SME, VCSE and Social Enterprise Engagement in Adult Social Care Commissioning
Engagement with SMEs, VCSEs and social enterprises has moved from being an optional social value “add-on” to a core commissioning expectation in adult social care. Commissioners increasingly view local and third-sector involvement as a way to strengthen community resilience, improve outcomes and reduce dependency on large, inflexible delivery models.
This article sits within SME, VCSE & Social Enterprise Engagement and aligns with wider social value expectations around local economic benefit, collaboration and sustainable service delivery.
Why SME and VCSE engagement matters to commissioners
Commissioners are under pressure to demonstrate that public funding supports local economies, voluntary sector sustainability and inclusive service ecosystems. SMEs and VCSEs often provide culturally responsive, flexible and specialist support that statutory or large providers cannot easily replicate.
From a commissioning perspective, effective engagement helps:
- Extend reach into underserved or marginalised communities
- Improve preventative and early-intervention pathways
- Reduce escalation into higher-cost statutory services
- Strengthen community-based safeguarding networks
What “meaningful engagement” looks like in practice
Commissioners distinguish between tokenistic engagement and meaningful partnership. Meaningful engagement involves clear roles, fair payment, shared governance and demonstrable impact.
This typically includes:
- Defined referral and escalation pathways
- Clear service specifications or partnership agreements
- Data sharing and outcome reporting arrangements
- Ongoing relationship management, not one-off signposting
Operational example 1: VCSE-led wellbeing support reducing escalation
A supported living provider worked in an area with high rates of social isolation among adults with mild learning disabilities. The context included frequent low-level incidents escalating into safeguarding alerts due to loneliness and anxiety.
The support approach involved formal partnership with a local VCSE delivering community inclusion and peer support activities. The provider agreed referral criteria, safeguarding thresholds and information-sharing protocols.
Day-to-day delivery included support workers attending joint planning sessions, VCSE staff feeding back attendance and engagement levels, and managers reviewing outcomes in monthly partnership meetings.
Effectiveness was evidenced through reduced safeguarding alerts linked to social isolation, improved wellbeing outcomes recorded in reviews, and positive commissioner feedback on preventative impact.
Engagement and quality governance
Partnerships introduce shared risk and responsibility. Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate that engagement with external organisations is governed safely and transparently.
Good governance includes:
- Due diligence on VCSE safeguarding, insurance and governance
- Clear escalation routes for concerns or incidents
- Regular review of performance and outcomes
- Documented learning from partnership activity
Operational example 2: SME partnership supporting hospital discharge
A domiciliary care provider partnered with a small local SME specialising in short-term reablement support. The context was delayed discharges caused by capacity gaps in standard homecare provision.
The support approach involved commissioning the SME for time-limited, intensive support packages, with clear handover criteria back into longer-term provision where needed.
Day-to-day delivery included joint discharge planning, shared visit notes and weekly progress reviews. The provider retained overall governance responsibility while enabling flexible SME delivery.
Effectiveness was evidenced through reduced delayed discharge days, improved patient flow metrics and positive commissioner feedback on system responsiveness.
SME and VCSE engagement and safeguarding
Safeguarding accountability cannot be delegated away. Providers remain responsible for ensuring that any partner organisation operates within safe, ethical and lawful boundaries.
This requires:
- Clear safeguarding responsibilities and reporting lines
- Training and induction alignment
- Regular review of incidents involving partner-delivered activity
Operational example 3: Social enterprise delivering specialist advocacy
A social enterprise specialising in advocacy supported people with complex communication needs. The context involved individuals struggling to engage in reviews and safeguarding processes.
The support approach formalised referral into advocacy support, with agreed confidentiality boundaries and reporting expectations. Advocates attended reviews and safeguarding meetings alongside provider staff.
Day-to-day delivery included coordination between key workers and advocates, shared action tracking and follow-up on agreed outcomes.
Effectiveness was evidenced through improved participation in reviews, clearer expression of wishes and reduced complaints linked to feeling unheard.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: commissioners expect providers to engage SMEs, VCSEs and social enterprises in ways that are structured, proportionate and outcome-focused, with clear evidence of local and community benefit.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
Regulator / Inspector expectation (e.g. CQC): inspectors expect partnership arrangements to be well governed, safeguarding aware and integrated into service delivery, with clear accountability retained by the regulated provider.