Suffolk County Council local authority assessment (July 2026)
Downloads
Overall summary
Local authority rating and score
Quality statement scores
Summary of people’s experiences
People were assessed and supported by committed and compassionate staff. Strength-based assessments and practice were well embedded. People’s right to choice was respected. People were supported with the least restrictive options to promote their independence. There was a continued need to ensure annual reviews remained person-centred, including when completed over the telephone or digitally. People could access independent advocacy which supported them to understand and make decisions.
People at most risk were assessed first to ensure they got the support they needed to keep them safe and well. Most people received timely Care Act assessments, but there were waits for people accessing annual reviews and some waits for Occupational Therapy assessments and unpaid carer assessments. People also experienced waits for the outcomes of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications, which increased the risk of people being deprived of their liberty unlawfully. Some people faced waits to access home adaptations. An external review of the occupational therapy services was being undertaken to inform improvements.
There was a continued need to develop the support offer for unpaid carers. While there were some improvements, such as access to self-assessments, some unpaid carers highlighted challenges accessing assessments, limited support and limited access to breaks. There were, however, some positive outcomes where unpaid carers had accessed support.
People accessed interpreters where required, including British Sign Language (BSL). Accessible format documents were available to support people but were not always used consistently.
People were supported to access reablement to support them towards their independence goals. Most people saw improvement in their independence, and the local authority had expanded their reablement offer to enable more people to be supported through this preventative approach. Assistive technology and equipment was also supporting people’s independence.
Most people could access care where they needed it, but some people were placed out of area in other local authorities. Although there were some challenges accessing care in more rural areas because of limited transport infrastructure.
Most young people achieved their optimum outcomes. Support for young people to access accommodation to support their independence continued to develop.
Digital exclusion remained a challenge for some people, particularly older people, when trying to access information, advice and services. There was ongoing work to promote digital inclusion.
Most people who used services felt safe and most people had their outcomes fully or partially achieved following a safeguarding referral.
Summary of strengths, areas for development and next steps
Staff applied a strength-based and personalised approach to assessment and support planning. The local authority’s ‘signs of safety’ approach was well-embedded and supported staff practice.
Ongoing transformation of the adult front door and more digital and self-referral options was starting to improve access. Assessments were mostly completed in a timely way, but there were waits for reviews. The local authority was improving its annual review rates with a more proportionate approach, including consideration of telephone-based or digital reviews. There was a significant improvement in financial assessment performance, with reduced waits for financial assessment completion.
There was a strategic focus on prevention to manage future demand. The local authority promoted independence through, for example, its People at the Heart of Care strategy. Prevention was supported by close working between adult social care and public health, with data used to inform allocation of resources. The prevention agenda continued to be developed, supported by the front door transformation. Teams such as the Independence and Wellbeing Service supported people to access short term interventions and prevent ongoing care needs.
Direct payment uptake was lower than the national average. The local authority had taken steps to make direct payments more accessible through guidance and set up support. Staff used direct payments to support people’s flexibility of choice, although some carers did not know about direct payments, and some found the direct payment process stressful and complicated with delays in solving problems.
There was increasing focus on supporting equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and this was demonstrated by the introduction of the EDI practice standards and tailored equality objectives for staff. There were examples of positive outreach to different groups and communities, but there was scope to embed a more strategic approach to engaging and reaching seldom-heard groups. Leaders recognised this as a continued area of development.
Local partners highlighted the challenges of rurality in the county and the impact this had had on people’s ability to access services. There was a 'place-based' approach in Suffolk, which meant some processes could differ locally dependent on the area of the county. There were examples of the local authority being responsive to local need, such as a specialist role to support older people and people with dementia to access digital technology.
The 'Sensing Change' service supported people with sensory needs. Some people could experience waits to access sensory support services, with those at most risk prioritised.
The local authority used data and insights to support understanding of local care needs and market conditions. The local authority was shaping the care market to meet local needs with a strategic focus on promoting people’s independence and outcome-based commissioning. Although this was not yet embedded across all commissioning activity. There were positive examples of market development such as small local ventures offering personalised care and support to improve capacity in more remote areas. The local authority had forums to engage local care providers. Most providers gave positive feedback about the local authority’s support, but they indicated a need for greater involvement in market development.
There was sufficient local capacity in residential and homecare services which supported people’s choice, but gaps in other local provision such as housing with care, services for autistic people and specialist services for people with increased needs. Although most people were supported in-county and new out of area placements were minimal.
The local authority introduced a new system to support quality monitoring of services. Oversight of risk across providers was maintained, with close relationships with the safeguarding team. Providers with identified risks were prioritised for assessment and support. There were established processes to mitigate quality risks and keep people safe.
There were positive working relationships at strategic level with local system partners. Clear structures supported oversight and scrutiny of pooled budgets, such as the Better Care Fund. Operational relationships supported close working between health and social care staff in integrated neighbourhood teams. While the practicalities of integration differed across localities, such as co-location of teams, this did not negatively impact working relationships. Staff gave some feedback on the need to strengthen operational relationships between adult social care and housing.
The local authority supported local voluntary and community organisations (VCFSE) to support people to access services close to their homes. Most VCFSE representatives highlighted good operational alignment and support, but wished to be more involved in strategic decision making. Some VCFSE organisations faced funding challenges which impacted their sustainability.
People were supported to stay safe, including out of hours and in times of crisis. Staff had access to support through risk forums to help support and mitigate risks to people, such as those at risk of self-neglect. There were ongoing improvements to recording of contingency plans in people’s care records in recognition this was not consistent for all people and unpaid carers. The local authority was developing its support for transitions for young people moving from children to adult services. Staff promoted young people’s choice, involvement and independence through the leading lives service. There were plans to further improve transition services, for example, by lowering the age of first contact from 16 to 14, to align with good practice.
Changes to safeguarding systems and processes had developed a 'safeguarding as everyone's business’ approach. There was good multi-agency working to keep people safe, with detailed guidance and support for staff based on local risks. For example, guidance was available in a self-neglect and hoarding policy. Staff were supported to learn from serious incidents such as safeguarding adult reviews. Safeguarding systems and processes were supported by robust oversight from the Suffolk Safeguarding Adults Board. However, some providers reported challenges accessing safeguarding support and delayed and limited communication of safeguarding investigation outcomes.
Adult social care was a priority for the local authority, with ongoing transformation activity to better support local people. Most staff reported a positive working culture, with visible and approachable leaders, but there was scope to ensure staff across the county were integrated with the wider service, as there was some perception of Ipswich centric events and opportunities.
Robust quality management arrangements supported decision making and were informed by audit of social work practice. Senior leaders had good awareness of local performance and risks, through data and insight. Local governance systems supported scrutiny of ASC, but there was scope to improve information sharing with elected members and more formalised opportunities to check and challenge ASC decision making.
Staffing capacity was a challenge in some teams and localities and this impacted on staff ability to manage workloads. A safe workload and allocation tool was supporting safe workloads, but staff recognised increasing complexity and volume of work.
There was a learning culture, which included learning when things went wrong. A quality assurance and practice development team supported improved practice, learning and development. Staff were supported with their professional development to progress into new roles or achieve qualifications.
The local authority continued to embed coproduction with some positive examples of using people's voice to develop strategies and processes, such as the dementia strategy. There was investment in better embedding coproduction through commissioned partners, including 'My Voice' champions. However, there was a need to ensure communication with people who took part in coproduction was effective, so they could understand their impact and involvement.
There were some innovations, including increased focus on home devices and digital care to supplement traditional forms of care and support positive outcomes, and ongoing work to test AI-enabled software to reduce the administrative burden for frontline staff.