Evidence and Metrics for Fair Work in Social Care: What Commissioners Want to See
Fair work commitments only become valuable in commissioning when they can be evidenced. Providers often describe pay, training and wellbeing positively, but commissioners want to see the operational proof: workforce stability, competence, supervision quality and consistent delivery outcomes. The focus is increasingly on whether workforce practice reduces risk and improves continuity over time.
This article is part of Fair Work, Pay, Progression & Responsible Employment and links directly to the broader social value framework used to evaluate responsible employment and community benefit.
Metrics are not just reporting tools. They are how providers demonstrate governance, credibility and commissioning confidence.
What commissioners typically measure
Commissioners rarely rely on a single measure. They look for patterns across indicators that suggest stability and safe delivery. Common metrics include:
- Turnover rate (overall and by service/team)
- Sickness absence rate and short-notice absences
- Agency and bank usage (hours, cost and reasons)
- Vacancy rate and time to recruit
- Training compliance and competence sign-off
- Supervision frequency and completion
- Continuity of care indicators (where relevant)
Commissioners also consider qualitative signals: staff feedback, inspection findings, safeguarding patterns and incident trends.
How commissioners interpret workforce metrics
Commissioners read workforce data as a proxy for risk. For example:
- High agency use may indicate chronic instability or unsafe staffing
- Stable headcount with high sickness may indicate burnout or poor workload management
- Strong recruitment with high turnover may indicate weak induction, supervision or culture
Providers need to explain the story behind the numbers, including what actions were taken and whether they worked.
Operational example 1: Using turnover analysis to target the real problem
A provider delivering extra care housing support reported “acceptable” overall turnover, but commissioners noticed repeated staffing disruption in one location. The context was that turnover was concentrated in a single shift pattern and manager changeover period.
The support approach was to break down turnover by role, shift pattern and team, and review exit interview themes with a workforce lead. The provider identified that weekend rotas were unpredictable and supervision had been inconsistent during the management transition.
Day-to-day changes included publishing rotas further in advance, introducing a stable weekend team model, and reinstating monthly supervision with clear reflective practice focus. Managers were required to evidence supervision completion and action points.
Effectiveness was evidenced through improved retention in that location and reduced agency usage. The provider shared a quarterly workforce report showing the problem area and the improvement trend, which increased commissioner confidence.
Training data: compliance is not competence
Commissioners increasingly challenge training reporting that only shows attendance. They want to know whether learning is applied in practice and whether staff have been assessed as competent.
Better assurance models include:
- Competency frameworks for key risks (medication, safeguarding, restrictive practice)
- Observed practice sign-off within probation and annually
- Spot checks linked to training themes and incident learning
Training metrics should connect to quality outcomes, not sit in isolation.
Operational example 2: Competence sign-off reducing medication errors
A residential provider identified a cluster of medication administration errors despite high “training compliance”. The context suggested that staff attended training but struggled with application on shift.
The support approach introduced observed medication rounds, a competency sign-off process, and refresher coaching for staff who needed support. Supervision included medication confidence as a standing item.
Day-to-day delivery involved senior staff shadowing medication administration during peak risk periods, using a simple checklist aligned to policy. Errors were reviewed weekly in a short governance huddle, with learning fed back into practice.
Effectiveness was evidenced through reduced medication incidents and stronger staff confidence. Commissioners valued this because the provider demonstrated learning loops and practical assurance rather than “box-ticking”.
Supervision metrics: quality matters more than frequency
Commissioners may ask how often supervision occurs, but what matters is what supervision achieves. Evidence should show that supervision links to:
- Workload and wellbeing checks
- Practice reflection and decision-making
- Competence development and progression
- Safeguarding awareness and risk management
Providers can evidence this through supervision templates, theme reporting and governance review minutes.
Operational example 3: Supervision themes used as an early warning system
A supported living provider used supervision theme reporting to identify rising stress and inconsistency in a team supporting a person with escalating behaviour. The context was increasing incidents and staff anxiety.
The support approach was to collate supervision themes monthly and escalate recurring risk indicators to the PBS lead and registered manager. This triggered a timely review of the behavioural formulation and staffing approach.
Day-to-day changes included increased on-shift coaching, clearer role allocation during early signs of escalation, and targeted refresher training. Rotas were adjusted to ensure experienced staff were present during higher-risk periods.
Effectiveness was evidenced through reduced incident frequency and improved staff confidence. The provider documented the supervision themes, the escalation action, and the impact trend, demonstrating governance in action.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: commissioners expect providers to evidence fair work through credible workforce metrics and a clear narrative of actions taken. Data should show stability, competence and reduced reliance on reactive staffing measures.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
Regulator / Inspector expectation (e.g. CQC): inspectors expect providers to have effective oversight of staffing, training and supervision, and to act on risks. Weak workforce governance is often reflected in inconsistent care, safeguarding concerns and leadership findings.
Metrics are therefore part of inspection readiness: they demonstrate whether the service understands its workforce risks and can manage them.