No One Left Behind: user experience research

4. Ongoing engagement, disengagement, outcomes

Key findings

To what extent do users disengage from services, and what are the reasons for this?

• Around a third (36%) of respondents (who had first contacted support 6-18 months ago) were no longer in touch with employability services. This further divided into:
  • Two thirds of those who were no longer in touch with support said this was because they no longer needed support or had got the outcome they wanted
  • The other third had disengaged for another reason, including life events or changes in their own circumstances, or issues relating to the quality or nature of support they had been offered.
• Qualitative interviews highlighted similar issues to those discussed in the previous chapter as reasons for disengaging: a lack of tailoring of support to their personal needs and aspirations, poor communication or responsiveness, and being moved between support workers (resulting in having to repeat their stories).
• In addition to the above, 13% said they did not know whether they were still in touch with their support services. Qualitative interviews indicated that this could occur when services had not been in regular contact, leaving them unsure if they were still registered.
• The main factors that encouraged service users to stay in touch with employability support services were the quality of the support or advice given and their relationship with staff. Both emotional support and reliable, continuous practical support and checking-in were critical in maintaining service users’ engagement with support, as well as motivating them in their employment journey.

Introduction

This chapter focuses on reasons behind service users’ continued engagement or disengagement with employability support, addressing the key research question:

• To what extent do users disengage from services, and what are the reasons for this?

It also discusses perceived outcomes and impacts from support, as well as service users’ suggestions for improvement.

Ongoing engagement and disengagement with support

Half (49%) of survey respondents said they were still in contact with employment support services, while 36% said they were no longer in touch with services. Parents, disabled people and people from minority ethnic backgrounds were no more or less likely than average to say they were no longer in touch with support.

Over one in ten respondents (13%) did not know or were unsure whether they were still in touch with services. Qualitative interviews with service users found they were sometimes left unclear about whether they were still registered with employment services, particularly if the service had not been in contact with them for a while. There were also examples where participants felt their support had ended without them feeling they had been informed of this, which was a source of frustration, particularly where this led to them needing to re-register and repeat their stories:

“I am still not in a situation where I have progressed any further forward in looking for employment training, work, volunteering, etc, etc. And the kind of thing that then happens […] is that you then turn around and say, ‘I need a break’ or ‘I can't continue right now’, or circumstances come up, and they close your file without telling you. Then [you] contact them back to then be like, ‘I'd like to continue’. We just go around the cycle all over again. It's horrible.”

(Disabled participant)

Another participant also highlighted that they felt that they had been “dropped” by their employability support service without explanation, leaving them worried they may have done something wrong.

Reasons for staying engaged with support

Among the 49% of respondents who were still in touch with services, the main factor that encouraged them to stay in touch was the quality of the support or advice given (53%), followed by their relationship with staff (35%). 15% said they had an agreement with the jobcentre to attend for support, while 10% mentioned opportunities for peer support from others in a similar situation to them (Figure 4.1).

Parents (especially single parents, 48%) were more likely than average (35%) to mention the relationship they have with staff as a key factor in why they stayed in touch with support services. Similarly, disabled people were also more likely than non-disabled people to say this (40% vs. 30%), suggesting that good relationships are particularly critical to maintaining contact with these groups of service users.

Source: Ipsos survey of service users who had initial engagement with No One Left Behind services between 6-18 months ago. Base: All participants who had initial engagement with No One Left Behind services between 6-18 months ago who are still in contact with support (n = 526)

Qualitative interviewees reinforced the significance of positive relationships with staff in encouraging continuing engagement, as well as contributing to overall satisfaction with services (as discussed in the previous chapter). Participants described how their relationship with their support worker involved not only practical help, but also emotional support. Both emotional support and reliable, continuous practical support and regular contact were critical in maintaining service users’ engagement with support, as well as motivating them in their employment journey. When participants felt support workers were making an effort to keep in touch, they tended to express a greater attachment to the service.

“I think she [the support worker] is contacting me every month. […] They are asking me about the how many hours your job is? Are you satisfied with your job? And that kind of [thing], you know. Still she is motivating me.”

(Parent from a minority ethnic background)

In addition to appreciating an empathetic approach in general, as discussed in the previous chapter, some participants also described feeling a greater connection with support when their support workers had similar characteristics and/or experiences to them which they had shared, such as being parents, having had health difficulties, or being neurodivergent.

Reasons for disengaging from support

As noted above, 36% said they were no longer in touch with employability support services at the time they took part in the survey. Of these respondents, the top two reasons for no longer being in contact were getting the outcome they wanted (46%) and not feeling they needed any more help (25%), both of which indicate that the support had ‘done its job’ from the service user perspective. Overall, two thirds of those who were no longer in touch fell into this group.

The other third of respondents who were no longer in touch with support gave responses which indicate that they may still have had outstanding support needs at the point they disengaged. A quarter of this group (23%) said that life events or changes of circumstances had meant they could not carry on with support.

More exceptionally, respondents who were no longer in touch with support mentioned reasons directly relating to the quality or nature of support they had been offered, including: staff not being able to help with what they needed (8% of all those no longer in touch with support), the support itself not being suited to their needs (7%), and not being able to get in touch with the service (5%). A further 8% of those who were no longer in touch were not sure why their contact with the service ended, which may again reflect uncertainty over whether support has ended among those for whom contact has dropped off, discussed above.

Sample sizes for sub-groups for this question were relatively small, meaning there were fewer statistically significant differences. However, there were still some differences in reasons for why contact ended across the three priority groups for this research. In particular:

• Respondents from a minority ethnic background were significantly less likely than average to say they had achieved the outcome they wanted (35% vs. 46%).
• Disabled respondents were less likely than average to say support had stopped because they did not need any more help (13% vs. 25%), but more likely than average to say a change in circumstances had stopped them from being able to carry on with support (23% vs. 10%).
• Parents, especially those with a child with additional support needs, were also more likely than average to say a change in circumstances had meant they could not carry on with support (17% vs. 10%, and 24% vs. 10% for parents of children with additional support needs).

Source: Ipsos survey of service users who had initial engagement with No One Left Behind services between 6-18 months ago. Base: All participants who had initial engagement with No One Left Behind services between 6-18 months ago not still in contact with support (n = 377)

Qualitative interviews shed further light on reasons for disengagement. Disabled participants mentioned deterioration or fluctuation in their health as something that had led to ending contact, though as noted in the quote below, they may still have felt the door was left open for them to recontact services when they felt they were in a better place to take steps towards employment.

“I'm not with [service] at the moment because my anxiety's not...I'm not keeping very good at all. But I know that they're there if I did need them still, you know, I can just phone them up and re-register, the door's always open."

(Disabled parent)

Although the survey suggests changes in life circumstances may also disproportionately impact on parents continued engagement with support, parents in the qualitative sample did not raise this as a reason for ending contact. Rather, they commented on the flexibility and accommodation provided by services in fitting support around their childcare responsibilities.

Participants from minority ethnic backgrounds who were immigrants to the UK reflected on various specific additional barriers they had experienced in achieving the outcomes they wanted, as discussed in the second half of this chapter. These may help to explain why this group were less likely to say they had stopped support as a result of having achieved the outcome they wanted.

Participants who had ended contact for reasons related to the perceived quality or nature of support provided emphasised similar issues to those discussed in the previous chapter, as factors contributing to general dissatisfaction with services. A lack of tailoring of support to their personal needs and aspirations, poor communication or responsiveness, and being moved between support workers (resulting in having to repeat their stories) were all mentioned.

“I didn't have any personal issue with the person I worked with. It was just I felt at the time that [...] (they) couldn't recommend the jobs I really was going for. I know I might sound a bit, I don't know, like selfish, but I think that the local service should work for me, not the other way around. [...] I didn't want any more jobs. I had, like, hundreds of jobs to go through. I just wanted jobs that were right for me at that time."

(Parent)

Perceived outcomes from services

This research was not intended to measure outcomes from employability support, but to explore experiences of that support. Measuring outcomes would require a more experimental research design, with a control group to establish whether any outcomes reported are attributable to the support received through No One Left Behind, or might have occurred anyway, without this support being in place.^[10]

However, the survey did look at whether, for those who were in work at the time of the survey, they felt the support they had received had contributed to this outcome. This should not be taken as conclusive, both because of the absence of a control group and because it reflects a snapshot at a particular point in time (those who participated in the survey had been in contact with support for different lengths of time, and some service users may go on to find employment later). However, it does give an indication of how service users perceive the impact of support.

Around four in ten respondents said they were working (employed full or part-time or self-employed) at the time of the survey. Of this group, 57% said they felt the employment support they had received helped them find this job, while 30% said it had not, and 9% were unsure.

Those from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to feel the support they had received had helped them find their current job (66% vs. 57%). It is important to note that this does not imply that employability support was more successful in moving people from minority ethnic backgrounds into employment – Scottish Government No One Left Behind statistics continue to indicate that those from minority ethnic backgrounds are less likely to have entered employment than those from white backgrounds (25% vs 33%).^[11] Rather, it indicates that people from minority ethnic backgrounds who had found work were relatively more likely to attribute this to the support they had received.

In contrast, parents who were in work were more likely than average to say the support had not contributed to helping them find work (37%, vs. 30% overall). Scottish Government No One Left Behind statistics indicate that parents supported by No One Left Behind are also slightly less likely than average to have moved into work (29%, compared with 32% overall). At the same time, they are also more likely to have been in employment already, at the point they register with support, which may also help explain why more parents feel that the support they received had not contributed to their finding work.

The pen portrait, below, illustrates the kind of support participants’ felt had contributed most to their finding employment, which echo the key themes discussed above and in previous chapters: practical advice and support, alongside emotional support, consistent contact, and tailoring to individual needs.

Pen portrait: Annie

Annie is a single parent from a minority ethnic background, who lives with her children, one of whom has additional support needs. She had taken time off work to care for her child and wanted to get back into the workforce.

Annie found out about the employability services through her council’s social media. Her support workers have helped her not only build her CV, but her confidence. They had also assisted with accessing funded childcare for when she is at work, as well as helping with transport and new clothing costs. She praised the support for being personalised to her needs and felt it had been essential to her finding employment.

“I wouldn't have been able to work if I hadn't been able to access a service. […] It helped with the starting point of my CV, and giving me the confidence to interview, and then with all the very practical things of helping with childcare, helping get this sorted for that first month when I didn't have the money to cover these expenses. That's obviously allowed me to stay in my job for almost a year now.”

It is also worth noting that for some disabled participants, in particular, while they had not moved into employment, they were very positive about support with accessing volunteering in helping build confidence and experience, and making employment feel a more realistic future prospect, as illustrated by the pen portrait below.

Pen portrait: Charlie

Charlie is a parent who wanted to re-enter the job market after his child went to school. He initially reached out to the employability service to get support with looking for work, but after he began struggling with a health crisis, his support worker helped him to find volunteering opportunities and courses that could help him upskill for when he was ready to start applying for jobs again. They also helped with accessing disability benefits.

“You know, they gave me confidence back. I would never have had confidence to go for volunteering. I would never have applied for the Scottish disability payment. […] It's not easy, it's really hard. [The support worker] phoned [on] my behalf, she got help on my behalf. I mean, honestly, I can't think of anything negative to say.”

Suggestions for improvement

Survey respondents were asked which of a list of potential options they felt would help improve the employment support they had received. Although overall levels of satisfaction with No One Left Behind were high, as discussed in the previous chapter, just one in ten (11%) of respondents said that there was nothing that could be done to improve support.

Overall, the most commonly selected responses were those focused on the opportunities available to people in terms of jobs, education and training. These included:

• wanting more jobs that matched their skills (33%)
• more education, training or apprenticeship opportunities (30%), and
• more flexible work opportunities (25%), and
• more volunteering opportunities (15%).

While No One Left Behind-funded providers may be able to offer some training themselves, arguably these improvements relate to wider aspects of the local labour market, volunteering options in the public and voluntary sector, and education and training provision that may be outwith the direct influence of individual No One Left Behind support providers.

Support for other improvements, which are arguably more directly related to either what type of support is offered or how it is provided, included:

• more mental health support (19%)
• more advice on benefits and work (18%)
• more time for one-on-one conversations and access to other support (14%)
• more support for physical health (12%)
• more staff providing support (12%)
• and more private spaces for confidential discussions (11%, Figure 4.3).

Source: Ipsos survey of service users who had initial engagement with No One Left Behind services between 6-18 months ago. Base: All participants = 1,041

Qualitative interviewees also mentioned the need for private spaces, and expressed feeling uncomfortable knowing others could hear them talk about their personal situations when meeting in public places like libraries.

There were some significant differences in the proportions of respondents from different priority groups who felt different improvements were needed (see Annex D, Table D.8). Disabled respondents (30%) and parents (31%) were both more likely than average (25%) to mention more flexible work opportunities as an area for improvement, reflecting the need for flexibility around disabilities and around childcare and caregiving.

Respondents from minority ethnic backgrounds were significantly more likely than average to say support would be improved if there were “More jobs that match your skills” (42%, compared with 33% overall), and if there were “More education, training, or apprenticeship opportunities” (43%, compared with 30% overall). As discussed in previous chapters, challenges around accessing the jobs they had trained for because of issues around whether their qualifications and experience were recognised in Scotland was raised as an issue by a number of qualitative participants from immigrant backgrounds.

On the other hand, minority ethnic respondents were significantly less likely than those from a white background to suggest further physical (7% vs. 13%) and mental (12% vs. 20%) health support. As discussed previously, it is possible that this stems from cultural differences in health seeking behaviours.

In contrast, disabled people were significantly more likely than average to suggest more physical (26% vs. 12%) and mental health (38% vs. 19%) support as improvements. They were also more likely than average to mention wanting more advice on benefits (25% vs. 18%), as well as being more likely to mention improvements to the ways in which services were delivered (more staff providing support, more one-to-one support, more private spaces for confidential discussions, etc.).

As discussed in earlier chapters, disabled participants in the qualitative interviews expressed the importance of having staff who were aware of how to make support accessible for disabled people, and who actively listened and made adaptations to support based on what individual disabled participants felt they needed.

In addition to ensuring staff are aware of, and trained on, meeting different needs, a suggestion from one of the lived experience panels consulted for this research was to develop clearer ‘pathways’ through employability support for people with different kinds of needs (for example, disabled people, those already in work but seeking to improve their income, parents, new Scots, etc.). These ‘pathways’ could be used by both service providers, to ensure they have offered all the relevant support and information someone might benefit from, and by service users, to understand their options and ensure they are not missing out on support that would be helpful to them. For disabled people, for example, a ‘pathway’ could include reference availability of advice on when and how to request workplace adaptations, specific schemes disabled people may be entitled to access to support them to find or stay in work (such as Access to Work grants, or Employer Recruitment Incentives), help available with transport to interviews, etc. Having a ‘pathway’ document covering what is available to people at key points in their journey would also help address feedback that participants felt staff were waiting for them to set out what they wanted, when they were expecting staff to provide them with proactive advice and guidance.