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.