Recruitment Expenditure and Agency Staffing for SOJP

Please provide the following information for States of Jersey Police for each of the last four financial years (2021/22 to 2024/25):

1. The total annual expenditure on recruitment, broken down by: 

2. The number of agency workers engaged in each of those years, broken down by role type (e.g. police). 

3. Details of any master vendor or framework agreements for recruitment or agency staffing, including: 

Please see table attached for each of the below for the last four financial years (2021/2022 to 2024/2025) ​

​​​Table I - 737710106

1. The total annual expenditure on recruitment, broken down by: 

2. States of Jersey Police can confirm there were 62 agency workers engaged between 2021 and 2025* Article 16 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied to the remainder of this request, as the estimated time required to locate, review, and extract the relevant details exceeds the cost limit provision of 12.5 hours. 

3. When required SOJP utilises the GOJ corporate arrangements for provision of agency staff (Jersey based). From these agreements the SoJP have used both 1st Recruitment and ASL Recruitment International. Information obtained from Commercial 

Services advise that these corporate contracts commenced in 2017 and are scheduled to conclude in 2025.  

A procurement exercise to re-tender these services is currently underway. As such, it is not possible to disclose the contract value at this stage. Accordingly, Article 33 of the Freedom f Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies. 

Specialist agency framework agreements are in place for the major incidents, including Red Snapper and Peel Solutions.  Commissioning is dependent upon the specialist need required e.g. detective skills.  A fixed contract commitment in terms of value is not specified but called off from a framework agreement, depending upon operational need. 

(1) A scheduled public authority that has been requested to supply information may refuse to supply the information if it estimates that the cost of doing so would exceed an amount determined in the manner prescribed by Regulations.  

(2) Despite paragraph (1), a scheduled public authority may still supply the information requested on payment to it of a fee determined by the authority in the manner prescribed by Regulations for the purposes of this Article. 

(3) Regulations may provide that, in such circumstances as the Regulations prescribe, if two or more requests for information are made to a scheduled public authority –

(a) by one person; or 

(b) by different persons who appear to the scheduled public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.

Information is qualified exempt information if  

(a) it constitutes a trade secret; or 

(b) its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a 

person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information).  

Article 33 is a qualified exemption and as such, a public interest test has been conducted as required by law. 

When responding to requests of this nature, the Scheduled Public Authority (SPA) must balance the public interest against the potential impact that disclosure may have on the organisation and/or third parties.   

It has been concluded that, while there is a clear public interest in transparency regarding the use of public funds, the SPA must also consider the potential prejudice to the commercial interests of the Government and any third-party contractors involved.   

There is significant public interest in understanding how public money is being spent. Disclosure may enhance public accountability and trust in government decision-making. The information could contribute to informed public debate and scrutiny of project management and governance. ​  

However, the SPA also recognises that disclosure of the predicted final cost could:   

After weighing these factors, the SPA has determined that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure at this time. The potential for commercial prejudice and financial harm to the Government and its partners is considered substantial and likely. Therefore, Article 33 is upheld. ​