North Northamptonshire: local authority assessment

The local authority was working towards understanding its local population profile and demographics. It did not consistently analyse equality data for people who used social care or use it to identify and reduce inequalities in people’s care and support experiences and outcomes.

The local authority demonstrated a growing commitment to understanding and reducing barriers to care and support, with several structures in place that aligned with its Care Act duties. It launched strategic frameworks such as the Communities Strategy 2024–2027 and the Health and Wellbeing Board Strategy 2024-2029, which prioritised mental health, financial resilience, and support for children and young people; areas linked to reducing inequalities. These strategies were supported by Local Area Partnerships (LAPs) and Community Wellbeing Forums, which aimed to tailor services to local needs and improve place-based equity.

Through partnership work and inclusive strategies, the local authority made progress in identifying priority groups, investing in outreach, and embedding person-centred practice. Initiatives like Support North Northamptonshire played an important role in reaching minority groups such as Black African communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and the deaf community.

Culturally sensitive practices were evident, with examples including tailored communication, religious observance, and age-specific support services. The use of Equality Screening Assessments and demographic tracking suggested an awareness of how different groups experienced care services, while strategies like the Adult Social Care Strategy 2024-2029 and Carers Strategy 2024-2029 showed recognition of underrepresented groups and committed to addressing inequalities through training, service adaptation, and impact monitoring. These strategies and initiatives were in their early stages and there was limited evidence for impact or review.

The local authority had initiated collecting referral information across protected characteristics such as age, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability to better understand service gaps, although further development was required with missing data evident. They have committed to improving workforce diversity and equity through neurodiversity pledges, trauma-informed training, and collaboration with universities to support ethnic minority social workers. They also signed up to the Workforce Race Equality Standard, an initiative designed to ensure that employees from ethnic minority backgrounds have equal access to career opportunities.

There was some evidence of tailored support for people with learning disabilities, including targeted wellbeing initiatives and employment inclusion programmes like the Employment and Disability Service (EADS) and Learning Independence Volunteering Employment (LIVE) service. These teams helped people with disabilities facing challenges in employment, learning and volunteering.

Some staff within the local authority demonstrated a clear understanding of the complex needs faced by people, including those experiencing homelessness, communication barriers, and disabilities. In response, creative and person-centred approaches were employed to support access and inclusion within care pathways. Staff told us policies such as the Gypsy and Traveller communication guidance promoted accessible engagement, encouraging direct visits over written materials.

Some staff reported ongoing challenges in service infrastructure and strategic oversight with regards to equality diversity and inclusion. Information technology (IT) systems were described as fragmented, affecting the availability and reliability of peoples’ data and coordination, including limitations in recording ethnicity data. An example given was of difficulties experienced accessing information and services during out of hours, hindering multi-agency support provision for vulnerable people. In addition, staff said formal processes to incorporate community voice into service planning were limited, reducing opportunities for meaningful engagement with seldom-heard populations.

Equality Screening Assessments and self-assessments demonstrated an awareness of disparities and the intent to deliver inclusive care, but these were not consistently applied across adult social care. Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) were not routinely involving people with lived experience and were infrequently published, which reduced opportunities for broader consultation and application in service design. Some proposals associated with these assessments had not yet progressed to commissioning and the corporate equality team were not directly aligned with adult social care, instead providing a more corporate function. They had little involvement in the creation of new adult social care strategies.

Engagement with equity initiatives among frontline teams was limited, particularly regarding available support for unpaid carers and identification of underrepresented or marginalised communities. There was little evidence showing that collected data consistently informed service planning and improvement. Outreach activity through Local Area Partnerships was not widely recognised at an operational level in adult social care, suggesting room for improvement in the coordination between strategic planning and understanding in operational delivery.

Review mechanisms concerning access for underrepresented groups on pathways such as hospital discharge, out-of-hours services, and therapy provision were not comprehensively developed. Variation in wait times across teams was observed. For instance, the learning disability team reported a median wait time of 217 days, compared to 38 days for the Wellingborough team which demonstrated inequity in experience.

The local authority had taken steps to proactively engage with communities where inequalities had been identified, mainly through commissioning Support North Northamptonshire (SNN), a Voluntary and Community Social Enterprise organisation (VCSE) partnership aimed at outreach and tailored support. This engagement suggested a genuine effort to connect with seldom-heard groups, gather insight on lived experiences, and address localised challenges. However, evaluation findings indicated that access to this support varied across the local authority’s four localities, leading to inconsistencies in reach and impact. Preliminary findings also reported a lack of detailed objectives and that data collection hindered effective evaluation.

While SNN was focused on promoting wellbeing and resilience both closely aligned with Care Act principles there was limited evidence that these outcomes were being systematically linked to reduce inequalities. There was no framework in place to monitor how these preventative activities translated into equitable care and support across population groups. This lack of oversight meant that, despite commissioning a service capable of supporting community engagement, the local authority had not yet demonstrated how its delivery mechanisms reduced inequalities.

There were some appropriate inclusion and accessibility arrangements in place so that people could engage with the local authority in ways that worked for them, however, these needed to be developed further. The local authority made notable efforts to promote access and inclusion in its adult social care services, with emphasis on co-production, accessible communication, and responsiveness to community needs. Various strategies and commissioned services demonstrated commitment to engaging people with lived experience, improving information accessibility, and identifying key barriers such as digital exclusion, language, and literacy.

The local authority co-produced key materials such as the Adult Social Care Strategy 2024-2029, the Carers Strategy 20204-2029, the waiting well pack and transition leaflets with carers, young people, and people with lived experience. The development of a dedicated Experts by Experience group further illustrated an intent to embed co-production in everyday practice. Additionally, workshops, surveys, and easy-read adaptations contributed to more inclusive consultation methods.

Information accessibility has been enhanced through updates to advocacy resources, use of visual cues in documentation, and the provision of interpreting and translation services for staff. Contracted providers, such as those delivering the supporting carers service, were required to offer information in large print, Braille, audio, British Sign Language (BSL), and translated formats including easy-read versions of assessment tools.

Intention toward co-production was articulated in documents, but evidence of early engagement with people with lived experience remained limited, and further clarity was needed on how experts by experience would be identified and involved meaningfully with regards to improving accessibility for people.

The local authority acknowledged systemic barriers, including digital exclusion, limited English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision, poor literacy, and poverty. Scrutiny reviews recommended community-based solutions such as enhanced digital resources and communication formats which aimed to improve participation and reduce inequality of access.

Staff highlighted inclusive measures, such as the use of translation services, easy-read formats for one-page profiles, and operational adjustments for people with hearing impairments. Staff indicated that access to language interpreters was generally effective, although challenges remained in specific language coverage, examples given were for Gujarati interpretation and British Sign Language (BSL) availability. Efforts were made to address shortfalls, including managers personally sourcing interpreters when needed. Some inclusion practices such as easy-read formats were not embedded consistently across all documents, creating barriers for certain users during initial contact.

Carers highlighted practical barriers such as inaccessible timings for support groups which limited equitable access, particularly for working carers and those navigating the system independently. Carers also raised concerns that the needs of those aged 59–64 were overlooked, despite experiencing similar challenges to the 65+ age group.

Some partners acknowledged rising homelessness and praised adult social care for implementing inclusive and responsive initiatives in partnership, demonstrating awareness of emerging needs with their Adults, Health Partnerships and Housing’s rough sleeper team. Some partners suggested that outreach approaches for rough sleepers could be strengthened by increasing the frequency of contact and adapting engagement methods to better reflect the realities of street homelessness.