No One Left Behind: user experience research

2. Accessing support

Key findings

How are users accessing services?

• Service users had first heard about employability support through a wide range of both formal and informal routes. The most common routes were through the Jobcentre, school or college, friends or family, or via a careers adviser.
• Those who wanted specific support tended to have been more proactive in searching for employability services. Others had come across services through word of mouth and decided they might be useful to them.
• Participants from minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly those who had recently moved to the UK, noted that they had not previously been aware that this type of support existed, or that they would be entitled to access it.
• Overall, a majority of services users said they found accessing the support they needed, when they needed it, ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ easy, although around one in ten found it ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ difficult.
• The main facilitators to accessing support were: easy to navigate websites, straightforward application forms, and quick responses from services.
• The main barriers to accessing support (among the minority who had found it difficult) were: that staff were not felt to have been helpful or supportive; that the support offered did not suit their needs; the service was difficult to contact or slow to respond; the service was not well known or advertised; and that the service was not easy to get to or was not in a suitable location.

What motivates users to access services?

• Specific motivations for seeking out support included: to help find a job that fits particular experience, expertise and requirements; support for getting back into work after a period out of work; to identify and access volunteering, work placement, or apprenticeship opportunities; to access funding for job-related training; to (re)build confidence; and to access support with mental health and wellbeing.

Introduction

This chapter examines how service users heard about employability support services and what motivated them to seek support. It explores how easy or difficult they found it to access services and get the support they needed, when they needed it, facilitators and barriers to accessing employability support services, and potential improvements to make support services more accessible.

Key research questions addressed in this chapter are:

• How are users accessing services?
• What motivates users to access and persist with services? (focusing on the first part of this question, with motivations to stay engaged covered in chapter 4).

However, before exploring routes into support and ease of access, the chapter starts by considering the issues services users were facing at the start of their support journey, that shaped their subsequent support needs.

What issues were service users facing when they first accessed employability support?

Employability support funded through No One Left Behind is available both to help people find work, and to help those already in work to either improve or maintain their employment. In the most recent No One Left Behind national statistics (published May 2026, and covering the period from April 2019 to December 2025), 12% of No One Left Behind service users were in employment when they started to receive support. The service user survey conducted for this research found a slightly higher proportion of respondents who were working when they first got in touch with support – 18%, though most (76%) were not working. Disabled respondents were less likely than average to have been in work when they first contacted support (12%, vs. 18% overall), while parents were more likely than average to have been in work (29%, vs. 18% overall – see Annex D, Table D.1).

The survey also highlighted the wide range of issues that can make it difficult for people to access education, training or work (see Figure 2.2), including:

• Issues relating to personal circumstances, confidence and wellbeing: The two most common issues that respondents felt were making it difficult for them to access work, education or training when they first contacted support were low confidence or self-esteem (28%) followed by mental health and wellbeing issues (26%). Other issues relating to respondents’ personal circumstances included: worries about money (16%), physical health issues or disabilities (15%), childcare options not being suitable for them or their child (10%), and caring responsibilities (10%).
• Issues relating to the labour market(including employer attitudes), such as a lack of suitable employment or training opportunities (22%), negative employer attitudes (8%), and a lack of employer willingness to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people (6%).
• Issues relating to their own skills, qualifications and experience, including lack of work experience (22%), and lack of skills or qualifications (18%). The proportion reporting ‘lack of work experience’ was lower than that recorded in No One Left Behind national statistics (22% vs. 37% in the May 2026 statistics). This may reflect the slightly older profile of people who took part in the survey compared with all No One Left Behind participants (see Chapter 1), as older participants are less likely to report lack of work experience as a barrier.
• Other structural barriers to accessing work, such as lack of transport to get to work, education or training opportunities (10%).

Source: Ipsos survey of service users who had initial engagement with No One Left Behind services between 6-18 months ago. Base: All respondents (1041)

Disabled respondents were more likely than those without a disability to report facing multiple barriers to accessing employment, education or training (Annex D, Table D.2). They were much more likely to report issues related to mental health and wellbeing (57%, compared with 7% of respondents without a disability), confidence and self‑esteem (45%, vs. 18% of respondents without a disability), and physical health or disability (43% vs. 2% of respondents without a disability). They were also significantly more likely to report that external factors, such as labour market conditions and employer attitudes, were an issue. For example, 28% (vs. 20% of respondents without a disability) mentioned a lack of suitable employment or training opportunities, and 14% in each case mentioned negative employer attitudes, and lack of willingness among employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people (compared with 5% and 3% respectively of respondents without a disability).

Respondents from minority ethnic backgrounds were less likely than those from white backgrounds to say that confidence and self-esteem had been an issue impacting their access to education, training or work (14%, compared with 31% of white respondents). They were also less likely to say that mental health and well-being issues and physical health had been issues in this regard (see Annex D, Table D.3). Research has highlighted that people from minority ethnic backgrounds can be less likely to report, discuss, or seek help for issues relating to mental health, self-esteem, and confidence compared with people from white ethnic backgrounds, due to a combination of stigma, cultural differences in symptom expression, and systemic barriers in healthcare.^{[6] [7] [8]} As such, the finding that they were less likely to mention mental health and self-esteem as barriers (and, as reported later, were also less likely to say they wanted more support around this) needs interpreting in this context – there may be some unspoken or unrecognised health and wellbeing needs, that require culturally appropriate responses.

Issues relating to childcare were, predictably, higher up the list of barriers mentioned by parents. The most commonly mentioned issue among parents that made it difficult for them to access education, training or work was a lack of childcare options suitable for them or their child (27% of parents mentioned this). One in five (20%) parents cited caring responsibilities as a barrier (compared with 5% of non-parents). The same proportion (20%) of parents mentioned the cost of childcare, while worries about money more generally were also more common among parents (21% compared with 14% of non-parents). Concern about the costs of childcare (27%) and worries about money (28%) were particularly high among single parents. (See Annex D, Table D.4).

Qualitative interviews with parents echoed challenges around balancing work with caring responsibilities. Parents described frustrations with a lack of part-time and flexible working options as a motivation for seeking support.

"I think I applied (for) 74 jobs [before accessing support] … Some of them not replying, some of them replying. You know, ‘we cannot do this kind of demand [for part-time]’, you know, where they need me full time employment. So I can’t do that because of my childcare.”

(Parent from a minority ethnic background)

Also reflecting the survey findings above, disabled participants highlighted the significant barriers they faced relating to their disability, often linking this with employer attitudes and lack of understanding or willingness to offer flexibility or make reasonable adjustments. In some cases where participants had intersecting characteristics (e.g. being a parent and disabled), they described multiple barriers.

"I want to work ... But my health. Health was keep getting down and down and down. I just want to like some [of] these companies [to] understand me. Like I am a single parent. I can't work Saturday Sundays plus I can work from 9 till 3. But I am [someone who] desperately wants to work".

(Disabled parent)

Disabled members of a lived experience panel consulted for this research also described the significant impact that stigma and negative attitudes among both prospective employers and new colleagues could have on their experiences of finding and sustaining employment. In cases where disabled people were seeking more junior roles because of their condition, they described having to ‘play down’ their CVs in order to be considered for a role, which could be demoralising. At the same time, fear of being ‘forced’ into roles that might exacerbate their condition, or not being allowed sufficient time to build confidence and skills in a new role, was a barrier to both engaging with support and entering employment.

Lack of confidence – which as noted, topped the list of barriers mentioned in the survey – was also a recurrent theme in the qualitative interviews, mentioned by participants across all three priority groups. This was sometimes linked with a lack of knowledge or understanding of how to navigate the job market, either in general, or as a result of a change of circumstances (e.g. becoming a parent, becoming disabled, or having a disabled child).

“When I've been employed, I didn't have children, so I didn't know how to go about working hybrid or even working around the kids and what employers would be acceptable for that. So she helped me navigate that and give me confidence in the fact that there was stuff out there.”

(Disabled parent)

How do people hear about employability support services?

Service users had first heard about employability support through a wide variety of both formal and informal routes. The most common routes were through the Jobcentre (29%), followed by school or college (14%), friends or family (14%), or via a careers adviser (12% - see Figure 2.1). Other, less common routes, included: social media (6%), through another training provider (5%) through a GP, health visitor or other health professional (5%), from an employer (5%) and through a poster, advert, or leaflet (4%). A minority (7%) said they had heard about the provider via previous contact with them.

The most common routes for hearing about services tended to be similar across different groups of service user. However, there were some significant differences in terms of routes that were less common overall, but may be relatively more important in reaching certain priority groups. For example:

• Disabled respondents were more likely to have heard about employability support services through a GP, health visitor, or other health professional (11%, compared with 2% of respondents without a disability).
• Parents were more likely to have heard about services through social media (9% compared with 4% of non-parents) or through a poster, advert or leaflet (6% compared with 3% of non-parents). Those from minority ethnic backgrounds were similarly more likely to mention having seen a poster, advert or leaflet (8%, compared with 3% of those from a white background).
• Single parents were more likely to have heard about services through the Jobcentre (37% compared with 28% those who were not single parents) or through social media (10% compared with 6% those who were not single parents).

Source: Ipsos survey of service users who had initial engagement with No One Left Behind services between 6-18 months ago, fieldwork conducted January-March 2026. Base: All respondents (1,041).

Qualitative interviewees had found out about employment support services via similar routes to those described above. Participants from minority ethnic backgrounds, particularly those who had moved to the UK in recent years, noted that they had not previously been aware that this type of support existed, or that they would be entitled to access it. They felt that if they had been made aware that employability support was available to them, they would have accessed it earlier.

"We are satisfied with the services we have. But see, the only thing is we were not aware. (…) Yeah, so even for us, we took, like I said, we took two years. (…) So before we are thinking, that it's only for Scottish people not coming from abroad”.

(Parent from a minority ethnic background)

There appeared to be ongoing confusion among some participants who had moved to the UK recently around whether there are any legal restrictions that could prevent them accessing employability support, particularly where they had restrictions on their visas relating to accessing public funds.

Participants’ suggestions for improving awareness of employability support services included:

• Increased advertising generally. There was a sense that some services relied on direct referrals and were less well known locally than they might be.

“I think it [the employability support service] was really positive. I think that it’s a shame they don't … advertise their services more widely and … make it a bit more known. I think that they kind of rely on referrals from the advice centre and from community education and places like that, rather than people self-referring and maybe that would be an improvement.”

(Disabled participant)

• Increasing social media advertising, while also ensuring that all social media advertising clearly appears legitimate and trustworthy. One participant noted that they were more cautious of social media posts now because of AI, highlighting an increased need to consider how to convey the legitimacy of social media content.
• Providing an up‑to‑date, easily accessible webpage with clear information on all local services.

“Buried deep in web pages stuff about a very outdated, very inaccessible webpage about services that they may or may not offer. I think the first step would be that this service needs to be much more accessible in terms of it needs to be available. So instead of it being this kind of hidden away on a council website or hidden away on charity's website …”

(Disabled participant)

• Taking a more coordinated approach to advertising employability support across organisations, including through posters and leaflets, social media, and professionals highlighting the support. Jobcentres, local housing associations, disability organisations, community groups (especially those working with people from minority ethnic backgrounds), and schools were all mentioned.
• Highlighting that employability support is available to everyone, regardless of length of residence in the UK.^[9] One participant who was a recent migrant to the UK noted that the council had contacted them to ask if they could use them as a case study on their Facebook page as someone who had found work through employability support. They thought this had been very helpful in highlighting to their community that this support was available to people from similar backgrounds, noting that many of their friends had seen the post and asked how they had gone about finding their job.
• Clarifying who can access support more generally. A disabled participant noted they had been aware of the service they were using previously, but thought it was restricted to people living in properties owned by the housing association that ran the support, when in fact it was open to everyone.

What motivates users to access employability support services?

Qualitative interviews with parents, disabled people, and people from minority ethnic backgrounds also explored what motivated people to seek support in the first place. Participants’ accounts highlighted a distinction between those who deliberately sought out support with a specific issue, and those who had not initially been looking for help, but came across services inadvertently and thought they could be useful to them. Specific motivations for seeking out support included:

• Help to find a job that fit their particular experience, expertise and requirements, and
• Wanting support getting back into work after a period out of work – for example, after having children, moving to a new country, or a period of ill health. In some cases, these first two motivations were linked – for example, people from outside the UK who had been out of work after moving to the UK and needed support to access jobs in the field they had previously worked in, or parents who needed support to increase their hours in their chosen profession, after moving to work on a part-time or freelance basis after children.

“I actually I come to the UK three years ago from [country]. Actually I do have a computer science background when I'm in [country] and I work as a programmer there but after moving to UK after, where I was in Scotland. I try to look for a job in back to the IT field, back to development field and therefore I try to contact with the access to employment.”

(Parent from a minority ethnic background)

• To find a better job, or to increase their salary. A disabled participant noted that this was something they were particularly looking for, since they felt disabled people were often disadvantaged with regard to salary.

"I wanted support just to find, just to find a higher salary really and try and find more meaningful work. I feel like as a person with a disability it's very hard to seek a higher salary, if that makes sense. I'm always kind of put into the lower, lower bounds."

(Disabled parent)

• To improve their employment prospects in general, for example through CV support, help with application forms, interview preparation and job search.
• Support to access volunteering, work placement, or apprenticeship opportunities. Some disabled participants in particular, commented that they were initially looking for support to find volunteering roles, rather than help to move directly into work (although, as in the quote below, this could subsequently lead to paid employment).

“I wasn't looking for work. I was just looking to get into volunteering and they were really supportive about that. They helped me kind of find things. They helped me write a CV up, which did lead to volunteering. They even phoned on my behalf and stuff like that. So it was a really great experience. So they got me into volunteering, which then actually led into a job for, I think, six months”.

(Disabled participant)

• To access funding for job-related training, such as first aid courses or SVQs, which they had identified might help them move into employment (in general, or for specific roles).
• To (re)build their confidence and access support with mental health and wellbeing, or wider skills (including parenting).

“I was seeking ways of trying to, you know, work on my skills and my confidence and just generally like help with my parenting and … my mental health.”

(Disabled parent)

Among those participants who had not been actively looking for help when they first heard about employability support, motivations for getting in touch were sometimes less specific – for example, ‘looking for help’ around work, or getting back into work, without necessarily having a specific career or job option in mind, or even just getting in touch because a service had been recommended to them.

“My son turned five so I got put off of the job seekers onto universal credit. But just before my son turned five they (Jobcentre) gave me the number for the employment person and told me to phone it and make an appointment with them. I didn't really know about it until like the Jobcentre told me”.

(Disabled parent)

There were also some participants – again, particularly recent migrants from outside the UK – who felt they did not have a clear understanding of what types of employability support, or what types of jobs, were available to them in Scotland. As such, they were looking for general advice about their options, such as what training they should engage with, or how good a fit their skills were for the Scottish job market.

“Actually I'm not sure what kind of support I could get. I would say my, situation is, you know, I come from [country]. I would say I may not have a very fluent English. And also I would say my technical background may not be really up to date as the Scotland tech field. … I would look for some, like would there be some training or some suggestion on what kind of training I should take to (get) back to (the) tech field?”.

(Parent from a minority ethnic background)

How easy did people find it to access the support they needed?

Overall, a majority of respondents services users said they found accessing the support they needed, when they needed it, ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ easy (64%), although around one in ten (12%) found it ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ difficult. A quarter (25%) said either that it had been neither easy nor difficult, or that they were not sure or preferred not to say.

Disabled respondents were more likely than non-disabled respondents to say they found it very or fairly difficult to access support when they needed it (17%, compared with 8% of respondents without a disability).

In contrast, parents were more likely than non-parents to say it was very or fairly easy to access the support they needed (69%, compared with 62% of non-parents). This may also reflect age differences – those over 25 were more likely both to be parents, and to say they found it easy to access support.

There were no significant differences in stated ease of accessing support between respondents from a minority ethnic background and those from white backgrounds.

In addition to be being asked how easy or difficult they found it to get the support they needed, when they needed it, respondents were also asked whether they agreed or disagreed that the services were easy to get in touch with. Eight in 10 (80%) agreed, while just 5% disagreed. However, similar to the findings above, disabled respondents were less likely to agree (77%, compared with 84% of non-disabled respondents), while parents were more likely to agree (87%, vs. 78% of non-parents).

Facilitators to accessing support

Among qualitative interviewees who felt it had been easy to access support, the main reasons were that application forms were straightforward to complete, responses from services were quick, and service websites were easy to navigate.

“Well, it wasn't [difficult] because I just wrote to someone (…) and then she said somebody was going to give me a call, and then I got a call from somebody else and then she just sent me a form. I filled the form, sent it back to her and that wasn't really [difficult]. I didn't have to stress.”

(Parent from a minority ethnic background)

Barriers to accessing support

Among the minority of respondents (12%) who said it had been very or fairly difficult to get the support they needed, when they needed it, the most common reasons given were: that staff were not felt to have been helpful or supportive (33%), that the support offered did not suit their needs (31%), the service was difficult to contact or slow to respond (29%), the service was not well known or advertised (24%), and that the service was not easy to get to or was not in a suitable location (14%, see Annex D, Figure D.1).

The base sizes for sub-group responses to this question are low, so some caution should be applied to interpreting findings. However, disabled respondents were significantly more likely than average to say that the service was difficult to contact or slow to respond (38%, compared with 29% overall) and to say the support offered did not suit their needs (41%, compared with 31% overall).

Participants in the qualitative interviews identified some more specific barriers to being able to access the support they needed in a timely manner, including:

• A perception that different services were not joined up, leading service users to feel that each part was only helping with isolated elements of what they needed.
• Having to fill in a lot of forms or provide a lot of information in order to access support in the first place. Although this had not necessarily deterred participants in the qualitative research, since they had gone on to access support, it was nonetheless identified as a frustration.
• Frustrations at being referred repeatedly to different staff members (and having to repeat their needs to each one), instead of one consistent member of staff being allocated from the start, as well as general frustrations at long waiting times before they were assigned a support worker.

“So I spoke with one woman and then I was referred on to another woman. So then (I) had the same conversation and then was referred again to someone who would be even more beneficial because I'm a single parent. (…) it was just kind of like every two or three weeks I was getting referred to someone else.”

(Disabled parent)

Suggestions from participants around how to make services more accessible and easier to engage with at the outset (in addition to the suggestions to raise awareness, discussed above) included:

• More proactive outreach, with staff reaching out to service users rather than relying on them to initiate contact
• Simplification or reduction of the information requested from service users at the outset, reducing duplication of data already collected by other services, and enabling participants to fill in their details online rather than only using paper forms (which were described as particulary offputting for dyslexic or neurodiverse service users). It is worth noting that there may be data protection reasons why services are not able able to access participant data already collected by other services. However, as perceived duplication of requests from services for the same information was identified as a frustration, we have included it here.