contacts are within the social sector not just the health department, not at a ministerial level and not just at a policy level."

Due to the high-level turnover in social workers, Family First explained that this had resulted in high-level inconsistency of support for families and the organisation itself. Family First suggested that, in order to deliver on "putting children first" there needs to be a consistency of care and support to ensure the best possible outcomes.

Brightly (children's charity) believe that there should be regular, open and honest communication with Government but have found that it is often difficult to reach Government colleagues:

Brightly:

"Typically, it is difficult to reach many GoJ colleagues, when we do manage to do so they are often unable to provide a response, or we receive conflicting information. Even when information is written down, we do not see it being followed or implemented. Acknowledgement of communications is key, but too frequently emails are just not responded to"[65].

It appears that there are issues in how the Government's day-to-day interactions with non- Government organisations. Brightly believe that a tiered approach to complaints/issues should be developed which would ensure that everyday matters are swiftly responded to at officer level. They believe that each complaint/issue should be logged, and steps should be taken to address the issue which should be published on a weekly or monthly basis, including the outcomes. The Committee believes that this should be an area of focus for improvement which could be incorporated into the work on the corporate customer feedback policy which includes complaint handling.

The Jersey Childcare Trust (JCCT) said that Governmental relationships have been the most challenging to maintain over the last few years because of the high turnover in Government staff. They said that losing relationships with those who have left Government has resulted in difficulties in navigating "the system" and structure of Government, which has changed significantly in recent times. They believe that, as a result of the TOMs, there has been a loss of many knowledgeable, skilled, respected, experienced and well-qualified individuals [66].

The Children's Commissioner also explained that she has seen operational issues that are an impact of the TOM programme. For example in CYPES, specifically in the education area, there have been a number of changes to staffing and in some areas significant staffing issues with vacant posts.

Care for the elderly based organisations

The Good Companions Club told the Committee that they had noticed positive changes in how they work with Government following the OneGov reforms and the introduction of the Jersey Performance Framework:

Good Companions Club:

"We had also noticed a large change in how we worked with the Government after the changes in 2018 when we saw a much more inclusive attitude with the introduction of the Jersey Performance framework."[67]

The Club believes that there is now a more inclusive attitude and improved relationship and communication with the Government. During the early stages of the pandemic, however, the Club commented that it had little or no contact with the Government and were not informed as to what they should do as a charity caring for the elderly, other than accessing information from the gov.je website.

The Club also explained that there is now a gap between the elderly and the Government post Covid:

Good Companions Club:

"I see an even larger gap between the Islands elderly and the Government post Covid and feel that elderly islanders do not feel supported, they very much feel that they worked hard and long only to be left to fend for themselves with very little support as they get old. They feel that they have to solely rely on charities such as GCC as there are limited places for them to go if alone and at home.

Charities such as Good Companions Club focus on wellbeing and keeping active and mobile, while stimulating the mind and body to increase good health and keep people out of hospital and full-time care, but we are limited in what we can do, and we see many falling through the gaps.

As a charity I feel that the Government MUST support charities who they very much rely on to bridge a massive gap from retirement to full time care of the elderly, including better understanding as to what charities actually do, and increased funding and support consistent with the level of service each charity provides."[68]

Age Concern told the Committee that their relationship with Government works well and the Government grant helps to support the service. However, they also said that some members of Age Concern do not feel supported by Government for a number of reasons:

Age Concern:

"Housing costs are escalating, and food inflation is a problem. We will shortly be launching a campaign against Age Discrimination. The Government is the biggest culprit in this respect. St Helier is becoming increasingly difficult to access, the closure of the Social Security Department, and Income Tax Department, to pop-in' queries is a backward step. Furthermore, the insistence that tax returns and many other aspects of Government are moved online is a retrograde step for many members."[69]

The Committee notes that digital modernisation has formed a big part of the OneGov reforms. Moving towards increased digitisation in services is likely to impact the elderly who may be less digitally connected compared to younger people. As the Government becomes more dependent on digital technologies through Modernisation and Digital and the Information Technology Solution, policy attention should be given to the importance of digital inclusion.

KEY FINDING 38: Digital modernisation has formed part of the OneGov reforms but has impacted on the elderly who are less likely to be digitally connected.

RECOMMENDATION 29: As the Government becomes more dependent on digital technologies, policy attention should be given to the importance of digital inclusion.

KEY FINDING 40: There are inconsistencies in the views expressed by non-Government organisations in terms of the Government's handling of complaints or issues in the services they deliver.

Conclusion

The PAC has aimed to assess whether the modernisation programme through the OneGov reforms and subsequent performance initiatives have improved ways of measuring, monitoring and reporting on performance. Although good progress has been made, the Committee has not been able to effectively determine if they have resulted in overall improvement to performance which remains to be determined as the reforms continue to be embedded.

In the development of the modernisation programme, the Committee found that there was no single business case for the overarching Target Operating Model for a redesigned public sector. This has ultimately impacted on the ways success of the changes can be measured.

As commented by the Interim Chief Executive, the changes proved controversial in parts and the sheer complexity of the Government and public services was underestimated when the programme was first introduced in 2018. Staff morale has ultimately suffered as a result of widescale changes which is evidenced by the results of two staff surveys (OneVoice in 2018 and Be Heard in 2020). With the introduction of Team Jersey, originally set up to help facilitate a culture change within the organisation, the Committee would have expected to see an improvement in staff morale within the two-year period and it continues to be of concern.

The Committee is concerned about the increase in Government personnel since the OneGov reforms were introduced. The primary purpose of the changes was to create a modern, innovative, efficient and effective public sector. Regarding efficiency improvements, the Committee believes that the reforms have failed in this respect which can be evidenced in the significant increase in the workforce since 2018 and in particular in the costly, most senior Government positions. The link between these increases in staff numbers and costs to improved service performance is not yet clear.

The Committee believes that there is still work to do in terms of financial reporting within the Treasury and Exchequer in demonstrating what has happened to the ongoing running costs of the public services over a number of years and the extent to which the increase in the workforce (and ultimately public spending) is filling in the gaps and improving service performance. In this respect, there needs to be a much clearer linkage in this reporting between money spent on the Government and the performance of the public service.

The Committee welcomes that a review of the TOM programme is due to be completed before the end of June 2022 following a recommendation made by the Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel during its review of People and Culture. The Committee expects that the next PAC will follow the review process and its outcomes, including evaluation ongoing key performance indicators and overall performance results to see if these major changes are achieving the positive performance improvements being sought.

Appendix 1 - Public Accounts Committee Membership

Deputy Inna Gardiner , Chair Connétable Karen Shenton-Stone , Vice-Chair

Senator Tracey Vallois Connétable John Le Maistre

Connétable Andy Jehan

(joined PAC on 14 September 2021)

Non-States Members (independently appointed): Dr Helen Miles

Mr Adrian Lane

Mr Graeme Phipps

Mr Paul van Bodegom

Appendix 2 – Terms of Reference

To examine how Target Operating Models (TOMs) have been implemented throughout departments and assess their effectiveness in improving performance management.
To assess the effectiveness of the Recommendations Tracker in delivering improvements to public service throughout departments.
To determine the progress of the implementation of the Jersey Performance Framework as a way to measure and monitor improvement to Islanders' lives and support Common Strategic Priorities.
To consider whether performance assessment, reporting and monitoring methods (such as TOMs, the Jersey Performance Framework and the Recommendations Tracker) demonstrate improvements in decision-making, good governance and value for money.
To examine the effectiveness of performance management processes of senior officers within the Government of Jersey (CS grade 12 or equivalent and above), including:

Reviewing how performance management is implemented, measured, and monitored;
Examining the transparency and effectiveness of the States' Employment Board's assessment, monitoring and reporting of the Chief Executive's performance, during the outgoing Chief Executive's tenure and determining whether it is fit for purpose.
Assessing how improvements to the performance management process will be embedded and applied to future Chief Executives;
Determining the resilience of performance management processes for the CEO, Directors General and Senior Officers, including the robustness of measures such as succession planning, long-term illness cover, deputising responsibilities, and emergency contingency planning.

To examine how improvements to the performance management process within Government of Jersey and non-Ministerial Departments will be embedded and applied to future senior employees.

Appendix 3 – Evidence Used for Report

Documents

• Common Strategic Priorities

• Departmental Business Plans

• Jersey Performance Framework

• One Island, one community, one future'

• P.1/2018 Machinery of Government (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Jersey) Law 2018 (as amended)

• Transition Report 2019 (R.155/2018)

• Budget Transfers: Target Operating Model

• Efficiencies Plan 2020 - 23

• Government Plan 2020-23

• Government Plan 2020-23 6 month progress review

• Charlie Parker - Restructuring speech

• Public Finances (Jersey) Law 2019

• Chief Executive's six-month report to the States Assembly, 9th July 2018

• Government of Jersey, Chief Executive Appraisal: Independent Assessor's Report on Year Two Performance Dr John Nicholson 2020

• Establishment of Political Oversight Group - modernisation programme

• Executive Response to CSSP's Review of People and Culture S.R.12-2021

• P.A.C.1/2020 Res, Recurring Themes: Financial Management (P.A.C.1/2020) –

Executive Response, 30th March 2020

• P.A.C.3/2019 Res, Recurring Themes: Decision Making - Executive Response, 11 September 2019

• Team Jersey "One island, one community, one Government, one future"

• Government of Jersey Recommendations Tracker (confidential)

• Common Strategic Policy and Government Plan (Gov.je website)

Comptroller and Auditor General Reports

Governance of the States of Jersey Police – 22 March 2018

o Executive Response – 24 April 2018

Governance Arrangements for Health and Social Care – 13 September 2018

o Executive Response – 16 November 2018

Arm's Length Organisations – Visit Jersey – 6 December 2018

o Executive Response – 19 February 2019

The States as Shareholder – Follow-Up – 14 March 2019

o Executive Response and PAC Comments – 23 May 2019

Role and Operation of the States Employment Board – 29 March 2019

o Executive Response and PAC Comments – 28 May 2019

Community and Social Services for Adults and Older Adults – Follow-Up – 4 April 2019

o Executive Response and PAC Comments – 29 November 2019

Financial Management and Internal Control – 19 September 2019

o Executive Response – 26 November 2019

Renumeration of Board Members – 24 October 2019

o Executive Response and PAC Comments - 19 December 2019

States of Jersey Development Company - 5 June 2020

o Executive Response – 29 July 2020

o Comments – 24 August 2020

Management Information in Education, Follow-Up – 17 September 2020

Tracking Comptroller and Auditor General Recommendations – 22nd December 2021

Governance Arrangements for Health and Social Care – Follow up – 13th September 2021

ICT Cloud Implementation - 21st October 2021

States Employment Board – follow up: Employment of the former Chief Executive – report - 20th May 2021

PAC Public Hearings

The transcripts from all Public Hearings the Committee held in relation to this review can be viewed here.

T: +44 (0) 1534 441 020 | E: statesgreffe@gov.je | W: Statesassembly.gov.je

[1] Public Hearing with the Interim Chief Executive, Paul Martin - 31st January 2022

[2] Letter from the Interim Chief Executive - 19th January 2022

[3] Letter from the Interim Chief Executive - 19th January 2022

[4] Letter from the Interim Chief Executive - 19th January 2022

[5] Public Hearing with the Chief of Staff - 15th November 2021

[6] Public Hearing with the Chief of Staff - 15th November 2021

[7] CYPES Business Case - March 2019

[8] Health and Social Security Scrutiny Panel - Assessment of Mental Health Services Review 2019

[9] Public Hearing with the Directors General for HCS and CYPES - 29th November 2021

[10] Organisational Restructure Business Case - January 2019 - Justice and Home Affairs

[11] Letter from the Director General of the Infrastructure, Housing and environment - 12th March 2021 (confidential)

[12] Public Hearing with the Treasurer of the States, 17th January 2022

[13] Public Hearing with the Interim Chief Executive, Paul Martin - 31st January 2022

[14] Letter - Chief of Staff - 17th December 2021

[15] Public Hearing with the Interim Chief Executive, Paul Martin - 31st January 2022

[16] The Office of the Chief Executive explained that in 2021 the number of people on spot salary at senior level was 51 according to the Annual Report and Accounts with the remaining spot salaries relating to pay protection' of Allied Health Professions resulting from a collective grievance over widely reported errors in the original grading process.

[17] W.Q 15/2022, W.Q 459/2020, W.Q 215/2019

[18] Letter from Interim Chief Executive - 19th January 2022

[19] Public Hearing with the Interim Chief Executive - 13th September 2021

[20] Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer - 15th November 2021

[21] Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer - 15th November 2021

[22] Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer - 15th November 2021

[23] Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer - 15th November 2021

[24] Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer - 15th November 2021

[25] Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer - 15th November 2021

[26] Public Hearing with the Chief Operating Officer - 15th November 2021

[27] Letter from the Interim Chief Executive - 19th January 2022

[28] Automatic Electoral Registration Project - report to the States presented on 22nd October 2021