Managing Risk and Safeguarding Across SME and VCSE Partnerships
Partnership delivery with SME and VCSE organisations often expands reach and responsiveness, but it also introduces additional safeguarding interfaces. These interfaces are rarely the result of poor intent; they arise where roles, thresholds and escalation responsibilities are not clearly defined. Providers remain fully accountable for safeguarding outcomes, regardless of who delivers activity on their behalf.
This article sits within the SME, VCSE & Social Enterprise Engagement framework and supports wider social value expectations that partnership delivery must be safe, transparent and governable.
Why safeguarding risk increases in partnership models
SME and VCSE partners often operate in less structured environments: community venues, outreach settings or informal group activities. While these contexts can be empowering, they also increase exposure to unplanned risk, disclosure and boundary issues.
Common safeguarding risk points include:
- Unclear escalation thresholds for emerging concerns
- Delayed information sharing between organisations
- Inconsistent recording of incidents or disclosures
- Assumptions about who holds decision-making authority
Effective providers address these risks proactively through explicit protocols rather than relying on goodwill or informal communication.
Embedding safeguarding into partnership governance
Safeguarding governance in partnership models must be designed to work operationally, not just contractually. This means aligning training, reporting and review mechanisms so that partners operate within the provider’s safeguarding framework.
Key governance controls typically include:
- Shared safeguarding policies with partner-specific appendices
- Named safeguarding leads on both sides
- Mandatory escalation timescales
- Routine safeguarding review as part of partnership meetings
Operational example 1: Community-based VCSE activity
Context: A VCSE delivered community arts sessions for people with learning disabilities. Sessions took place off-site, with limited provider staff presence.
Support approach: A safeguarding protocol clarified that any disclosure or behavioural concern required same-day escalation to the provider safeguarding lead.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Session facilitators completed short incident and wellbeing summaries after each session. These were reviewed weekly by the provider service manager.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Early escalation prevented escalation of low-level concerns, and audit records demonstrated consistent safeguarding oversight during inspection.
Operational example 2: Managing risk in advocacy partnerships
Context: An advocacy VCSE supported individuals during complaints and service reviews. Emotional distress and safeguarding disclosures were common.
Support approach: Joint training ensured advocates understood safeguarding thresholds and information-sharing requirements.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Advocates logged concerns using an agreed template, triggering immediate alerts to the provider safeguarding team.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Reduced delays in safeguarding referrals and clear audit trails supported commissioner assurance.
Operational example 3: SME specialist support provider
Context: An SME delivered specialist behavioural support across several services.
Support approach: Safeguarding expectations were embedded into supervision, observation and reporting arrangements.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Any increase in behavioural risk was escalated through joint risk review meetings.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Updated risk assessments, reduced incidents and shared learning logs demonstrated safe partnership delivery.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: Providers must evidence that safeguarding responsibilities are clearly defined, actively monitored and consistently applied across all partnership delivery.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
Regulator / Inspector expectation (e.g. CQC): Providers must show effective oversight of safeguarding, including timely escalation, learning from incidents and clear accountability for partner activity.