Subcontracting vs Partnership in SME and VCSE Engagement: Defining Accountability and Control
SME and VCSE engagement is often described as “partnership working”, but in operational and assurance terms not all arrangements are equal. Some are collaborative relationships with light-touch coordination; others are effectively subcontracted delivery where the provider retains full control and responsibility for outcomes. Problems arise when the model is unclear, because accountability, escalation, assurance and evidence requirements change depending on what the arrangement actually is.
This article builds on the SME, VCSE & Social Enterprise Engagement approach and supports inspection-ready social value delivery by clarifying the difference between partnership and subcontracting in adult social care contexts.
Why the distinction matters in adult social care
Commissioners and inspectors tend to focus less on the label and more on practical controls: who sets the standards, who supervises day-to-day delivery, who holds the risk, and how learning is captured. If an SME or VCSE is delivering activity that directly affects people’s safety, outcomes, access to support or safeguarding exposure, the provider must be able to evidence proportionate oversight and clear accountability.
Where the distinction is unclear, common risks include:
- Unclear decision-making authority during incidents
- Gaps in recording, reporting and information sharing
- Partners operating to different thresholds or quality expectations
- Weak audit trails for commissioner assurance or inspection
Practical indicators of subcontracting vs partnership
In practice, the delivery model can be assessed using a small number of operational questions. These do not require legal language; they require clarity that frontline staff can apply.
Indicators that the arrangement is effectively subcontracting
- The provider specifies detailed standards, processes and documentation expectations
- The provider directs or controls delivery methods and escalation routes
- The provider carries direct safeguarding and service continuity risk
- The partner’s role is integral to regulated service outcomes
Indicators that the arrangement is more collaborative partnership
- Delivery is complementary (not core regulated care)
- Outcomes are shared but operational control sits primarily with the partner
- The provider’s oversight is focused on interfaces, risk and escalation
- Governance is primarily relationship-based with defined review points
Many arrangements sit between these positions. What matters is that the provider defines the model, aligns governance to risk, and documents how accountability works in day-to-day delivery.
Building the accountability map
A practical way to define accountability is to create an “accountability map” that sets out, in plain terms:
- Who is responsible for setting and maintaining standards
- Who supervises day-to-day delivery and competency
- Who owns escalation decisions and safeguarding thresholds
- How information is shared and recorded
- How performance is reviewed and how improvement is secured
This map should be usable by operational staff, not just governance leads. Where possible, it should be referenced within partnership onboarding, supervision processes and incident response guidance.
Operational example 1: VCSE community delivery with safeguarding interface
Context: A VCSE delivered community-based inclusion sessions for adults with learning disabilities. The provider described it as a partnership, but the sessions exposed people to disclosure risk and community safeguarding triggers.
Support approach: The provider defined the arrangement as partnership delivery with regulated-care interfaces. Safeguarding thresholds and escalation timescales were set by the provider and embedded in VCSE induction.
Day-to-day delivery detail: VCSE staff completed a short session record (attendance, wellbeing, incidents). Any safeguarding indicators triggered same-day escalation to the provider safeguarding lead, with clear recording routes.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Audit trails showed consistent escalation, and quarterly reviews demonstrated how safeguarding themes were identified and addressed through joint learning actions.
Operational example 2: SME delivering specialist behavioural support across services
Context: An SME behavioural specialist delivered PBS consultations, plan updates and staff coaching across multiple regulated settings. Their recommendations materially changed staff practice and risk management.
Support approach: The provider treated this as subcontracted specialist delivery for governance purposes. The SME’s work was quality-assured through structured supervision, observation and documentation review.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The SME produced session notes and plan amendments using provider templates. Service managers reviewed changes against risk assessments and restrictive practice governance, and implemented updates via shift handovers and competency sign-off.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Reduced incident frequency, improved staff confidence scores, and clear audit trails linking recommendations to implemented practice changes supported commissioner assurance and inspection readiness.
Operational example 3: Advocacy partner supporting complaints and reviews
Context: A VCSE advocacy service supported individuals during complaints and safeguarding-related meetings. Disclosures and emotional distress were frequent, creating risk at the interface between advocacy and regulated care.
Support approach: The provider defined a partnership model with strong interface controls. The VCSE retained independence in advocacy delivery, but escalation, information sharing and safeguarding responsibilities were jointly mapped.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Advocates used a shared concern template to flag safeguarding indicators. Provider managers ensured advocacy involvement was reflected in care planning and review documentation, including any agreed reasonable adjustments.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Evidence included timely safeguarding referrals, improved complaint resolution times, and learning logs showing how themes were converted into service improvements.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: Providers must be able to evidence clear accountability for partnership or subcontracted delivery, including oversight arrangements proportionate to risk and demonstrable management of interfaces affecting outcomes and safety.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
Regulator / Inspector expectation (e.g. CQC): Providers must demonstrate effective governance and oversight of any third-party activity affecting regulated service delivery, including safe escalation, consistent standards, and robust quality assurance processes.