Cumberland Council: local authority assessment

The local authority was developing access routes to assessments for people as part of its transformation plan. Referrals for assessments were made through the Single Point of Access (SPA) via telephone, self-referral forms and referrals from partners. It had been recognised there was a lack of self-assessment options and there was ongoing development of self-assessment toolkits which were planned to reduce waits for assessments. This was in the prototype stage at the time of assessment, but was part of the wider transformation plan for pre-front door and front door services.

A person’s journey through the SPA included a ‘start of assessment’ where relevant, which collected initial information about people regarding their support needs to help inform whether full assessments were required. This decision was supported by a duty function or a multi-disciplinary discussion so the person could receive support from the appropriate pathway. A staff team told us the ‘start of assessment’ supported the assessment process. Where it was identified a full assessment was required, referrals were triaged and prioritised based on level of need. People who did not require an assessment were supported with signposting, or other preventative options.

The local authority had organised its frontline teams to be responsive to both urgency and type of need. For example, the Screening and Assessment Team (SAT) supported people who had been triaged as high or medium priority need, whereas the Long-Term Team would support people with lower priority need. A Mental Health Team and a Learning Disability, Autism and Transitions Team supported people with relevant primary needs. Staff told us co-working between teams supported identification of which team was best placed to support people, providing a more tailored approach to assessment and support planning. Teams were also broken down based on geography, with teams supporting people in the North and in the West.

The local authority was focused on providing a person-centred and strength-based approach to supporting people and assessing their needs. This was being supported by a Practice Framework launched in September 2024. A leader told us the framework was an attempt to empower staff, with development of trauma- informed, anti-racist and risk-positive approaches.

Staff teams consistently told us they were committed to applying a person-centred approach to achieving positive outcomes. A staff team told us, for example, about the face-to-face assessment process which began by finding out about the person and their background rather than just their condition or disability. This supported staff to build rapport with people and look at the whole picture, including the person’s current support network.

Most people told us they felt involved in the assessment process and support planning, and this was also reflected in assessment documentation. However, some partners reflected that this approach was inconsistent and there was an opportunity to make assessments more holistic and empowering. A staff team also told us high workloads could make it difficult to apply a consistent approach to relationship building with people.

National data also reflected positive experiences for people. The Adult Social Care Survey for 2023/24 showed that 70.52% of people were satisfied with their care and support. This was somewhat better than the England average (65.39%). National data from the Adult Social Care Survey for 2023/24 showed that 86.02% of people feel they have control over their daily life. This was better than the England average (77.62%).

People did not always have access to timely assessments and reviews, and this could delay people accessing timely support.

There were some waits for assessments as demonstrated by local authority data. As of June 2025, data showed 127 people were waiting for an assessment, for the previous 12 months the median wait was 9.56 days and the maximum wait was 44.43 days. This was an increase of 9 people waiting since data provided for January 2025.

People faced longer waits for annual reviews. As of June 2025, 811 people were waiting for a review, with a median wait of 210 days and maximum wait of 1675 days over the last 12 months. This included 51 people who were overdue by over 1000 days. Most of these 51 people were said to be reviews which were under the learning disability service and all of these reviews were due to be completed by the end of July 2025. An update from the local authority provided in September 2025 confirmed 539 of the 811 outstanding reviews had been completed (66%) and the highlighted outstanding learning disability reviews were completed by the end of July.

The local authority was taking targeted steps to decrease waits for assessments and reviews and the impact of this was still embedding. This included extra allocated resources, both internally and externally. For example, agency staff were supporting staff capacity and teams were working flexibly across regions to support people to access assessments. An external service was also commissioned in January 2025 to complete 200 reviews. A staff team also told us they had also been completing non-urgent reviews where people’s needs to support to reduce the backlog, over the phone. As a result of actions, the number of people waiting for reviews had decreased by over a third since January 2025. The local authority also forecasted all reviews to be completed within required timescales by June 2026. However, waits for reviews remained high.

To mitigate risks to people waiting, the local authority retained daily oversight and prioritisation of waits. An Allocation and Waiting Well Procedure outlined how people should be prioritised, with target timescales. For example, for assessments, a ‘high’ priority referral would require response/allocation within 24 hours. Whereas a 'normal' priority would require allocation within 2 weeks. The ‘low’ priority response was allocation within 6 weeks. People were also informed of the expected waits. Leaders told us they were uncomfortable with the waits for assessment and services, but waiting well procedures supported assurance and oversight of who was waiting and urgency of need. Staff also told us waiting well procedures were helping them to mitigate urgent risk, keep people updated and re-prioritise based on new information about people waiting.

Staff told us people’s waits could be impacted by capacity of teams. For example, they told us there were differences in staffing and resources between teams in the West and the North, which could impact wait and allocation times. A staff team also told us although they completed reviews, other complex work could be prioritised. Another team told us their team was limited in the number of visits they could complete due to availability of staff.

Partners told us of the impact of waits for assessment and reviews. Some partners felt the timeliness of reviews varied, with the local authority sometimes more responsive to more urgent need but this was not always consistent. A provider told us there were occasions where they had taken steps to increase services for people without local authority approval due to the delays in reviews at their own expense, with no guarantee of reimbursement. This presented a risk of sustainability of the support for both the partner and the person.

National data also reflected delays to reviews, but this was in line with national averages. The Short and Long-Term Support (SALT) for 2023/24 showed that 57.56% of long-term support clients reviewed (planned or unplanned). This was similar to the England average (58.77%).

The needs of unpaid carers were recognised as distinct from the person with care needs; assessments, support plans and reviews for unpaid carers were undertaken separately through a commissioned partner.

Most carers told us about the challenges of their caring roles, including finding it difficult to find time for themselves or other family members. Time constraints were also reflected in national data. The Survey of Adult Carers (SACE) in England for 2023/24 showed that 17.63% of carers were able to spend time doing things they enjoy. This was similar to the England average (15.97%). SACE data also showed that 36.02% of carers reported that they had as much social contact as desired. This was somewhat better than the England average (30.02%). This highlighted the impact of caring roles on carers’ lives, with most carers not having time for themselves.

Identified carers were supported to access assessments through the commissioned partner. Most carers told us they found the assessment process helpful, supportive and informative. They described staff from the commissioned partner as understanding, approachable and knowledgeable. Carers valued the opportunity to talk and be heard, often feeling validated and less isolated. Carers also told us they could choose whether to have a phone or in person assessment.

There were sometimes waits for carer assessments and reviews. Local authority data showed, as of June 2025, there were 13 carers waiting for assessments, with a median wait of 14 days and a maximum wait of 371 days for the previous 12 months. Carer review data showed 101 carers waiting for reviews, with a median waiting time of 16 days and a maximum waiting time of 362 days from the previous 12 months. A partner told us reviews were risk-rated based on need and whether a carer needed a review after 6, 9 or 12 months. There was mixed feedback on the timeliness of assessments, with some carers telling us they were contacted quickly following referrals, but others had to wait longer.

The commissioned partner also offered a range of services to support carers. For example, there was provision for counselling and benefits advice. Carers were positive about other services offered by the commissioned carer service. Carers told us the partner could be contacted for information and advice, and they supported social activities, including for young carers. There was also positive feedback about emotional and mental support provided, with carers able to speak to the service when they were struggling. A carer told us, for example, they had tremendous support, and they were now able to cope better in their caring role.

National data from the SACE (2023/24) showed 38.54% of unpaid carers experienced financial difficulties because of caring. This was significantly better than the England average (46.55%). While unpaid carers in the area were experiencing less financial difficulty as compared to other areas, there continued to be over a third of carers who were being impacted financially by their caring role. The local authority continued to support carers with finances. For example, local authority data also estimated there had been 283 individual actions using a commissioned partner’s carers allowance tool between May 2024 and September 2025, which enabled unpaid carers to apply for eligible carers allowance support. Usage of this tool was also increasing, which was supporting carers to better financial outcomes.

Some partners felt carers could be better supported with training for their caring roles. It was highlighted that carers would benefit from training in areas such as dementia support and manual handling. While there had been sessions for carers organised by the local authority, such as an OT session on falls prevention, this was not a regular offer. Further information provided by the local authority stated OT sessions were based on identified needs of carers. Partners told us, however, there needed to be better understanding of obstacles for attending any sessions, such as transport, as this had not been considered previously. A leader told us training was provided for carers when the cared for person had a direct payment, but this was not offered more widely. Further information provided by the local authority stated OT sessions were based on identified needs of carers. National data also reflected carer training as an area for development. The SACE for 2023/24 showed that 3.31% of carers accessed training for carers. This was somewhat worse than the England average (4.30%).

The local authority had identified unpaid carer support as a priority area for development, and this was reflected as part of their Achieving Excellence Plan. A leader told us there needed to be strong ongoing oversight of unpaid carer support and they felt the offer was improving, supported by the new commissioned contract which was due for renewal.

Central to improvements was the establishment of the carers’ forum. The forum had supported the co-production of an upcoming carer’s charter to help outline and embed improvements to the carer offer. Carers had also supported to produce the new commissioned partner contract. There were also other areas of ongoing development, such as a staff team telling us a self-assessment tool was being developed for carers to support them to identify their needs and request assessment and support.

National data also reflected the need for the local authority to continually develop and improve relationships and processes with carers. The SACE for 2023/24 showed that 34.02% were satisfied with social services. This was similar to the England average (36.83%) but showed the majority of carers were not classed as satisfied with services.

National data from the SACE for 2023/24 showed that 36.48% of carers accessed a support group or someone to talk to in confidence. This was similar to the England average (32.98%)

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’s front door, the SPA, was used for signposting, information and advice for people. Data provided by the local authority showed of 45,107 calls in 2024, 45.4% of which were recommended information, guidance and support and 8.7% of people were signposted to more targeted support. More recent SPA outcome data showed a further increase for April to June 2025, with 10.3% of all SPA contacts were externally signposted. However, some partner feedback suggested signposting and referrals was an area for development. For example, a partner told us the local authority front door was not well connected with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector (VCSE) and referrals were not always made where people did not have eligible needs. The local authority provided further information which outlined the SPA did not primarily fulfil a referral function, but could make high priority telephone referrals to the VCSE or make referrals using the ‘Joy’ application, which was used to connect people to local services.

Staff teams told us they supported people to access alternative services where people were not eligible for services. For example, a staff team told us both the SPA and frontline teams would utilise local preventative services through both the VCSE and internal resources such as health and wellbeing coaches where appropriate.

The local authority was developing its pre-front door and front door approach as part of its transformation, which included the roll-out of enhanced self-service options, signposting and building capacity in the VCSE to support people to access local support.

The local authority had assessment guidance and practice guidance to support staff with eligibility decisions, but both documents were legacy documents from the previous local authority before Local Government Reorganisation in the area. One of these documents appeared to be last reviewed in 2015. There was scope to review this documentation to ensure advice was still up to date for staff.

People’s assessments showed the use of criteria to determine eligibility for services. For example, a person's assessment clearly identified the person's eligible needs under each domain and the level of impact this was having on their wellbeing. The eligibility outcome recorded also included a professional analysis of the identified need.

People who disagreed with the outcome of eligibility decisions were able to challenge decisions by following the local authority complaints process. This was following an initial discussion with the relevant assessing staff member or their manager.

Local authority complaint data provided from 24 May 2025 stated there had been 20 ‘issues’ which were classified as ‘disagree with council policy/ decision/ procedure’. This data was not broken down further and it was unclear how many of these raised ‘issues’ related to eligibility specifically. The local authority had not identified any practice themes yet as there had been a low number of upheld/ partially upheld issues.

The local authority provided people with information on financial assessments and their charging policy both on their website and within separate documentation. This supported staff to apply relevant procedures.

Local authority data provided as of June 2025 showed 204 people were awaiting completion of a financial assessment, with a median wait of 66 days and a maximum wait of 374 days over the last 12 months. Themes collected by the local authority on people’s waits indicated financial assessments were taking longer due to mental capacity determinations, deputyship or financial appointee arrangements, changes in need/support packages during the process or due to the time taken for people to return information. Progress of assessments was also said to be monitored weekly by the Community Finance Officer Team. While delays in financial assessments were not always in the local authority’s control, there were still waits for people.

Some staff teams, however, told us financial assessments were generally completed in a timely manner. They told us people were supported with information about financial assessments and charging and they had these discussions with people as early as possible to support understanding. There was also said to be provision for staff to support people with financial assessments via phone or in-person. A person’s carer told us they benefitted from an in-person visit and had received excellent support from the local authority around a financial assessment.

Some partners were less positive about the financial assessment process. A partner told us there were delays in financial assessments for people. Another partner raised concerns the financial assessment process was delivered without appropriate support for people with communication differences, contributing to inaccessible pathways. They also told us financial assessments could be a barrier for people accessing support, especially when people did not engage with the process and did not get support to complete the assessment. In response to partner feedback, the local authority provided further information about the support provided around charging and financial assessments. This support included ensuring a person’s needs were met, whilst an affordability assessment was being undertaken. It was also outlined that no feedback on communication differences which could impact this pathway had been raised to the local authority.

Independent advocacy support was available to help people participate fully in care assessments and care planning processes. The local authority had a commissioned provider for statutory advocacy. This included advocacy for the Care Act, Mental Capacity Act (IMCA) and Mental Health Act IMHA.

People’s access to timely advocacy was dependent on the urgency of need. Staff teams told us advocacy requests were responded to promptly but there could be waits for advocacy to be provided. Referrals for safeguarding were said to be carried out in a timely way, but staff told us there could be more prolonged waits for less urgent need, with a staff team telling us of a wait of around 2 months. However, a staff team told us they could work closely with the commissioned advocacy provider to support prioritisation of need.

In the quarterly update for February- April 2025 for the local authority from the commissioned advocacy provider, there was acknowledgement of an increased demand for advocacy and staffing pressures, but no delays noted. There were plans to address staffing challenges through seasonal staff and volunteers.

Data for the quarter May- July 2025 showed a large reduction in time taken to allocate an advocate, prior to contacting the person, across all commissioned advocacy types provided. Data also showed for this quarter, people waited on average 27 days from the referral date to first contact for Care Act advocacy. Independent Mental Health Act advocacy (IMHA) and Independent Mental Capacity Act Advocacy (IMCA) was timelier, each with waits of 19 days until first contact on average. Relevant Person’s Representatives (RPRs) made contact on average 32 days from referral.

Some partner feedback suggested advocacy referrals were not always consistent. This included where care and support decisions had been made before an advocate had significant input to support the person’s voice. Staff teams told us they understood the need to ensure a person’s voice was heard and knew how to refer for advocacy.

Data also showed, for the quarter February- April 2025, 93% of people were satisfied with the level of support received by the commissioned advocacy provider and the level of information provided to help them inform their decisions. This increased to 100% for the quarter May- July 2025.