Outsourced DPO or In-House Data Protection Officer — Which Model Should You Choose?

An in-house Data Protection Officer or an outsourced DPO? This question arises in many organisations. First, however, you need to determine whether your organisation is required to appoint a DPO at all. If not, it is worth considering whether appointing one voluntarily would still be beneficial. Only then can you choose the model that best fits your organisation. In practice, this may be an in-house DPO, an external DPO or a model combining both approaches. The GDPR does not favour any of these options. Under Article 37(6), a DPO may be an employee or perform the role under a service contract. Both solutions are therefore fully compliant with the GDPR. They mainly differ in how the role is organised, the level of availability and the use of resources. In this article, I explain when appointing a DPO is mandatory. I also show which models tend to work best for different types of organisations.

Who Must Appoint a Data Protection Officer

Article 37(1) GDPR identifies three main situations in which appointing a DPO is mandatory.

Public authorities and public bodies. A DPO must be appointed where processing is carried out by a public authority or body. The exception applies to courts acting in their judicial capacity. This obligation may therefore apply to public authorities, public schools, local government bodies and public healthcare institutions.

Regular and systematic monitoring of individuals on a large scale. The obligation also arises in certain business models based on monitoring. This may include extensive profiling, analysing user behaviour or operating sophisticated tracking systems.

Large-scale processing of special categories of personal data. This includes health data and other information covered by Article 9 GDPR.

The obligation also applies to large-scale processing of data relating to criminal convictions and offences under Article 10 GDPR.

Large healthcare providers whose core activities involve such processing are a common example. Specific national or EU legislation may also impose additional DPO requirements. When assessing whether processing takes place on a “large scale”, the organisation must consider the full context. Relevant factors include the number of individuals, the volume and range of data, processing duration and geographical scope.

When Appointing a DPO Is Recommended

The absence of a statutory obligation does not prevent an organisation from appointing a DPO voluntarily. In many cases, doing so helps structure data protection governance and supports day-to-day decision-making. This option is particularly worth considering where the organisation:

• processes significant volumes of personal data,
• operates in a higher-risk sector,
• rapidly develops new services or technologies,
• regularly runs projects requiring GDPR analysis,
• wants to strengthen its compliance management framework.

A DPO can support project teams, advise on risks and participate in Data Protection Impact Assessments. In addition, the DPO acts as a contact point for data subjects and the supervisory authority. However, one rule should be kept in mind. A voluntarily appointed DPO is subject to the same GDPR requirements applicable to the DPO function. If the organisation decides that a DPO is not necessary, it is good practice to document that assessment. This also supports compliance with the accountability principle.

Two Equivalent Models for the DPO Function

Once the organisation determines that it needs a DPO, it must decide how to structure the role. The GDPR allows two main models.

An in-house DPO is part of the organisation. The DPO role may be their main responsibility or one of several duties. In the latter case, particular attention must be paid to potential conflicts of interest.

An external DPO (outsourcing) performs the role under a service contract. The scope of cooperation can be adjusted to the organisation’s actual needs.

Neither model is inherently better. The choice should reflect the scale of processing, organisational structure, risk level and frequency of matters requiring DPO involvement.

Requirements for a DPO

The form of cooperation does not change the basic requirements applicable to a DPO. The officer should have appropriate expertise in data protection. They must also be capable of performing the tasks listed in Article 39 GDPR. Independence is essential. The organisation cannot instruct the DPO what conclusion to reach in their assessment. The DPO should also report directly to the highest level of management.

In addition, the controller must provide sufficient time, access to information and resources necessary to perform the role. The DPO should be involved early in all matters relating to personal data protection. Both models also require an assessment of potential conflicts of interest. This applies to both employees and external service providers. After appointing a DPO, the organisation must publish their contact details and notify the Polish supervisory authority, UODO.

When an In-House DPO Works Well

The in-house model can be a natural choice where data protection requires continuous involvement. This is particularly relevant for large organisations and entities managing many parallel processing activities. An in-house DPO may also work well where new projects requiring privacy advice arise every day.

The main advantages of this model include:

• continuous availability within the organisation — the DPO can participate in projects and meetings on an ongoing basis,
• strong knowledge of internal processes — over time, the DPO becomes familiar with systems, structures and ways of working,
• close cooperation with employees — it is easier to build relationships with individual departments,
• supporting a data protection culture — regular presence facilitates training and reinforces good practices,
• fast flow of information — the DPO can learn about changes and new initiatives at an early stage.

This model is worth considering when the number of processes genuinely justifies the continuous presence of a specialist. However, this does not always mean a full-time position. The scope of the role should reflect the organisation’s actual needs.

When an External DPO Works Well

The external model suits organisations that need specialist DPO expertise but do not require the officer’s daily presence. Small and medium-sized businesses often choose this solution. It also works well where demand for privacy support is more periodic. An external DPO may also be a good option when the internal structure makes it difficult to identify a suitable person without conflicts of interest.

The main advantages include:

• access to specialised expertise — an external DPO may draw on experience from different organisations and sectors,
• flexible scope of cooperation — the service can reflect the scale and frequency of the organisation’s needs,
• an external perspective — an outside specialist can assess processes without attachment to existing ways of working,
• no need to create a separate position — the function can be provided at a level matching the actual workload,
• the possibility of ensuring continuity — a well-organised service can provide support during the main DPO’s absence.

Outsourcing can also work well for corporate groups or organisations operating across multiple locations. At the same time, independence and the absence of conflicts of interest must also be verified in this model.

Hybrid Model — External DPO with Internal Support

In practice, the choice does not always come down to two opposite solutions. Many organisations use a model in which an external DPO works with an internal coordinator or privacy team. This approach combines knowledge of the organisation with access to external specialist expertise.

An internal contact person can collect information, coordinate documentation and support communication between departments. Meanwhile, the external DPO retains the role of an independent adviser and oversees compliance from the GDPR perspective. This model often works well in organisations with numerous processing activities that do not require a full-time DPO. It may also serve as a transitional model while the organisation grows or develops its own privacy team.

How to Choose the Right DPO Model for Your Organisation

It is best to start with the organisation’s actual needs rather than the form of employment. Several criteria should guide the decision.

Scale and complexity of processing. A large number of processing activities may support the need for a permanent DPO presence. A lower workload may favour outsourcing.

Frequency of matters requiring consultation. Daily projects may justify an in-house DPO. Periodic needs can often be handled effectively by an external officer.

Risk level. The more complex and higher-risk the processing, the greater the expertise and availability required from the DPO.

Availability of a suitable candidate. The organisation needs someone with appropriate expertise who is also free from conflicts of interest.

Organisational structure. Corporate groups and geographically dispersed organisations may need a solution covering several entities or locations.

Internal resources. Even with an outsourced DPO, it is helpful to appoint internal contacts who can cooperate effectively with the officer.

Growth plans. A model that works today may no longer suit the organisation in several years.

For this reason, organisations should review their chosen model periodically.

DPO in Your Organisation — Practical Checklist

• Check whether appointing a DPO is mandatory under Article 37 GDPR.
• If it is not mandatory, assess the benefits of a voluntary appointment.
• Document your assessment and the decision taken.
• Evaluate the scale and frequency of data protection matters.
• Check whether the organisation has suitable internal expertise.
• Assess conflict-of-interest risks regardless of the chosen model.
• Choose a model that fits the organisation’s structure and risk profile.
• Provide the DPO with sufficient time, resources and access to information.
• Involve the DPO early in matters concerning personal data.
• Ensure direct access to the highest level of management.
• Publish the DPO’s contact details and notify UODO of the appointment.
• Periodically review whether the chosen model still meets the organisation’s needs.

Do You Need Help Choosing the Right DPO Model for Your Organisation?

The choice between an in-house and an external DPO should reflect the organisation’s actual needs. First, it is worth determining whether appointing a DPO is mandatory. The next step is to assess the scale of processing, risk profile, organisational structure and available resources.

At Dr Joanna Maniszewska-Ejsmont Law Firm, we support organisations both in establishing the DPO function and in its ongoing performance. We help determine whether appointing a DPO is mandatory and select the model that best matches the organisation’s structure, scale and risk profile.

We can act as an external Data Protection Officer under an outsourcing model. Depending on current availability, cooperation may also be possible in the form of an in-house Data Protection Officer.

We also support organisations that already have their own DPO. In such cases, we provide additional expert assistance with audits, more complex legal analyses, Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs), documentation and ongoing matters requiring in-depth legal review.