West Northamptonshire Council: local authority assessment
Downloads
Overall summary
Local authority rating and score
Quality statement scores
Summary of people’s experiences
People had mixed experiences with accessing care, some got assessments quickly, while others faced long waits and struggled to get through to the local authority by telephone. Most people felt listened to during assessments and said staff were respectful, person-centred, and included their family and unpaid carers. Some carers said they weren’t offered assessments or didn’t know if they’d had one, and many found the carers service hard to reach during a crisis.
People appreciated support which helped them stay independent, like reablement, assistive technology, and community services, but waiting times for equipment and occupational therapy were often long. People with complex needs sometimes faced delays before receiving care and support, especially in rural areas. Some people felt unclear about their rights or found information hard to access, especially if English wasn’t their first language. Unpaid carers valued respite and direct payments when they got them, but many said the process was slow and confusing.
People said transitions between services were sometimes well-coordinated, but others experienced delays, poor communication, or felt unsupported. Overall, many people felt safe and respected, but there were gaps in consistency, responsiveness, and equity especially for those with less visible needs or living in rural areas.
Summary of strengths, areas for development and next steps
Staff took a strengths-based approach, and most assessments showed good practice. People said they felt listened to, involved in decisions, and treated with respect. However, annual reviews didn’t always happen on time, and changes to the data system led to gaps in reporting. To address this, leaders had started fixing problems in the data and set up focused checks to look more closely at how care homes were doing. Carers’ assessments had started to improve, but some carers still hadn’t been offered one or weren’t sure if they’d had one. Carers’ assessments were carried out alongside the person’s own assessment, with prompts built into the new case management system to support this.
The local authority had worked with partners and communities to develop a Prevention Strategy and invested in services which helped people stay independent such as reablement, assistive technology and social prescribing. People responded well to initiatives such as the Falls Management Toolkit and the Wellbeing service. Staff received more training, and leaders improved how they captured data and linked early contact with longer-term planning. They also updated performance measures to focus more on prevention and introduced targeted support for carers.
The local authority used Joint Strategic Needs Assessment data and co-produced strategies with local communities to tackle inequalities. West Northamptonshire has 9 Local Area Partnerships, to coordinate place-based health and care services and address local inequalities through multi-agency collaboration. The local authority developed tailored services and worked with diverse groups, but some gaps remained, especially in rural areas support for autistic people and culturally appropriate care. Transport and digital barriers also made it harder for some people to access services. Leaders had plans to expand outreach, improve cultural competence, and embed inclusive design principles. They were committed to improving representation, and access to underserved areas.
Mental health and autism support in West Northamptonshire faced significant challenges, including limited rural access, long waits for diagnosis, and gaps in culturally responsive care. Staff and leaders highlighted workforce pressures, inconsistent crisis response, and difficulties in managing complex risk, particularly in transitions and prison release planning. Systemic issues such as funding disputes, lack of dedicated autism frameworks, and unequal outreach contributed to variable experiences and outcomes, with seldom heard groups and rural communities disproportionately affected.
Partnership working with the 4 prisons serving West Northamptonshire was inconsistent, with gaps in coordination, planning, and joint working reported by staff. Steps had been taken to strengthen relationships with probation services and improve inter-agency understanding, but further development is needed to ensure consistent support for prison leavers.
Partnerships with health and voluntary organisations were strong and joined-up discharge models helped people return home safely from hospital. Reablement services were appreciated by people, but delays in therapy and equipment affected outcomes. People with complex needs, especially in rural areas, often waited longer for care. Leaders responded by introducing trusted assessors, weekend work, and agency staff to speed things up. It also mapped supported living options and trialled referral review meetings to improve the matching process and reduce gaps.
Joint strategies and co-production were built into services. Experts by Experience helped shape commissioning decisions, and voluntary and community sector partners played a key role in prevention and inclusion. However, smaller organisations sometimes struggled with limited involvement. Leaders strengthened governance processes, widened co-production and made commissioning more visible. Regular roadshows were planned to support frontline staff and respond to emerging issues.
Hospital discharge was generally well managed, and staff used risk tools to prioritise urgent cases. Teams worked together to support smooth transitions, but delays in NHS Continuing Health Care (CHC) funding and equipment sometimes disrupted care. Transitions for autistic people and prison leavers were inconsistent. Leaders had trialled trusted assessor models, improved coordination around CHC, and delivered joint training with probation services. They were committed to improving post-release support and discharge planning for people with complex needs.
Safeguarding systems were strong, with clear triage processes, assurance teams, and good partnership working. Most people said they felt safe, and staff responded quickly to their concerns. However, delays in Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisations remained a problem, with some people waiting nearly a year. Staff used risk-based prioritisation and looked at technical solutions to speed up the process. Leaders increased staff training and promoted advocacy with staff to support them to help people understand their rights and stay involved.
Governance had improved since the local authority was formed, with clearer structures and more inclusive leadership. Staff felt supported, and strategic plans were shaped by both data and peoples lived experience. Despite interim leadership and legacy issues from before the restructuring, the local authority had embedded prevention across its strategies, aligned planning with health partners, and strengthened scrutiny. Leaders were committed to driving continued improvement and ensuring stability in the leadership team.
Staff embraced reflective practice and ongoing learning. Co-production was part of everyday work, and innovation was encouraged such as using AI tools and digital falls detection. Feedback from people using services helped shape improvements, although some people wanted better feedback on changes made. Leaders had expanded training, improved how they responded to feedback, and strengthened co-production with groups who were less often heard. They used complaints and compliments to drive service changes and shared learning across teams.