North Northamptonshire: local authority assessment

Safeguarding pathways across the local authority were found to be multifaceted and complex. However, the local authority demonstrated detailed and localised guidance, flow charts, and procedural documents to support the management of safeguarding concerns. These covered a range of pathways including large-scale enquiries and those led by providers. They maintained full accountability for managing safeguarding concerns across all areas including hospitals. Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) guidance was used to assist practitioners in applying Section 42 threshold decisions, offering structure and consistency in decision-making.

Leaders told us that the local authority had implemented a safeguarding improvement plan following a peer review, this covered clear reporting structures, performance dashboards, and joint leadership of the Safeguarding Adults Board. This strengthened safeguarding governance and improved confidence in oversight. It was observed that teams managed safeguarding concerns differently, which sometimes led to delays in support depending on the route through which a concern was processed. Principal workers in most teams held responsibility for managing concerns and applying thresholds, ensuring a level of consistency. However, in one team, this responsibility was managed by duty workers, which may have contributed to variation in practice.

Performance across teams varied in relation to key performance indicators (KPIs). While some teams successfully met their targets, others experienced challenges due to capacity constraints. In certain instances, concerns were progressed through to the next stage of safeguarding without the necessary information to properly support the decision, suggesting that workflow may have been driven by KPI requirements rather than safeguarding needs.

Quarterly safeguarding audits were conducted to review practice and inform quality assurance. However, the response rate was notably low. In 2024, fewer than 20 of the 80 audits sent to practitioners were returned, and in August 2024, only two responses were submitted. This limited the local authority’s ability to develop a representative understanding of safeguarding performance. Leaders acknowledged the issue and had planned actions to improve future audit participation and data quality. While the audit forms addressed aspects such as making safeguarding personal, they did not capture whether communication and outcomes had been shared with the original referrer or the individual at risk, representing an area for future consideration.

The local authority worked closely with the Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) and a wide range of partners to deliver a coordinated and strategic approach to adult safeguarding across the region. The SAB held six strategic meetings during the year, maintaining strong attendance from statutory members such as the local authority, police, and Integrated Care Board, while also engaging health services, probation, public health, and voluntary sector organisations. This reflected a broad and committed multi-agency partnership.

Clear governance structures were in place, including operational delivery boards and subgroups focused on communication and engagement, quality, and performance, learning and development, and safeguarding adult reviews. The Principal Social Worker chaired the Learning and Development subgroup and led initiatives such as safeguarding learning weeks and practice audits to promote cross-sector development.

There was a clear understanding of the safeguarding risks and issues in the area. The local authority worked with safeguarding partners to reduce risks and to prevent abuse and neglect from occurring. Lessons were learned when people experienced serious abuse or neglect, and action was taken to reduce future risks and drive best practice.

The local authority demonstrated a proactive and collaborative approach to understanding and responding to safeguarding risks. Following recent Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs), teams from Adult Social Care and Housing across the local authority worked together to develop and deliver training focused on supporting people experiencing Multiple Exclusion Homelessness. In addition, the Principal Social Worker, along with a neighbouring authority, jointly designed and provided training under the “Think Family” initiative, which aimed to promote a more holistic view of safeguarding across family units.

The Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) Annual Report presented detailed safeguarding activity, including data and analysis related to SARs. Referral levels remained high, and the associated information was made transparent to partners and stakeholders. While improvements in safeguarding outcomes were recognised, the report also highlighted areas requiring further attention from the local authority. These included enhancing feedback mechanisms, improving engagement with people who had lived experience of safeguarding, and addressing delays in service pathways. Additional challenges were noted around data sharing, equitable access to services, and the local authority’s understanding of safeguarding needs among underrepresented groups.

In response to the findings of SARs, the local authority developed composite action plans that outlined clear responsibilities for implementing recommendations. These plans included expected improvements, risk mitigation strategies, actions taken, timescales, and outcomes achieved. A RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating system was used to monitor progress and support continuous improvement.

The local authority demonstrated a clear understanding of what constituted a safeguarding concern under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014, and when a statutory enquiry was required. However, this understanding was not always applied consistently or in a timely manner across all teams. While practitioners were supported by guidance issued by the Safeguarding Adults Board and supplemented by localised protocols outlining responsibilities for managing different aspects of enquiries, the operational detail varied significantly between teams. This variation impacted the local authority’s ability to monitor and report on key performance metrics, particularly the time taken from receipt of a concern to its initiation and completion.

Safeguarding concerns were managed differently across teams, with some held in principal workers’ folders, others in duty inboxes, and some in individual workers’ inboxes. This fragmented approach made it difficult to maintain a consistent and transparent overview of workflow and timeliness.

Between April 2024 and January 2025, data provided by the local authority indicated that over three quarters of concerns were triaged either on the day they were received or the following working day. Furthermore, 90% of concerns were triaged within one working week. For the remaining 10% that were triaged after five days, the median time to triage was 12 days, and the mean was 17 days. The median time for concerns to be completed was 10 days, with a mean of 19 days. In contrast, Section 42 enquiries showed significantly longer completion times, with a median of 110 days, a mean of 123 days and the longest open case was 389 days. These figures fell short of the authority’s own Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which set targets of 24 hours for triaging a concern, five days for making a threshold decision, and 28 days for completing an enquiry. The local authority applied its waiting well approach to people awaiting support and this included the safeguarding team, however, this was not consistently applied across all teams.

The local authority established clear standards and quality assurance arrangements for the completion of Section 42 enquiries, to support in ensuring safeguarding processes were both effective and accountable. These arrangements included oversight by principal workers within teams, as well as the use of case discussion meetings and regular audits to monitor practice and outcomes.

Relevant agencies were not always informed of the outcomes of safeguarding enquiries when necessary to support the ongoing safety of the person concerned. Partners reported inconsistent experiences with the local authority’s safeguarding processes. They stated referrals were often met with minimal response, ranging from no follow-up to brief acknowledgements, with limited feedback on outcomes. Partners described the process as unclear and difficult to navigate, while others noted missed opportunities for collaboration due to poor communication. However, partners also reported that safeguarding advice and support was always available by telephone.

The local authority maintained structured oversight of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), using RAG rating tools and regular data reporting to prioritise cases. Local authority data indicated 701 people were awaiting DoLS authorisation from 2023, rising to 703 by May 2024, with 519 rated high. The total number assessed as needing DoLS stood at 727, with 23 awaiting allocation and 19 waiting since May 2022. To address delays, the local authority planned to recruit two Best Interests Assessors and continued using independent BIAs. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Service (ADASS) prioritisation tool supported triage and legal compliance. Process improvements included new prioritisation protocols and monthly legal reviews of pending cases. Mental Capacity Act/Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard training compliance was 44.94% which was somewhat better than the England average of 37.58%.

Safeguarding enquiries were carried out sensitively, but not always without delay. The local authority pathways and procedures were clear in expectation and prompts for making safeguarding personal and recording people’s aspired outcomes. The local authority emphasised the importance of involving people in decision-making and ensuring their preferences were respected throughout the safeguarding process. This approach aimed to promote dignity, build trust, and ensure that safeguarding interventions were person-centred.

According to the local authority’s audit, evidence of Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) was present in 79% of cases in 2023, which decreased to 47% in 2024. An additional 41% of cases in 2024 showed partial evidence of MSP, and the proportion of cases with no evidence of MSP declined from 21% to 12%. These findings indicated positive movement in some areas, while also highlighting opportunities to further strengthen person-centred safeguarding practice across the workforce.

The audits also identified areas for improvement, including the need to strengthen professional curiosity and ensure consistent application of the Mental Capacity Act. Notably, evidence-based recording improved significantly, rising from 64% in 2023 to 88% in 2024, indicating positive progress.

The local authority acknowledged that people were not always asked about the outcomes they wanted from safeguarding enquiries. In response, it committed to improving communication and raising awareness of MSP principles. Strategic documents such as the Adult Social Care Strategy (2024–2029) and the Practice Framework reinforced this commitment, stating that safeguarding interventions should be guided by peoples’ views and desired outcomes. According to data from the Safeguarding Adults Collection 2023/24 84.21% of people in North Northamptonshire lacking capacity were supported by an advocate, family or friends, this was similar to the England average of 83.38%.

Feedback from people and partners indicated the local authority could enhance its engagement with people who have lived experience of safeguarding, particularly in capturing and incorporating their voices. Leaders recognised this as an important area for development and expressed a clear commitment to strengthening involvement. Plans were in place to increase opportunities for people to contribute to safeguarding processes and pathways, with the aim of learning from lived experiences and continuously improving practice.