Commissioning models
Commissioned support vs agency staffing
These are different purchases, and the difference is about where responsibility sits. This guide sets out what each model provides, what remains with the commissioner in each case, and the questions worth asking before deciding which you need.
In short
- Agency supply provides people. A commissioned package provides a managed service.
- The practical difference is who holds planning, risk, supervision, records, reporting and review.
- Neither model is better in the abstract. Agency supply is the right answer for genuine cover gaps.
- The failure mode is buying hours when you needed a managed service — and discovering the management gap during an incident.
- Ask providers what they take responsibility for, in writing, before mobilisation rather than after.
What each model actually provides
Both models put practitioners in front of a young person. What differs is everything around that.
| Function | Agency supply | Commissioned package |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners | Provided | Provided |
| Defining the support model | Commissioner | Provider, agreed with commissioner |
| Support planning | Commissioner | Provider |
| Risk assessment for the support | Commissioner | Provider |
| Rota and contingency cover | Usually commissioner | Provider |
| Practitioner matching to need | Limited — availability-led | Against needs, risk and continuity |
| Supervision of practitioners | Employment supervision only | Practice supervision, named and scheduled |
| Daily records | Commissioner’s systems | Provider, to an agreed standard |
| Incident management | Commissioner | Provider, with escalation to commissioner |
| Reporting to commissioner | Timesheets | Agreed format and frequency |
| Review of progress and outcomes | Commissioner | Scheduled, jointly |
| Single point of accountability | No | Yes |
Read down the "agency supply" column and you have a list of things that remain with your team. That is not a criticism of agency supply — it is the model working as intended. The problem only arises when the purchase was made as if it were the other column.
When agency supply is the right choice
Agency staffing is the appropriate answer more often than provider marketing tends to admit. It fits where:
- You have a genuine cover gap — sickness, vacancy, a short-term surge
- The service model already exists and simply needs staffing
- Your own management, supervision and recording structures are in place and have capacity
- The work is well-defined and stable
- You want to retain direct control of how the support is delivered
If your team already holds the plan, the risk assessment and the supervision, buying management you do not need adds cost without adding value.
When a commissioned package is the right choice
A managed package tends to fit where:
- The situation is complex or unstable and the model needs designing, not just staffing
- You need a single point of accountability rather than coordinating several parties
- Your team does not have capacity to run day-to-day management of the support
- The arrangement needs to flex as risk changes
- You need evidence and reporting for review, panel or court purposes
- Conventional provision has not met the need
Where the models get confused
Some recurring patterns worth naming:
Buying hours, expecting a service
Hours are commissioned at an hourly rate, then the commissioner discovers there is no support plan, no risk assessment specific to the support, and no reporting beyond timesheets. The gap usually surfaces during an incident.
Paying for management that is not delivered
A package is bought as "managed" but in practice the provider supplies staff and little else. The test is simple: ask for the support plan, the risk assessment, the supervision record and the last report. If they exist and are current, it is a managed service.
Assuming ratio equals management
A 2:1 arrangement is not automatically a managed package. Two practitioners with no plan and no supervision is still staff supply, at double the cost.
Discovering the boundary during an incident
The most expensive version. Everyone assumed someone else held responsibility for a decision. Naming this at design stage is dull and takes twenty minutes.
Questions worth asking any provider
These apply whichever model you are buying — the answers tell you which one you are actually getting.
Scope and responsibility
- What do you take responsibility for, and what stays with us? Can I have that in writing?
- Who is the named contact, and what can they authorise?
- What happens out of hours?
- What would make you decline or end a package?
Practitioners
- How are practitioners matched to this young person?
- How many different practitioners will they meet?
- Who supervises them, how often, and is that recorded?
- What happens when someone is absent?
Planning and risk
- Will there be a written support plan specific to this package, and when?
- Who writes the risk assessment, and how often is it reviewed?
- How do incidents get recorded and escalated?
- What is your safeguarding escalation route?
Evidence
- What records are kept, and to what standard?
- What reporting will I receive, in what format and how often?
- Can I see an example report structure?
- How are outcomes measured and reviewed?
Where Gwennol sits
Gwennol is a commissioned support provider. We are not a staffing agency and do not present ourselves as one. Where we are commissioned to deliver a package, and within the scope of the contract and our current regulatory position, we take responsibility for mobilisation, practitioner allocation, rota and contingency cover, support planning, risk assessment, safeguarding processes, practitioner supervision, daily records, incident management, reporting, reviews and commissioner communication.
That is the distinction in practice: practitioners are how the service is delivered, not the product being bought. More detail on bespoke commissioned support and how we work with commissioners.
Questions we are asked
Is a commissioned package always more expensive than agency hours?
Per hour, usually yes, because it includes management, planning, supervision, recording and reporting. Whether it is more expensive overall depends on what your own team would otherwise spend doing those things. If you already hold them and have capacity, agency supply may be better value.
Can we start with agency staffing and move to a commissioned package?
Yes, and it is a reasonable sequence when a situation turns out to be more complex than first thought. It works best if the transition is planned rather than gradual drift — the point at which responsibility moves should be explicit and written down.
Does Gwennol supply staff to our existing service?
No. We deliver commissioned support packages where we hold responsibility for the service. We do not supply practitioners into another organisation's service for them to manage.
How do we know the management is actually happening?
Ask for the artefacts. A managed package should be able to show you a current support plan, a risk assessment specific to the package, supervision records and reporting at the agreed frequency. If those cannot be produced, the management is not happening whatever the contract says.