No One Left Behind: evaluability assessment (national impact and economic evaluation)

7. Annex 1: Operational reality interview findings

Interviews initially explored stakeholders' perspectives on No One Left Behind, including the changes introduced to Scotland’s employability system, perceived successes and challenges, and broader considerations regarding service delivery and referral arrangements across LEPs. These findings would fall under the scope of a process evaluation rather than impact or economic evaluation.

The main findings in this topic are summarised below:

• Changes introduced by No One Left Behind: Stakeholders consistently identified the introduction of No One Left Behind as a major shift in Scotland’s employability landscape, compared with the previous approaches. Both central policy and LEP representatives highlighted changes across funding structures, service delivery models, and governance arrangements, such as (i) the consolidation of previously separate national employability programmes into a single framework; (ii) a shift towards a more place-based and person-centred approach; (iii) the development of a mixed economy of delivery; and (iv) the introduction of national tools and frameworks, including service standards, the SMF, and the Customer Charter.
• Successes and challenges of No One Left Behind: The shifts described above have resulted in greater local ownership in the commission of employability services. Both central policy and LEP representatives recognised that the ownership and associated flexibility have introduced a high degree of variation in how LEPs operate. This variation was seen as both a major strength and a challenge of the No One Left Behind approach.
  • Successes included (i) local decision-making on funding, commissioning, provision, and funding allocation; (ii) improved accountability among partners; and (iii) tailored, person-centred support.
  • Challenges included (i) differences in the pace and quality of local-model implementation across areas, at times described as a “postcode lottery”; (ii) current arrangements do not guarantee impact for service users, as funding is not linked to outcomes; and (iii) difficulty identifying who needs support and who is currently not being reached.

It is worth noting that LEP representatives reported using multiple data sources, including ONS Census and labour market statistics, alongside a range of local data-sharing arrangements, to identify unmet need. They also use the Scottish Local Authorities’ Economic Development (SLAED) Indicators Framework to monitor delivery and performance. To that end, work is underway within LEPs and SLAED to develop a data toolkit to improve consistency in assessing unmet need and service performance.

7.1 Service delivery considerations

Reflecting on elements of uniformity in service delivery, both central policy and LEP representatives identified the key worker model as a “golden thread” across No One Left Behind delivery. Across LEPs, key workers serve as the main point of contact for participants, supporting them through different stages of the employability pathway. While the key worker role is common across areas, responsibility for provision differs: in some places, key workers are employed directly by LAs; in others, they are commissioned externally; and in some areas, delivery responsibility is shared.

Stakeholders also noted that national guidance, service standards, and customer charter principles enable a shared understanding of delivery across LEPs. Finally, central policy stakeholders highlighted commonalities in the target groups supported, with most LEPs focusing on disengaged young people, parents, and individuals requiring specialist employability support.

Central policy representatives noted that producing a national map of services under current arrangements is not straightforward due to significant local variation in delivery structures and capacity. While key worker roles exist across areas, responsibility for provision differs (e.g., in-house, commissioned, or shared delivery), and the balance between these models varies locally. In addition, support is highly tailored to individual needs, leading to variation in the content, intensity, and duration of provision, with some areas also offering targeted activities for specific groups

Across LEPs, representatives described the referral process as multi-channel, reflecting the approach’s wider integrated design. LEP stakeholders consistently reported that individuals are not refused access where eligibility criteria are met. Instead, where a particular service is not suitable, service users are redirected to a more appropriate provision within the wider system. In cases where behaviour creates challenges within delivery settings, individuals may disengage from the service; however, this is not considered a formal rejection of access.