Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: December 11, 2025

Purpose:

Content: 8.1 The Head of Employment, Skills and Economy was in attendance to present a report which sought approval to accept, and become the Accountable Body for, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) funding for Year 2 of the Economic Inactivity Trailblazer in 2026-26. It also sought approval to accept the Sheffield People and Skills allocation from the Local Growth Fund, which would replace the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. The report outlined how the two funds would support Year 2 of the delivery of the Sheffield Pathways to Work Programme, supporting the ongoing process of reforming South Yorkshire’s skills, employment and health system. The report also highlighted the achievements to date in Year 1 of Pathways to Work and outlined Sheffield’s delivery commissioning and delivery plans for 2026-27.     8.2 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Economic Development, Skills and Culture Policy Committee:   a)    Accept a grant from SYMCA, predicted to be £3.08m, for delivery of the 2026- 27 Economic Inactivity Trailblazer (EIT) b)    Accept a Local Growth Fund (LGF) grant (value to be confirmed; anticipated £2.2m) for delivery of 2026-27 Pathways to Work activity, as a partial replacement for the current UKSPF People & Skills allocation c)    Allow commissioning and mobilising of provision for 2026-27; begin procurement in anticipation of confirmation of funding, on the specific understanding that any awards made at risk are authorised by the Chief Executive and Finance Director. d)    Note Pathways to Work performance to date in 2025-26, as enabled by existing EIT and UKSPF investment.     8.3 Reasons for Decision     8.3.1 Approval of the recommendations will allow SCC to sustain capacity to support economically inactive, socially excluded unemployed and disadvantaged employed residents, and/or those with a basic numeracy need, and ensure SCC remains an active partner in the regional Pathway to Work system change initiative led by SYMCA. Sheffield is as a top[1]performing location on the EIT, and a second year of the trailblazer will help consolidate SCC as a leading participant in the national response to economic inactivity and a trusted partner to Government.     8.3.2 Acceptance of funds will safeguard valued community provision and secure approximately 93 VCFSE and SCC jobs frontline delivery roles. Pathways to Work will provide vital support for disadvantaged and under-serviced residents across the city, provide access to employment which can boost household incomes and improve health and wellbeing, and make a positive contribution to the city economy.     8.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected     8.4.1 Alternative Option 1: Withdraw from the EIT programme and do not deliver LGF This would be a highly controversial option which carries significant reputational risk given the national profile of the EIT and the commitment of regional and local political leaders to Pathways to Work. It would also damage relations with SYMCA and the constituent LAs. Ceasing delivery of the EIT would result in the loss of approximately 50 jobs funded by EIT and 43 by UKSPF (across the VCFSE and SCC), with Connect to Work potentially able to absorb a small number of internal staff (e.g 5) threatened with redundancy.     8.4.2 Alternative Option 2: Only deliver the EIT; do not replace UKSPF with LGF In the event that only the EIT is delivered, Opportunity Sheffield would no longer be able to offer employment support for many out-of-work residents deemed to have additional barriers to the labour market, with ethnic minority participants the most affected. VCFSE providers would only be able to support economically inactive residents, meaning their services would be closed to many service users who visit them for support. In-work employability and career development support would also lose all external funding, as would Lifelong Learning and Skills’ Multiply programme. This would result in approximately 43 job losses, of which a small number (e.g. 5) could potentially be avoided by transferring back-office staff to Connect to Work.     8.4.3 Alternative Option 3: Continue with EIT, partially replace UKSPF with LGF, and commission separately Commissioning activity for EIT and LGF without fusing funding will increase the risk of some providers winning too many contracts, and being unable to honour them, or not securing funding and being forced to close their projects. In either scenario, the level of programme risk would significantly increase. VCFSE providers would only be able to support socially excluded unemployed residents if they had an LGF contract as well as an EIT contract, which may create a ‘labour market status lottery’ approach to accessibility of provision.