No One Left Behind: user experience research

3. Experiences of support

Key findings

What specific support are users receiving as part of the service?

• The most common types of employability support received were job search and application support, careers information, advice and guidance, support to access education, training or apprenticeships, and support to build confidence.
• Where service users said they had unmet needs, they often commented that services had not provided enough specific support on the sector they were interested in. Recent immigrants wanted more support with understanding the UK labour market.

To what extent are services being delivered in line with expected employability service standards, in the experience of users?

• Feedback from service users indicated that in most cases, services were being delivered in close alignment to the Employability Service Standards. Most service users felt they had always been treated with dignity and respect; that they had been listened to; that services were flexible; that they had been treated as an individual; that services were delivered by staff who were knowledgeable; and that services worked with them to tailor support to their needs.
• A majority of service users also agreed that services were able to help them find any other support they needed, although this statement did attract a slightly lower overall level of agreement.
• Service users valued support tailored to their career aspirations and circumstances. For disabled service users and parents, tailoring support to their health needs or caring responsibilities was important in shaping satisfaction.
• The Employment Support Services Charter includes an expectation that employability services will actively seek feedback from service users to learn and continually improve services. However, most service users had not been asked for feedback prior to taking part in the survey.

Introduction

This chapter discusses service users’ experiences of employability support services. It explores the types of employability support received, and the extent to which service users felt it was being delivered in line with expected Employability Service Standards. Key research questions addressed in this chapter are:

• What specific support are users receiving as part of the service?
• To what extent are services being delivered in line with expected employability service standards, in the experience of users?

Types of support received

The No One Left Behind approach intends to empower LEPs to design and deliver services that respond to the needs of their local authority area. Services must also meet the needs of individuals. As such, there is likely to be variation in the types of support individual service users have accessed in practice. The survey indicates that the most common type of support received was job search and application support (55%). This was followed by careers information, advice and guidance (35%), support to build confidence (31%), support to access education, training or apprenticeships (31%), and support to access volunteering or work placement opportunities (22%).

Types of support that were less commonly mentioned overall included: health related support (e.g. support with physical or mental health, support to put in place a reasonable adjustment at work) (10%), support to help stay in a job (7%), support with learning English or English skills (3%), support to access childcare (2%), support with addictions (1%) and support to start a business or become self-employed (1%) (see Figure 3.1).

There were some significant differences in the types of support received by the three priority groups that are a key focus of this report:

• Disabled respondents were more likely to have received support with confidence building (37%, compared with 31% of all respondents) and health related support (24% vs.10% overall). This reflects the finding in chapter 2, that disabled service users are more likely to say health related issues and confidence and self-esteem were barriers to accessing employment, education and training.
• Respondents from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to have received support with English skills (8% compared with 3% of all respondents). However, they were less likely to have received support with accessing education, training or apprenticeships (18% vs. 31%) and health related support (3% vs. 10%). Again, this latter finding reflects the tendency, discussed in chapter 2, for minority ethnic respondents to be less likely to say mental and physical health issues were barriers to employment for them.
• Parents were, unsurprisingly, more likely to have received support to access childcare, though only a fairly small minority of parents had received support with this (6%, compared with 2% of all respondents).

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).

Further specific types of employability support mentioned by qualitative interviewees included: CV advice and interview skills; help with applying for benefits; financial support to help with transport, childcare or the cost of training courses or exams; providing a laptop to help with job applications or study; and access to physical exercise classes to support mental and emotional wellbeing.

Peer support was not commonly mentioned, but participants who did reference it found it useful for their confidence to hear from service users who had been in a similar situation to them. That said, it was noted by one older service user that for peer support to be helpful, it needed to consider how people were grouped together. They had attended sessions with much younger service users and had not found this helpful, given differences in expectations and needs.

Gaps in support: unmet needs

Survey respondents were asked about any unmet needs, that is, any specific support they wanted from employment support services that they did not receive. Around half (48%) said they did not have any unmet needs, having got all the support they wanted, while 3% said they had not received any support and 8% preferred not to say (Figure 3.2).

Those from minority ethnic backgrounds and disabled respondents (but not parents) were less likely to say they had received all the support they wanted (44% of disabled respondents and 41% of respondents from a minority ethnic background said this, compared with 48% overall) (see Annex D, Table D.5).

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).

The most commonly reported unmet need was job search and application support (mentioned by 15% of all respondents), followed by confidence building (12%), support to access education, training or apprenticeships (12%), careers information (11%), access to volunteering or work placement opportunities (9%) and health related support (7%). Fewer respondents mentioned support to help stay in a job (4%), support with accessing childcare (2%), support with learning English (2%), or support with addictions (1%). Overall, unmet support needs closely mirror the most commonly received support, discussed above. This indicates that any gaps are not necessarily about providing very different things, but about the consistency of employability support offered to each service user, depending on their needs.

There were also some significant differences in unmet needs between different priority groups, which again suggests some inconsistency in whether all groups feel they are able to access the support they require:

• Disabled respondents were more likely to say they would have liked (more) support with confidence building (20%, compared with 12% of all respondents), and health related support (16% vs. 7%). Disabled people are already more likely to have accessed this type of support, as discussed above, but this indicates there is still a mismatch in terms of fully meeting their needs. They were also more likely to say they would like (more) support with accessing education, training or apprenticeships (18% vs. 12% overall), careers information and advice (14% vs. 11% overall) and accessing volunteering or work placement opportunities (13% compared vs. 9% overall).
• Respondents from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to say they wanted (more) support with careers information (15% vs. 11%), volunteering or work placements (13% compared with 9% of all respondents) and support with English skills (6% compared with 2%). However, they were less likely to say they wanted more support with confidence building (7% compared with 12% of all respondents) or health support (4% vs. 7%).
• Parents were, unsurprisingly, more likely to have been looking for support with childcare (6%, rising to 9% of parents with a child with additional support needs and 11% of single parents, compared with 2% of all respondents) (see Annex D, Table D.4).

Additional unmet needs mentioned in qualitative interviews included: IT skills, more specific CV or interview advice, more sector specific career advice, support with transport to be able to take up a job offer, and more support with navigating heath or childcare needs with potential employers. Minority ethnic participants who were recent immigrants had a particular request for more tailored support to help them understand the UK labour market and how to amend their CV to better meet UK employer expectations. It was also suggested that employability services could do more to help explain visa conditions to employers. A participant explained that they were already entitled to work in the care sector, but potential employers assumed that they need to provide sponsorship, which has been a barrier to employment.

Participants also highlighted some wider system-level challenges when discussing unmet support needs. These issues may not be within the power of employability services to influence since they may require policy change at a Scotland or UK-level. However, they highlight areas of importance to service users which the Scottish Government and others may wish to reflect on. Examples included

• Challenges around visa restrictions on entitlements to public funds for those who were new to the UK, which for one participant had meant they hadn’t been able to access the funding they needed for certification to start their own business.
• Among disabled participants, challenges relating to work culture and attitudes around disability and neurodiversity which they felt would need to change in order for them to be able to meet their aspiration of finding a job:

“I mean, it's not easy helping someone who's disabled, you know. [...] Society's very forward thinking, but there's a lot of roles I just can't do. [...] They've helped me as much as they can, it's just unfortunate society's left a little bit behind.”

(Disabled participant)

Satisfaction with support

Overall satisfaction with No One Left Behind-funded support is high. Most survey respondents were very (45%) or fairly (32%) satisfied with the employability support they received and just 6% were very or fairly dissatisfied (see Figure 3.3). Parents were particularly likely to be satisfied (82% were very or fairly satisfied, rising to 87% of parents of a child with additional support needs, compared with 77% of all respondents). There were no significant differences in satisfaction by disability or ethnicity.

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).

Survey respondents who were satisfied with support were asked an open question about what had worked well for them. They mentioned a wide range of features, including: that employability support staff were helpful or understanding (22%), that the support had helped with their job search (14%), access to training courses (12%), having had help with improving their CV (11%), that services had boosted their confidence (9%), or met their needs generally (8%), having had help with finding jobs matching their skill set (8%), help with job applications (7%), and that staff were approachable (7%) (see Figure 3.4).

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).

Parents and disabled respondents were more likely than average to cite the helpfulness of staff as a reason for feeling satisfied with support (28% and 27%, vs. 22% overall). Respondents from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to mention help improving their CV as something they had particularly appreciated (18%, compared with 11% overall).

The helpfulness and friendliness of employability support staff was a strong theme in qualitative interviews. Those with experience of the Jobcentre were often much more positive about the support they had received from No One Left Behind-funded employability services in comparison with Jobcentre support.

“They listen to you, they take everything into consideration, like your family life, your responsibilities and stuff like that. Whereas [with] the Jobcentre, [it’s] ‘just, oh, apply for this, apply for that’."

(Disabled parent)

“As a foreigner, feel[ing] like somebody is, you know, caring about your future somehow is good.”

(Parent from a minority ethnic background)

Among the minority (6%, 61 respondents in total) of respondents who were dissatisfied with support, the main reasons given (again, in response to an open question) were that the service had been poor or had not met their needs generally (38%), followed by negative comments about employability support staff (e.g. unapproachable or unhelpful, 36%, or poor communication, including being difficult to get in touch with or not following up with service users, 32%).

A key area of dissatisfaction among qualitative interview participants who had been less happy with support was a perceived lack of tailored support to their specific circumstances, preferences or ambitions. Another factor contributing to dissatisfaction was a lack of timely communication. Participants reflected that employability support seemed to be very busy and understaffed which meant they did not always receive the level of communication they would have liked, and that it was more difficult to build a relationship with them.

“There was quite a lot of time in between every email or any time that we spoke and I got quite impatient because I was ready to work.”

(Parent from a minority ethnic background)

An expectation that staff would offer more proactive guidance and advice, rather than waiting for participants to decide what they wanted or needed, also seemed to be a factor in some participants’ negative experiences. While some participants reflected positively on the collaborative nature of support, others had expected staff to provide more direction.

“The session is supposed to be them as the expert, helping me out of the situation that I have found myself in [order] to access their service. [...]. Every single session that I then went to was, ‘oh, what should we do now? Or what should we do today? […] [when] ‘You're being paid to sit there to help me and you're asking me to tell you what we should do’ and nothing clicks in that situation to go, ‘this isn't okay’, or ‘this isn't right or this isn't working’."

(Disabled participant)

Alignment with Employability Service Standards

Survey findings indicate that most service users experienced employability services being delivered in close alignment to the Service Standards and No One Left Behind principles, set out in chapter 1. Most respondents agreed that:

• they had always been treated with dignity and respect (86% agreed)
• they had been listened to (80%)
• services were flexible (78%), and
• they had been treated as an individual (82%).

Under 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed with each of these (see Figure 3.5).

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).

Parents were more likely to agree with each of these statements. In contrast, disabled respondents were less likely to agree that services were flexible (72%, compared with 78% of all respondents). Minority ethnic respondents were slightly less likely to agree that services had always treated them as an individual (77%, compared with 82% of all respondents) (see Annex D, Table D.6).

A majority of service users also agreed that employability support services worked with them to tailor support to their needs (75% agreed, with just 6% disagreeing) and that services were delivered by staff who were knowledgeable (81% agreed, 4% disagreed). Over two thirds agreed that services were able to help them find any other support they needed, although this statement did attract a slightly lower overall level of agreement than others (68% agreed, 8% disagreed) (see Figure 3.6).

Disabled respondents were less likely than average to agree that employability support services had worked with them to tailor support to their needs (71%, compared with 75% of all respondents) or that services were able to help them find any other support they needed (62% vs. 68%). Parents were more likely to agree that services had been able to help them find any other support (73%, compared with 68% of all respondents) and were delivered by staff who were knowledgeable (84% vs. 81%) (Annex D, Table D.7).

Figure 3.6 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the employment support service you accessed…

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)

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).

More detailed views on aspects of the Service Standards, drawing on qualitative interviews, are explored in the remainder of this chapter.

Dignity and respect

Participants who felt that they had been treated with dignity and respect highlighted several aspects of their experience which they felt supported this, and which related to No One Left Behind principles, notably the level of tailored support and flexibility of staff (both of which are explored later in this chapter).

Staff having lived experience of the issues they were facing stood out to parents and those with a disability as something which contributed to feeling the support was offered in a way which was respectful of their specific circumstances and needs.

“I feel heard, you know, especially [because] my coach, she herself has got a child that is neurodivergent. So to talk to somebody and discuss certain struggles that is sometimes difficult to explain to a person who is neurotypical. It's really hard and sometimes embarrassing, you know.”

(Disabled parent)

However, it should be noted that other disabled participants and parents also felt that staff had been understanding of their circumstances and did not specifically connect this to the characteristics of staff. Empathy, listening, and adaption to their specific needs were key.

By contrast, participants who felt that they had not been treated with dignity and respect often felt that support was not tailored to their needs. There were also specific frustrations around not receiving support that participants understood they were entitled to or would be available (e.g. with accessing training or help with transport); preferences for meeting format (e.g. in-person or virtual) or preferred time to be contacted by staff not being respected; and the level or speed of responsiveness of staff to requests for support.

"After like a while, I stopped replying to them because I wasn't feeling very well respected with the times they were contacting me. [...] Most of the time they were calling me when I was at the work, like very busy doing things [and I] couldn't answer the calls, or late at night when I was like, you know, like already stressed [about] the job."

(Disabled participant)

Some disabled participants, single parents, older participants and participants from minority ethnic backgrounds also felt that employability staff had underestimated their abilities or aspirations – sometimes linking this with a perception support staff were making judgements based on their disability, age, or parental status – which made them feel less respected.

"In general, they [services] have got low expectations, which is not the case because when I was a PhD student, I worked with people above me who are single parents and care for children with disabilities. […] but the way they [local services] were phrasing things about goals and, you know, future in life, I just felt like we are looked upon as if … we shouldn't have goals and ambitions."

(Parent)

“Comments like ‘well, you are [aged] 55’, you know, it’s not helpful. At the time I had 12 years until I retired. […] And I have a sort of chronic illness, but I'm also on the whole, really fit. I mean, in my current job I probably walk between 15 to 20,000 steps a day. […] Possibly because they see five or six people a day for half an hour, an hour, they just hear one thing about you and then sort of build a picture on that.”

(Disabled participant)

While some participants praised staff for listening to their needs (arguably a key element of feeling treated with respect), others felt that they had not been fully listened to. This was sometimes attributed to staff being stretched in terms of workload. There were frustrations with having to repeat information to different staff members – or even, as the quote below illustrates, in subsequent interviews with the same support worker.

“She would listen about what is it I need. You know, rather than 'I'm just gonna put you through this and that', it was always like, even if she had some ideas, she would always make sure to ask me, ‘would that help?’ [...] It was more like just working with me, rather than telling me what I should be doing, that was really good."

(Disabled parent)

“It might be an idea if before seeing someone, even if it's the third, fourth, fifth time they've seen a client, if they just refresh themselves on what was said before, what their work history and education is. [...] It wastes a lot of time and also it's demeaning, it makes you feel like you haven't been listened to [...]. They [staff] could do with some listening skills and maybe do a course in listening skills [...] these things are really important skills and I don't really see them being employed in these organisations.”

(Disabled participant)

Other issues that gave participants the impression that they had not been listened to included: being offered job or training opportunities that were not of interest to them, or that they would struggle to get to because they could not drive or because of childcare responsibilities; being offered roles on a lower salary than they expected; or being steered towards jobs that were too similar to their current role which they did not enjoy.

Knowledgeable staff

Staff having a good understanding of their specific needs was particularly important to disabled and neurodiverse participants, but they described mixed experiences of this in practice. Participants who had more positive experiences said that staff had been able to explain their rights around reasonable adjustments at work and benefits they might be entitled to, and that they took their time to explain things again if they did not understand. However, others felt that staff did not seem to have a good awareness or understanding of how to accommodate their needs, both in terms of how support was delivered and what support was offered.

“I told him [staff member] it [the coffee shop] was full. I said, ‘could we not go outside so I can hear you better? I won't hear you here because it’s crowded’. He wasn’t happy. […] He didn't take into consideration my disability.”

(Disabled participant from minority ethnic background)

Participants from minority ethnic backgrounds also expressed mixed reflections on staff knowledge in qualitative interviews. For example, one participant reflected that staff did not seem to have a good understanding of the challenges facing services users from coming from outside the UK. They had been signposted to a teaching opportunity in a school, but found they did not have the qualifications needed for registration with the General Teaching Council for Scotland. However, another commented that staff had understood their circumstances, because they had previous experience supporting services users with the same visa requirements.

Another perceived gap in employability support staff knowledge was around benefits. Participants gave examples where their employability support worker had not been able to advise on how benefits would change after taking up employment (and had not signposted them elsewhere for this advice), or where participants born outside the UK were advised to apply for benefits they were not sure they were entitled to claim.

Tailored support

The extent to which employability support was tailored to their personal needs and aspirations was a strong theme for all three of the priority groups interviewed for this research, with similar positive and negative points emerging from each. Participants who felt support had been well tailored to them as individuals explained how staff had worked with them to understand their needs, and were able to recommend opportunities suited their specific aspirations.

“They kind of worked with me and what I wanted to do, instead of trying to push things onto me. They were very kind of, like, understanding of my pace and what I wanted. So that was really great in that respect.”

(Disabled participant)

In contrast, other participants were frustrated that their preferences did not seem to have been taken into account in the support offered (e.g. in relation to sector, salary, or location), or they felt pressured to apply for things they did not think would benefit them.

"I had school so I couldn't go really far in the night or do really late in the night. Most of them [offered by the service] were night jobs and I couldn't do those.”

(Participant from a minority ethnic background)

“To be eligible for let's say, a research fellowship, how can the first aid training help me? I just felt at the time it was wasting my time. I had really little time as a single mother to really, really focus on what I really need to achieve and it [the service] wasn't helping.”

(Parent)

Flexing support around participant needs and commitments is another key element of tailoring. Parents and disabled participants particularly appreciated being able to arrange appointments with employability support staff to suit their schedule (e.g. meeting when their children were at school or nursery) and to change appointment times without being penalised (for example for a medical appointment). Another aspect that worked well for some parents was being able to bring children to appointments.

However, even where people said that their direct support worker had offered flexibility around appointment times and format, they sometimes highlighted issues with the flexibility of the wider support they were signposted or referred to, particularly, in terms of training or further education courses. For example, a parent noted that they would have liked to have taken up course their support worker had signposted them to, but it fell over the school holidays when their child was at home. Although the course was online, and the participant felt her child would not need much supervision, the course provider said they could not attend if they did not have childcare. Their support worker said they would work with them to find another option that better suited their needs, but they felt the course provider should have been more flexible around their needs in the first instance.

Participants who spoke English as a second language also highlighted the importance of flexibility in meeting format, with different participants expressing different preferences for in person and online meetings. One participant preferred videocalls because this allowed them to read auto generated translation which aided their understanding.

Travel to meetings could also incur costs for participants. One participant noted that their support worker arranged meetings in coffee shops (though they had asked to meet online), and the participant had to purchase their own refreshments.

The two contrasting ‘pen portraits’ below illustrates how tailoring support, or failing to do so, can make all the difference to experiences and views of support.

Pen portrait: Reema

Reema is a parent from a minority ethnic background. She took a career break to care for her children after moving to the UK and struggled to re-enter the labour market. She was looking for help understanding the UK industry and why her applications were being rejected.

She met her advisor every two to three weeks (by phone or in-person depending on her availability). The advisor helped her to identify suitable sectors (based on her specific past experience and aspirations) and roles, and to tailor her CV and arrange mock interviews. She was offered courses and a work placement to help her upskill. If timings did not suit her childcare needs, her advisor helped her find other options.

“She understood me and her questions made me understand myself as well… She helped me at every step.”

Pen portrait: Megan

Megan is a disabled parent. She was signed off long‑term sick but felt she was starting to manage her conditions better, and wanted clear “stepping stones” back towards volunteering with young people, potentially returning to university, and ultimately finding work.

It took a while to be allocated a consistent advisor, but the service was initially good and fitted around her health needs (including arranging a bus pass and offering in‑person or online meetings to suit her). There was no pressure to take up work before she felt ready.

However, over time she came to feel that support was not sufficiently tailored to her needs. She was offered courses that were too general and the wrong times to fit in with childcare. Her advisor did not seem to know how to help her explore options for volunteering or further education to help her into the specific career she was interested in. The advisor offered to provide a reference for a job application, but she did not hear back in time and had to ask someone else.

“To begin with, my experience was really good, […] but as time went on, I needed something more specific.”

Opportunity to provide feedback

The Employment Support Services Customer Charter expects that employability services will actively seek feedback from service users to learn and continually improve services. The service user survey suggests this is not happening regularly or consistently across No One Left Behind-funded services: more than half (55%) said they had not been asked for feedback, while under a quarter (23%) said they had, and a fifth (20%) were unsure. Disabled respondents and parents were more likely to say they had not been asked for feedback (62% and 59%, vs. 55% overall).

Similarly, qualitative participants did not generally recall being asked for feedback. However, a few had been asked to complete periodic or end of year surveys or had received informal feedback requests from staff during appointments. Some participants had also directly contacted service managers to raise issues.

Among those who were asked to give feedback, not everyone found it easy to respond. Time and competing priorities were barriers. The source of the request could also be a barrier. One participant said they found it easy to provide informal feedback to their support worker, thanking them for what was useful and explaining what had not worked. However, another participant, who was less satisfied overall, said they would have preferred if they had been offered the option to feed back to another staff member (apart from their main advisor).

Concerns about confidentiality and possible repercussions were also barriers. One participant said they did not respond to an email feedback request because they worried a negative response might be traced back to them and affect future support for their family. Some participants reflected that previous feedback had not been actioned, which had discouraged them from providing any further feedback.