Policy, provision and practice: a comparative study of employment support programmes between Scotland and England

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of this thesis was to conduct a comparative study of employability support programmes in England and Scotland, which explores policy, provision, and practices. Specifically, the study focused on the Work and Health Programme in England and Fair Start Scotland, introduced in 2018, both of which are voluntary programmes and outsourced to external organisations. The interpretivist and qualitative approach employed in the study involved analysing the policies, provision, and practice of these programmes. An analytical framework was developed to compare the programme structures, alongside the application of Street Level Bureaucracy theory. To further explore the influence of policy, semi-structured interviews were conducted with frontline workers to understand their experiences and perspectives. The findings of this study demonstrate that the employability support programmes in Scotland and England provide personalised support through a similar participant journey. However, significant differences exist between the two countries in terms of governance, programme length, procurement, and remuneration. The minimum service standards set by both governments have a notable impact on the participant journey, with frontline advisers exhibiting varying levels of autonomy and accountability. The study also reveals that the minimum service standards influence the provision of personalised support, leading to frustration and resistance among some frontline advisers due to increased bureaucracy that diluted personalisation. While both programmes utilise Capability and Human Capital Development approaches, the length of the programmes may not adequately address complex health conditions and fail to recognise alternative contributions beyond paid employment. This study is original in its examination of employability support programmes in two countries with a shared national welfare strategy but separate programmes, addressing a research gap. It contributes to existing literature by providing an in-depth exploration of the policies, provision and practices of employment support programmes. Furthermore, it contributes to understanding the experiences of non-traditional Street Level Bureaucrats, adding to the debates surrounding the challenges of providing public services in a non-public sector domain.