Care Inquiry: Financial Services prioritised over child care

Tuesday 04 July 2017

Jersey’s £23m, three-year, investigation into the way the States looked after children in their care has concluded there were 10 fundamental failings in the system, and has made eight recommendations for change.

In a deeply damming report, Frances Oldham QC, says the island's child care legislation lags far behind what is expected in the modern world, and that in this area, the island has prioritised financial services over child care.

She says: "We consider that the delays in Jersey in adopting good practice and legislation informed by modern thinking can be explained only by a lack of political and professional will. Traditionally, the wellbeing of vulnerable children has been low on the list of Jersey's priorities for legislative change and development. We find that unacceptable." 

As the panel sees it, the ten fundamental failings in Jersey’s care system are:

“Failure to value children in the care system, listen to them, ensure they are nurtured and give them adequate opportunities to flourish in childhood and beyond. This includes lack of investment in the recruitment, management, supervision and continuing development of staff with suitable backgrounds and skills to care for children.

Failure to have in place an adequate legislative framework that prioritises the welfare of children in need or at risk. While the States of Jersey has always been able to provide sufficient resources to keep pace with developments in international financial law, Jersey’s child care legislation has lagged behind other jurisdictions in the developed world – often by decades.

Failure to keep pace with developments in social policy, child care practice and social work standards in the developed world. For example, in Jersey there has been an ill-considered, misguided and potentially harmful approach to secure accommodation that was used routinely for children whose needs would have not have met the threshold for secure detention elsewhere and without the thorough assessment or rigorous safeguards that were in place in other jurisdictions.

Failure to plan and deliver services in an effective, targeted manner to achieve positive, measurable outcomes for children. For decades, there was little evidence of a considered approach to the needs of and desired outcomes for individual children. At a strategic level, there was a marked absence of government initiatives to tackle the causes of social inequalities and deprivation or to promote the welfare of children. In the youth justice system, punitive approaches were taken to children whose misdemeanours likely would not have reached the threshold for prosecution in other jurisdictions.

Failure to establish a culture of openness and transparency, leading to a perception, at least, of collusion and cover-up. Jersey’s culture has not encouraged the reporting of poor and abusive practice. At times, efforts to protect the island’s reputation and international standing have led to insufficient acknowledgement of the gravity of the Island’s failings and the egregious nature of some of the abuses perpetrated on children in its care. Such attitudes have fostered the suspicion, within parts of the community, that most politicians and States employees cannot be trusted and that abusive practices have been covered up.

Failure to mitigate negative effects of small island culture and its challenges. Failures have included ignoring or failing to manage conflicts of interest and prioritising the welfare of staff over the needs of children. Social connections have meant that, at times, there has been insufficiently robust professional challenge to poor practices.

Failure to make sufficient investment in staff development and training. Dedicated staff have not been truly valued, while unskilled staff have been allowed to run institutions or care for children with severe and enduring emotional needs.

Failure to adopt policies which would promote the recruitment and retention of staff with essential skills in child welfare and child protection. Incentives and expedited residency qualifications are available from the States to draw highly valued individuals and financial organisations to the island. In contrast, little effort has gone into creating the incentives that would make Jersey competitive in recruiting and retaining exceptional managers and staff to care for Jersey’s children, who could be seen as the island’s most valuable asset.

Failure of the States of Jersey to understand and fulfil corporate parenting responsibilities, including adequate aftercare of children who have been looked after by the state. The overwhelming majority of adults who have been in the care system, and whose stories the Inquiry heard, still suffer from the effects of abusive or emotionally neglectful childhoods in the care system, their difficulties often compounded by being turned out, unsupported, into a world with which they were singularly ill equipped to cope.

Failure to tackle a silo mentality among public-sector agencies. States departments and institutions have been characterised by territorialism and protectiveness rather than openness to pooling resources and learning. As a result, there has been a lack of a comprehensive strategy to secure the bests interests of children in the island.”

The report makes eight recommendations.

1: A Commissioner for Children.

Such a position should be enshrined in States legislation. The independence of a Commissioner is essential if there is to be confidence in the post, and, to that end, we recommend that consideration should be given to any possibility of a joint appointment with other jurisdictions. We consider that this could only enhance the perception of independence.

2: Giving children and young people a voice.

Alongside the appointment of a Commissioner, we consider that other steps are necessary to ensure that children in Jersey are given a voice. An effective complaints system is one key element in the structures that are necessary to ensure that looked after children are safe, and, to that end, we recommend that the current complaints system is replaced with one that is easily accessed and in which children and young people have confidence. We also suggest that the Chief Minister should consider making a personal commitment to meet annually with care-experienced young people, to hear at first hand of their experiences, which is a process that we found profoundly moving and enlightening.

3: Inspection of services.

A further essential element of keeping children safe is having an empowered, professional and truly independent inspectorate. Between 1981 and 2001, there were no independent inspections of services for children, and, since 2001, there have only been occasional ad hoc inspections. We believe that the current plans for an internal inspectorate are encouraging, but we also consider that an external element of scrutiny is required. We believe that it is vital that, within 12 months of publication of our Report, a statutory basis for inspection is established. We also set out proposals for including experienced lay persons and care-experienced young people in inspection teams.

4: Building a sustainable workforce.

Recruiting and retaining suitably qualified staff at all levels is essential if services are to be improved and developed. We recommend that Children’s Services be provided with a dedicated specialist HR resource to work alongside managers in building a stable and competent workforce. To achieve this, there will be a need to consideration of wider matters, such as whether the current residency rules require variation in order to facilitate recruitment and retention of staff in this field. We also propose mechanisms to address the very considerable dissatisfaction expressed from foster carers who play a key role in the care of vulnerable children.

5: Legislation.

Legislation for children in Jersey has lagged behind the developed world. We have set out suggestions for Jersey keeping pace with other jurisdictions, including developing collaborations with English authorities.

We recommend therefore that the youth justice system move to a model that always treats young offenders as children first and offenders second. It is also essential that those charged with dealing with children in a judicial capacity should have a sound understanding of the needs of young people and the issues that can impact on their lives. To that end, we recommend that a suitable training programme be put in place for the judiciary, including a requirement for refresher training to ensure that all carrying these onerous responsibilities are kept briefed on the latest thinking and research.

6: Corporate parent.

The corporate parent is an important concept in social policy, and it is essential that all those with this responsibility have a common understanding and are equipped to fulfil those responsibilities. We recommend that, following every election, there should be mandatory briefing for all States members as to their responsibilities as corporate parents for looked after children, and that new States members would be unable to take their seat until this had been undertaken.

7: The “Jersey Way”.

Throughout the course of our work we heard the term the “Jersey Way”. While this was, on occasions, used with pride, to describe a strong culture of community and voluntary involvement, it was more often used to describe a perceived system whereby serious issues are swept under the carpet and people avoid being held to account for abuses that have been perpetrated. We recommend that open consideration involving the whole community be given to how this negative perception of the “Jersey Way” can be countered on a lasting basis. While constitutional matters are outwith our Terms of Reference, we are of the opinion that this matter cannot be addressed without further consideration of the recommendations made in the Clothier and Carswell Reports.

8: Legacy issues.

Finally, a number of legacy issues require to be considered. Our proposals include that all of the Inquiry’s vast documentation is preserved in perpetuity, with all public documents being retained in the public domain.

We also recommend that there is some form of tangible public acknowledgement of those who have been ill served by the care system over many decades.

We believe that the buildings at Haut de la Garenne are a reminder of an unhappy past or shameful history for many people. They are also a symbol of the turmoil and trauma of the early stages of Operation Rectangle, the attention it brought to the island and the distress it evoked in many former residents. We recommend that consideration be given as to how the buildings can be demolished and that any youth or outdoor activity or services for children located on the site should be in modern buildings bearing no resemblance to what went before."