Designing a Scheme of Delegation That Actually Works in Practice
Many adult social care organisations have a scheme of delegation, but far fewer have one that genuinely works in practice. Too often, schemes are static documents that bear little resemblance to how decisions are actually made across services. Effective schemes must align operational reality with governance control, sitting alongside both delegated authority and schemes of delegation and wider governance and leadership arrangements.
This article focuses on how to design a scheme of delegation that is usable, defensible and trusted by boards, commissioners and regulators.
The purpose of a scheme of delegation
A scheme of delegation translates governance intent into operational clarity. It defines who can make which decisions, at what level, and within what limits. Crucially, it also sets out when decisions must be escalated.
In adult social care, schemes must cover decisions relating to quality, safeguarding, staffing, finance, partnerships and risk management.
Designing around real decisions, not job titles
One of the most common weaknesses in schemes of delegation is an over-reliance on job titles. Effective schemes start with decisions, not roles.
Boards should identify the decisions that carry the greatest risk or impact and then determine the appropriate level of authority for each.
Operational example 1: Escalation thresholds for safeguarding
Context: A provider reviews its safeguarding governance following inconsistent escalation across services.
Support approach: The scheme defines clear thresholds for escalation based on harm, frequency and complexity.
Day-to-day delivery: Managers use decision trees embedded in safeguarding procedures.
Evidence of effectiveness: Improved consistency and reduced delayed escalations.
Embedding financial and quality controls
Financial delegation must align with quality risk. Schemes that separate finance from quality governance often fail under pressure.
Operational example 2: Linking spend authority to risk
Context: Increased agency spend driven by workforce instability.
Support approach: Temporary financial delegation expanded where quality risks are documented.
Day-to-day delivery: Overspend approvals include risk mitigation plans.
Evidence of effectiveness: Stabilised staffing and improved inspection outcomes.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect schemes of delegation to support safe, consistent decision-making. This includes clarity on escalation routes, accountability and evidence of oversight.
Regulator expectation
The CQC expects schemes of delegation to be live governance tools. Inspectors assess whether they are understood, applied and reviewed.
Operational example 3: Reviewing delegation after service growth
Context: A provider expands into new regions with different commissioning arrangements.
Support approach: Delegation levels adjusted to reflect local risk profiles.
Day-to-day delivery: Regional governance meetings monitor decision-making patterns.
Evidence of effectiveness: Reduced decision bottlenecks and clearer accountability.
Keeping schemes under review
Schemes of delegation should be reviewed regularly and whenever risk, scale or regulatory context changes.
A scheme that works today may not work tomorrow — and boards must treat it as a living control document.