Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Impact Accelerator Programme 2026
Leaving no one behind The value of Jersey’s health, social care and wellbeing charity sector
Final Report
Health, Social Care and Wellbeing
Charities Impact Accelerator
Programme
March 2026
Disclaimer
The insights provided in this report are based on survey data provided by participating charities. This data has not been audited. The valuations derived are subject to change should any errors be found or differences required in the underlying data. Availability of further data could also change the valuations in the future. Analysis has been completed on a best endeavours basis with the time and data available and are subject to important assumptions and limitations as set out in the report. All valuations must be treated as estimates only and should be described as such. This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice.
Foreword
I am delighted to introduce this report as the culmination of the Jersey Community Foundation’s Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Charities Impact Accelerator Programme.
Rosemarie Finley
Director and Board Member, Jersey Community Foundation
Chair, Health and Care Charities CEO Forum
Chief Executive, Family Nursing & Home Care
Health and social care in Jersey is under increasing pressure. Demographic shifts - such as our ageing population, income and wealth inequality, falling birth rates, rising lifestyle diseases and awareness of mental health conditions - are all increasing demand for support and services for islanders.
At the same time, in a small, low-tax jurisdiction, it is increasingly clear that government as a sole funder and provider of support services for islanders is insufficient. Health, social care and wellbeing charities on the island play a critical role throughout care and support pathways, from disease prevention through to end of life care.
These charities are all united in their collective desire to build a healthier, happier and more inclusive island community. They are our island’s frontline delivery service, working in the community to support so many of our most vulnerable islanders.
And yet, to date, the value of their impact has not been well captured, quantified and communicated, either as individual charities or looking across the sector as a whole.
That is why the Jersey Community Foundation (JCF) has commissioned this ground-breaking, innovative pilot programme, which builds on the findings of their 2024 Value of Jersey’s third sector research.
In the first initiative of its kind on the island, 14 Jersey-based health, social care and wellbeing charities participated in this programme during 2025. Together, they have reflected on their shared challenges, opportunities and aspirations to craft a compelling future vision for the sector and to quantify their collective value to society, totalling an estimated £137m in 2024.
These impact-focused outputs equip the participating charities with the confidence and evidence required to take more strategic approaches to programming, partnerships and fundraising.
Some have already used the outputs to transform how they communicate their results to the public, to donors and to support funding bids. Others have learned about the importance of data collection, the benefits of CRM systems, and opportunities to collaborate in new ways.
But the findings of this programme provide us with so much more than that. For the first time, we’re able to understand and describe the monetary contribution that these health, social care and wellbeing charities provide to society, in both economic and social terms, together with information about savings to the public purse.
Put another way, it is clear the participating charities collectively contribute enormous value to the island and for islanders, represent strong value for money, and plug a critical gap in service provision.
Looking forward, the programme has highlighted opportunities to collaborate further, adopt technology solutions, innovate in delivery and double down on fundraising. It is also clear there are service areas for which the long-term beneficial impacts are not yet well understood and quantified internationally, and where Jersey could undertake leading-edge research.
And these insights could not come at a better time. We are at an inflection point in Jersey. The new hospital and the wider transformation of health and social care, including the creation of the new Health and Care Jersey Partnership Board, the increasing emphasis on prevention, and the need to reshape funding of longterm care, all set the scene for resetting the relationship between the public, private and third sectors in serving and supporting islanders.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the participating charities, delivery partners and funding partners for their hard work in contributing to and supporting this programme.
I hope this report serves as a call to action for increased collaboration and progress in support of our ambition to see islanders of every age, ability and background enjoy long, flourishing lives in a society that puts prevention first, and cares without limits, leaving no-one behind.
A reflection on the programme
“‘Participation in the Impact Accelerator programme has been a genuinely transformative experience for our charity. The economic and social impact data generated through the process has strengthened our ability to evidence our value to the community and articulate our contribution to Jersey’s wider wellbeing.
Beyond the data itself, the programme has influenced our strategic thinking about what it means to be a modern, sustainable charity - one that is outcomes-focussed, collaborative, and equipped to engage meaningfully in policy conversations.
The opportunity to work alongside other charities created a strong sense of shared learning and collective purpose, nurturing new relationships that we hope will continue to grow.
We are extremely grateful to have been part of this pilot initiative and to have benefited from the insight, challenge, and support it provided at a pivotal moment in our development.
FREEDA
Participating Jersey health, social care & wellbeing charities
Brighter Futures supports parents, families and young people in Jersey. Programmes are focused on parent and child relationships, wellbeing and personal development.
Beresford Street Kitchen are a catering-based social enterprise that provides structured training and employment programmes for people with learning disabilities.
Dementia Jersey supports people with dementia and their carers, providing expert support on the condition, whilst raising awareness and campaigning to improve services.
Enable Jersey* aims to remove barriers that limit disabled islanders by offering advice and support, raising awareness and giving a voice to those living with a disability.
Every Child Our Future aims to improve educational opportunities for children, delivering a range of programmes that focus on early years communication, literacy and numeracy.
Family Nursing and Home Care (FNHC) provides expert prenatal and parental care, and supports children, families and members of the community who need healthcare in their homes.
Freeda tackles domestic abuse, with a mission to protect and empower women and children who have experienced domestic abuse as well as to engage with the island community to prevent such abuse.
Jersey Cheshire Home is the only residential facility on the island caring solely for adults with physical disabilities.
Jersey Employment Trust provides a comprehensive employment and training service to assist people with disabilities to achieve their employment goals, providing guidance in all areas of recruitment and job retention.
Les Amis provides quality services to support people with learning disabilities to gain equal opportunities in Jersey. Les Amis supports adult islanders via three services; residential group care homes, domiciliary support and 24-hour respite.
Macmillan Jersey offers free emotional, practical and wellbeing information and support to people in Jersey (and their friends and family) with any type of cancer and at any stage.
Mind Jersey provides support to people living with mental illness. Their aim is to campaign to tackle stigma, influence government policy and encourage participation of young people.
Sanctuary Trust provides accommodation and support to men in crisis, working with residents to help them find employment and independent accommodation
The Shelter Trust provides accommodation and support services for the homeless community in Jersey
A note on number of participating charities*
14 charities participated in this programme as shown here.
However, Enable Jersey did not form part of the programme-wide quantitative analysis in this report.
The quantitative analysis presented in this report therefore reflects the collective position of 13 charities in the sector.
Executive Summary
“We have been overwhelmed by the incredible care your team have shown to Dad. The professional manner each and every one of them shows is incredible. You really are an awesome team and we literally could not have coped without you”.
FAMILY NURSING AND HOME CARE
“Since I’ve been working here, it has opened a new life for me. It has made me independent. I am now going to and from work on the bus. I’m meeting people from all parts of the world. I love my job very much and it’s a pleasure working for Beresford Street.”
BERESFORD STREET KITCHEN
Introducing our pilot impact accelerator programme
About the programme
The Jersey Community Foundation’s Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Charities Impact Accelerator Programme was launched in July 2025 to support local health, social care and wellbeing charities in Jersey in demonstrating their value, impact, and opportunities for enhanced sectorwide collaboration.
These charities are central to improving wellbeing for islanders, providing both acute care and preventative support that reduces future public service costs by intervening earlier and more holistically.
The sector faces increasing demand due to factors such as an ageing population, limited public funding, fragmented and short-term funding arrangements and evolving expectations to align with government priorities for reforming health and social care.
Impact accelerator programmes are approaches to building capability and capacity quickly and efficiently, and we wanted to pilot one in Jersey. We wanted to see whether designing and offering a thematic programme for a group of charities operating in a similar space would be an effective approach in order to:
• Coalesce around common challenges and goals
• Identify areas of potential synergy and collaboration
• Provide economies of scale in data and impact valuation
• Provide a sector as well as individualised view
Our approach builds on our previous research including our Local Needs Assessment and the Value of Jersey’s Third Sector report
Specifically, the programme aims to strengthen the position of 14 charities in the health, social care and wellbeing sector on the island, who were invited to participate in this pilot through the Health and Care Charities CEO Forum.
The programme seeks to develop a unified strategic narrative, a shared vision and compelling evidence of value to society to inform future funding and efficiency in delivering services to the wider community. If the pilot proves successful for a thematic sector, we could then scale the learning more widely.
We also hope it will help us further shape our own programming, data collection and impact assessment processes within the Foundation going forward.
About this report
The impact accelerator programme has comprised three phases:
• Phase 1: Establishing a shared vision, mapping sector impact pathways, and identifying thematic focus areas.
• Phase 2: Collecting and analysing data from participating charities to quantify social, economic and environmental value. Charities completed both a Health Impact Survey and a Community Outcome Survey, supplemented with further interviews/discussions and triangulated with literature where appropriate.
• Phase 3: Disseminating findings through individual charity-specific impact valuation outputs, together with this report.
This report is therefore a summary of the findings and themes arising from the impact accelerator programme as a whole.
We hope it serves as a catalyst for further collaboration and innovation in the sector, demonstrating the critical role and significant value of health, social care and wellbeing charities in Jersey, building confidence for future funding, and as a contribution to ongoing public debate about the future of health, social care and wellbeing support services on the island.
Navigating the report
This Executive Summary provides an overview of the key messages, suitable for all interested parties including policymakers, decision-makers, funders and collaborators in health and social care on the island.
A more detailed full report is also available for those that wish to explore the findings in more detail. We also hope the detailed report will serve as a useful reference point for the 14 charities who have participated in this pilot programme.
Understanding assumptions and limitations to this work
Impact assessment and valuation of this type for a group of health and social care charities is ground-breaking in Jersey. The findings are drawn from data provided by the charities themselves, which has not been audited, and could change.
Similarly, within the scope of this programme, some activities and some impacts could not be fully valued due to lack of robust data or available research about impact and value. Therefore:
• All values in the report should be treated as estimates.
• There is an opportunity to collaborate with researchers to explore new ways of valuing impacts in key service areas where the international literature is found wanting, for example for the impact of safeguarding children.
Full details of assumptions, limitations and valuation methodologies are available in an Appendix to the full report.
A vision for the future of health and social care in Jersey
Five priority themes within health, social care and wellbeing for Jersey
“Health, social care and wellbeing” covers a very broad range of health, quality of life, social issues and support needs in Jersey.
To structure this programme to best effect and ensure the 14 charities were set up successfully to engage in the work, the charities agreed five priority themes that reflected the main health, social care and wellbeing priorities for the island, and to which they collectively contributed.
These are shared below, together with forward-looking goals that the charities developed together during the programme, and which contribute to a collective vision.
Collective
vision for 2040
“By 2040, Jersey is celebrated as one of the world’s healthiest and happiest communities. Islanders of every age, ability, and background enjoy long, flourishing lives in a society that puts prevention first and cares without limits, leaving no one behind.“
From vision to reality
Participating charities worked to develop a shared view of the challenges and opportunities facing the sector, the practical steps and the long-term changes that would need to be in place to achieve this vision.
Further details are in Section 2 of the full report.
This analysis of how change happens was an important input into the subsequent impact assessment and valuation approach, the outputs of which are summarised on the following pages:
Enablers
Preventing ill health
Mental wellbeing
Disabilities & long-term conditions
Ageing society Early years support & development
Obesity, inactivity, poor diet, smoking and harmful drinking drive most premature deaths and chronic illness - impacting lower-income islanders hardest and straining health budgets.
Post COVID-19, anxiety, depression, self-harm and suicide have surged - especially in under-25s - while stigma and stretched services delay intervention.
Support for islanders with learning disabilities, autism, or those disabled is fragmented - slow diagnoses and inaccessible public services leave outcomes to family means, widening gaps in health, housing and work.
A fast-growing over-65 population with frailty, dementia and complex needs is outstripping home, community and palliative care, hitting low-income older adults hardest.
Parental stress, poverty and early trauma hinder early brain and language development, setting children on lifelong paths to poorer health and learning outcomes.
By 2040, prevention is embedded in Jersey’s systems and culture based on education, early intervention and equity.
Operational and practical:
• Accessible services
By 2040, islanders recognise Jersey as a thriving and just society. All islanders enjoy fulfilled lives in a society that puts prevention first, is inclusive, is accessible and cares for all.
By 2040, Jersey is a safe, healthy, content, and connected community where all islanders are included and can access the right care at the right time. Care is personalised to leverage their community, family, or personal strengths.
By 2040, all older islanders in Jersey enjoy long, happy and purposeful lives. Being connected, respected, and empowered, all islanders can have the confidence, comfort, and freedom to lead an accessible and opportunity- rich life.
By 2040, Jersey is a society that understands and operates in a way that always puts children first and meets all individual children’s needs through a world-leading focus on equity, safety and nurture so that no child is left behind and all children fulfil their potential throughout life.
• Collaborative island
• Financial resilience
• Data sharing and richer storytelling
Societal changes:
• Reduced stigma
• Empowered islanders
• Fulfilled childhoods
1. Health impact is valued using QALY and WELLBY metrics, with monetary uplift; see Appendix for definitions and valuation method. This is the largest component (80%) of social value, providing £70.9m of a total £89.1m (see next page).
2. Direct beneficiaries are those who receive care or wellbeing improvements; other beneficiaries include carers (formal/informal) benefiting from reduced burden and support. Numbers are charity-reported and may include double counting.
3. Other conditions cover those outside the 13 main survey categories (e.g., brain injury, incurable diseases, homelessness, domestic abuse, wound care, infections, incontinence,
and complex diagnoses).
Source: Analysis of Health Impact Survey data from 13
The total monetary value created by a charity, measured using monetary contributions (e.g. staff remuneration), voluntary contributions (e.g. market value of volunteering) and savings contributions (e.g. savings versus private sector delivery) before deducting any associated costs, expenses or losses
The total monetary value created by a charity’s activities, measured using wellbeing and health improvement metrics (e.g. QALY, WELLBY) and savings to public expenditure (e.g. avoided healthcare costs, employment effects), adjusted for deadweight, attribution, durability, and drop-off, before deducting any associated costs, expenses or losses.
The total monetary value created by a charity, calculated by summing only nonoverlapping and distinct economic, social, and environmental benefits, ensuring that no impact is double-counted across categories. Shows how much direct economic value is created for every £1 spent Shows the social value (or wellbeing benefits) created, for every £1 spent
Moving forward
Opportunities arising
The rich and compelling insights created through this programme are gamechanging for the participating charities, who already feel they have significantly increased their understanding of how to value their work and how to communicate this for different purposes.
We as the Jersey Community Foundation have also learnt a great deal about how to best structure impact accelerator programmes and how we can best support charities to strengthen their approach.
The programme also created space for the participating charities to reflect together about the themes and action areas that could best help progress towards their collective vision. These are:
• Advocacy and voice: Lifting and amplifying the voice of the health, social care and wellbeing sector, and those of islanders needing care, to shape and strength public policy at political, government decision-maker and community levels.
• Research, data collection and sharing: Improving targeted data collection within the sector to evidence outcomes and impact. Resolving barriers to sharing data and participating in research to plug gaps in the evidence locally and internationally.
• Technology adoption: Accelerating technology and AI solutions within charities to improve efficiency and productivity, support robust data collection, enhance income-generating activities and accelerate transformation of service delivery and digital health.. This in turn requires support from donors prepared to fund such changes.
• Shared operations and resources: Pooling people, processes and physical resources to minimise overheads and maximise shared efficiency and impact.
• Shift to preventative care: A shift to prevention is critical for a financially sustainable and impact-focused future for health and social care on the island. Charities, through their campaigns and early interventions are pivotal for Jersey’s public health strategy.
• A longevity mindset: The recent Island of Longevity initiative in Jersey has much in common with this collective vision. More broadly, there is a need to reset the social contract between islanders, government, business and the charity sector through a mindset of how we support all islanders to lead longer, healthier, fulfilling lives.
A call to action
Our island’s health, social care and wellbeing charity sector provides increasingly important services, impact and wider value that benefits all of us as islanders. Imagine how much more we could achieve if we work together to further supercharge these efforts.
To that end, we would highlight the following actions, set out in more detail in the main report:
For health, social care & wellbeing charities
• Use programme outputs to support fundraising, reporting, planning and learning
• Play your part in acting on the findings and sharing with others
• Engage with collaborative forums and partnerships
For government, politicians and public sector
• Recognise the role and value of the health, social care and wellbeing charity sector
• Commit to more longer-term service level agreements and delivery partnerships
• Work closely with the sector, so they bring in voices of lived experience
• Help to catalyse investment in technology adoption in the sector
• Be bold in policy and investment for prevention and early intervention
For us as the Jersey Community Foundation
• Scale this programme’s learning and use to strengthen approach to programming
• Be open to funding charity data and technology readiness
• Apply programme findings as part of newly-commissioned Philanthropy Policy
For other donors and funders
• Recognise the role and value of the health, social care and wellbeing charity sector
• Recognise the value in financing operational improvements and technology adoption alongside funding frontline services
• Consider seed funding to test new methods of delivery and provision of care for sector, as well as research funding for studying gaps in the evidence for impacts.
For islanders and our wider community
• Ask questions of politicians about the opportunities
• Support our island’s charities and foster a culture of philanthropy and volunteering
• Engage with preventative healthcare and the role we all need to play in this in terms of lifestyle choices and technology adoption
Section 1 | Introduction
“Their services are indispensable. The difference in mum’s mood is so significant. She has more social life than the rest of us! The knowledge, care and support is exceptional.”
DEMENTIA JERSEY
About this report
The strategic case for impact assessment
In 2024, we published The Value of Jersey’s Third Sector. This research highlighted the critical role and significant scale of charitable organisations in Jersey’s society, the challenges they face and the opportunities to strengthen the sector.
An urgent action arising from that research was the need to support the sector in building strategic narratives, strengthening the evidence base for social impact and enabling charities to make a compelling case for sustainable, long-term funding. Nearly 37% of charities reported operating with less than three months’ financial reserves, making financial sustainability a top priority.
As a major donor to many of these charities, we could see how challenging it was for many organisations to articulate their long-term impacts. With an objective to support strengthening of the sector, we wanted to play our part in helping Jersey’s third sector build a more strategically-aligned, resilient and data-driven future.
Impact accelerator programmes are approaches to building capability and capacity quickly and efficiently, and we wanted to pilot one in Jersey. We wanted to see whether designing and offering a thematic programme for a group of charities operating in a similar space would be an effective approach in order to:
• Coalesce around common challenges and goals
• Identify areas of potential synergy and collaboration
• Provide economies of scale in data and impact valuation
• Provide a sector as well as an individualised view
If the pilot proves successful for a thematic sector, we could then scale the learning more widely.
The strategic case for a focus on health & social care
Our 2024 research found that Jersey’s third sector included a large number of health, social care and wellbeing charities, and these charities contributed significantly to the sector’s economic value.
Against this background, and as also highlighted in our 2022 Local Needs Assessment, it is clear that provision of health, social care and wellbeing services to islanders has reached a critical juncture.
A combination of increased demand and funding pressures, driven in turn by a range of social, demographic and economic factors, mean that the health, social care and wellbeing services sector in Jersey is under unprecedented pressure. It is also clear that, within the wider sector, charities are playing a significant and increasingly critical role in service delivery.
The health, social care and wellbeing charities sector is already taking steps towards a strategic and collaborative approach, including through the Health and Care Charities CEO Forum, with a common desire to work together and with wider stakeholders in the public and private sectors to improve quality of life for all islanders.
The development of the new hospital, together with government priorities on digital health, a shift to preventative care, and a need to reform funding of long-term care, all mean that further insight on the contribution of charities in this sector to society can catalyse a window of opportunity.
We therefore decided to focus our pilot impact accelerator programme on the health, social care and wellbeing charities sector in Jersey, with 14 participating charities invited through the CEO Forum network.
The purpose of this report
This report shares the findings from our pilot Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Charities Impact Accelerator Programme.
The Executive Summary is intended for stakeholders and decision-makers across the island and provides an overview of the key messages arising.
The core report provides further detail for those interested, and we hope also serves as a useful reference for the participating charities as wider context within which to set their charity-specific individual results from the programme. It comprises:
• A shared vision for Jersey’s health, social care and wellbeing charities sector, founded on a shared view of the challenges and opportunities (Section 2)
• Insights about the sector and the cohort of participating charities in the programme (Section 3)
• Quantified estimates of how the charities contribute to improving islanders’ health & wellbeing (Section 4)
• Quantified estimates of how the charities contribute economic and social value to the island (Section 5)
• Quantified estimates of wider savings to government and the public purse (Section 6)
• Opportunities for the sector (Section 7)
• Conclusions and a call to action (Section 8)
You can read more about the about the programme and our methodology later in this section and in the Appendix.
Overview of the Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Charities Impact Accelerator Programme
Running from July to December 2025, participating charities came together with impact specialists with the aims of understanding and communicating collective value to society, and enhancing sector-wide collaboration to support improved outcomes and efficiencies in delivery. The programme consisted of three Phases:
Phase 1: Vision and change
• Shared vision for sector
• How change happens in the sector
• How interventions contribute to changes
• Collaboration opportunities
What we did: We brought together the 14 participating charities* from Jersey’s health, social care and wellbeing charity sector to share views about the challenges and opportunities facing the sector, to develop a sector-wide vision and thematic impact pathways, as a starting point for analysis.
How: A one-day programme launch workshop with members from the 14 participating charities* to discuss their shared vision for the future, and how change happens, focusing on five agreed thematic areas of impact. Further details of how this supported data collection for the programme are overleaf.
Output: A shared vision for the future, and shared understanding of how change happens across the sector. The vision for the sector, and opportunities arising for collaboration, are presented in this report. The changes and impact areas directly informed Phase 2.
Phase 2: Impact assessment
• Data collection from charity participants
• Identification and validation of appropriate impacts, values and metrics
What we did: We gathered data from participating charities and combined this with literature, other sources of data and analysis and subject matter expertise to quantify the sector’s impacts and contributions to society.
How: Participating charities were asked to complete two surveys, one about health impacts and the other about community outcomes, supplemented with follow up questions and interviews where required. Further details about the unaudited data collected are overleaf. The answers were drawn into a programme-wide impact analysis, with each charity’s contribution assessed on a consistent basis.
Please see later in this report, and the Appendix, for more details about how this was undertaken. The methodology was peer-reviewed by impact experts and aligned to global good practice, international benchmarks, research literature and references wherever feasible. Valuations were only completed for impact areas where the methodology could be appropriately justified and validated.
Output: Insights about 13 participating charities* as a sector, and their collective value to society.
Phase 3: Communicating findings
• Charity impact dashboards
• Guidance and support
• Sector-wide findings in final report
What we did: We created 13 individual dashboards for each participating charity who submitted the survey data*, comprised of their cut of the programme-wide findings, to illustrate their impacts and contribution. We then drafted this final report to bring the insights all together.
How: We held briefing sessions with the charities to validate the findings, share examples of how the programme outputs could be used in practice, and to discuss the insights and key messages arising.
Output:
• 13 participating charities* have received individual impact dashboards, together with support and guidance about how to interpret and use the findings.
• This report draws together the insights and learning across the programme cohort as a whole.
We are now reflecting on the process and results as set out in Section 7.
Approach to data collection
Throughout the programme the focus has been on gathering as many insights and data points as possible from the participating charities, taking a consistent, programmatic approach. Data was collected from the charities in three main ways, as set out below; supplemented with one-to-one interviews and discussions where required and feasible, and validated with additional external sources. The data provided by the charities themselves was not audited as part of this programme. For more details of the valuation methodology, please see the Appendix.
Workshop July 2025
An all-day workshop with key decision makers and representatives from Jersey’s participating health, social care and wellbeing charities.
Key discussion points included:
• Understanding the relative strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the sector
• Building a shared vision for the sector over the medium to long-term
• Discussing what needs to be in place and how change could be expected to happen to achieve sector goals
• Consideration of the indicators and measures which could be used to assess the impact and value of the sector to society
• Initial listing and mapping of interventions and initiatives undertaken by each charity
• Exploring opportunities for further collaborations to further strengthen outcomes for the sector
Health Impact Survey
The Health Impact Survey was conducted to understand the effects of charity interventions on people living with a range of physical, mental health and long-term conditions, as well as their families and carers.
Key survey components included:
• Gathering feedback from charities about changes in the health and wellbeing of their care recipients, carers and other beneficiary groups
• Assessing the ways charities help reduce pressure on public health services and improve access to care
• Identifying broader effects on employment for primary beneficiaries, formal carers and family members
• Considering how charity interventions contribute to building a more resilient, supportive community
13 participating charities provided unaudited quantitative data. This included beneficiaries reached, broken down by age group and condition, assessment scores for quality of life and life satisfaction before and after charity intervention, hours and types of care delivered, and estimates of avoided hospital admissions, A&E visits, and hospital bed days resulting from charity services. See Appendix for full survey questions.
This survey resulted in a clearer understanding of the health, wellbeing and social care value created by charities, highlighting improvements in wellbeing and stronger support networks for those in need.
Community Outcome Survey
The Community Outcome Survey was carried out to capture the wider economic and environmental impacts arising from participating charities across Jersey.
Key survey components included:
• Collecting data on hours of services provided by charity staff and volunteers to map out economic contributions
• Exploring the role of charities in supporting the island economy through volunteering, in-kind contributions and collaborative projects
• Providing a snapshot of some environmental impacts of activities (carbon emissions), net of positive impacts (e.g. onsite renewable energy and reducing waste).
• Understanding how charities help build financial resilience and empower islanders
13 participating charities provided unaudited quantitative data. This included figures for income, expenditure, breakdown of funding source, numbers of staff (paid and volunteers) and their total service hours, in-kind contributions, environmental data such as renewable energy use and waste recycling. See Appendix for full survey questions.
This survey resulted in a high-level picture of the economic value generated by the charities and their role in Jersey’s economy.
Validation against available external and secondary data sources
• Data collected from the 13 participating charities was sense-checked against other sources where available, for example information available via the Jersey Charity Commissioner’s Charity Register.
• Findings were also validated against international data and expectations for these kinds of charities and their activities, and the valuation methodology was subject to independent external review and methodology validation as far as possible.
Section 2 | A shared vision
for Jersey’s health,
social care and wellbeing charity sector
“Sanctuary has been a very supportive place. The staff make you feel welcome and are always here to support me, If it wasn't for Sanctuary, I would be back in prison or dead. I'm so lucky to have a place like this I wouldn't know what I would do without the support from the staff. If is a god send that Sanctuary exists.”
SANCTUARY TRUST
Five priorities for health, social care & wellbeing in Jersey
Purpose of this section
Improved coordination can help reduce duplication, fill service gaps, and ensure resources are used effectively. Building stronger partnerships and sharing knowledge will be essential to address complex challenges and deliver improved outcomes for Jersey’s community.
This programme therefore began with a strategic visioning process, involving all the participating charities.
We wanted to provide a space for them to come together to share views of the opportunities and challenges for the health, social care and wellbeing sector, and to create a shared vision for the future.
This is summarised in this section and represents the voices of the participating charities and their collective future ambition. The following pages draw together perspectives and detailed analysis from the participating charities about the case for change as follows:
• The characteristics of the health, social care and wellbeing charities sector
• A closer look at the challenges facing the sector
• A deeper dive into the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for health and social care in Jersey
• A deeper dive into the collective strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats arising for those operating in the whole sector
Together these then inform the future strategic visioning process, which comprises:
• A shared vision for the future
• A pathway for change and impact
This, in turn, informs both the impact valuation process and future opportunities for the sector.
Five priority themes within health, social care and wellbeing for Jersey
“Health, social care and wellbeing” covers a very broad range of health, quality of life and social issues and support needs in Jersey.
To structure this programme to best effect, and to help ensure the 14 charities were set up successfully to engage in the work, the charities agreed five priority themes that reflected the main health, social care and wellbeing priorities for the island, and to which they collectively contributed.
These are listed below and are used throughout this report to provide a more granular view.
Priority theme Problem statement
Preventing ill health
Mental wellbeing
• Obesity, inactivity, poor diet, smoking and harmful drinking drive most premature deaths and chronic illness - impacting lower-income islanders hardest and straining health budgets.
• Post COVID-19, anxiety, depression, self-harm and suicide have surged - especially in under-25s - while stigma and stretched services delay intervention.
Disabilities & longterm conditions
Ageing society
Early years support & development
• Support for islanders with learning disabilities, autism, or those disabled is fragmented - slow diagnoses and inaccessible public services leave outcomes to family means, widening gaps in health, housing and work.
• A fast-growing over-65 population with frailty, dementia and complex needs is outstripping home, community and palliative care, hitting low-income older adults hardest.
• Parental stress, poverty and early trauma hinder early brain and language development, setting children on lifelong paths to poorer health and learning outcomes.
The case for change
Characteristics of Jersey’s health, social care and wellbeing charity sector
Jersey as a society operates within a low-tax yet high-service demand context, with everincreasing strain on public spending and services.
We are therefore operating a model through which third sector organisations in the island’s health, social care and wellbeing sector play a vital role in service delivery.
There are estimated to be over 100 charities and other third sector organisations for local health, social care and wellbeing on the island. They are diverse and mission-driven, addressing multiple needs from care support to prevention and wellbeing.
In general terms, for a small island, provision of health, social care and wellbeing support is broad and largely decentralised, with the third sector operating in a mixed economy of private and public sector providers.
Jersey’s health, social care and wellbeing charities deliver services that supplement and backfill those provided by government to both address acute needs and reduce future public service costs by supporting individuals earlier and more holistically. They play a critical role, distinct and complementary to the private sector, and often free at point of use.
Collaboration is increasingly a hallmark, with widespread knowledge and resource sharing and a strengthened collective voice through the Health and Care Charities CEO Forum, enabling practical shared solutions and joint advocacy.
Constraints and pressures are mounting for charities in this sector
• Increasing service demand and rising costs, exacerbated by Jersey’s ageing population – older islanders typically require more complex and sustained care, leading to increased pressure on both public and third sector providers. This ongoing demographic shift means that services must adapt to support a growing number of people with chronic conditions, disabilities and older age-related needs.
• Fragmented availability of services – Jersey’s high standards of entry, coupled with increasing demand, further constrains capacity of the current provision, limiting intake of new patients thereby further scattering the availability of care services.
• Shortages of skilled workers and volunteers – in a full employment economy, recruitment and retention in the health and social care charity sector is challenging. The sector also depends heavily on volunteers, who are also hard to attract and retain.
• Limited funding with expectations of greater efficiency – government and other funders alike expect organisations to deliver more with less. Charities and other service providers must find ways to maintain or improve service quality and reach within ever tighter financial constraints. Cost of living pressures also weigh on public donations.
• Fragmented and short-term funding and evolving landscape – many grants and contracts are shortterm, making it difficult to plan strategically, invest in long-term solutions, and/or retain skilled staff. The government funding landscape is evolving, with increasing expectations providers to demonstrate how their work aligns with government priorities. This can be challenging to evidence, particularly for complex and smaller charities.
Opportunities arising in the Jersey context
The direction of travel for the island is towards a more integrated care model, including:
o A shift to more care in the community
o A focus on preventative healthcare
o Expanded adoption of digital health solutions
There is also a need to review funding of long-term care and ongoing work to reshape service delivery, including the New Healthcare Facilities Programme, with a new Acute Hospital at Overdale.
This is a complex, and rapidly-evolving policy and delivery landscape that charities in the health, social care and wellbeing sector need to engage with and continue to help shape, drawing on their invaluable frontline expertise, alongside public sector and private sector partners.
Meanwhile, there is a strong culture of philanthropy on the island, which provides opportunities for diversifying funding streams where charities are able to harness these. This all requires enhanced data collection and strategic planning.
In conclusion, there are clear opportunities. The shift to integrated care and prevention aligns with charity sector strengths; targeted digital health and productivity investments can extend reach; Jersey’s philanthropic culture offers scope to broaden income; the CEO Forum’s priorities tackling inequalities, strengthening the sector’s partnership voice, and shared learning can unlock system reforms. Better data, outcomes measurement and commissioning alignment will support sustainable funding and demonstrate the sector’s cost-effective impact, whilst investing in further adoption of technology solutions can improve productivity and transform delivery pathways.
The stakes are high, there is much to play for, requiring a common view of the challenges, opportunities and way forward.
Overview of challenges facing health & social care in Jersey
Based on workshop discussions, these are the key challenges raised by the participating charities for each of the five key thematic areas:
Preventing ill health Mental wellbeing
• Insufficient funding – despite the priority for early charity intervention through preventative care increasing, there is still insufficient government effort towards funding these endeavours
• Inconsistent access to preventative health services
– access to preventative health services in Jersey is unequal due to various geographical and socio-economic factors/constraints e.g. wealth inequality and limited on-island healthcare provision/expertise
• Insufficient communication across sector – lack of collaboration surrounding preventative care between major sector stakeholders
• New consumer trends –specific consumer trends counteract preventative health with unknown health consequences e.g. vaping and new / evolving narcotics
• Future pressures – worsening cost of living and increasing challenges of effective recruitment of qualified professionals prohibits adoption of preventative care
• Availability of data –difficulty in measuring impact of mental illness interventions
• Housing crisis – lack of affordable Jersey housing exacerbates stress and mental health challenges
• Government priorities –rising demand for mental health support is becoming increasingly unsustainable for a budget constrained government with several other investment priorities
• Lack of strategic needs analysis – charities do not consider implementation of effective planning and understanding their most prevalent areas of improvement
• Workforce challenges –increased competition for skilled staff amongst charities with imperative resource scarcity in Jersey’s labour market
Disabilities & longterm conditions
• Lack of expectation of the potential of those with disabilities – there is often reduced focus/investment into disability care due to the common misconception there are lower long-term benefit to those care recipients
• Resource competition – care providers are competing hard to survive in a small market with limited resources and patient intake
• Lack of informed commissioning – the lack of presence of a governing healthcare body (e.g. NHS) reduces common direction amongst healthcare charities
• Lack of linked care for islanders – the lack of a governing healthcare body enables a variety of healthcare options, but lack of consistent operational standards limits connectivity
• Skills retention – due to the specialist nature of disability healthcare and the smaller size of many Jersey healthcare firms, there is a large risk of skilled staff leaving the island for better career opportunities
Source: Analysis of output from discussions with 14 charities as part of the launch workshop in July 2025
Ageing society
• Lower birthrates – an aging population with a reduced generation of youth results in fewer family members that can step up as informal carers, attempting to support a larger growing population of people living with long-term conditions
• Care home strain – significant lack of specialised workers to cope with the surge in chronic illnesses occasionally leads to care homes operating with unfilled care roles, low availability for those with complex needs means delays to hospital discharge
• Reducing access to volunteers – increasing work hours and greater pressure on care workers in Jersey negatively impacts the motivation and involvement of volunteers
• Uneven income distribution –the false public assumption that the small proportion of high-income charities are sufficiently supported by the government, resultantly reduces the amount of fundraising from the public
Early years support & development
• Disparity in health and education models – the coexistence of health and education models are often not at the benefit of one another, and health models often overshadow and fail to consider the benefits of educational intervention
• Unequal opportunities in education – a combination of unavailability of nursery placements, underfunded schools and children being placed in the wrong home/school environment leads to unequal educational opportunities, with 25% of children starting secondary school without the essential skills
• Narrow career opportunities – the limited size and variation in the Jersey job market drives young people away from the island early for employment purposes
Health and social care in Jersey: Charity perspectives
Strengths Opportunities Weaknesses Threats
• The focus on preventative health is becoming a societal priority
Preventing ill health
• Some significant public health strategies are in place
• CEO Forum fosters collaboration
• Jersey health cluster groups are working together effectively
• Strong sense of community which promotes trust and belonging
Mental wellbeing
Disabilities & longterm conditions
• Quick decision making and policy implementation
• Trusted working relationships between carers and organisations
• Diversity in mental health services
• Smaller community leads to individualised disability care
• Existing Health Minister and team are pragmatic and collaborative
• Easy to meet with key decision makers / relevant ministers
• Talented base of staff and volunteer workforce available
Ageing society
Early years support / development
• The parish system helps to support the senior population, which will continue to grow in coming years with ageing related healthcare needs
• There is a great availability of highly talented workers specialising in early years development in Jersey
• The parish system reinforces the community collaboration and allows for greater reach of early years support/development
• Insufficient funding despite increasing priority of preventative care
• Inconsistent access to preventative health due to geographical and inequality factors
• Insufficient communication across sector
• Lack of affordable housing in Jersey exacerbates stress and mental health challenges
• Fragmented strategy leads to missed opportunities
• Gaps in mental health literacy impedes early intervention & support
• Priority legislation in Jersey is not centred around disability care
• Perceived oversaturation of charities with same goal in a small population
• There is a need for more joint fundraising events/initiatives
• Lower birthrates year-on-year in Jersey reduces available informal carers to aid the ageing population
• Planning for longer lifetimes as the population further ages leads to an increased strain on hospital capacity
• The desire to maintain the reputation of the island can often supersede other important issues
• Overworked teachers
• Unequal opportunity for all children as 25% of children are starting secondary school without essential skills
Source: Analysis of output from discussions with 14 charities as part of the launch workshop in July 2025
• Anticipation of additional or reallocation of current funding from government to preventative care
• More expansive training on preventative health
• Data sharing increases effectiveness
• Early intervention
• Strong willingness across sectors to work together through working partnerships
• Public awareness campaigns
• Education and early years support to address mental health challenges in the younger population early
• Service provision is expanding to wider age groups as complexity of disabilities care requires it
• Increasing focus on preventative care benefits people with disabilities
• Improved use of data in decision making leads to stronger outcomes
• Later retirement can lead to health benefits in late-stage life
• A career culture encourages working longer, appreciating longevity
• Jersey is home to infrastructure and institutions that encourage youth and elderly interaction, allowing multigenerational living
• New developing plans including free nursery places for 2/3-year-olds
• Advocates to support families in accessing services/family court
• Access to quality housing and services for <5-year residency
• Creating appropriate family accommodation
• New consumer trends which are counter productive to preventative health
• Staff increasingly hard to recruit
• Future pressures (e.g. cost of living) could counter preventative health measures
• Limited and uncertain funding threatens the sustainability of services
• Perceived lack of value placed on mental health in government policy
• Ageing population is likely to increase demand for mental health services
• The large number of charities struggle to compete for scarce resources
• There is a lack of understanding by some of the Jersey public around the health, social and wellbeing care sector which leads to a lack of focus and reduced funding
• Culture of respecting elders and checking in on senior population has deteriorated around younger people
• Fading multi-generational households force older people into isolation
• Lacking quality of specialised workers to cope with surge in chronic illness
• There is an increasing pattern of young people leaving the island due to enhanced career and university opportunities elsewhere
• Lack of access to quality childcare
• The ageing population of Jersey and reduced birthrates makes the need for early years services more fragmented
Operating within the sector: Charity perspectives
Strengths Opportunities Weaknesses Threats
Preventing ill health
Mental wellbeing
• Charities have public trust and engagement to deliver preventative health messaging and care
• Reach of third sector is more extensive relative to other sectors
• More agile than government so actions can happen more quickly
• Charities have a very person-centric approach and strong culture, with staff having freedom to implement change
• High public recognition, which enhances visibility, credibility and potential for partnerships
Disabilities & longterm conditions
Ageing society
• There is a low turnover of skilled disability care staff in Jersey allowing for greater upskilling and service consistency
• Quality of disability care in Jersey is strong because of the skills and knowledge in the market
• Many organisations in the sector are adaptable, resulting in continuous improvements and more catered care towarsd Jersey’s ageing population
• There is a diverse income pool for organisations addressing this issue from commercial operations
• Lead times for delivering of care can mean prevention happens too late
• Hard to measure impact of interventions that prevent mental/intangible illness
• There is inconsistency in preventative health services
• Staff vulnerabilities amongst tightlyran organisations as overburdening a small workforce risks burnout
• Mental health expertise is a newly emerging field so recruitment and training of these skilled staff can be difficult
• Lack of informed commissioning
• Lack of linked up care for islanders due to the scattered service providers
• Lack of defined needs for Jersey leads to a lack of unified direction amongst care providers which can lead to service duplication
• Larger charities tend to dominate
• Charities struggle to keep up with the updating standards of professionalism
• Volunteers are becoming discouraged to contribute as their working hours increase
• The third sector is working collectively to provide education for preventative health interventions
• Data sharing with government has worked well and could be expanded to make data more accessible
• There is an opportunity for education through organisations influencing public perception and policy
• There is a need for organisations to align their policies, engaging with existing reports and recommendations to align services
• There is significant scope for deeper collaboration particularly with the Government of Jersey to drive improvement in disability care
• Training for employers and educating society
• Sharing resources and information
• Jersey has a highly philanthropic population which has strong potential to be steered towards charitable values
• Potential to streamline the third sector through digital transformation and reduce inefficiencies
• The demand for preventative healthcare is likely to increase
• Need and a decreasing priority for funding preventative healthcare charities by the government
• Reduction in volunteer hours
• Misalignment of service delivery plans between government and existing third sector services could lead to service and funding duplication
• Competition for the same funding pool threatens sustainability and collaboration across organisations
• Prejudice/preconceived beliefs reduce willingness to fund disabilities
• Resource poverty in Jersey also reduces funding capabilities
• Government priorities placed elsewhere so funding of disability care is often not viewed as essential
• Limited grants and public fundraising available therefore the charities are fighting over a small pot
• There is a false public assumption that larger charities are sufficiently supported by the government which reduces public fundraising
Early years support / development
• There are several well-sized organisations prepared to cope with Jersey’s demand for early years support
• The nature of the work allows for heavy volunteer involvement
• Charities in this field are collaborative and share knowledge and resources
• There is certainly a lack of availability of data
• The opportunity cost of fundraising is high as that time could be spent providing support
• Lack of representation of all community groups in profession
Source: Analysis of output from discussions with 14 charities as part of the launch workshop in July 2025
• Chances for collaboration between the third sector and government
• Potential for major productivity increases for both young people and staff in the sector due to implementation of new intuitive technology
• There is an overreliance on grants in the funding market of early years support and development
• Changing government priorities also reduce the probability of charity fundraising (or longer-term charity funding)
A shared vision for health, social care & wellbeing in Jersey
Participating charities worked together to build a compelling and shared vision for a healthy, happy, inclusive island community. This is a powerful call to action around which the sector can align and prioritise.
Thematic goals
Preventing ill health
By 2040, prevention is embedded in Jersey’s systems and culture based on education, early intervention and equity
Mental wellbeing
Disabilities & longterm conditions
By 2040, Jersey is a safe, healthy, content, and connected community where all islanders are included and can access the right care at the right time. Care is personalised to leverage their community, family, or personal strengths
Shared vision of success
Ageing society
Early years
support & development
By 2040, islanders recognise Jersey as a thriving and just society. All islanders enjoy fulfilled lives in a society that puts prevention first, is inclusive, is accessible and cares for all.
By 2040, all older islanders in Jersey enjoy long, happy and purposeful lives. Being connected, respected, and empowered, all islanders can have the confidence, comfort, and freedom to lead an accessible and opportunity rich life
By 2040, Jersey is a society that understands and operates in a way that always puts children first and meets all individual children’s needs through a world-leading focus on equity, safety and nurture so that no child is left behind and all children fulfil their potential throughout life
"By 2040, Jersey is celebrated as one of the world’s healthiest and happiest communities. Islanders of every age, ability, and background enjoy long, flourishing lives in a society that puts prevention first and cares without limits, leaving no one behind."
From vision to reality: impacts and conditions required
Building an impact pathway
Achieving this vision requires various enabling conditions to be in place, many of which in turn require collaboration with wider stakeholders or are otherwise outside the direct control of the participating charities in this programme.
The necessary changes, both strategic and operational, required to achieve success, and as perceived by the participating charities, are set out on the following pages in the form of an enriched impact pathway.
In this context, an impact pathway seeks to describe the series of changes expected or required over time to achieve future goals. The programme participants worked back from the vision to agree:
• What enabling conditions had to be in place to achieve the vision?
• What changes needed to happen, in what sequence over the short, medium and long-term, to achieve the vision and the thematic goals?
• What would be a barrier or risk to change if it was missing?
• How do the charities’ current and planned interventions align with and seek to contribute to these changes?
Impact pathways were developed for each of the five thematic areas and have subsequently been amalgamated onto the following pages.
Shared long-term critical enablers across the sector
The impact pathway process found some required conditions that need to be in place for long-term success across all five thematic areas. These are the collective long-term changes the participating charities view as essential to achieving their common goals. Some describe changes in the drivers behind health outcomes, others wider changes in society, and others are changes required with the sector and how it operates in practice.
These enablers (often called long-term changes, or impacts) are below and also feature in the impact pathway later in this section:
Operational & practical enablers
• Accessible services: A cohesive and efficient system that provides islanders with confidence that they will be supported with timely access to interventions through a unified approach across sectors, including accessibility that ranges from infrastructure to ease of transportation across the island, and with skilled carers.
• Collaborative island (government, private and third sector): A cohesive environment where every sector works together seamlessly, with a skilled workforce that is effective and inclusive, ensuring coordinated public health messaging and resource sharing, effectively addressing community needs.
• Financial resilience: A sustainable funding model that recognises the value of the charities, whilst showing improvements in external factors such as the cost of living and housing affordability, ensuring ongoing investment in impactful services and public health initiatives.
• Richer storytelling (data sharing): Enhanced data exchange and quality between charities and government to inform effective policy development and streamline services, using qualitative and outcome-based reporting, ultimately raising awareness of the importance of each thematic area.
Societal changes
• Reduced stigma: Island-wide awareness of health nuances, accessible treatment pathways and a cultural shift that reduces stigma surrounding health and social care and their providers would allow for stronger public confidence and support.
• Empowered islanders: No matter their demographic, islanders better understand what activities may impact their physical and mental health in later life, are confident that they will be supported in crisis, and are informed and empowered to take action.
• Fulfilled childhoods: Islanders can feel confident they are provided with the resources and knowledge to raise happy children after and in the run up to childbirth. No matter their background, islanders lead fulfilling childhoods, are fed well and supported to ensure they do not suffer from physical or mental ailments. All children progress through their academic journey without hinderance and are provided with various opportunities and career paths.
• Cost of living: Islanders see improvements in external factors, such as the cost of living and housing affordability, easing pressure on their mental wellbeing and in turn the supporting services.
From vision to reality: a pathway for change and impact
Building the foundations for impact valuation
In the context of this programme, the impact pathway process serves two purposes:
• To support strategic positioning, collaboration and programming across the sector
• To strengthen collective understanding of how the sector drives change as a basis for undertaking quantitative impact assessment and valuations.
The impact pathway summary across the next two pages therefore comprises both an overview of expected changes and some of the valuation components, as illustrated below.
• People and resources committed and used by the participating charities
• Interventions and other activities performed by the participating charities
• Short and medium-term changes arising
• Economic and social value arising
• Long-term changes arising
• Collective long-term critical enablers
• Second-order, indirect value arising
• What success looks like
“It is hard to put into words how much youthful minds has helped me as young person.”
MIND
JERSEY
“I can’t praise them enough …. they’re like a family and I’m very thankful and very happy with their excellent service.”
JERSEY CHESHIRE HOME
Short- and medium-term changes needed for progress
Inputs Interim (short- and medium-term) outcomes Outputs
• Improvements in managing data (cross-sector sharing, presentation, centralisation, analysis, integrity and quality)
• Enhanced impact measurement
Source: Analysis of output from charity discussions as part of the launch workshop in July 2025
Longer-term changes needed for progress
& long-term conditions Preventing Ill health
Increased early detections
Expanded access to quality services
Reduced healthdamaging choices
Reduced financial barriers
Reinforced sustainable funding
Strengthened public health reputation
Increased policy advocacy
Improved youth outcomes
Engaged hard to reach groups
Appreciated third sector value
Strengthened voices within the sector
Expanded range of funding methods
Sustained and increased government support
Improved crosssector referral systems
Increased mental wellness services
Increased lived experience third sector participation
Greater community participation
Improved school outcomes
• Improved reporting
• Expanded client-centric data
• Improved reporting and campaigning
Reduced financial competition
Strengthened longterm financing
Sustained and increased government support
Increased service accessibility
Improved service quality
Reduced left-behind cases
Increased policy representation
Increased public support
• Reduced gaps in health data Mental wellbeing Ageing society Early years
Source: Analysis of
Improved long-term funding
Improved charitable and age-considerate culture
Increased long-term health planning
Increased funding for carers and third sector
Elongated retirement age
Reduced care service strain
Strengthened legislative presence
Strengthened bridges between generations
Reduced isolation
Improved long-term financing
Increased funding and resourcing
Increased government support
Reduced child services strain
Reduced families reaching crisis point
Reduced teacher burnout
Improved education outcomes
Increased child safety & wellbeing
Increased teacher safeguarding skillsets
Empowered islanders Collaborative island
Reduced stigma
childhoods
"By 2040, Jersey is celebrated as one of the world’s healthiest and happiest communities. Islanders of every age, ability, and background enjoy long, flourishing lives in a society that puts prevention first and cares without limits, leaving no one behind."
Section 3 | Insights about
the participating health, social care and wellbeing charities in Jersey
“People like me would be lost without the services and support you provide. You provide us with the knowledge and experience, tools and training to keep living a life, although that may look different to others. You make us feel that we matter and are not invisible to the world.”
JERSEY EMPLOYMENT TRUST
About the health, social care & wellbeing charities
About the participating charities
Charities were invited to participate through the Health and Care Charities CEO Forum and represent a diverse cross-section of Jersey’s locally-focused health, social care and wellbeing charities, in terms of areas of focus, size and scale of operations.
The 14 charities provide services ranging from direct care and residential support through to education and employment-focused services. Further information about their collective size and reach is shown right.
The programme sought to take a top-down methodological approach to quantifying impact and value, in order to both provide efficiencies across the cohort in the relatively limited time available and offer a consistent programme-wide view.
This inevitably means that some charities’ service areas and target beneficiaries fitted better into the methodology than others. The analysis effectively captures a proportion or “slice” of each charity’s total social and economic value, taking into account differences in service types, beneficiary age groups, and levels of care. This approach groups the charities into three main types:
Education-focused charities typically show high economic but lower social value, as economic uplift is more straightforward to quantify than wellbeing gains.
Health/wellbeing-focused charities tend to demonstrate high social value due to significant improvements in wellbeing, though their economic value may be moderate.
Employment-focused / residential home charities demonstrate both higher economic and social metrics, depending on how their impact is distributed between economic and social outcomes.
Source: Analysis of Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
1. Beresford Street Kitchen 2. Brighter Futures 3. Dementia Jersey 4. Enable Jersey*
5. Every Child Our Future 6. Family Nursing & Home Care 7. Freeda
8. Jersey Cheshire Home
9. Jersey Employment Trust
10. Les Amis
11. Macmillan Cancer Support Jersey
12. Mind Jersey
13. Sanctuary Trust
14. The Shelter Trust
* Enable Jersey participated in this programme’s workshop sessions but do not form part of the programme-wide quantitative analysis, so are not included in the metrics on this page.
Profile of charities participating in this pilot Impact Accelerator Programme
In 2024, charities spent most (36%) of activity time supporting disabilities and long-term conditions, whilst mental wellbeing accounted for 42% of health impact
Time spent by participating charities supporting the five priority thematic areas
Participating charities were asked to estimate the proportion of their time spent supporting each of the five priority thematic areas, showing where they focus most of their resource time.
Our research found a high proportion of time spent does not necessarily equate to high quantified impact. Some thematic areas are relatively resource intensive but have relatively low health value impacts that were in scope to be assessed in this programme. This is due to the nature of services and conditions treated.
For example, in 2024, the largest share of support time was allocated to disabilities & long-term conditions, yet the greatest health impact value is seen in mental wellbeing, which also serves a larger number of beneficiaries. This is perhaps not surprising given the nature of care services:
• Disabilities and long-term conditions: People often need sustained, resource-intensive support, such as residential care, specialist equipment, and ongoing therapeutic interventions As a result, the cost per beneficiary is higher, but the incremental health impact value gained (measured in QALY/WELLBY* improvements) tends to be smaller. This is because improvements in quality of life for those with chronic conditions are often gradual and limited by the severity and persistence of their health challenges.
• Mental wellbeing: Support services achieve the greatest health impact value and reaches the most beneficiaries, especially younger and working-age islanders, due to broader, less resource-intensive interventions that can significantly improve measurable health impacts for what can often be “reversable” health conditions.
• Preventing ill health, and early years support also show strong reach and impact, benefiting diverse age groups through education and early intervention. Resources dedicated to Jersey’s ageing society had a moderate impact.
This pattern highlights how the nature and intensity of care, as well as beneficiary age profiles, drive differences in both spending and outcomes across the programme and is reflective of the wider sector.
Source: Economic analysis of Health Impact Survey data from 13 charities and subsequent follow-up data submitted by charities by email
*QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) and WELLBY (Wellbeing Adjusted Life Year) are measures of health and life satisfaction improvements; see Section 4 and the Appendix for more detailed explanation
In 2024, the majority of charity activity hours (88%) were focused on delivery of services
directly to care recipients
Charities provide a wide range of activities, including condition-specific awareness training, inclusive workplace planning, therapeutic employment models, diversity and inclusion campaigns, family support, counselling, bereavement support and skills development. In our Community Outcome Survey, we asked participating charities to categorise their activities by staff and volunteer hours across four key beneficiary groups, as shown below:
• Care recipients: 88% of all activities were delivered directly to individuals receiving care (816,444 hours out of 926,989 total paid hours of service provided).
Personal and nursing care services had the highest hours (74%, 606,538 hours), followed by education and skills development (7%, 59,025 hours). This illustrates the sector’s role in enhancing wellbeing and independence for a diverse range of care recipients.
•Carers: 4% of activities targeted carers, including both professional staff and informal carers such as family members (36,535 hours of services delivered). Survey results indicated that most time was spent delivering experience-based and peer training (27%,
9,910 hours), workshops and awareness training (22%, 7,878 hours), and volunteer training (18%, 6,768 hours). This investment in carers helps maintain high standards of care and supports the sustainability of the workforce.
•Family members: 5% of time reported activities were for family members of care recipients (49,752 hours of services delivered). Services in this category included family and parenting support (46%, 22,696 hours), family counselling & emotional support (28%, 14,040 hours), and respite services (17%, 8,253 hours). The spread of activities demonstrates recognition that health and social care challenges affect entire
households, and that supporting families is essential for long-term wellbeing.
•Businesses and government: 3% of activities engaged businesses and government stakeholders, comprising condition-specific awareness training (35%, 8,393 hours), diversity, equity & inclusion campaigns (34%, 8,363 hours), and therapeutic employment models (16%, 3,768 hours) as areas of focus. This engagement helps drive broader societal change, raises awareness, and promotes inclusive practices across Jersey.
Source: Analysis of Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
Breakdown of services delivered by % of service hours for each beneficiary group
In 2024, 1,167 volunteers contributed 64,029 volunteering hours to participating charities, with an estimated market value of £2.7m
The value of volunteering
Volunteer activity is defined as unpaid hours contributed by individuals supporting charity operations and service delivery.
In our methodology, volunteers are classified by role (e.g. direct care, administration, professional support) and their hours are valued using Jersey-adjusted Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) salary bands (see Appendix for details).
• Our Community Outcome Survey results indicate that 13 participating charities reported 1,167 volunteers who collectively contributed over 64,000 hours of their time in 2024.
• The estimated market value of this volunteering contribution is £2.68m. This represents the equivalent market value of the roles if they were paid a salary in Jersey.
• Volunteer roles included provision of direct support for beneficiaries, administrative assistance, and professional expertise, ensuring charities can operate efficiently and responsively.
• The chart breaks down volunteer roles by SOC category, showing the distribution of skills and functions. Perhaps surprisingly, the largest category of volunteers is Managers, Directors and Senior Officials, which includes volunteer board directors and trustees. This is followed by Administrative and Secretarial roles, and Professional (technical) roles. This reflects the sector’s reliance on both skilled and general volunteers.
• Survey results indicate that 70% of volunteering hours were dedicated to direct care recipients, whilst 18% of time was spent supporting carers, 9% assisting family members, and 3% allocated to engaging with business and government stakeholders. This level of engagement not only reduces costs but also strengthens community ties and encourages civic participation.
• Volunteers outnumber paid staff two to one, reflecting a strong culture of volunteerism and community involvement in Jersey's third sector. However, the survey found out that staff hours were approximately 14 times greater than volunteer hours, not least due to some charities providing 24-hour paid staff support for their care recipients.
Managers, Directors & Senior Officials
Professional Associate
Professional & Technical
Administrative & Secretarial
Skilled Trades
Caring, Leisure & Other Service
Sales & Customer Service
Process, Plant & Machine Operatives
Elementary Occupations
Comparison of time spent by volunteer and paid workers in 2024 (survey output)
Source: Analysis of Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
In 2024, participating charities generated £38.3m of income, most of which was from long-term service delivery contracts
£14.4m
£9.9m
Charity income in 2024 by source (£m)
£5.3m
Sources of income
Participating charities were asked for a breakdown of their sources of income in Community Outcome Survey and reported total income in 2024 of £38.3 million.
Long-term government contracts formed the greatest proportion of income in 2024. However it is important to note only around half of the participating charities received any such funding, and the data are skewed by a couple of charities that had large delivery contracts.
As shown above, other non-government sources of funding were also significant:
• Reported income from long–term contracts that are not with the government (£9.9m), earned income from trading activities (£2.5m), investment (£0.7m) and subscriptions (£0.1m) were also significant, totalling £13.2 million (one-third of total income). Of the £9.9m of non-government long-term contracts, nearly two-thirds of this income (£6.5m) was with other third sector organisations and the remaining third (£3.4m) with private sector commercial organisations.
• Grants, at £5.3m, represent 14% of total income, although the source of these grants was not captured at this time.
• Consistent with the case for growing Jersey’s culture of philanthropy, reported income from gifts and donations was also material at £3.7 million (10% of total). Nearly two-thirds of the total gifts and donations (£2.4 million) came from private individuals, £0.7 million from corporate donations and £0.3 million from government donations.
• Continuing to diversify funding and secure more long-term flexible funding remains a high priority for the continued financial sustainability of the sector. Securing further gifts, donations and in-kind support (see next page) from generous individuals and corporates is vital for the charities to ensure resources can be directed to where they are needed most.
Source: Analysis of Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
In 2024, participating charities also secured £1m of in-kind contributions the majority of which was in rent relief
relief or free use of office/treatment space Donated equipment or furniture
bono professional services (e.g., legal, IT, training)
The critical role of in-kind contributions and support to supplement charity income
In-kind support provides essential resources that help charities deliver services more effectively.
Our Community Outcome Survey asked charities to report the value and type of in-kind support received in 2024:
• The 13 participating charities reported receiving £960,356 in non-cash support, including rent relief, donated equipment, and pro bono professional services.
• Rent relief alone accounted for £896,476, allowing charities to allocate more funds directly to service provision.
• Donated equipment and professional services (such as legal services, IT, and training) further reduced operational costs and enhanced service quality.
• These contributions demonstrate strong community and stakeholder engagement and helped charities remain financially sustainable in a challenging funding environment.
• By leveraging in-kind support, charities can maximise their impact and ensure resources are directed where they are needed most.
Source: Analysis of Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
In 2024, delivery of long-term public sector contracts required subsidy by the charities to “crowd
As set out above, government funding is an important source of income for some of the participating charities in the sector, with long-term government contracts totalling £14.43m in 2024, accounting for 38% of total funding. Only around half the participating charities had long-term government contracts. Of those that did, for some this is a very significant proportion of their funding, whilst for others it is small.
• Such funding is of key importance for the sector and remains vital for sustaining essential services. This support goes beyond covering operational costs; it underpins employment, creates volunteering opportunities and strengthens community engagement.
• Further analysis of income sources highlights how the participating charities structure their funding, the extent of their reliance on government contracts, and also notably the extent of their subsidies towards delivery of these contracts. Such so-called subsidies arise when the contracted government funding provision does not meet the full costs of a programme or intervention. Instead, charities crowd in additional funds to make up the difference, either in formal co-funding or other ways of crowding in income or donations from other sources.
• The survey therefore also examined the subsidy required to deliver public sector contracts. Responses varied with some charities subsidising 10% of costs, others 40%, and some more than 50%.
• Across the cohort, these subsidies were estimated at £2.86 million. This is significant, as it shows charities are absorbing substantial costs to ensure public services are delivered effectively. It also demonstrates the ability of these charities to make public funding go further, whilst balancing this against a need for long-term financial sustainability and planning.
Source: Analysis of Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
in” £2.9m of further funds
Community Outcome Survey question: Which, if any, of the following statements reflect your organisation when it comes to delivering public sector contracts (e.g. Government of Jersey, Parishes)?
Must use other sources of income such as fundraising - crowding in funds
Consortia with organisations to bid for contracts
Contracts delivered uplifted in line with inflation
None of these Other
A note on how we have adjusted government funding to account for charity subsidies to deliver public sector contracts
The social value created by delivering services through longterm government contracts is made possible by both government funding and additional charity contributions. To accurately assess net savings to government (see Section 6), we adjust the reported government funding by subtracting the charity subsidy, ensuring only the net government contribution is offset against the social value generated.
As a result, the government funding figure is reduced from £14.43 million to £11.57 million.
Unadjusted
Adjusted
In 2024, charities delivered over £39m in total service value, including £4.73m in benefits transfer for care recipients alone
Benefits transfer is a way to measure the wellbeing or economic benefit that people receive from charity services, beyond what they pay (which is often nothing where charity services are free at the point of use). It helps us understand how market outcomes affect those who use these services. For example, someone accessing free counselling receives a benefit that would otherwise have cost them privately. The value of the service to the beneficiary, less the actual price paid, is the benefits transfer, and is a component of the social value created.
In our analysis we estimated benefits transfer totalling £4.73 million.
This was estimated by multiplying reported staff and volunteer hours for each beneficiary group by Jersey-adjusted salary rates for 9 SOC levels*, then applying sector GVA multipliers to reflect wider economic impact. For full methodology and calculation details, please see the Appendix. The results show:
• Care recipients: The largest share of value generated by both staff and volunteers was directed to individuals receiving care. In 2024, care recipients benefited from services valued at £4.13 million (staff) and £79,678 (volunteers). This represents the value of support, therapy, and care that individuals received without having to pay privately, resulting in a direct financial and wellbeing gain for those most in need.
• Carers: Formal and informal carers benefited from targeted support, with staff generating £175,790 in value and volunteers contributing £920 in social value. These activities included training, respite, and emotional support, helping carers maintain their own wellbeing and continue providing essential care. Supporting carers is critical for sustaining the overall care system and reducing pressure on public services.
• Family members: Family members of care recipients saved a total of £215,462 in 2024 by receiving support from charities, such as counselling, parenting advice etc. This amount represents what families would have had to pay out of pocket for these services if they were not provided by the charity sector. The benefit is a real financial saving for families, making it easier for them to cope and support their loved ones.
• Business and government: The sector’s work also delivered measurable benefits to businesses and government, with staff generating £125,975 and volunteers £164 in value. This includes activities such as workplace training, awareness campaigns, and collaborative projects that improve workforce wellbeing, reduce absenteeism, and support public health objectives.
Source: Analysis of Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
Section 4 | Contributions to health impacts: how the charities help improve islanders’ lives
“We love having these opportunities which are the only chance for most of our children to experience stories in this way."
EVERY CHILD OUR FUTURE
Health impacts: improving lives across Jersey
This section presents the results of the Health Impact Survey, which gathered information about the difference the participating charities make for care recipients and carers (including family members).
Charities contributed data about changes in quality of life, reductions in demand for public services (also see Section 5) and improvements across different age groups and conditions.
The survey focused on changes in wellbeing and quality of life, using two internationally recognised health metrics i.e. Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) and Wellbeing Adjusted Life Years (WELLBY), to provide a robust assessment of impact.
Why QALY and WELLBY?
• Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY): QALY combines length and quality of life into a single measure, commonly used in health economics to assess the effectiveness of treatments. It allows us to compare the impact of different interventions across a range of conditions, using data on beneficiaries’ quality of life before and after receiving support. QALY is especially relevant for conditionspecific outcomes and is valued at £70,000 per unit, in line with HM Treasury guidance.
• Wellbeing Adjusted Life Years (WELLBY): WELLBY captures improvements in overall life satisfaction, reflecting broader social and emotional benefits. It is valued at £15,300 per unit and is particularly useful for measuring the impact of services that enhance wellbeing beyond clinical health, such as counselling, peer support, and family interventions.
Limitations of QALY and WELLBY
Conditions assessed using QALY/WELLBY for care recipients
Despite the wide applicability of the such health metrics, QALY and WELLBY still carry some limitations for assessing health impact.
QALY is limited in capturing improvements at birth and end-of-life, and does not reflect nonhealth aspects like dignity or autonomy. WELLBY, while broader, is also difficult to apply in end-of-life or palliative care due to varying deadweight (i.e., improvements may have occurred anyway, especially in young age groups, or there is little measurable gain in old age). Additionally, neither metric captures the educational uplift or the value of programmes like school readiness, where deadweight is typically very high for early age interventions.
Other health metrics, such as Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY), were also considered. However, based on the selected charities, their focused services and the conditions assessed throughout the programme, limiting metrics to solely QALY and WELLBY was most logical approach for the scope of this programme. Despite this, there may be an opportunity for these metrics to be incorporated into future impact accelerator programmes.
Arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions
Dementia
Neurological disorders
Hearing and visual impairments
Respiratory diseases
Autism and neurodevelopmental disorders
Down syndrome
Mental health disorders
Substance addictions
Cardiovascular diseases
Diabetes Cancer
Pregnancy complications and stress
Other: Domestic abuse, homelessness, incurable diseases, other learning disabilities etc
Types of service offered to carers and assessed using WELLBY
Counselling, Creative & Therapeutic Support
Peer Support & Group
Activities
Family & Parenting Support
Bereavement & Trauma Support
Nature-Based & Creative
Therapies
Resettlement & Supported
Living
Every improvement in QALY or WELLBY reflects a tangible gain in quality of life, whether through better health interventions by charities resulting in enhanced wellbeing, or stronger support networks for families and carers
in quality of life and wellbeing for 11,557 direct beneficiaries valued at an estimated £57m
Health impact across all beneficiary groups
Priority thematic area split by beneficiary age group3
Ageing society
Disabilities and long-term conditions
Early years support and development
Mental wellbeing
Preventing ill health
Aged 15 & under
Aged 16 to 34
Aged 35 to 49
Aged 50 to 65
Aged 65 & over
For this analysis, charities reported the number of beneficiaries and the value delivered across 13 major health conditions,segmented by age group. The data highlights the extent of support provided, from children to older adults.
• Mental wellbeing saw the highest number of beneficiaries (2,215) and the health impact value generated (£21.18m) with the largest beneficiary age group being 16 to 49
• Early years support and development accounted for 1,669 beneficiaries, with a significant focus on the younger age groups, as would be expected, delivering £12.10m in health impact value. This thematic area is focussed on one condition autism and neurodevelopmental disorders
• Children (aged 15 and under) are the largest beneficiary group in the disability and long-term conditions
• Older adults (aged over 50) are the largest beneficiary group in preventing ill health and ageing society which is strongly influenced by the health impact from both cancer and dementia care
1. Dementia is mapped to both the Ageing society and Preventing ill health thematic areas; its value has been split equally between the two thematic areas to ensure no duplication.
2. Number of beneficiaries include direct care recipients whose QALY and WELLBY assessment were provided by charities
3. This is for beneficiaries where the age groups was stated in the survey. More than one third did not specify an age group
Source: Analysis of Health Impact Survey data from 13 charities
In 2024, charities also provided vital support to carers and families, delivering practical help, emotional support and specialist services valued at an estimate of £14.4m
Health impact across other beneficiary groups (formal and informal carers e.g. family members)
For this analysis, we asked charities to report the number of carers and family members supported through a range of services. The data shows the extent of help provided, from emotional support to practical assistance:
• Counselling, creative, and therapeutic support reached 2,620 people, delivering £3.26 million in value.
• Peer support and group activities benefited 2,965 individuals, valued at £3.29 million.
• Family and parenting support provided £5.28 million in value to 2,816 beneficiaries.
• Bereavement and trauma support reached 1,217 people, with £1.45 million in value.
• Nature-based and creative therapies supported 705 people, valued at £0.81 million.
• Resettlement and supported living helped 113 people, valued at £0.13 million.
• Other support services reached 232 people, valued at £0.21 million.
Source: Analysis of Health Impact / Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
Beneficiary count by service
Counselling, Creative & Therapeutic Support
Peer Support & Group Activities
Family & Parenting Support
Bereavement & Trauma Support
Nature-Based & Creative Therapies
Resettlement & Supported Living
Other
10,668
Section 5 | Contributions to society: how the charities provide economic and social value to the island
“Macmillan Jersey is an incredible charity. They put the wellbeing of others at the heart of everything they do, offering invaluable support to people affected by cancer, without ever asking for thanks. I deeply admire the strength and compassion it takes to support others through something as life changing as cancer.”
MACMILLAN JERSEY
How charities provide economic & social value to the island
This section presents the results of Community Outcome Survey together with components of the Health Impact Survey. Whilst the previous Section 4 covered the health impact of conditions and services using QALY and WELLBY, this section gives a broader overview of Economic, Social and Environmental value metrics.
Measurable changes in wellbeing, economic participation, and environmental resilience result from the work of the participating charities. In this way, we can illustrate how funding translates into tangible benefits for individuals, families, and wider island society.
We have looked through three different value domains:
• Economic value: The total economic contribution generated by charities, including remuneration of employees, the market value of volunteering, in-kind contributions, and benefits transfer, as well as the output multiplier effect on the local economy.
• Social value: Improvements in individual and collective wellbeing are assessed using QALY and WELLBY, as in Section 4. However, beyond these health-related measures, social value also captures wider benefits including savings to public expenditure resulting from health interventions, uplift in educational attainment, and the employment effect, whether through placing individuals into work, sustaining existing employment, or enabling family members to enter the workforce. Additional factors include avoided social care costs and other reductions in demand for public services, all of which contribute to a stronger, more resilient community.
• Environmental value: Positive changes in environmental sustainability, such as carbon emissions avoided, renewable energy produced, waste reduction, recycling, and biodiversity initiatives.
Total net impact value is the total monetary value created by the participating charities, calculated by summing only non-overlapping and distinct economic, social, and environmental impacts, ensuring that no impact is double-counted across categories.
The flowchart below illustrates how charity operations and services have been assessed for contributions to economic, social and environmental value, which together comprise the total net impact value. Please see Section 2 for more details about the impact pathway, and the Appendix for further methodology details.
In 2024, for every £1 spent, charities generated £1.77 in direct and indirect economic value, adding over £62m in estimated economic value to the island
The total monetary value created by participating charities, measured using monetary contributions (e.g. staff remuneration), voluntary contributions (e.g. market value of volunteering) and savings contributions (e.g. savings versus private sector delivery) before deducting associated costs, expenses or losses. £62.17m
For every £1 spent by participating charities, an estimated direct and indirect economic value of £1.77 is generated.
Investment/Costs Benefits :
Economic value is created both directly (through jobs, salaries, and services) and indirectly (by supporting local suppliers, enabling volunteering, and reducing costs for families and government). The value comprises three core components that have been estimated based on data provided by the participating charities:
• Monetary contributions: reflect the direct financial resources invested in the sector, including staff remuneration and operational spending
• Voluntary contributions: capture the market value of hours provided by volunteers, whose skills and commitment significantly extend the reach and effectiveness of charity services. It also includes in-kind support such as donated facilities or equipment
• Savings contributions: represented by benefits transfer, reflect expenditure that people save via free or low-cost services from charities they would otherwise pay for
The ratio of input costs and investments to economic value created provides the Economic Cost-Benefit Ratio as illustrated above.
Please see the Appendix for more detailed methodology and assumptions.
Source: Analysis of Health Impact / Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
In 2024, for every £1 spent, charities generated £2.66 in social value, spending £35.4m to add an estimated £89m in
improved wellbeing & better quality of life benefits
Social Value
£89.06m
The total monetary value created by participating charity activities, measured using wellbeing and health improvement metrics (e.g. QALY, WELLBY) and savings to public expenditure (e.g. avoided healthcare costs, employment effects), before deducting any associated costs, expenses or losses.
Social cost : benefit ratio
£1 : £2.66 For every £1 spent by participating charities, an estimated social value of £2.66 is generated.
Investment/Costs
:
Social value is estimated by measuring the improvements in wellbeing and quality of life that charities help create for people in Jersey. This covers the positive changes experienced by care recipients, the support given to family members and carers, and wider benefits that reach the whole community. The main components that make up social value are below, and have been estimated based on data provided by the participating charities:
• Improvements in health and wellbeing: measured using QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years) and WELLBY (Wellbeing Adjusted Life Years), which assign a financial value to better health and life satisfaction
• Support for carers and families: including counselling, peer support, and parenting programmes that help reduce stress and strengthen family relationships
• Broader community benefits: such as helping people feel less isolated and encouraging participation in education and employment
The ratio of input costs and investments to social value created provides the Social Cost-Benefit Ratio as illustrated above. Please see the Appendix for more detailed methodology and assumptions.
Participating charities also play important roles in creating positive environmental impact, not yet fully captured
The intersection between charity activities and environmental impact
Operating charity organisations and delivering core services require natural resources (such as energy and water) and procurement of goods. Examples include heating and lighting in buildings, purchase of equipment and consumables, travel and transport of staff, volunteers and beneficiaries where necessary. Charities also create waste through their operations. These all have a range of associated direct or indirect environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions. Several of the participating charities are making proactive efforts to reduce these environmental impacts, often with associated operating cost reductions, such as through energy efficiency measures or a switch to electric vehicles, both of which can reduce fuel bills.
But this is only part of the story. The participating charities also undertake a range of functions, operations and commercial services for wider positive environmental benefit. Examples include supporting reuse of donated secondhand consumer goods through charity shops, repurposing and upcycling furniture and other items, collection and recycling of waste products, onsite renewable energy generation. These in turn are important exemplars of what is possible in our small island in tackling waste, reducing our emissions, and harnessing the opportunities presented by a circular economy.
The agreed scope of this impact accelerator programme is to focus on economic and social value, and it has not been possible to undertake a full environmental impact assessment and valuation process at this time. This could be a future extension of the approach in the future.
However, to strengthen the robustness of the total net impact value (as described earlier in this section), we used a topdown approach to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with each charity’s expenditure, apply a value for cost to society, and include that in the calculation.
Estimating the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions
The estimate comprised the following:
• Participating charities’ annual expenditure was converted to greenhouse gas emissions (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e)) using Jersey-relevant emissions factors. This suggests that, in 2024, the charities were responsible for an estimated 730 tCO2e arising from operations such as heating premises, electricity usage, and disposal of non-recyclable waste.
• As above, it was not possible to capture and value a full range of positive environmental impacts at this time. However, data provided from the participating charities did enable netting off of 28 tCO2e from this total, the majority of which was due to 26MWh of renewable energy produced on site at charity premises, plus avoided emissions from waste recycling.
• This resulted in 702 tCO2e estimated net greenhouse gas emissions for 2024, with an associated social cost of £0.19m in 2024, thereby slightly reducing the overall total net impact value of the participating charities. Whilst not the full picture for the reasons above, it is a starting point upon which to build for the future. Please see the Appendix for further methodology details.
An initial estimated total monetary cost arising from participating charity activities, measured using environmental impact metrics (greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy generated and recycling), adjusted where appropriate by deadweight and attribution, before deducting any associated costs, expenses or losses.
Source: Analysis of Community Outcome Survey data from 13 charities
Section 6 | Benefits and savings to the public purse: how the charities reduce public sector burdens
“The staff are so caring and have supported me to become more independent.”
LES AMIS
Participating charities are drivers of system-wide value for Jersey: from individual support to public savings
As described throughout this report, participating charities generate measurable value for Jersey’s health and social care system in multiple ways.
By supporting people to manage their health, enabling earlier hospital discharge, providing employment support and reducing reliance on state-funded care, charities help avoid unnecessary hospital admissions, emergency visits and ambulance callouts. These interventions free up vital resources, reduce waiting times, and improve patient flow. Additionally, by helping individuals enter or remain in work, charities increase tax revenue and reduce welfare costs.
Collectively, these effects translate into savings for government, and a more resilient, efficient and diversified public service system. In addition, improved quality of life and wellbeing outcomes for individuals and families, plus the wider contribution of the sector to Jersey’s economy, support delivery of the government’s strategic priorities, such as under the current Common Strategic Policy 2023-2026 and the Island Outcome Indicators for sustainable wellbeing.
In this section, we explore gross and net direct savings to government in more detail, whilst mindful these should be considered in the above wider context.
Helping people avoid going to hospital (preventing admissions)
Helping people avoid ambulance call-outs & A&E visits
Increased hospital capacity available Reduced hospital admissions Reduced emergency (A&E) visits, Less pressure on emergency departments
Charities provide employment support
Extending Employment Placing into Employment
Enabling Employment
Charities provide social care and nursing services More people stay in work More people enter work
Provide clinical care at home or in community
Reduced waiting time
Hospital beds freed up, other patients admitted sooner Faster, more effective emergency care, improved emergency response times
Increased tax revenue, social security contribution
Family members enter or stay in work Increased tax revenue, social security contributions Increased tax revenue, social security contribution, Avoided social benefit costs
Improved wellbeing for individuals and families
Avoided hospital admissions or delayed entry to fulltime care (Covered in health interventions)
Provide tailored support (e.g., for complex needs, palliative, disability) Prevented placement in nonspecialist residential homes (which are less effective considering Palliative care and end of life care patients)
Incremental increase in quality of life and life satisfaction Fiscal
In 2024, participating charities generated £17.8m in public savings and tax gains. Net savings after government funding were
Net savings to public expenditure & tax gain
Limitations:
These estimates are derived from data and counterfactuals provided by participating charities. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, important limitations are:
• Data gaps: Not all charities could provide complete data for every area of their operations. In some cases, information on beneficiary numbers, activity volumes or outcomes was unavailable. Where data was missing, impacts are not included and reported savings are likely understated.
Gross savings:
• This is the total value of cost reductions and tax/social security gains delivered by the charities, estimated at £17.8m in 2024.
• The largest contributions came from health interventions (£7.15m), social care savings (£5.58m), and employment effects.
• The savings include monetary values associated with avoided hospital admissions, reduced social care costs, and more people moving into or staying in work.
• This demonstrates the top line positive effect of the charities for public finances, including the positive effect on government tax and social security receipts.
Net savings:
• Some of the participating charities are contracted by government to deliver services* (see Section 3). This funding is therefore accounted for to produce net savings to government arising from the programme cohort as a whole.
• The net position is estimated by subtracting government funding provided to charities (adjusted for charity subsidy/crowding-in funds** as per Section 3).
• As shown above, in 2024, net savings to public expenditure were approximately £3.06 million, whilst employment support generated around £3.2 million of tax gains. This resulted in a total net benefit to government of approximately £6.23 million.
• Whilst some high government funding offset the gross savings, the sector delivers a net positive return. This should also be set in the context of the wider benefits the charities provide for government objectives and islanders’ quality of life, as set out on the previous page but not captured here.
• Counterfactual assumptions: Government savings calculations rely on each charity’s assessment of what would have happened without their services. For activities like , early age intervention, and child safeguarding, published evidence for robust counterfactuals is limited.
As a result, the savings figures could be regarded as conservative. Full savings to the public purse are likely to be higher, given the range of services, the diversity of beneficiary needs, and the levels of care provided across different age groups. The 13 charities are only one part of the wider charity ecosystem working in collaboration with government and contributing savings to the public purse.
Gross savings to public expenditure & tax gain
Health interventions in context: in 2024, the 13 participating charities reached significant proportions of affected islanders and reduced hospital bed days by an estimated 8%
What proportion of islanders with relevant health conditions did the participating charities reach?
At the time of our analysis in 2025, Jersey’s health statistics provided prevalence data for 2023, which we have used as a baseline for comparison.
When compared to Jersey’s 2023 baseline (and thus assuming similar total people affected in 2024), the 13 participating health, social care and wellbeing charities reached a significant proportion of affected islanders across key health conditions through their health interventions. For example, in 2024, charities supported 36% of people with multi-morbidity, 24% of those with dementia, and 23% of those with cancer.
What proportion of acute and emergency care health events were avoided due to participating charities’ interventions and services?
The reach of participating charities contributed to a material share of recorded health events being avoided in 2024.
The data suggest that participating charities could have contributed to avoiding 8% of all hospital bed days, 14% of emergency visits and 4% of ambulance callouts recorded in Jersey that year.
These achievements demonstrate the value of community-based prevention and early intervention, relevant not least as the burden of chronic disease and multi-morbidity will increase substantially in the coming decades.2 The scale of the future need underscores the critical and growing role that charities must play in supporting Jersey’s health and social care system and reducing pressure on government provided services.
Extent of programme reach across selected health conditions in Jersey using baseline data (2023) and this programme’s Health Impact Survey data (2024)
Comparison of total health events (2023) and avoided cases due to contributions from participating charity interventions in 2024, using baseline data (2023) and this programme’s Health Impact Survey data (2024)
Sources:
1. Government of Jersey, The case for Prevention - Director of Public Health Annual Report, 2024
2. Public Health Jersey, Disease projection report 2023 – 2053, 2024
3. Analysis of Health Impact Survey data from 13 charities
* We assume charity interventions also saved an equivalent number of cases in 2023, and the 2023 baseline data is therefore net of this number. % of reduction is calculated from the gross position.
Section 7 | Moving forward: opportunities for the sector
“If it wasn’t for Brighter Futures people, our kids wouldn’t have the life that we have now. You showed us courage and never gave up on us, and you never gave up on me”
BRIGHTER FUTURES
There are compelling opportunities for further strengthening Jersey’s health, social care & wellbeing charity sector
Identifying opportunities
A key objective of this pilot impact accelerator programme is to strengthen the island’s health, social care and wellbeing charities through:
• An enhanced strategic narrative and impact assessment capability
• Opportunities to improve collaboration, productivity and effectiveness
Section 1 of this report set out the strategic case for change, whilst Section 2 of this report elaborates myriad challenges and opportunities for health, social care and wellbeing charities on the island, drawn together into a long-term vision for the future and impact pathway.
What actions can we take to make progress towards a shared vision in which “Jersey is celebrated as one of the world’s healthiest and happiest communities. Islanders of every age, ability, and background enjoy long, flourishing lives in a society that puts prevention first and cares without limits, leaving no one behind” ?
In this section, we pick up themes have that emerged through the programme journey. We also reflect on our learning to date from this pilot programme. To do so we have brought together insights gathered from:
• All the participating charities during a session on opportunities for collaboration at our launch event in July 2025
• All the participating charities from survey data and follow-up questionnaires, interviews and feedback sessions
• Wider stakeholders and sector experts
During the July launch event, participating charities were asked to identify opportunities they thought had the potential to increase productivity of the sector, or otherwise move the sector closer to its vision for the future, through further collaboration. They were then asked to prioritise and map these in terms of ease and effectiveness in order to draw out quick wins and those longer-term actions that would be high effort but could make the greatest difference.
The remainder of this section sets out more details about each of these in turn, as a reference point for further consideration.
Priority opportunity areas
• Advocacy and voice: Lifting and amplifying the voice of the health, social care and wellbeing sector, and those of islanders needing care, to shape and strength public policy at political, government decision-maker and community levels. Charities aspire to be trusted and equal partners with government and with the private sector, adept at bringing lived experience into debate, and entrusted with long-term funding. There are also some areas where government policy and regulatory changes could help unlock progress.
• Research, data collection and sharing: Improving targeted data collection within the sector to evidence outcomes and impact. Resolving barriers to sharing data between charities as well as with government and other delivery partners, to provide a better quality joined-up service. Participating in research to plug gaps in the evidence locally and internationally.
• Technology adoption: Accelerating technology and AI solutions within charities to improve efficiency and productivity and to support robust data collection, with a customer relationship management system as a basic requirement. Sharing learning and use cases to foster confidence and innovation in application for management, administration, incomegenerating activities (e.g. charity shop stock, donations and gift aid). Accelerating transformation of service delivery and digital health with technology solutions. This in turn requires understanding from donors and funders of the return on investment in technology.
• Shared operations and resources: Pooling people, processes and physical resources to minimise overheads and maximise shared efficiency and impact in the context of the island’s decentralised model and increased funding pressures. This includes shared physical spaces and equipment, shared executive teams and board members, shared training for staff, cross-service signposting.
• Shift to preventative care: A shift to prevention is critical for a financially sustainable and impact-focused future for health and social care on the island. Charities, through their campaigns and early interventions are pivotal to success of Jersey’s public health strategy.
• A longevity mindset: Recent discourse about what an Island of Longevity looks like for Jersey has much in common with the vision of success developed by charities in this programme. More broadly, there is a need to reset the social contract between islanders, government, business and the charity sector. A mindset of how we support all islanders to lead longer, healthier, fulfilling lives, and the culture change that is required to achieve this, can unlock significant benefits aligned to this programme’s vision for health and social care.
Advocacy and voice
Why is this important for achieving the shared vision?
A stronger, coordinated and collective voice to influence policy and funding, grounded in lived experience, was consistently identified by the participating charities as the top priority for action arising from this programme.
This is particularly timely at time of writing in early 2026, given the upcoming government election this year, which provides a window of opportunity.
Charities would like policy and service design across the island to be user-centric, with a need for individualised support and care. Access to services across the island is unequal, particularly for marginalised communities.
This can only be solved if the voices of lived experiences are fully heard in dialogue, and charities are well placed to enable this.
Charities would like to continue to strengthen their relationship with government and other delivery partners in the health and social care sector as equal partners, in order to improve outcomes and enable more long-term funding flexibility.
There are also some areas where government policy and regulatory changes could help unlock progress.
Practical opportunities for consideration
• Sector voice and collaboration: The Health and Care Charity CEO Forum already has a clear terms of reference seeking to provide a unified voice for charities in strategic discussions with government and key stakeholders, ensuring charity expertise shapes health and care strategies and funding mechanisms through active participation in decision-making processes.
• Governance and partnership: The establishment of a formal, sector-wide Health and Care Jersey Partnership Board is a welcome and important step toward more joined-up governance and greater alignment of care strategies. As the Board develops, it will be important to ensure that the third sector, particularly voices grounded in lived experience, is meaningfully represented. We hope this report provides a strong evidence base to support the Board’s ongoing partnership work.
• Stigma reduction and individualised approaches: Some conditions still carry stigma in parts of the community, which can discourage people from accessing care and services, can marginalise people and adversely impact wellbeing and mental health. Working together to raise awareness and acceptance, amplify voices of service users and lived experience, signpost and tailor support, is vital. Some charities suggested a joint taskforce on reducing stigmas and promoting inclusion would be effective.
• Regulatory enablers: Charities identified some specific areas of policy and legislation where lobbying for legislative change and reform could unlock progress towards the vision. These included reviewing the long-term care funding model, reviewing the income support for carers, and modernising safeguarding laws to better protect adults in care.
Suggested quick wins
• Election 2026: Collaborate for presence and impact to ensure hustings and manifestos raise the critical health and social care issues and discuss what charities believe could unlock progress. Perhaps even organise a themed hustings based on this report.
• Strategy alignment: With the help of AI, compare, review and align the various health, social care and wellbeing strategies to address gaps and overlaps and set joint priorities
• Amplify service users’ voices: Develop a standard mechanism to bring lived experience into all policy and funding decisions, perhaps through a distributional impact assessment approach.
Research, data collection and sharing
Why is this important for achieving the shared vision?
As shown in this report, collecting the “right” data about operations, services and beneficiaries enables charities to demonstrate impact and quantify their value to society. This in turn is key to sharing compelling evidence to donors, supporting funding applications, and strengthening and diversifying financial resilience and sustainability.
But collecting data is about more than unlocking funding. Improved insights support a strategic approach to future programming, highlight opportunities for collaboration, and ultimately help the sector meet the needs of beneficiaries.
Sharing data between charities, with appropriate safe data-sharing protocols, enable signposting and joined-up service delivery. Cross-sector datasharing and signposting, in particular between public health services and charities, can also improve service delivery, and make sure that as an island we are collectively supporting people at their time of need, and we leave no-one behind.
Going forward, improved data collection and sharing becomes even more important as a key enabler of a shift to prevention and early intervention as set out later in this section. Both islanders themselves and health and social care providers alike will increasingly rely on data such as medical history, genetic information and lifestyle factors to empower individuals to take action, to intervene early where necessary, and to understand overall patterns in the population and resource support services accordingly.
Practical opportunities for consideration
• Continue to upskill charities in the value of data for impact: Build on this impact accelerator to share the learning more widely and continue to strengthen charities’ approaches to unlocking strategic programming and funding through impact assessment. This includes building the capabilities and skills of staff in collection and analysis of such data.
• Resolve practical barriers to data sharing: Data sharing requires compatible technology systems, and appropriate safeguards and protocols. There is significant work ongoing on the island in support of this, notably funding now agreed to build a single patient record on OpenEHR.
• Resolve cultural barriers to data sharing: Some islanders are understandably concerned about how their personal data could be shared in the future. Data security is of course of the upmost importance, and islanders need to trust delivery partners and retain control and consent over how their data are used and shared. The good news is that technologies and governance now exist that have the potential to address these concerns, including Jersey’s nascent data trusts sector. If a mindset shift towards prevention and early intervention is going to succeed, islanders will want to see their leaders extolling the benefits and embracing this.
• Collaborate to plug gaps in data and commission or participate in research: As described elsewhere in this report, valuations for some charity interventions were difficult to quantify due to lack of robust international literature. An example is the value of safeguarding children and programmes, where the evidence of local term benefit is not well researched and evidenced. The health, social care and wellbeing sector could come together to prioritise where better research could be most valuable and either commission, or collaborate with research institutions to participate in, longitudinal and other research studies in these areas. This in turn could be an opportunity for Jersey to contribute leading-edge research internationally.
“The staff are amazing, they are always there when we need them.” SHELTER TRUST
Technology adoption
Why is this important for achieving the shared vision?
Technology adoption is key to unlocking improved productivity and helping to manage funding pressures, strengthening data, enabling collaboration across the sector, and improving outcomes for beneficiaries and those in need.
Case Study: AI solution driving productivity and revenue: British Heart Foundation (BHF)
• BHF operates 700 retail shops and is the largest charity seller on eBay, converting donated goods into charity funds through direct sales and through the UK Gift Aid scheme which extends to the value of donated goods.
• They faced issues with inconsistent pricing, missed Gift Aid opportunities and costly logistics.
• BHF recently invested in a cloud-based, AI-powered retail management app to standardise how donated items are catalogued, priced and sold.
• The system uses machine learning to suggest optimal prices for each item and automates Gift Aid tagging.
• By early 2025, the solution was live and BHF projects over £1 m in additional annual sales thanks to smarter pricing, plus £0.5m more Gift Aid due to better tracking.
• In operational terms, this has increased funding purely by capturing value that was previously lost. Efficiency gains included:
• The app now helps process 0.8m donated items per week (far beyond human capacity).
• Volunteers and staff have been “freed up” from tedious tasks to focus on higher-value activities.
• This digital transformation, which BHF led internally with support from technology partners, exemplifies a clear financial return for technology innovation in the charity sector. It also illustrates how AI can guide decision-making to maximise charitable income in the context of funding pressures.
• CRMs as a prerequisite for understanding beneficiaries and impact: Charities that had already invested in a CRM system found collecting survey data on beneficiaries feasible and robust. In contrast, those without a CRM in place found the data collection process time-consuming and were often unable to submit responses for all areas. Investing in a CRM system is therefore a prerequisite for charities that do not already have one, whilst for those with a system already in place, collecting new information will enhance the extent to which impact can further captured.
• Digital tools for stronger knowledge sharing and signposting: Participating charities placed high priority on shared one-stop shops and sign-posting of services for beneficiaries, with opportunities to continue expanding these approaches on island. Charities also suggested a shared directory of services and contacts would be helpful within the sector to further aid collaboration.
• Sector sharing and learning: Participating charities were keen to share experiences about their adoption of technology solutions and use of AI tools, which could catalyse wider take-up. There could also be opportunities to align vendor selection and licensing where appropriate, and potentially for corporate skills-based volunteering to support the sector with AI and tech upskilling sessions.
• Donors and funders who are prepared to fund investment in accelerated adoption of technology solutions: Charities would welcome greater support from donors in funding the upfront costs of technology solutions. Examples in Jersey include:
• As an early result of this programme, the Jersey Community Foundation has already agreed a business case for a grant to cover the costs of installing a charity CRM system.
• Digital Jersey’s Impact Jersey CareTech Challenge is focused on technology adoption to support older people and their carers. For example, aligned with the government’s digital health strategy, £800k has been committed to FNHC’s deployment of a remote monitoring service. Impact Jersey’s Innovation Programme remains open as a funding route for piloting credible technology adoption solutions that align with island priorities.
• Jersey Business’s Better Business Grant also reopens in March 2026 for match funding for projects that target advancing productivity through technology.
• Technology to unlock revenue streams: Charities were keen to explore access to subscription solutions to help secure regular donations and capture gift aid in an efficient manner. More broadly, technology has the potential to transform how charities can scale revenue streams and reach more consumers through their commercial activities, in particular second-hand clothes and goods. An innovative example from the UK is shared in the case study box.
Shared operations and resources
Why is this important for achieving the shared vision?
With a large number of relatively small charities in Jersey’s health, social care and wellbeing sector, there is opportunity to pool resources for optimum efficiency, making funding go further and freeing up more time and resources for frontline services.
It is also clear from this report that the sector can have greater voice and impact by coming together, sharing training and development pathways for staff, collaborating on common issues and providing a more joined up service.
In a challenging funding context with scrutiny on operational overheads, it will be increasingly important to demonstrate best use of shared operations and resources. During our programme, charities identified this as a priority area to focus, and this is also a priority for the Health and Care Charities CEO Forum, in particular where this could resolve funding constraints and help tackle unequal access to and siloed services.
Case Study: Shared back-office two charities in the UK – Sense and Contact
• The charities Sense and Contact, both serving people with disabilities, formed a partnership to share core back-office services.
• In 2017, the two organisations entered into a partnership where Contact outsourced its finance, IT and payroll functions to Sense.
• Contact sought to contract out back-office functions primarily to reduce costs and relieve teams from the heavy administrative burden caused by inadequate finance and HR systems
• Sense used the opportunity to test its capacity to provide back-office services to other charities, aiming to build long-term system capability and in-house expertise to expand such support across the disability and wider charity sectors
• This partnership allowed Contact to reduce overhead staff (its operations team shrank from 11 to 5) and benefit from Sense’s more robust systems
• The collaboration was projected to save around 27% of Contact’s support costs (approximately £132k per year) while freeing up resources for frontline work and provided a new income stream and increased efficiency for Sense.
• This back-office merger not only cut costs but gave Contact access to better technology and expertise, illustrating how sharing non-core, common functions has the potential to strengthen service delivery for both organisations.
Source: New Philanthropy Capital (NPC), Back-Office Merger Models: Contact/Sense and other examples (2018)
Practical opportunities for consideration
• Centralising back-office functions and pooling common resources to reduce duplication and cost: Charities operating within the same sector, and therefore sharing similar back-office requirements, identified opportunities to collaborate in delivering people, finance, and training functions more effectively. Examples included joint recruitment and marketing activities, shared financial reporting templates and common back-office policies and procedures. Several liked the idea of a charity hub concept to support. It could even be possible to explore outsourcing specific back-office functions to larger organisations with more advanced capabilities, as illustrated in the UK case study.
• Collaborative funding approaches and joint bids around shared priorities: Participating charities highlighted the potential of forming coalitions to pursue funding aligned to common needs, particularly where individual organisations may be able to maximise funding by applying and aligning around shared goals. Joint funding could be a practical route to unlock larger or more strategic funding opportunities, while also fostering stronger sector collaboration.
• Workforce development and flexible staffing models: Charities identified opportunities to collaborate on workforce development through shared training and upskilling initiatives, including joint training pathways and secondment arrangements. Flexible staffing models, such as shared posts or employment banks for staff and volunteers, were also seen as a way to address capacity constraints, build resilience and retain talent across the sector.
Shift to preventative care
Why is this important for achieving the shared vision?
As set out earlier in this report, Jersey’s health, social care and wellbeing charities are united in the view that a shift to prevention and early intervention is critical for a financially sustainable sector that makes progress towards the shared vision.
We know Jersey faces a rising burden of long-term conditions if current patterns persist and evidence shows that without significant change, the island faces a sharp rise in chronic disease, multimorbidity and demand for health services as the population ages.1
Services will feel this pressure first. On current use patterns, annual GP appointments are projected to be 9 percent higher and hospital bed days 30 percent higher by 2043, which implies more strain on access, staffing, and budgets unless the need for care is prevented or delayed.1
Prevention strengthens financial sustainability and delivers better outcomes. Public health interventions have repeatedly shown strong value for money in international evidence, and Jersey’s own analysis indicates that even modest reductions in preventable illness could release significant resources for front-line priorities. A one percent reduction in preventable disease is associated with savings of about £5.8 million per year, while five percent would save about £28.8 million; these gains sit alongside wider benefits such as improved productivity and wellbeing.2
Practical opportunities for consideration
• Strengthen and improve consistency of education and awareness: Charities emphasised the need for coordinated public health messaging and coordinated and consistent education in schools and workplaces, joined up across different settings. This is an opportunity to further strengthen collaboration between charities and government on public health strategies. One suggestion was the creation of joined-up focus groups on key prevention themes, such as nutrition or exercise, and to better align campaigns.
• Education is also for carers: Research suggests that training for both professional and family carers to support symptoms to be aware of and early intervention, can be highly effective at improving care quality and reducing downstream care needs.
• Use the findings in this report to help make the business case for investment in preventative health and the role of charities in supporting this, with appropriate long-term funding: Many charities intend to scale preventative work if policy and funding enable multi-year planning. Some have specific pipeline initiatives that would hard-wire prevention into their service models. There is therefore a priority opportunity for the sector to collaborate to align the narrative and language on impact and prevention value supported by the findings of this report. This could potentially be a quick win.
• Commission or participate in longitudinal research evidence: Some preventative measures are known but hard to measure without longitudinal linkages. Several charities are open to using well-sourced conversion factors to evidence plausible prevention effects, or participating in future longitudinal studies or other research.
• Policy choices can help nudge mindsets and redistribute funds: Public health policies, such as restricting smoking or sugary foods, inviting islanders for screenings, or using wearable tech monitoring devices, can further reinforce education and awareness messages and support early intervention. There is an opportunity in the run up to the 2026 election to ask candidates about their approach to public health prevention and explore different measures and solutions.
• Government and charities can make significant future savings by investing in prevention: The return on investment of this spending can be on a medium- or long-term basis, investment case can be difficult to justify in the short-term. The evidence for investment and wider benefits of spending on preventative care are well proven in the medium- to long-term.
Source:
1. Government of Jersey, The case for Prevention - Director of Public Health Annual Report, 2024
2. Public Health Jersey, Disease projection report 2023 – 2053, 2024
A longevity mindset
Why is this important for achieving the shared vision?
Jersey’s Island of Longevity initiative was launched in 2025 by a group of community leaders. The initiative reimagines ageing and the role of community, government, and individuals in shaping a future for our island where living beyond 100 becomes the norm.
Through a series of cross-sectoral conferences, events and working groups, the initiative is seeking to foster a shared view of a sustainable, vibrant environment that supports both physical and mental well-being, while addressing the aspirations and needs of all islanders.
There is much in common with the vision of success developed by charities in this programme. A mindset of how we support all islanders to lead longer, healthier, fulfilling lives, and the culture change that is required to achieve this, can unlock significant benefits aligned to this programme’s vision for health and social care.
Given this initiative has caught the attention of a diverse set of stakeholders across the island, in the run-up to an election year, it provides a constructive way forward to progress many of the themes and actions presented in this report.
Indeed, one of the Island of Longevity themes is specifically around living healthy lives for longer – not just living longer, but living better. Awareness, education and support for healthy lifestyle choices, coupled with greater emphasis on prevention and early intervention, are fully aligned with the vision of these participating health, social care and wellbeing charities, and who are in a strong place to support, as set out above.
Other themes include inclusive placemaking, which again is aligned with the cultural mindset shift that charities are calling for, amplifying the voices of lived experiences to support policy and design.
Practical opportunities for consideration
• Continue to engage with the Island of Longevity initiative as it progresses: Several of the participating charities have already contributed to the initiative, and there is merit in continuing to do so, given the high alignment of goals, priorities and desire for cultural change.
• Apply Jersey’s Public Finance Manual’s sustainable wellbeing requirement to support funding decisions: Charities may not all be aware that the government accounting manual requires the long-term economic, social, environmental, and cultural health of Jersey in spending decisions, guided by the 2019 Law and linked to performance indicators via the Jersey Performance Framework. This means financial planning (like Government Plans) must balance immediate needs with future generations' well-being, using data to track progress against Island Outcome Indicators.
Case Study: Cities of longevity and blue zones
Jersey is learning from other places around the world that have a culture of longevity.
• Newcastle University’s National Innovation Centre has developed a comprehensive opensource framework to help places understand and make progress towards the critical enablers to become a City of Longevity. It is intended to provide a practical toolkit for cities and other places to design and deliver actions to help residents and tourists alike live longer, healthier lives. There is a strong focus on health prevention, citizen engagement, and measurable data.
• Ikaria, a small Greek island, is home to residents who live on average 8 years longer than Americans, have half the rate of heart disease and almost no dementia. This is due to a number of environmental and lifestyle factors, with diet believed to play a key role. Ikaria is part of a network of so-called “Blue Zones” – regions and communities of the world with remarkedly high longevity, and where people not only live longer but enjoy high quality of life in their old age. These places have been the subject of much research, and the Blue Zones Project now works with communities around the world to help people live better for longer through transformation programmes that lower healthcare costs, improve productivity and boost recognition as great places to live, work and play.
Sources: https://cityoflongevity.uknica.co.uk/ and https://www.bluezones.com/
Reflections on this pilot impact accelerator programme
The Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Impact Accelerator Programme is a pilot for Jersey, seeking to explore whether a sector cohort approach is a productive and efficient way to develop a unified strategic narrative, a shared vision, and compelling evidence of value to society to inform future funding and efficiency in delivering services to the wider community. More time will need to pass to allow take up and use of the findings before there can be a meaningful evaluation of the extent to which the programme has met these goals. However, at this stage, useful initial findings are shared here, looking in turn at reflections for programme design, using the outputs, and wider actions arising.
Reflections on the programme design
• Charity readiness to participate is important and a CRM system should be a minimum entry requirement: 14 charities self-selected to participate via the Health and Care CEO Forum up to a cap on the total number. Charities signed an MOU setting out terms of participation and expectations of time commitment and data. However, some charities found it difficult to provide data to the level of detail required, usually because they did not yet have a comprehensive customer relationship management (CRM) system. Others found it difficult to find the time required to engage, gather and engage with the data, usually because they were small, busy teams. A stronger set of eligibility criteria could have been helpful, together with formalised time commitments and advice about how to strengthen any areas where charities were falling short.
• Charity capability building and legacy would be strengthened by additional training and engagement: The charities were offered several briefing sessions and meetings to understand the rationale behind the survey questions in advance, validate their survey responses, supply further information, and learn how to interpret their individual charity dashboards. However, not all charities were able to take advantage of all of these, and there were time and budget constraints on what was feasible. Charities have suggested that allocating more time to training, engagement and learning would be welcome in the future. This could also include further support after the end of the programme in interpreting and communicating the findings to their stakeholders.
• Programmatic approaches to impact assessment across a cohort are cost-effective and produce compelling narrative, but individual charity nuances cannot be captured: Seeking to take a shared approach across 14 participating charities is far from straightforward. Although they all operate in the same broad sector context, each has a specific niche, and some of their activities and interventions went beyond a core focus on health, social care and wellbeing and therefore could not be captured and valued in the time and resource available. This must be weighed up against the significant cost savings arising from participating in this programme compared to commissioning an assessment individually, together with the benefits of being part of a broader conversation.
• Data collection from the charities and its analysis took three times longer than expected: Some charities were not readily able to provide data of the depth and quality required for analysis. In some cases there was a need for several follow up discussions and validation queries to resolve. In other cases, even with mature approaches to data collection, charities found questions on some topics, such as avoided hospital visits, difficult to evidence. On reflection, this was a result of multiple factors, including challenges arising in understanding the detailed operating models and activity of each charity, challenges in aligning data that charities did hold with what was needed for valuation calculations, and challenges arising from needing consistency across all the charities in the programme as above to enable a sector view. This is why a pilot is so valuable for understanding of how valuation methodologies can be applied in the Jersey context, building realism and pragmatism for the future, learning by doing.
• An expanded methodology approach would have even wider applications: With more time, data and resources, extensions to the current methodology could include other forms of health outcomes e.g. DALYs, more environmental impacts, and looking at counterfactual scenarios. The outputs could move from a baseline assessment to a tool that could be adjusted and updated over time. This impact assessment has broken new ground for these charities in Jersey, but is a platform to build on.
• Valuation and evidence gaps are an opportunity: In some cases, we found little or no international research literature to validate our methodology. For example, there is very little quantitative research on the impact of , school readiness and child safeguarding. This is where Jersey, as a microcosm of western society and given its reputation as a testbed, could partner with university researchers and other institutions to commission or participate in longitudinal or other studies to strengthen this evidence base.
Feedback from the participating charities so far and reflections on how the outputs are being used in practice
Although the legacy of this programme will take time to emerge, we asked the participating charities for their initial feedback and reflections in November 2025, just after sharing their individualised charity impact dashboards.
So far, 80% of charities agreed that the programme has already shifted how they think about the value and impact of their work. A further 10% described a partial shift currently underway, whilst the final 10% said it was too early to say.
It is clear the outputs of the programme are already having an impact, whilst recognising the outputs represent the first step in a journey to further strengthen the sector. Specific feedback from the charities about the benefits so far include:
• Increased understanding of how to move beyond counting outputs to articulating the health impacts and the economic and social value arising from their work. Charities liked the dual focus on both health impacts and value to society, and welcomed the emphasis on monetary valuations and return on investment. By valuing volunteering, in-kind contributions, consumer surplus, savings to government and employment effects, the methodology offered a more comprehensive and derived view of impact. This reframing will equip organisations to be able to communicate more clearly to funders and government, evidencing benefits well beyond headline metrics.
• Quantifying outcomes gives the opportunity to strengthen confidence and voice. Charities reported being better equipped to tell a coherent story and to counter misconceptions that the sector is purely volunteer-led, lacks strategic vision or professional capability. The outputs enable charities to have a simpler and common language for impact, making it easier to explain complex services and show how professional practice underpins results.
• Improved data, understanding of how change happens and measurement. Charities now see the benefit of being able to describe services and causal chains and prioritise collecting the “right” data to quantify wellbeing and quality-of-life measures (e.g. well-being and quality-of-life measures, attribution/deadweight, and employment effects). This should improve future assessments. Several charities plan to use the methodology as an ongoing reference point, embedding common definitions and improving comparability where reported by charities.
Has participating in this project so far shifted your thinking on the value of your work?
Source: Analysis of charity feedback responses November 2025
• Even where charities already had mature data collection processes, charities reported the programme helped them interpret the data, use it to tell a story, and identify any gaps in coverage. They also welcomed the opportunity to frame their work within a bigger picture for sector-wide comparability. Participants emphasised the need for careful interpretation to ensure comparisons inform learning rather than mislead stakeholders.
• For charities earlier in their journey, the programme has helped them make the case for investment in improved CRM and data systems, and the need to measure, track and communicate impacts regularly.
• Charities reported practical early uses. In the first month since issue, charities have reported that data from their individual dashboards has already been used in fundraising and donor communications, enabling a clearer, evidence-based narrative. Going forward, charities felt the combination of their individualised dashboards plus the sector-wide findings in this report will be a game-changing combination of resources and evidence to further their work.
Taken together, these shifts go to the heart of the programme’s purposestrengthening how charities understand, evidence and communicate impact. The intention is that this stronger understanding underpins strategic positioning, greater, longer-term and diversified fundraising, more productive allocation of resources and a more informed dialogue with government and partners about what works and the value for Jersey.
Section 8 | Making a difference: a call to action
“You have helped me get back up on my feet and to access help and support, I was too scared to reach out for years. Now I’ve moved out and moved on to my new life. I want to thank you all for giving me the hope, courage and confidence to move on.”
FREEDA
Actions towards an inclusive, caring, prevention-first island where we all enjoy longer healthy lives & leave no-one behind
Drawing our findings together, we have distilled priority actions that can be taken now to best strengthen our island’s health, social care and wellbeing charities sector, and in turn make tangible progress towards our shared vision of, “becoming one of the world’s healthiest and happiest communities, where islanders of every age, ability, and background enjoy long, flourishing lives in a society that puts prevention first and cares without limits, leaving no one behind”.
Health, social care & wellbeing charities
• Use both individual and cohort-wide programme outputs to support fundraising, reporting, strategic planning and learning.
• Play a part in acting on the findings and sharing with others in the sector and beyond, as the basis of a shared health and social care strategy. Align with other charities to plan for collaboration opportunities as set out in Section 7. Encourage trustees to expand their objectives to best capture the opportunities.
• Engage with the Health and Care CEO Forum and support representation on the new Health and Care Jersey Partnership Board.
Government and public sector
• Recognise the critical role the health, social care and wellbeing charity sector plays in provision of services, including backfilling and subsidising public services, and the potential of the sector to do more with the right enablers. The sector is a significant provider of value for the economy, for society and for health outcomes, and with net savings for government.
• Commit to longer-term service level agreements, funding arrangements and delivery partnerships. Make funding commitments earlier to strengthen charity planning, recruitment and service continuity, and support a shift from reactive to proactive and preventative work. Recognise the full cost of delivery as alluded to in this report.
• Leverage the opportunity provided by the new Health and Care Jersey Partnership Board, and the upcoming election, to work more closely with the sector as equal partners, acknowledging the role charities play in strategy development and signposting.
• Engage charities to bring voices of lived experience into policy and funding decisions. Use this insight to unlock policy changes such as carers’ legislation and adult safeguarding laws.
• Help to catalyse investment in technology adoption in the sector, for example through the Impact Jersey CareTech Challenge, and the digital health programme.
• Be bold in policy and investment for prevention and early intervention. Harness the potential of these charities to help the island shift to a prevention and longevity mindset. Policy and funding should actively support prevention (including early years, family support and training) so charities can shift from crisis response to upstream work.
Jersey Community Foundation
• Continue to evaluate this pilot impact accelerator programme and consider how to scale the learning. Use the findings to strengthen our own approach to programming and how we operate and collaborate.
• Support charity readiness needs for impact assessment, for technology adoption (e.g. funding CRMs) and for funding priority outcomes.
• Consider how the sector might use the findings to best leverage further charitable giving on the island, as part of our newly-commissioned Philanthropy Policy.
Donors and funders
• Recognise and support the critical role the health, social care and wellbeing charity sector plays, the impact and value it provides for the island, and the potential of the sector to do more with the right enablers. Encourage charities to further strengthen data and investment in technology to improve measurement around impact and progress.
• Commit to longer- term giving arrangements where feasible. Recognise the value in financing operational improvements and technology adoption alongside funding frontline delivery services.
• Consider seed funding to test new methods of delivery and provision of care for sector, as well as research funding for studying gaps in the evidence for impacts.
Islanders and our wider community
• Ask questions of politicians about the opportunities set out in this report
• Support our island’s charities and continue to foster a culture of philanthropy and volunteering
• Engage with preventative healthcare and the role we all need to play in this in terms of lifestyle choices, screening and early intervention. Be open to different ways of receiving care and support services, including the role of technology
Appendix:
Impact valuation methodology & glossary of terms
Approach to calculating Total Net Impact Value
Approach to quantifying participating charities’ value to society
Within Phase 2 of the programme, the schematic below illustrates the approach taken to quantify value to society. For more detailed definitions of the terms and components, please see the Glossary pages overleaf.
Community Integration & Supported Living • Education & Skills Development
The total monetary value created by an activity, asset, or project, measured before deducting any associated costs, expenses, or losses
The overall positive and negative effects of an activity, asset, or project on society, measured after accounting for any social costs, harms, or negative consequences
The total effect of an activity, asset, or project on the natural environment, including both positive and negative changes, measured after considering any mitigation or restoration efforts
Please note that there is some overlap between social value and economic value. It is therefore not appropriate to simply add them together. The total net impact value is calculated in a way that avoids double-counting and is therefore less than the sum of the economic, social and environmental impact values.
Glossary of terms
Term How to interpret the value / what does it mean?
The overall ratio of monetary value the charities provide per £1 of investment. This is split into two headline measures:
Impact return on investment
Direct value
Enabled value
1) Economic Cost/Benefit Ratio – Direct & Enabled: The ratio of direct and enabled economic benefits generated by charities relative to the total expenditure (net of capital expenditure) of delivering those economic benefits.
2) Social Cost/Benefit Ratio – Direct & Enabled: The ratio of social benefits generated by charities relative to the total expenditure (net of capital expenditure) of delivering those benefits, expressed in social value terms (£).
First-order effects of spending directly by the charities on goods and services (rather than indirect value via third-parties, suppliers or intermediary organisations).
Second-order effects of spending activities set in motion by direct value, through spending by third-party organisations and suppliers. This term can also be known as indirect value.
How has it been derived?
The Economic Cost/Benefit ratio, Direct & Enabled is derived using the following calculation: Economic Cost/Benefit Ratio – Direct & Enabled = Total Economic Value [£] / (Total Expenditure [£]Capital Expenditure [£])
The Social Cost/Benefit Ratio, Direct & Enabled is derived using the following calculation: Social Cost/Benefit Ratio – Direct & Enabled = (Total Social Value [£] + Benefits Transfer [£]) / (Total Expenditure [£] - Capital Expenditure [£] + In-kind contribution [£] + Total value of Volunteering [£])
The direct value of spending is derived from the total expenditure figure for 2024 that the charities provided in the Community Outcome Survey.
The indirect value of spending is based on the total expenditure charities reported in the survey, which includes the output multiplier (covering staff remuneration and net movement in funds).
Total expenditure This is the value of all selected charities expenditure on all goods, services and staff remuneration in 2024. This is the expenditure in 2024 directly reported in the Community Outcome Survey.
Capital Expenditure
This is the value of any spending on any capital goods such as new buildings, laptops or equipment in 2024.
Total Economic Value
The total monetary value created by the charities, measured using monetary contributions (e.g. staff remuneration), voluntary contributions (e.g. market value of volunteering) and savings contributions (e.g. savings versus private sector delivery). This is before deducting any associated costs, expenses or losses.
Capital expenditure was gathered as additional information requested after the survey. It is deducted from total expenditure in the impact return-on-investment calculations above to determine operating expenditure, which generates a return on economic and social investment.
Total Economic Value = Gross economic output + Output multiplier
Gross economic output is defined as the total value of services delivered, including expenditure , value of volunteering, in-kind contributions and Benefits-Transfer.
Output Multiplier here defined as Net economic contribution of an organisation through one unit increases in final demand and is calculated as Net movement in funds + Staff cost; adjusted by sector multiplier (0.59)
Total Social Value
Health impacts
The total monetary value created by charities activities, measured using wellbeing and health improvement metrics (QALY and WELLBY) and savings to public expenditure (e.g. avoided healthcare costs, increased tax take due to employment effects).
The total health impact value will be determined by the sum of the monetary value of the change in quality of life, measured by changes in QALYs and WELLBYs resulting from charity intervention. This value reflects improvements for care recipients (through QALY and WELLBY gains) and for other beneficiaries (through WELLBY gains), expressed in monetary terms.
Social Value (£) = (Health impact [value of improved QALYs or WELLBYs for care recipients + value of improved WELLBY for other beneficiaries] + Savings to public expenditure + Employment effects + Social spending forgone + Education Uplift
Health impacts (as a result of charity interventions) which are a component of total value are calculated using this formula:
Health impacts = Monetary value of improvement in QALY + Monetary value of improvement in WELLBY
Term How to interpret the value / what does it mean? How has it been derived?
For each of the relevant conditions reported in the Health Impact Survey , charities reported the quality of life of their respective care recipients/beneficiaries: A) upon admission B) after they received the organisation's support/care C) if no support/care was provided to them.
Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY)
A measure of health improvement expressed as the change in quality of life (QoL) over time, monetised using a standard value per QALY. Reflects the health benefit of interventions for care recipients, allowing comparison with other health and social investments.
This has been used to determine the monetary value of the change in the quality of life (based on the increase in the QALY values) as a result of the charities health, social care or wellbeing intervention: using the following calculation:
Monetary value associated with improved quality of life [£] = Change in QALY (before vs. after the intervention) x (1Deadweight) x attribution x durability x drop off x (1 - discount rate) x £70,000 (QALY valuation from Green Book) x number of care recipients.
These have been derived from the UK Treasury Green Book (2022) and its Supplementary Guidance (2021).
For each of the relevant conditions reported in the Health Impact Survey, charities reported the life satisfaction of their care recipients/beneficiaries: A) upon admission B) after they received the organisation's support/care C) if no support/care was provided to them. Charities based this assessment on a 0-10 point scale.
They also reported the change in life satisfaction for other beneficiaries (for example, formal carers, informal carers i.e. family members of the care recipient who are not paid) based on the services provided in 2024.
WELLBY (Wellbeing Adjusted Life Year)
A metric that analyses the broader and often longer-term effects on social, economic, and environmental aspects attributable to a project or initiative. WELLBY values can be used to measure two different sets of beneficiaries: care recipients and other beneficiaries (such as family members or carers).
These reported figures have been used to determine the monetary value of the change in the quality of life (based on the increase in the WELLBY values) as a result of the health, social care or wellbeing intervention using the following calculations:
Care recipient/beneficiaries: Monetary value associated with improved life satisfaction [£] = Change in WELLBY (before vs after the intervention) x (1 -Deadweight) x attribution x durability x drop off x (1 - discount rate) x £15,300 (WELLBY value from Green Book) x number of care recipients.
Other beneficiaries: Monetary value associated with improved life satisfaction [£] = Change in WELLBY (before vs after the intervention) x (1 -Deadweight) x attribution x durability x drop off x (1 - discount rate) x £15,300 x number of other beneficiaries.
These calculations and valuations have been derived from the UK Treasury Green Book (2022).
Savings to public expenditure
The sum of the monetary value (in £) of health intervention savings and employment effects savings as defined below. The inputs are calculated purely based on survey inputs. Public costs are avoided because an intervention reduces outcomes that would otherwise need to be funded by government expenditure (e.g., fewer hospital admissions, or reduced income support, leading to health, social, and employment cost savings).
Savings to public expenditure is a component of social value and is calculated by summing three elements based on the survey input. It is calculated using this formula:
Savings to public expenditure = Health interventions + Employment effects + Avoided social care costs
Term How to interpret the value / what does it mean?
Health intervention
Activities undertaken by a charity that could reasonably be expected to result in savings to public expenditure on health interventions.
How has it been derived?
The specific interventions considered are:
1) Avoided hospital admissions
2) Avoided A&E visits
3) Avoided ambulance trips (non-A&E)
4) Discharge support (estimated savings from reduced hospital stay hours)
These figures were reported by the charities in the Health Impact Survey, then was applied to Jersey-specific healthcare costs to calculate the savings to government for the avoidance of these services if they were not provided (with an appropriate international literature-based assumption of attribution, deadweight and durability percentage applied).
Employment effects
Employment effects are the increase in social value resulting from individuals being employed who would not otherwise be able to work. This is quantified by tax and social security contributions, using salary bands based on the charity reported nine SOC skills levels of roles.
Employment effects are split into three categories:
1) Placed Employment – Cases where a person is newly placed into paid work as a result of the charity’s support, a subset of placed employment is avoided social payments – Savings to public expenditure compared to the person not being employed (e.g., housing and employment benefits).
2) Extended Employment – People staying in work longer than they otherwise would have, due to adjustments or support facilitated by the charity (e.g., dementiafriendly workplaces).
3) Enabled Employment – Paid work that becomes possible for someone else because of care or support provided to the service user (e.g., a parent taking employment because their dependent receives structured support).
These values have been collected from the responses provided by the charities in the Health Impact Survey.
For placed employment, charity responses indicated the number of people who gained paid employment thanks to the charity’s support. Further responses provided an indication of job level by SOC category, which was used to apply an appropriate Jersey-weighted salary. This figure was then used to calculate the amount of tax and social security contributions gained by government, applying internationally recognised assumptions for attribution, deadweight, durability and drop-off percentages. Similarly, savings to government was calculated based on the avoided social payments, such as housing support, social security benefits and income support, that would likely have been paid to these individuals if they had not been supported into employment. This figure was based on the number of employees and government data on annualised benefit costs, again applying appropriate international assumptions for attribution, deadweight, durability and drop-off percentages.
For extended employment, responses indicated the number of employees whose return to work was enabled by the charity’s support, broken down by SOC job level and duration of employment. These were applied to Jersey-adjusted SOC salary rates to calculate the gain in tax and social security contributions to government, using the same international assumptions for attribution, deadweight, durability and drop-off percentages.
For enabled employment, survey inputs were:
How many informal carers were able to retain or return to employment due to charity services
An estimation of the SOC level of these employees
How many additional hours per week they were able to work because of charity support
These figures were used to calculate the tax and social security gains to government, contributing to the overall social value.
Social spending forgone
Cost of formal care saved through charitable care interventions. This is separate from savings to public expenditure because the service may not be provided by government; it could also be delivered by a non-public care provider.
Educational uplift
Indicator of uplift in long-term earnings resulting from incremental childhood education. This is a quantitative measure of the increase in long-term earnings for graduates based on a percentage improvement in GCSE grades. It was selected as the most appropriate measure for the charities whose activities aim to advance learning outcomes for children.
This has been calculated by requesting additional data from charities, the request asked whether the employment effects applied to any beneficiaries who either lived in a residential home or required care in their own home. In such cases, their employment meant there would be a saving in formal care while they were working away from the place where their care was provided, representing a saving.
This has been calculated using a price per carer hour multiplied by the hours of care saved, applying internationally recognised assumptions for attribution, deadweight, durability and drop-off percentages.
This impact is calculated based on evidence to translate the number of disadvantaged children and early learners into a percentage GCSE grade uplift that can be translated into a monetary value (in £) based on increased earning in the adult life of these children. This is based on the below evidence:
More education leads to higher long-term earning potential. Graduate earnings increase at a faster rate after entering employment than non-graduates who could have entered higher education:
The percentage of entries from 16-year-olds in England graded 7 or above is up very slightly compared to 2024, from 22.6% to 23.0%. There’s virtually no change in those graded 4 or above or 1 or above.
Homework has a positive impact on average (+ 5 months), particularly with pupils in secondary schools. Studies involving collaboration with peers have higher effects (+6 months). Studies involving digital technology typically have greater impact (+ 6 months): https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/teachinglearning-toolkit/homework
The specific calculation is:
Educational Uplift (£) = Number of child beneficiaries x % GCSE grade uplift x overall lifetime earning uplift based per % grade uplift (net present value discounted) [£16k] (Here we assumed a = 0.67% uplift for early year children and 1.68% for disadvantaged children)
This calculation is derived from this UK Department of Education report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c36f0cd3bf7f4bd11a2326/GCSE_Att ainment_and_Lifetime_Earnings_PDF3A.pdf
Term How to interpret the value / what does it mean?
The Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system classifies workers based on their skill level. There are nine headline SOCs:
1) Managers, Directors & Senior Officials
2) Professional
3) Associate Professional & Technical
4) Administrative & Secretarial
5) Skilled Trades
SOC salary bands
Crowding in funds
6) Caring, Leisure & Other Services
7) Sales & Customer Service
8) Process, Plant & Machine Operatives
9) Elementary Occupations
Based on the survey responses, these have been applied with Jersey-adjusted salaries multiplied by sector GVA ratios to calculate the value of volunteering and employment effects for charities that provided data for their volunteers and employment effects due to their intervention
How has it been derived?
FTE
Crowding in funds refers to the effect where government funding covers only part of an intervention’s cost, requiring additional funds from donors, businesses, or other sources
These SOC salary bands have been derived from UK salary data for 2024 and by then applying a Jersey-weighting. These were used to calculate: 1) the value of volunteering and 2) the tax and social security rates for the employment effects. These have been applied to survey responses that asked to specify these values by the SOC workers skill level.
In-kind contributions
FTE refers to full-time equivalent, a measurement used to represent the number of full-time employees based on total hours worked. FTE calculations include both full-time and part-time employees allowing a more accurate assessment of workforce size in the sector
Crowding in funds were measured by asking each charity: “How much of the total cost of delivering public sector contracts is subsidised by your organisation?” Charities selected the closest percentage not covered by government funding. The actual value was then calculated by applying this percentage to the value of government contracts, showing the extra funds charities had to raise from other sources to fully deliver these services.
In-kind income, or non-cash benefits, refers to goods or services received instead of money. Examples include free rent, donated office or treatment space, pro bono professional services, or utilities paid on behalf of the organisation
FTE values were derived directly from the Community Outcome Survey, in which each participating charity was asked to report the number of paid staff and the corresponding FTE for their workforce.
An FTE of 1.0 indicates a full-time worker (40 working hours per week), while an FTE of 0.5 represents half of a full workload (20 working hours per week)
Participating organisations were asked to identify all types of in-kind contributions received during 2024 in the Community Outcome Survey. For each type of in-kind support, respondents specified whether they received the contribution and, if so, provided an estimated annual fair value (fair value is defined as the estimated amount the organisation would have had to pay in the open market to procure the same goods or services if they had not been donated.)
For each selected category, the organisation estimates the annual fair value in GBP (£), representing the market replacement cost. The primary in-kind contribution reported in this programme is rent relief, but significant values are also attributed to pro bono professional services and donated equipment.
Total Environmental Value
The total monetary value created by the charity's activities, measured using environmental impact metrics (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, carbon savings, waste reduction), adjusted for deadweight and attribution.
Impact value of energy produced renewably
The amount of renewable energy produced by the charity's site(s) using solar or wind energy. This was reported in the survey in KWh and has been converted into a monetary impact value using a per tCO₂e carbon price.
Impact value of greenhouse gas emissions
The greenhouse gas emissions of the charities in 2024 valued in £ using a per tCO₂e carbon price.
Impact value of recycled waste
The greenhouse gas emissions saved based on the amount of the recyclable waste reported in the survey. This has been converted to a value using a per tCO₂e carbon price.
Total Environmental value = Impact value of energy produced renewably (£) - Impact value of greenhouse gas emissions (£) - Impact value of physical waste (£) + Impact value of recycled waste (£) + Impact value of contribution to biodiversity (£)
In the Community Outcome Survey, charities were asked whether they produced any onsite renewable energy in 2024, this was then used to calculate the value of the emissions saved multiplied by the market value of carbon. The calculation used is below:
Carbon emissions saved (tCO₂e): = Energy generated (KWh) x Grid emissions factor
Value of energy produced renewably (£) = Carbon emissions saved (tCO₂e) x Market value of carbon [nontraded] (£)
These have been calculated based on GHG emissions factors applied to the annual expenditure figure reported by the charities. The calculation is derived using the following formula:
GHG effect in Jersey per £1m of spending (tCO₂e) x Annual expenditure by charity = GHG emissions (tCO₂e) GHG emissions (tCO₂e) x Market value of carbon [non-traded] (£/tCO₂e) = Impact value of GHG emissions (£)
The Community Outcome Survey asked the charities to provide the figures for 2024 recycling amounts by waste category in tonnes per year. These have been used to convert these figures into a tCO₂e amount based on an emissions factor for each category of recyclable waste reported by the charities. The formula to calculate this is as follows:
Tonnes of waste per year (by waste category) x GHG emissions factor for the waste category (tCO₂e) = GHG emissions from waste (tCO₂e)
GHG emissions from waste (tCO₂e) x market value of carbon [non traded] = Impact value of GHG emissions from waste (£)
Greenhouse gases (GHG) that lead to climate change. The various gases (such as methane or nitrous oxide) are usually measured in tCO₂e.
Used in the calculations above. tCO₂e
Tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO₂e): a metric that converts all greenhouse gas emissions into their equivalent in CO₂ emissions terms.
Used in the calculations above.
GHG
Term How to interpret the value / what does it mean? How has it been derived?
Deadweight
Attribution
Deadweight is an estimate of the percentage of positive impact from charity intervention that would have happened regardless of the intervention in question. For example, for a skin cancer awareness campaign that resulted in increased use of sunscreen, the deadweight is the amount of sunscreen use that would have occurred anyway. In the output calculations, all the impacts reported have an assumed deadweight applied based on international research on health, social care and wellbeing interventions.
Attribution is an estimate of the percentage of positive impact from charity intervention that is attributed to that intervention compared to those than can be attributed to external factors. In the output calculations, all impacts reported have an assumed attribution applied based on international research on health, social and wellbeing interventions.
Durability
Drop off
Durability is an assumption of the duration of impact resulting from the charities health, social care, or wellbeing intervention. In the dashboard calculations, all impacts reported have an assumed durability applied based on international research on health, social care and wellbeing interventions.
Drop off is an assumption in the reduction resulting from the charities health, social care, or wellbeing intervention impact over time.
The Green Book is guidance issued by UK HM Treasury in 2022 on how to appraise policies, programmes and projects. It provides guidance on how to attach monetary values to outcomes (for example, a monetary value per QALY).
Deadweight has been used in most of the calculations of the elements of total social value and the elements of environmental value (and where mentioned in this glossary). (1 – Deadweight) is applied as percentage to the impact value in question to determine the proportion of the intervention's impact that likely would have occurred regardless of charity intervention.
Attribution percentages have used been in most of the calculations of the elements of total social value and the elements of environmental value (and where mentioned in the metrics in the glossary). Attribution is applied as percentage (after the 1- deadweight figure has been applied) to the impact value in question to determine the proportion of the intervention's impact that could be attributed to charity intervention.
Durability is applied based on the number of years that an intervention is expected to last based on lengths of the intervention. For example, based on international literature an intervention of 51-200 hours for neurological disorders will last for 29.25 months. This has been used to calculate the durability of an intervention for the impact calculations mentioned above.
Drop-off refers to the reduction in benefit value over time following an intervention. It accounts for the fact that benefits typically diminish each year following the initial outcome.
Application in Methodology:
Based on evidence suggesting a 20–50% annual decline, a midpoint of 30% has been applied in calculations. This means that after the first year, the remaining benefit value is reduced by 30% for each subsequent year.
Green book values have been used to multiply by the change in QALY and WELLBY from the health outcomes survey as a result of charity interventions to determine a monetary value of quality of life and life satisfaction.
In line with similar, recent impact assessments, one QALY is valued at £70,000 as per the UK HM Treasury Green Book (section 9.3 Life and Health) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-green-bookappraisal-and-evaluation-in-central-government/the-green-book-2020. In line with similar, recent impact assessments, one WELLBY is valued based on an inflation-adjusted figure of £15,300 [derived from £13,000 value defined in the UK HM Treasury Supplementary Green Book Guidance 2021 , Box 7, p.30] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60fa9169d3bf7f0448719daf/Wellbeing_guidance_for_appra isal_-_supplementary_Green_Book_guidance.pdf
UK Green Book
Assumptions and limitations
The Health, Social Care and Wellbeing Charities Impact Accelerator Programme is the first of its kind in Jersey. It combining charity-specific insights and data with international best practice in new ways for the Jersey context. The process for valuing impacts was necessarily limited by time and resources and was also constrained by data availability, as set out in the main report above. Valuations and insights have been provided on a best endeavours basis and are subject to important assumptions and limitations, as set out below.
• All valuations must be treated as estimates only and should be described as such.
• The underlying data provided by the individual participating charities has not been subject to audit in this programme. This means the valuations derived are subject to change should any errors subsequently be found in the underlying data.
• In some cases, valuations are derived based on international data and proxies, where Jersey-specific valuations are not available. Availability of further Jersey-specific data in the future could also change the valuations. This could also be seen as an opportunity for commissioning future Jersey health impact research.
• Data about service users and beneficiaries were provided by each charity separately. It is impossible within the scope of this programme to understand the extent of any double-counting in situations where a beneficiary was supported by more than one of the participating charities in 2024. The analysis may therefore include an element of double-counting at the programme level.
• This was a top-down programmatic approach to impact assessment. Some charities delivered services or contributed to impact areas in 2024 that were not readily able to be included in the core programmatic analysis, or were otherwise out of scope. This means that the valuations may not cover the full scope of impact of those charities and could be underestimates.
• Data provided is for the 2024 calendar year, and therefore the valuations derived represent estimates of impact derived from activities undertaken by the charities in 2024. Any rolling forward of these impact valuations is at charities’ own discretion and will vary if the scope of services changed from year to year, or if the underlying valuation factors change significantly (e.g. average salaries). Typically, impact valuations remain valid for a 3 year period.
• Valuing health impacts:
o Health impacts are valued using QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years, via EQ-5D-5L) and WELLBYs (Wellbeing Years, based on life satisfaction), in accordance with the UK Green Book and NICE guidance. The EQ-5D-5L instrument includes an anxiety/depression domain, which is sensitive to changes in mental health. As a result, improvements in mental health may be more readily detected and valued compared to incremental changes in some physical conditions, such as osteoarthritis or certain cancers.
o When health outcomes are recorded by practitioners, there is potential for the data to reflect a greater emphasis on clinical symptoms and ongoing health challenges. This may result in wellbeing and mental health improvements being less visible in the data, while the persistence or severity of negative health conditions may be more prominent
o QALYs may not fully capture benefits that are important in end-of-life and palliative care settings, such as dignity, autonomy, and relief from anxiety. NICE and academic sources recommend additional wellbeing measures (e.g. WELLBYs) and acknowledging the limitations of QALY-based valuation in these contexts.
o There is a recognised association between health status and overall wellbeing, as measured by life satisfaction (WELLBY). Improvements in health, such as increases in QALYs, are generally linked to higher wellbeing scores; however, a person’s WELLBY score does not provide a direct or complete indication of their underlying health condition. WELLBY captures a spectrum of influences, including physical and mental health, social relationships, environment, and personal finances. For valuation purposes, UK Green Book guidance suggests a gain of one QALY is broadly equivalent to an increase of around 6–7 WELLBY (life satisfaction) points for one year. Therefore, changes in WELLBY should not be attributed solely to changes in health condition, and should be interpreted alongside clinical measures such as QALYs to provide a balanced assessment of impact.
Health Impact Survey
Participating charities were asked to provide data in response to the following:
Introduction and referencing questions
Q1. What is the name of the organisation you represent?
Q2. What type of organisation do you represent? (registered charity, non-profit, exempt charity etc.)
Q3. What is your role in the organisation?
Beneficiaries overview
Q4. Which thematic areas are the primary focus of your organisation's services? (ageing society, disabilities and long-term conditions, early years, mental wellbeing, preventing ill health)
Q5. Who are your beneficiaries?
Care recipients section
Q6. Which of these service types do you provide to Care Recipients? (nursing, counselling, education etc.)
Q7. Which health conditions are relevant to your care recipients?
Q8. In 2024, how many islanders did you directly provide care for the above condition in each age group, categorised by the extent of support?
Q9. Please complete the questions for each relevant condition, indicating the QoL (quality of life) status (1-5 scale), before and after your services were provided as well as without your services within the following dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety)
Q10. Care recipients life satisfaction before/after/without your organisation's support/care (0-10)
Other beneficiaries section
Q11. What services do you provide to 'other beneficiaries’? (nursing, counselling, education etc.)
Q12. Please provide the number of 'other beneficiaries' who received each type of support service, broken down by age group and the extent of services?
Q13. Other beneficiaries life satisfaction before/after/without your organisation's support/care (0-10)
Savings to government and wider impact
Q14. Does your charity provide any of the following types of support? (discharge support, preventing admissions, avoided ambulance callouts)
Q15. Please describe briefly the nature of your healthcare-related work
Q16. Do you provide any services to support islanders in being discharged from hospital?
Q17. As a result of these services, How many people have you supported in your discharge service?
Q18. In your experience, by how many days (or hours) does your support typically reduce a patient’s hospital stay?
Q19. If possible, please provide an estimate of the total number of days your charity’s support has saved across all patients in the last 12 months.
Q20. Which of the following services provided by your organisation have helped reduce hospital admissions among your beneficiaries? (health monitoring, crisis intervention, health awareness etc.)
Q21. In the last 12 months, approximately how many hospital trips (A&E visits or outpatient attendances) do you estimate you helped avoid?
Q22. In the last 12 months, approximately how many hospital overnight stays (admissions) do you estimate you helped avoid?
Q23. On average, how long would these avoided hospital stays have lasted if they had occurred?
Q24. How do you measure or estimate this reduction in hospital stay?
Q25. Which services help you prevent ambulance call-outs? (health monitoring, crisis response, emotional support)
Q26. In the last 12 months, approximately how many ambulance call-outs do you estimate you helped avoid?
Q27. If those avoided call-outs had taken place, what proportion do you think would have resulted in a hospital trip or overnight stay?
Q28. Does your charity provide any of the following type of services (extending employment, enabling employment, placed employment)
Q29. Over the past 12 months, approximately how many individuals would you estimate remained in employment longer than they otherwise would have due to your support?
Q30. Of these, please indicate below the percentage of people you have returned to work, broken down by job role
Q31. On average, by how much did your support extend their employment?
Q32. How is this impact measured or estimated?
Q33. Over the past 12 months, approximately how many people have gained paid employment thanks to your support?
Q34. Of these, please indicate below the percentage of people you have returned to work, broken down by job role
Q35. To the best of your knowledge, how long has the care recipient been employed (on average) so far?
Q36. Over the past 12 months, approximately how many informal carers (e.g. families, guardian, parents etc) were able to retain or return to employment due to your services?
Q37. Of these please indicate below the percentage of people you have returned to work, broken down by job role
Q38. On average, how many additional hours per week were they able to work because of your support?
Future outlook (2025)
Q40. How do you estimate this impact?
Q41. Between 2024-2025, how have your services changed?
Q42. During 2025, how have your services evolved?
Community Outcome Survey
Participating charities were asked to provide data in response to the following:
Introduction and referencing questions
Q1. What is the name of the organisation you represent?
Q2. What type of organisation do you represent? (registered charity, non-profit, exempt charity etc.)
Q3. What is your role in the organisation?
Income and financial overview
Q4. In 2024, what was the figure of your organisation's total income in pounds (£)? Please provide actual cash received in 2024 only. Do not include pledges, unpaid invoices, or in-kind donations.
Q5. In 2024, did your organisation borrow any money and if so how much? (£) e.g. funds received through loans
Q6. To the best of your knowledge, in 2024 what proportion of your income came from the following sources? (gifts, trading, investment, grants, long-term contracts)
Q7. Gifts and donations: Please estimate the breakdown of your Gifts and donations income based on the size of each donation.
Q8. Gifts and donations sources: of the income from donations, what percentage of this came from corporate, government or individuals
Q9. Earned income from trading: Please estimate the percentage breakdown of your earned income from trading based on the type of revenue generation.
Q10. Please estimate the percentage breakdown of your contract income based on type. (government, private, third sector)
Q11. Which, if any, of the following statements reflect your organisation when it comes to delivering public sector contracts (e.g. Government of Jersey, Parishes)? (need other income sources, successfully bided, inflation uplifted contracts)
Q12. How much of the total cost of delivering public sector contracts is subsidised by your organisation?
Q14. What is your ownership and use of free reserves*?
Q15. If you have answered yes, please indicate approximately how many months operating costs they would cover?
Expenditure and staffing
Q16. In 2024, how much did your organisation spend in total expenditure? (e.g. staff salaries, operating costs, materials and supplies, overheads, financing costs)
Q17. In 2024 how many paid staff did your organisation employ in Jersey?
Q18. In 2024, what was the full time equivalent (FTE) of the paid staff your organisation employs?
Q19. In 2024, how much of your organisation's expenditure in pounds (£) was spent on staff wages/salaries?
In-kind contribution
Q20. Does your organisation receive any of the following in-kind contributions? (rent relief, donated equipment, pro bono professional services)
Q21. Please estimate the total annual value (£) of each type of in-kind support at fair value you receive:
Volunteering and community engagement
Q22. In 2024, how many unpaid volunteers did your organisation have?
Q23. If you have volunteers, how many total hours did they contribute?
Q24. Please indicate the proportion of time your volunteers spend on the following activities described below (management, administrative, skilled trades, sales etc.)
Environmental impact
Q25. Do you generate any onsite renewable energy (e.g. solar) and if so, how much energy did you produce in 2024? Unit: KWh
Q25.1. Do you participate in any formal carbon offsetting schemes, and if so, how much carbon did you offset in 2024 and in what kind of scheme?
Q26. How much waste do you dispose of on a yearly basis that is not reused, recycled or resold?
Q27. Do you play a part in upcycling, reusing or recycling goods, e.g. through recycling or upcycling schemes and charity shop donations? If so, how much tonnage of each material type is recycled, upcycled or sold through charity shops per year?
Q27.1. Do you play a part in any other biodiversity and nature conservation initiatives? If so please provide details.
Services provided
Q28. Which of the following beneficiaries do you provide services to? (care recipients, family, informal carers, businesses)
Q29. Which of these service types do you provide to Care Recipients? Please provide the names of the specific projects below the relevant service type? (nursing, counselling, education etc.
Q30. Which of these service types do you provide to) both Informal and Formal Carers? Please provide the names of the specific projects below the relevant service type (formal qualifications, workshops, safeguarding, training)
Q31. Which of these service types do you provide to Family Members of Care Recipients? Please provide the names of the specific projects below the relevant service type (respite, counselling, bereavement support)
Q32. Which of these service types do you provide to Businesses? Please provide the names of the specific projects below the relevant service type (awareness training, inclusivity planning, therapeutic models)
Economic and employment outcomes
Q33. Please indicate the number of care recipients benefitting from each type of service you performed.
Q34. For each service, please provide the hours spent for the whole of 2024, broken down into staff hours and volunteer hours.
Q35. Please specify how many carers have benefited from your services:
Q36. For each service, please provide the hours spent for the whole of 2024, broken down into staff hours and volunteer hours.
Q37. Please indicate the number of family members you provided services for, broken down by each type of support
Q38. For each service, please provide the hours spent for the whole of 2024, broken down into staff hours and volunteer hours
Business and government engagement
Q39. Please indicate the number of businesses and or public sector entities you provided services to
Q40. For each service listed below, please provide the hours spent on each service for the whole of 2024, broken down into staff hours and volunteer hours
Service ranking and prioritisation
Q41. Care recipients - considering your activity as a whole, please score the following services based on their overall positive impact.
Q42. Carers - considering your activity as a whole, please score the following services based on their overall positive impact.
Q43. Family members – considering your activity as a whole, please score the following services based on their overall positive impact.
Q44. Businesses - considering your activity as a whole, please score the following services based on their overall positive impact.
About Jersey Community Foundation
Jersey Community Foundation works alongside the Island’s charitable sector to connect generosity with the areas of greatest need in our community. This May we celebrate six years of supporting local charities and community projects, distributing more than £13 million in funding during that time.
Community foundations exist all over the world. They are local experts in charitable giving, organisations that understand the needs of their communities and help direct funding to where it can have the greatest impact.
What we do
At the heart of what we do is grant-making. But what we’re really here to do is support people living in our community, through funding the areas of greatest need. We manage a range of charitable funds that charities and community organisations can apply to, supporting projects that strengthen communities and improve wellbeing across the Island.
Our funding priorities are informed by research and data about need in Jersey, including areas such as mental health, poverty and inequality, healthy living, and supporting an ageing population. Applications are assessed through a robust process including due diligence and independent grant panels, helping ensure funding goes to organisations that are well run and delivering meaningful impact.
The Jersey Community Fund is our largest and most flexible fund, supporting charities and community organisations working across a wide range of social issues. Alongside this, we manage several other charitable funds that support specific causes and initiatives. We work with organisations across the charitable sector, so we also develop a strong picture of the needs and opportunities facing communities in Jersey, helping connect generous donors with organisations doing important work across the Island.
Why it matters
By bringing together strong applications and generous donors, we help ensure funding flows to the places where it can make the biggest difference.
Charities and community organisations can find information about current funding opportunities, at www.jerseycommunityfoundation.org We also welcome conversations with charities and community organisations about how we can support work that strengthens Jersey’s communities.
