Procurement-Grade EDI Evidence for Social Value: What Evaluators Look For
When EDI sits under a social value heading, many providers default to general statements about values, training, or “commitment”. Commissioners and evaluators are increasingly looking for something else: delivery credibility. This article forms part of the Equality, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) in Social Value series and aligns with the wider Social Value framework. The focus is what procurement teams mean by “evidence” and how providers present EDI in a way that stands up to audit, mobilisation scrutiny and contract management.
What “Procurement-Grade” EDI Actually Means
In evaluation terms, EDI becomes procurement-grade when it is described as a set of operational controls with measurable outputs and clear accountability. Evaluators are checking whether a provider can:
- Translate policy into consistent practice
- Identify inequality risk early
- Demonstrate learning and improvement
- Show that service users experience inclusion in practice, not theory
Procurement-grade EDI is therefore less about “nice intentions” and more about systems: recruitment controls, supervision expectations, complaint learning, reasonable adjustments, service design, and governance reporting.
Building an Evidence Chain: Inputs, Delivery and Outcomes
Strong submissions set out a simple evidence chain:
- Inputs: training, policies, recruitment controls, specialist resources
- Delivery mechanisms: supervision, audits, observation, case reviews, escalation
- Outputs and outcomes: what changed, how it’s measured, and how it’s sustained
Where providers fail is often at the middle step: they describe training but not how they ensure practice changes on the floor.
Operational Example 1: Workforce Controls That Reduce Bias in Recruitment
Context: A provider is operating in a high-competition labour market and needs to recruit quickly, increasing risk of inconsistent screening and informal decision-making.
Support approach: The provider standardises recruitment controls with EDI checks embedded.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Interview scoring uses structured questions with defined criteria. At least two interviewers are used for regulated roles. Gaps in employment and references are explored consistently rather than selectively. Recruitment paperwork includes a prompt to consider reasonable adjustments for candidates (e.g., different assessment formats). Recruitment audits are completed quarterly and reviewed by senior management alongside workforce data and retention patterns.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Audit findings show improved consistency, reduced variability in decisions, and clearer documentation. Retention data and probation outcomes are tracked by team and escalated where patterns indicate unequal experience.
What Evaluators Look for in Service-Level EDI
Commissioners typically want to see how EDI affects access and experience. Procurement-grade descriptions usually include:
- How reasonable adjustments are identified and implemented
- How communication needs are met day-to-day
- How risk decisions avoid disproportionate restriction
- How complaints and incidents are used as inequality intelligence
Operational Example 2: A Reasonable Adjustments Register That Drives Action
Context: Adjustments are made case-by-case but not recorded systematically, leading to missed actions when staff change or people move between services.
Support approach: The provider creates a reasonable adjustments register linked to care planning and quality checks.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Adjustments (communication, sensory environment, cultural requirements, accessible information) are recorded centrally and mirrored in care plans. Shift handovers include prompts to check adjustments are being applied. Managers spot-check practice during visits and use observation to verify consistency. Where adjustments are not implemented, the cause is identified (training, staffing, documentation) and addressed through supervision and action planning.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Audit scores improve, service user feedback shows fewer misunderstandings and distress points, and incident patterns reduce where triggers were previously linked to missed adjustments.
Commissioner Expectation
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect EDI commitments to be measurable and contract-manageable, with clear governance, reporting and evidence that actions are delivered consistently across teams and sites.
Regulator / Inspector Expectation
Regulator / Inspector expectation: Inspectors expect services to deliver person-centred, equitable care, with evidence that leaders identify risks, learn from concerns and ensure staff practice reflects stated values.
How to Present EDI Evidence Without Overclaiming
Credible submissions avoid inflated promises. Instead, they set realistic commitments with clear baselines and review points. For example, rather than claiming “we will eliminate inequality”, a provider might commit to quarterly complaint theme analysis with documented actions and re-audit. The key is to show a mechanism that can be inspected and verified.
Operational Example 3: Governance Reporting That Makes EDI Visible to Leaders
Context: Senior leaders receive quality dashboards but EDI is referenced only indirectly or not at all.
Support approach: The provider introduces explicit EDI reporting within quality governance.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Quality dashboards include EDI-relevant metrics such as complaints tagged for inclusion concerns, reasonable adjustment compliance checks, and training completion linked to supervision outcomes. Governance meetings review trends and require named actions with deadlines. Learning is communicated to teams through briefings and supervision prompts, ensuring governance decisions translate into practice changes.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Minutes show clear actions and follow-through, audits demonstrate improved compliance, and patterns of recurring issues reduce over time.
What “Good” Looks Like in One Sentence
Procurement-grade EDI is not a statement of intent; it is a set of operational controls, governance mechanisms and measurable outputs that show inclusion is delivered, reviewed and improved over time.