North Northamptonshire: local authority assessment

The local authority’s care and support services were accessible through various channels, including online platforms and self-assessment options, offering flexibility for people seeking assistance. A central business support function managed referrals and allocated them to appropriate teams. These teams operated a duty triage system, applying a strengths-based approach to determine the most suitable pathway for each case.

Feedback from people indicated the local authority provided them with a personalised approach and involvement in assessments. People reported regular contact with practitioners, tailored support, and clear communication. They said their assessments considered risks such as social isolation and addressed eligible needs across multiple domains. According to the Adult Social Care Survey 2023/24, 66.37% of people in North Northamptonshire were satisfied with their care and support which was similar to the England average of 65.39%.

Assessments and care planning were person-centred and focused on individual strengths, choices, and aspirations. This approach promoted autonomy, identified personal assets, and supported outcomes aligned with what people wanted to achieve. Pathways and processes were designed to ensure support was both planned and coordinated.

Reflective tools such as Ideal Outcome Meetings (IOM) and ‘On Track Chat’ supervision sessions supported multi-agency collaboration and alignment around peoples’ goals. The local authority’s assessment teams were equipped to carry out both general and specialist assessments, supporting a comprehensive and responsive service.

In May 2024, the local authority restructured its adult social work teams to strengthen resilience, enhance local responsiveness, and improve continuity of care. The new model established four locality-based adult social care teams aligned to Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough, and East Northants. In addition, a range of specialist teams supported assessment and care planning across the borough, including Learning Disability and Transitions teams, a Continuing Healthcare (CHC) reviewing team, and hospital-based teams. These teams were designed to reflect community-specific needs and promote effective place-based working. The impact of the restructuring had not yet been measured so it was not possible to assess its effectiveness.

This reorganisation formed part of the "Moving Forward with Place" programme, aimed at streamlining service delivery and improving outcomes for residents. Social care staff operated within integrated, multi-disciplinary settings alongside nurses, therapists, and other professionals, enabling coordinated and holistic support planning.

Assessments and care planning arrangements were not always timely or up to date. Local authority data indicated as of June 2025 there were 311 people waiting for care act assessments (including community teams and the visual impairment team) with a median wait time of 84 days and a maximum wait time of 456 days. As of the end of May 2025 there were 1481 people who were awaiting a 12-month review. Data from the Adult Social Care Activity Report between April 2024 and March 2025 indicated 38.25% of long-term support clients had been reviewed which was somewhat worse than the England average of 59.13%. However, the local authority told us their data indicated that as of July 2025 49% of long-term clients had been reviewed which demonstrated a positive trajectory.

People and partners expressed concerns regarding delays for assessments and reviews and the impact this was having for people waiting. Partners reported reduced regularity and consistency of reviews from the previous year but also said the local authority would prioritise reviews where critical need was identified. Some partners reported that the local authority routinely contacted them in advance of scheduled reviews, enabling proactive preparation and reducing the risk of unmet needs. They told us urgent review requests were typically actioned within a week, with care packages adjusted swiftly to reflect.

The local authority took active steps to reduce waiting times for assessments, care planning, and reviews. The Care Home Review Team contributed to this by restructuring team roles and coordinating joint visits with quality officers, which improved efficiency and reduced backlogs. Despite this progress, staff continued to report concerns about delays in reviews. Mitigation measures were introduced, including the prioritisation of high-risk cases and the implementation of targeted review days. In some areas, whole-team duty days were used to accelerate review activity; however, staff told us this approach sometimes caused disruption to other essential duties.

In managing waiting times, the local authority introduced the “waiting well” pack, which was co-produced with people with lived experience, to help people understand processes and manage expectations while awaiting assessments or support. While this was a positive step toward transparency and engagement, feedback from partners indicated that some people struggled to fully comprehend the information provided.

The application of the waiting well guidance was inconsistent across teams. Some teams were able to implement it effectively, while others reported insufficient capacity to apply it consistently. These disparities limited the impact of the waiting well process.

The local authority acknowledged the distinct needs of unpaid carers and arranged for their assessments, support plans, and reviews to be conducted separately from those of individuals receiving care. These responsibilities were commissioned from a Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector (VCSE) provider, with no carers assessments carried out internally.

Contract review meetings were held regularly, and performance was monitored against agreed performance indicators. However, the local authority did not directly audit the quality of carers assessments. The commissioned provider conducted its own audits, but the local authority did not have oversight of these processes, limiting its ability to monitor assessment quality, statutory compliance, and access to support.

Local authority data from February 2025 showed 56 people were waiting for a carers assessment, 6 having waited longer than 6 months. The median wait was 65 days, and the maximum wait was 203 days. Data as of June 2025 indicated there were 46 people waiting for a carers assessment, with a median wait time of 15 days and a maximum wait time of 28 days. Carer review data for February 2025 was not made available. There were 87 reviews due for completion in June 2025, of those, 29 were carried out, 58 received letters/emails and 48 were not responded to. These figures indicated from February 2025 to June 2025 there was a positive trajectory in access and more timely carers assessments. However, data regarding carers reviews indicated the need for more proactive follow-up to ensure carers were supported and their needs were regularly reviewed.

Training on the strength-based approach was offered to the carers service, but documentation viewed as part of the assessment indicated this methodology was not consistently reflected in assessment practice. Staff delivering assessments had received some training; however, this did not include Care Act-specific content, resulting in a lack of clarity around how eligibility criteria were being applied.

Every carer we spoke with confirmed they had undergone a carers assessment. Feedback from carers indicated that the assessment process was a mixed experienced, with some carers reporting timely support, a sense of empowerment, and outcomes such as access to employment. Assessments were described as strengths-based and person-centred, and the commissioned carers association was reported to have offered a comprehensive and tailored support offer, including group options and young carer support.

Several carers reported concerns about emergency support arrangements, particularly in cases such as hospitalisation, which they felt had not been adequately addressed through contingency planning. They indicated that financial advice and benefit entitlement guidance were not routinely offered during assessments, and that printed materials for future reference had not been provided.

Data from the Survey of Adult Carers 2023/24 showed that 8.62% of carers in North Northamptonshire accessed training, which was better than the England average of 4.3%. Additionally, 37.29% of carers reported having as much social contact as desired, and only 18% were not in paid employment due to caring responsibilities—both figures being somewhat better than the England averages of 30.02% and 26.7%, respectively.

Further survey findings showed that 38.98% of carers felt they had encouragement and support, while 65.52% reported access to support groups or someone they could speak to in confidence. These indicators were better than the national averages of 32.44% and 32.98% respectively, with the latter figure being significantly better

Carers shared that accessing residential respite could be challenging, particularly when supporting people with learning disabilities. They said that respite was often linked to higher levels of need, and that opportunities for breaks were limited for those caring for people with less complex needs. As a result, some carers felt that their ability to take time for themselves was restricted. This was reflected in the Survey of Adult Carers 2023/24, which showed that 10.34% of carers accessed services allowing them to take a break of more than 24 hours, which was somewhat worse than the England average of 16.14%.

Adult social care staff were not responsible for completing carers assessments but played a role in broader Care Act assessments where carers’ needs were relevant. We found staff lacked awareness of residential respite options, direct payments for carers, and general support available, which may have affected the advice and conversations held during assessments. Data from the Survey of Adult Carers 2023/24 showed that 33.77% of carers had received a carers direct payment, which was much lower than the England average. This suggested limited uptake of direct payments as part of the support offer.

People were given help, advice, and information about how to access services, facilities, and other agencies for help with non-eligible care and support needs. The local authority applied a strengths-based assessment approach, focusing on people's capabilities rather than their limitations.

People were referred to community organisations, forums, and support programmes, which aimed to help reduce isolation and promote early access to advice and low-level support. Holistic therapies and lifestyle interventions such as gym passes were made available to some carers, allowing them to focus on self-care and improve their resilience.

The local authority implemented the Support North Northamptonshire (SNN) model to help prevent the escalation of care needs. Referral volumes increased over time, indicating stronger engagement with early intervention services. In addition, staff provided information and signposting to other forms of support including housing and benefits services. Out-of-hours teams responded to urgent situations by connecting people to appropriate support, such as the rough sleeper service. Staff reported routinely signposting people who were not eligible under the Care Act to alternative services, helping mitigate risk and promote access to information and support.

The local authority used a transparent and consistently applied framework to determine eligibility for adult social care. Eligibility decisions were guided by statutory thresholds and delivered through structured assessment pathways supporting person-centred, strengths-based evaluations that considered peoples’ needs and outcomes.

The local authority applied a consistent framework for Care Act eligibility through its twice-weekly Cost Consistency Meetings. These brought together senior managers and multi-disciplinary teams to review funding requests, ensuring decisions were lawful, strengths-based, and cost-effective. All cases requiring senior authorisation, including long-term care following hospital discharge, were discussed using standardised procedures and documented in a central spreadsheet. This process promoted oversight, quality assurance, and financial governance.

Feedback from carers and partners suggested that prior to assessment, people were often unsure of what support they could receive without meeting Care Act eligibility. There were specific references to limited public information about direct payments, pre-paid card uses, and funding options for non-eligible people, which they said created barriers to informed decision-making.

According to the Adult Social Care Survey (ASCS), the percentage of people who did not purchase additional care or pay top-up fees was 64.26%. This was used as an indicator of effective eligibility determinations. The figure was similar to the England average of 64.39% which suggested that care needs were generally met through standard provision, reinforcing the local authority’s position that its eligibility decisions reflected fairness, clarity, and accessibility.

Appeal data, including outcomes and trends, was collected by the local authority and used for internal oversight, though detailed figures were not provided in this context.

The local authority demonstrated a framework for assessing and charging adults for care and support that was generally clear and person-centred.

The local authority’s charging policy was largely consistent with national guidance. It included details on capital thresholds, affordability checks for top-ups, and complaints procedures. Standardised system-generated letters were used to inform people of their financial contribution and provided guidance on how to access further information. These mechanisms contributed to clarity and accessibility in the decision-making process.

Monthly tracking of financial assessment queries was maintained through a formal feedback mechanism. Local authority data indicated that approximately 300 queries were resolved each month by the local authority’s financial assessment team, with positive feedback reported. As of June 2025, 254 people were awaiting financial assessments, with a median wait of 21 days. Previous data from January 2025 showed a maximum wait time of 66 days. While assessments were not always completed prior to the commencement of care, the local authority told us the financial assessment process and people’s responsibilities were explained by social care workers, with a checklist and letter provided so in the majority of cases people would have an awareness of the need to contribute before their service started.

Staff described timely, person-centred assessment processes. Initial contact was made within one week, followed by a two-week window for document submission, and assessments were completed within seven days thereafter. For reassessments linked to changes in circumstance, the team operated a consistent 72-hour response standard, which further contributed to timely and proactive support.

Partners reported that the local authority, conducting assessments directly with the resident, improved clarity, and transparency. This person-centred method strengthened communication and supported informed decision-making, helping ensure that funding arrangements were clearly understood.

The local authority supported people with advocacy needs through commissioned services and operational guidance. Advocacy services were delivered by a commissioned Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise partner, offering support in contexts such as Care Act assessments, safeguarding enquiries, mental health, and mental capacity decisions. Advocacy was accessible through multiple referral routes, including online forms, phone, and email, and was available for both instructed (where individuals could express their wishes) and non-instructed scenarios.

Feedback from staff and partners, and internal documentation indicated that the local authority took steps to embed advocacy across adult social care processes. Staff described timely arrangements for people with substantial difficulty in being involved in decision-making, particularly in care planning and safeguarding contexts. Staff said advocacy was used proactively in service recommissioning and transition planning, supporting inclusive approaches to care and the individual’s right to representation.

Following audit activity, training was introduced to improve staff confidence in applying the Mental Capacity Act, and practical tools were implemented to support appropriate referrals. Advocacy signposting was also embedded in the “Waiting Well” guidance, helping people remain engaged during care delays.

Some partners reported concerns about poor referral quality and missing or poor quality capacity assessments, which hindered advocacy effectiveness. However, partners reported this to the local authority and said they were responsive to concerns raised.