Educational psychologists investigation independent company (FOI)

Request

As a result of difficulties being reported by educational psychologists working in Jersey and employed by the government (through the States Employment Board), we have been told that a fact-finding investigation was conducted by an independent company during the second quarter of 2024.

We would like the answers to the following questions, please:

- Which company carried out the investigation?

- What elements made up the investigation?

- Did the investigation result in a report, and if so, to whom was that delivered?

- Was the report published, and if not, why not?

- Were any serious allegations made by current or former employees during the investigation? If so, what action was taken?

- What was the cost of the investigation?

- Please could the report now be published as part of the response to this FoI request?

Response

It would not be appropriate to share information at this stage given the current review which is live but on completion of this review an updated response to this request will be considered. Article 35 of the Freedom of Informatation (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied. 

Article applied 

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

Public Interest Test

Article 35 is a qualified exemption and, as such, the Government of Jersey has conducted a prejudice test as required by law.

​The Government of Jersey has made an assessment on whether in all of the circumstances the public interest in disclosing the information would be outweighed by the prejudice that would be likely if it were disclosed.

Once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished. However, the use of the exemption can continue to be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

• In applying this article, the following considerations were taken into account. 
• Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:
• disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary work is being undertaken
• disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.  

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information:

• in order to best develop policy, law and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy and legal development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the development process
• the need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of development
• release of the information at this stage might generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy and law away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately
• premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider departmental business.

Therefore, having considered the public interest, the Government of Jersey has concluded that the public interest in disclosing this information is outweighed by the potential prejudice that would likely result. ​