East Riding of Yorkshire Council: local authority assessment

The lack of a clear practice framework and a minimal quality assurance framework limited opportunities for learning and improvement within the local authority. There was mixed feedback about the availability of training to support ongoing skills development, with some staff sharing they had limited to no access to appropriate training. Co-production was developing. The local authority identified the need to draw on external support to improve across a number of areas.

The local authority had expanded their practice development function recently. This provided dedicated resource to support ongoing activity around the practice framework, guidance, quality improvement, responses to complaints, changes to national practice, and local learning and development. This work was aligned with the Practice Development Board. For example, learning from the Safeguarding Adults Reviews group under the East Riding Safeguarding Adults Board (ERSAB) included short learning briefings and was presented to the Practice Development Board, alongside learning from audits and Domestic Homicide Reviews.

There were regular audits of assessments and case work. Each manager completed 2 per month and there was a specific role within the practice development team to complete additional audits and spot checks. Findings from audits were collated and delivered to the Practice Development Board for wider action and dissemination of learning. Guidance was available to support constructive feedback and learning following audits. A specific audit tool had been launched for safeguarding work. Leaders told us there was service wide ownership and accountability in practice quality. However, the local authority did not have a standalone overarching quality assurance framework indicating how all quality assurance activity came together in place at the time of our assessment. Quality assurance primarily focused on case file audit, and did not appear to include elements such as where thematic reviews, senior leadership audits, supervision audits, external reviews, or performance data were used collectively to contribute regularly to practice quality improvement. Where practice issues were identified, there were clear actions, with ‘what if’ cards, briefings and learning events for wider service learning. The local authority identified the development and launch of their practice framework, expected in the coming months would include the publication of further audit tools. The practice framework used recognised good practice and evidence to inform its development, alongside consideration of consistency with children’s social care practice models.

We received mixed feedback about the ongoing access to learning and support available to staff to support the delivery of Care Act duties. Some staff there was sufficient training and they felt supported to develop professionally. However, some staff said they struggled to make time for training and continuous professional development due to caseloads and staffing issues. Some staff told us there was limited access to training and what was available wasn’t always specific to the needs of teams. Some staff said training was often cancelled. In one example, a staff member said they had not had any training in several years. Other feedback related to delivery, which staff said was mostly online and more face-to-face training was needed. Some bitesize learning was in place, for example, to support safeguarding activity but this was not always well attended. Some staff identified they were less confident to support safeguarding activity and safeguarding training was being reviewed at the time of our assessment. The local authority had recently standardized their training matrices across their services to ensure mandatory and repeated training was clear. Staff shared examples of some more in depth training that was being developed, for example mandatory training on carers awareness.

In general, staff told us there were structures, such as supervision, team meetings, and ‘huddles’ in place to support them at work. Staff had access to champions, for example for carers and technology, which provided specific points of contact for advice to support staff to deliver Care Act duties. Some staff said supervision wasn’t as frequent as it should be and they had put practitioner led peer group meetings in place themselves to support their delivery of Care Act duties where there were gaps. Several staff were clear there were supportive team relationships which meant they knew where to go to get support, including from the Principal Social Worker, and do the research they needed to in order to best meet someone’s needs.

The local authority had developed a strong Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE) offer and increased their take up of student placements and apprenticeships to build the opportunities for continued professional development. Some staff said the local authority supported a ‘grow your own’ approach and staff retention was good.

There had been issues regarding the progression pathways for some care coordinators which had demoralized staff across the organisation. The local authority told us this had been resolved around the time of our assessment and pay issues had been resolved.

The local authority’s work with the ERSAB included activity to increase people’s involvement in safeguarding work and development. Roles had also been identified and recruited to through Better Care Fund which included to support coproduction.

Partnership groups were in place for carers, learning disabilities and dementia which included people with lived experience, partners and staff to support ongoing strategy development and accountability. For example, the carers strategy was accountable to the Carers Advisory Group. The anti-poverty strategy had been co-produced with the voluntary and community sector. There were co-production activities in commissioning through the redevelopment of the day time activities model and evaluating the homecare tenders, for example.

Some people we spoke to said co-production felt like a buzzword, but most of the people we spoke to involved in this kind of activity said they felt like they were working on solutions, were being listened to and were valued. Some people were clear the local authority had taken steps to make sure those who were involved were included, through transport support, costs, and scheduling. Some partners and people said there was more to do to bring people with lived experience directly to the table, including people from seldom-heard communities. This included enabling everyone to feel confident to contribute. There was collective recognition and active work to improve this. Some leaders, partners and people identified co-production was at its early stages in the local authority and a more joined-up approach would support the areas of good work that were progressing.

‘A good life with dementia’ courses, which were part of a development of a dementia peer support network, with a community organisation worked with people with dementia, provided both a supportive network and an opportunity to shape services. Evaluation of the programme with the Social Care Institute of Excellence (SCIE) was used to support the development of the local authority’s coproduction approach with people who used services and the voluntary and community sector. The local authority had a co-production toolkit to support staff to consider diversity, the different ways to gather feedback, and the intended impact of the work, for example.

The local authority identified the need to draw on external support to improve. This included a peer review that indicated further attention was needed in safeguarding, which had led to the change in model in 2022. The local authority had identified further support to review their approach in the months following our assessment. Staff also told us the prisons team received regular contact from other local authorities to understand their model and approach to support their own delivery.

The local authority learned from people’s feedback about their experiences of care and support, and feedback from staff and partners. This informed improvement activity and decision making. The Practice Development Board oversaw findings and actions related to complaints. However, people said to us and the local authority they had to complain to get their voices heard. While positive steps were being taken and improvements made, this raised significant concerns for the number of people who may have had poor experiences but were not sufficiently able, for a variety of reasons, to complain to the local authority.

Themes and trends from the 150 complaints received between June 2024 and June 2025 included the need for clearer communication, and sharing of assessments, support plans and financial discussions and clear case note recording. Practice issues included the need for more training and support to staff about hoarding and self-neglect and knowledge around sensory impairment. The local authority had implemented reviews, practice notes and mandatory training to improve services and outcomes following these issues and was developing further tools to respond to further themes, such as a practice note on assessments for deafblind people. Further work to develop and launch the practice framework over the coming months was also expected to further improve standards and reduce the need for people to complain. Some people said they felt they had no choice but to complain to get their voice heard. The local authority was embedding its restorative approach to disputes to improve people’s experiences.

The local authority told us they had started the staff survey again in the year prior to our assessment. This was the first staff survey in 6 years so there had been limited opportunity for staff across the organisation to share their experiences and provide feedback. Staff networks had been set up to share feedback and develop solutions by staff across the local authority. This would provide further opportunities to understand staff experience. There were practice and engagement forums in place for leaders such as the Principal Social Worker to gather staff feedback about their practice needs, however these were limited in the size of the groups.

There were 9 detailed investigations by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) between April 2024 and March 2025, compared to 4 for the average number of detailed investigations for other local authorities of its type. The uphold rate of complaints to the LGSCO was 66.67%, compared to the average uphold rate of its type of 73.36%. The local authority complied with 100% of the LGSCO’s findings, with 20% of their remedies late (equating to 1), compared to the national average of 18.2%. This represented an improving picture on the previous year’s data, indicating action taken by the local authority in response to complaints and the development of their restorative approach was having an impact.