North Northamptonshire: local authority assessment

The local authority demonstrated a willingness to work collaboratively with both strategic and operational partners to deliver against shared priorities. Participation in the Health and Wellbeing Board enabled the alignment of adult social care goals with wider system ambitions, including improved hospital discharge pathways, preventative care, and support for unpaid carers. These actions reflected the local authority’s commitment to its statutory duties under the Care Act 2014, particularly those concerning integration and prevention.

The local authority stated that its adult social care strategy and carers strategy had been co-produced with community groups, and it established forums such as the Learning Disability Partnership Board and Making It Real Board. These structures were designed to allow people with lived experience to shape service design, potentially enhancing relevance and responsiveness. Furthermore, the Principal Social Worker’s annual report described a co-produced improvement plan, developed in collaboration with staff, partners, and people who draw on care and support.

Initiatives such as Ideal Outcome Meetings (IOMs) showed the local authority’s efforts to work jointly with housing teams, mental health services, substance misuse teams, and voluntary partners to support vulnerable people, particularly those experiencing homelessness. These arrangements reflected alignment with shared system goals. Similarly, a remote monitoring project developed collaboratively with health and voluntary sector organisations delivered positive outcomes in care settings and received positive feedback from people using the service, further supporting person-centred collaborative work.

In addition, the local authority took part in pilot projects with health partners designed to improve discharge planning and test innovative approaches to joint working. Feedback from some partners suggested that the local authority approached these pilots with openness and a willingness to learn. However, other partners reported they had rarely been proactively engaged with for shaping local objectives and only experienced engagement when issues were escalated. Partners felt this limited the local authority’s ability to co-produce solutions and respond to changing needs.

The local authority collaborated with partners to identify and support hidden carers utilising the Accelerated Reform Funding (ARF) to deliver services including rural pop-up hubs, mental health support, and wellbeing activities tailored to diverse carer groups. These initiatives demonstrated a creative and responsive approach to co-developing carer-focused services, helping the local authority meet its responsibilities around carer support, prevention and the integration of care.

The local authority had taken some steps to engage people with lived experience in shaping local objectives, however, this was not yet consistent or embedded across all adult social care sectors. People who had participated in public engagement groups described limited opportunities to share their views and said they would welcome more consistent involvement. Some said they would value meeting regularly with adult social care staff to exchange information about available support from both the local authority and voluntary organisations. This suggested that the local authority recognised the importance of listening to people and took steps to collaborate with them, but more consistent and inclusive engagement was needed.

The local authority integrated elements of its discharge arrangements, including ‘Home First’ and discharge to assess pathways. These involved community health services, occupational therapists and social care teams, helping to support safe and timely transfers of care. Some staff reported barriers that limited the local authority’s ability to deliver integrated, person-centred services in full alignment with its partners. Examples included a lack of a shared Information Technology (IT) platform between health and social care which staff felt posed a significant challenge and challenges with communication between health and social care which they said could create delays in hospital discharge and result in extended hospital stays for some people. Staff described escalation processes as reactive rather than systemic, with underlying barriers such as differing organisational cultures, and limited shared understanding between services. Furthermore, partners felt that adult social care needed to be more embedded as an equal participant in system-wide initiatives, with greater consistency, communication and inclusivity in engagement across all levels.

The local authority demonstrated its intent to promote integrated working through its participation in the Health and Wellbeing Board and utilisation of the Better Care Fund (BCF). While overarching governance structures were established, such as the Adults Services and Health Partnership Board and the monthly quality board, evidence of the local authority’s own review and accountability mechanisms remained limited. This lack of evaluative oversight limited the local authority’s ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of its partnership arrangements.

Participation in collaborative forums, including the Mental Health, Learning Disability and Autism (MHLDA) Collaborative, supported alignment with system-wide governance, including the Integrated Care Board and Health and Wellbeing Board. The local authority did not present evidence that it had evaluated the impact of these partnerships on outcomes for people, particularly as some collaboratives remained in early development stages.

The local authority told us they had jointly developed a place-based model that led to the creation of seven local area partnerships, following engagement with stakeholders such as primary care, voluntary sector organisations, and the public. The local authority restructured social work teams to align with these local areas, supporting front-line integration.

The local authority’s involvement in fortnightly partnership boards helped reinforce strategic alignment between health and social care, and some partners reported effective connectivity via structured interface meetings. Concerns were raised by staff and partners regarding the effectiveness of these partnerships. In addition, some partners also reported a lack of formal mechanisms to assess partnership effectiveness which they felt resulted in a lack of oversight in partnership working arrangements. Some leaders corroborated this and told us partnership arrangements were informal and underdeveloped, other leaders described strong working relationships with the Integrated Care Board and place-based partners, though these were not consistently evidenced.

The local authority made use of the Better Care Fund to support strategic collaboration, commissioning jointly funded services such as reablement programmes, virtual wards, falls prevention initiatives and hospital discharge pathways. There were clear arrangements in place to monitor the Better Care Fund and regular quarterly reports demonstrated governance arrangements.

The local authority had only just begun to embed formal mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of partnership arrangements. As a result, there was limited available evidence regarding the impact of these initiatives. The local authority had started to develop their data systems to enable them to better monitor and review partnership working and impact for people. An interim evaluation report for a commissioned Voluntary and Community Social Enterprise (VCSE) organisation highlighted that limited access to quantitative data at the time constrained the ability to comprehensively assess outcomes. Additionally, the absence of a clearly defined performance framework was identified as a barrier to tracking progress effectively. Nonetheless, the report drew on available qualitative insights to evidence some positive contributions from the partnership. These included improved health and wellbeing, greater independence, and enhanced social connectedness among those supported.

Leaders acknowledged that although community engagement had taken place, it was not yet embedded or consistently sustained across services. However, there were clear intentions to strengthen this area of work including the recruitment of a dedicated coproduction link worker.

Staff feedback on the impact of partnership working varied. Some reported strong collaborations with other teams and external partners that they felt improved the timeliness and quality of support provided to people. For example, staff said coordinated work with assistive technology services, equipment providers, and informal carers helped people to remain safe, supported, and independent within their communities. Others highlighted examples of effective crisis response, such as when police and health professionals worked together to support people in mental health distress by seeking appropriate support. However, some staff described fragmented or inconsistent collaborations, which they said could cause delays in access to care.

The local authority demonstrated a mixed approach to working with the Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector. There were examples of successful joint working, and several organisations described positive operational relationships and effective referral processes. Overall strategic coordination and longer-term sustainability of these partnerships remained at an early stage of development. Some VCSE groups highlighted challenges including variable engagement, limited opportunities to shape service design, and gaps in funding support. These reflections suggested that while the local authority valued collaboration with the VCSE sector, current arrangements had not yet consistently enabled shared planning, innovation, or co-production. Further work was planned to build a more joined-up partnership model.

The local authority demonstrated the potential for constructive collaboration with voluntary organisations through targeted partnerships. For instance, joint initiatives between public health and adult social care teams with a community organisation focused on wellbeing and homelessness prevention were noted as positive examples. Another example was the commissioning of a VCSE organisation to act as a link between the local authority and other VCSE organisations in supporting the community. These were new arrangements and had yet to be fully evaluated in terms of impact.

Some voluntary sector partners reported strong and well-established relationships with the local authority, marked by regular performance reviews and open dialogue around service delivery. However, these practices were not widespread, and several partners expressed concerns about limited support and inconsistent engagement with some partners stating they continued to deliver vital services despite no longer receiving direct local authority funding. Other partners recognised the value of existing referral networks and instances of productive collaboration, though they felt these efforts lacked consistent strategic backing or financial investment.

Strategic documents from the local authority acknowledged these challenges. The Adult Social Care Strategy 2024–2029 recognised the need to strengthen partnerships with the voluntary sector and outlined intentions to support community empowerment. Further references to co-production were evident in the Principal Social Worker’s report and the 2024–25 service plan, including the development of engagement forums such as the Learning Disability Partnership Board.