You do not need to eliminate agency use for this to matter.
If a provider is already spending heavily on agency staff, even a modest improvement in internal fill can retain meaningful value inside the organisation.
Illustrative only. Actual savings depend on current usage, workforce availability and the proportion of agency demand that can safely be addressed internally.
How many of the shifts currently going to agency could have been filled internally if the right bank worker had been available, approved and contacted in time?
Built for providers where agency use is persistent, not occasional.
Where agency usage varies across services and senior leaders lack a clear view of why.
Where a bank already exists but is too small, too inactive or too slow to fill enough shifts.
Where even a modest reduction could justify focused implementation work.
These are the five questions we ask.
There is nothing to prepare and nothing to “get right”. Approximate answers are enough for the first conversation.
Annual or monthly is fine. We are only trying to understand whether the economics are meaningful.
Which services, shift types, days or staffing gaps appear to be creating most of the demand?
How many workers are on it, and roughly how many are genuinely active?
Who sees the shift, how quickly do they see it, and when does a manager move to agency?
Recruitment, onboarding, availability, communication, manager habits — or something else?
Look at the whole route from vacancy to agency booking.
The problem is rarely just “we need more bank staff”. We look at where the process is breaking down and what can realistically be changed.
Where agency shifts are being created, what types of shifts drive spend, and which services account for the biggest opportunity.
Whether the proposition, sourcing and candidate journey are bringing enough suitable flexible workers into the organisation.
Where applicants stall, disappear or wait unnecessarily before becoming available for work.
Whether workers on the bank are genuinely active, available and accepting shifts.
How vacancies are communicated and what happens before a manager turns to an external agency.
Agency hours, agency expenditure, bank hours, bank fill, active workers and savings achieved.
Diagnose first. Change what matters. Measure the result.
We work around the systems you already use. If there is no meaningful opportunity, the work should stop there.
Understand current agency use and establish whether the opportunity is commercially meaningful.
Find the points where recruitment, onboarding, bank activity or shift-fill are failing.
Put a simpler internal-bank process in place with clear ownership and manager adoption.
Track whether more shifts move internally and whether agency expenditure actually falls.
Care-sector experience behind the work.
I’m Robin Roedenburg. I’ve worked across care, support and specialist education for more than 20 years.
I’ve seen what happens when managers are trying to cover rotas, agency becomes the quickest option, new recruits get stuck in onboarding, and people are technically on the bank but are not actually filling shifts.
The aim is not to cut agency at the expense of safe staffing. It is simply to work out where agency use is avoidable and whether a stronger internal bank can realistically replace some of it.
See if there’s a meaningful agency reduction opportunity.
We’ll work through the five questions above. Approximate answers are enough. If there appears to be a worthwhile opportunity, we can discuss what a deeper review or implementation project might look like.
Book a 20-minute Agency Reduction CallNo preparation required · no lengthy presentation · no obligation
The first job is simply to establish whether the economics and operational reality justify doing anything further.