Research and analysis

Get Britain Working Trailblazers: Theories of Change and System mapping

Published 25 June 2026

June 2026

DWP research report no. 1141

A report of research carried out by Verian on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Crown copyright 2026.

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk or write to:

Information Policy Team
The National Archives
Kew
London
TW9 4DU

or email psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This document/publication is also available on our website

If you would like to know more about DWP research, email socialresearch@dwp.gov.uk

First published June 2026.

ISBN 978-1-80786-015-8

Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other government department.

Executive Summary

This section provides a summary of the report. It includes the aims of the research, a short description of the methodology, the main findings and a summary of the learnings set out in the report conclusion.

Acknowledgements

Verian moderators who carried out the fieldwork with the Trailblazers and all of the participants who gave their time to contribute their thoughts.

Author details

• Mary Suffield, Senior Director
• Amy Busby, Associate Director
• Molly Bond, Research Executive

Background and research design

The government’s Get Britain Working (GBW) White Paper[^1] (November 2024) sets out plans to reform employment, health, and skills support to tackle rising economic inactivity levels, and reduce the number of young people who are not in employment, education or training by supporting people into good employment and training opportunities, and creating an inclusive labour market in which everybody can participate and progress in work. As part of the GBW White Paper, the government announced that they would fund nine Economic Inactivity Trailblazers (TBs) and eight Youth Guarantee[^2] place-based Trailblazers to take a new approach to system design around the individual.

This piece of research will inform the mainstage evaluation of the Trailblazer programme. The overarching purpose of this research has been to develop a Theory of Change (TOC) model for each Trailblazer area as well as an overarching TOC for the programme. These assets provide a baseline and measure of change for each individual Trailblazer area. The assets have been developed from data collected during this project’s fieldwork period (discussed below). As such, these assets provide a snapshot in time, and we might expect the content of the Theory of Change models to develop as Trailblazers test and iterate what is delivered. The project has also developed a System Map for each area which, at a high level, visualises the changes to the local system envisaged to be made by the programme.

This research has taken an iterative and qualitative approach. It consisted of 19 case studies, one for each of the Trailblazer areas, and an additional two case studies for Wales (where three plans were being designed and delivered). The primary research has consisted of 19 workshops with a total of 185 participants and 52 follow up interviews across the 19 case studies. The project comprised of three phases:

• Phase 1: Review of the Trailblazer area plans and development of an initial draft TOC and System map (May to June 2025)
• Phase 2: One online stakeholder workshop for each case study area and development of the assets (August to September 2025)
• Phase 3: Up to three follow up interviews with stakeholders and refinement of the assets (September 2025).

This report consists of the main report which provides thematic findings from across the 19 case studies and an appendix which houses detailed reports from each of the case study areas (Appendix 4).

Key findings

Overview of the programme

The Gey Britain Working Trailblazer programme involves 17 Trailblazers spread across England and Wales, all of which are working to reduce economic inactivity and rising numbers of NEET young people in their area through localised solutions. All the Trailblazer areas are carrying out multiple activities, but at a minimum are carrying out system integration work and testing or piloting new or improved services that engage specific target groups[^3].

Overall, the Trailblazer areas have embraced what they see as the opportunity to tailor the programme to the specific needs of their area and residents. Each have their own missions and are carrying out different and bespoke programmes of activity, with different aims and outcome targets.

There were a small number of meaningful differences between the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, namely, the difference in the level of funding affecting the scale of activity, the sole focus on young people for the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, the role of further education providers in Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, and more focus on improving transitions from education and preventing young people from becoming NEET in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers. However the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers are carrying out similar types of activities and working towards similar types of outcomes. Some Economic Inactivity Trailblazers also target young people and other groups, which may account for the limited differences observed between the programmes. All of the areas are testing and piloting new or improved services for residents and / or young people. Few of the areas seem to be using the Trailblazer and youth guarantee “brands” specifically with the public, instead using the names of specific programmes or services in communications. Most of the areas reported that their Trailblazer is explicitly building on knowledge and insight gained from previous work and programmes carried out in the area, notably on work done as part of the UKSPF programme. In many areas, the Trailblazers are working alongside other programmes and strategies, notably the NHS Accelerators in West and South Yorkshire.

The Trailblazer areas started at different levels of maturity regarding their employment support systems and the level of integration and partnership working seen locally. However, the areas widely agreed that gaps, duplication and inefficiency were issues and that greater integration and collaboration were needed to improve service delivery and outcomes.

At the close of fieldwork, the areas were at different stages of development of their plans, with some further into development and delivery than others. Whilst all the areas had high level plans in place, most reported that they saw them as live and that details were likely to continue to change as they move into year two.

Problems to solve and causes, and barriers in the current system

In the research, the Trailblazer areas commonly reported having persistently higher than average levels of economic inactivity and low participation in work and learning among young people. They see these as the problems they are trying to solve and are working in different ways to try and improve them. Rising youth unemployment and low education participation and attainment were seen as further challenges in the Youth Guarantee areas.

A range of causes of economic inactivity among adults and young people across England and Wales were reported. Some areas referred to specific historical features and experiences of their area which were contributing to the challenge. Some areas referred to features of their local geography. Some areas reported that part of the challenge is that jobs and placements are not available in their area in sufficient quantities. However overall, when asked about the causes of economic inactivity most stakeholders focused on the challenges and barriers faced by specific demographic and lived experience groups, and this informed their choice of target groups for the programme.

Poor system integration was also widely reported as contributing to economic inactivity across the case study areas. Whilst system maturity varied across the case studies, stakeholders widely agreed that the poor integration of employment support with health, mental health and education services in particular was preventing individuals from accessing support that could make a difference.

Target audiences: types and volumes

All of the Trailblazers are focused on targeting specific sub-groups of economically inactive residents or young people who are NEET or at risk of being NEET. A list of the detailed target audiences is provided in Appendix 3. Whilst they had detailed target audiences, most of the areas said they would try to support anyone who is economically inactive in the area or any young person who is NEET or at risk of being NEET.

The Trailblazers have set their own targets for volumes of residents / young people to engage with the programme. The nature of the targets varies. There is a wide variation in ambition across the areas, but this tends to reflect the nature of the target audiences and how close to services and employment they tend to be as well as the maturity of the area in terms of service development and integration.

A range of engagement strategies are being employed across the programme, with each area adopting several approaches to reach its target audiences

These are detailed in the Activity sections of the case study reports and TOCs. Questions about the reach and effectiveness of these mechanisms and whether they are sufficient to reach target audiences and achieve the outcome targets were raised across the programme, but it was too early for them to be able to tell yet.

Theories of change

Across the programme, some areas had more clearly defined and more tangible aims than others, and some were further than others in developing their programme of activities and outcome targets. There was variation across the programme in how clear the mechanisms of change (MOCs) were and therefore the level of risk to delivery of the outcome targets and this is detailed in the case study reports (Appendix 4). 

There were a small number of meaningful differences between the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, namely, the difference in the level of funding affecting the scale of activity, the sole focus on young people for the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, the role of further education providers in Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, and more focus on improving transitions from education and preventing young people from becoming NEET in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers. Beyond this, there were many similarities in the way the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers were being run in, the types of activities being planned, and some of the outcomes and impacts being worked towards. This may partly be because of the pressure of timescales for design and because some of the Economic Inactivity Trailblazers also have young people as one of their target audiences.

Aims

Overall, the Trailblazers are working towards reducing economic inactivity in their area and the number of young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET by improving system integration and support for specific target groups. Most had outcome targets related to increased numbers in training, placements, apprenticeships, and work, and / or increases in employability of residents. Some Trailblazers were more focused on improving system integration and saw this as the mission of their Trailblazer.

Whilst the focus of the Trailblazer programme is on reducing economic inactivity and the number of young NEET or at risk of becoming NEET, many stakeholders tended to talk about the mission of their Trailblazer and the impact they are hoping to achieve with reference to improving health and wellbeing in their area more generally and ultimately as reducing health inequalities in the region.

Inputs

A similar set of inputs were seen across the case study areas and broadly included funding (although the scale varied with larger amounts for the Economic Inactivity Trailblazers compared with the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers as is detailed in the main report) and time and expertise from project teams and partner organisations and procured agencies.

Activities and outputs

Overall, all of the Trailblazers were carrying out different and bespoke programmes of activity designed to address their specific Economic Inactivity and NEET related challenges, with the plans reflecting the maturity level of their support system and the partnerships available in the area and tailored to the needs of their target audiences. All of the areas are carrying out multiple activities and in some cases their programmes were extensive and complex and involved a wide range of partners.

As a minimum, all of the Trailblazers were carrying out work to better integrate their support system and increase collaboration between services, and testing or piloting new or improved services and initiatives for their target audiences. Many were also carrying out engagement work with employers to varying degrees.

Overall, there were eleven types of activities being planned for use across the programme, in different configurations in each of the Trailblazer areas: system change; testing and piloting of new initiatives and services for target groups; expanding existing services; building capacity and capability of the Voluntary, Community, and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector; improving data sharing; employer engagement (including bursaries and subsidies); insight and co-design work; use of personal incentives; and new governance arrangements.   

All of the areas were carrying out system change work to improve fragmentation and support better integration of services at the local level. This project has created system maps for each of the areas which provide a summary of the actors involving in the existing support system and then highlight the planned changes to the system.

Whilst there was variation in terms of local specifics, there was a relatively consistent set of types of actors involved in the existing support systems. The report sets out the actors commonly involved at the national, strategic and delivery level. In terms of the services and interventions being delivered in the areas, this was usually described as a rich and complex ecosystem with multiple and overlapping services (with gaps and duplication widely acknowledged). Services were said to be being commissioned in a fragmented and piecemeal fashion rather than centrally within the areas or with any overarching strategy or leadership.

In some cases, areas were carrying out insight work and/or system mapping which would inform their system change work and therefore were not clear exactly the nature of this would be at the time of fieldwork. Overall, at the thematic level, a relatively narrow set of system changes have been proposed by the areas, and these are listed in the report. The changes proposed were often about either enhancing or adding new services to the ecosystem or about improving integration between actors. The report details the actors that the areas were commonly trying to join up.

Outcomes

Overall, each Trailblazer was working towards a different and tailored suite of outcomes that related to their planned programme of activities. Most areas had developed outcomes and set targets for some or all of these, although these figures varied in level of ambition across the Trailblazer areas.

Many Trailblazer areas raised concerns about their ability to reach and support the number of people that they initially proposed for the first year, due to the time taken to design, resource and stand up the programme.

Some areas had clearly defined and measurable outcomes. Meanwhile, others, particularly those with less developed plans or lack of existing support systems in place, sometimes found it harder to define the outcomes they were working towards (particularly where these were softer outcomes) and struggled to articulate how they would be measured and their mechanisms of change.

Impacts

The impacts the Trailblazer areas were working towards reflected what they reported to be their aims, namely more integrated support systems, improved employability of residents, more good jobs available, and reduced economic inactivity and numbers of young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET in the region as well as improve wellbeing and reduced health inequalities. The types of impacts being aimed for were relatively consistent across the programme, (except for in Wales where there was more focus on wellbeing and community engagement) but there was variation and range in terms of level and scale of impact being aimed for. There was focus on transition to FE and apprenticeships in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers.

Assumptions

Across the programme, there are a range of underlying assumptions and circumstances which may support or undermine the overarching programme TOC and the area TOCs. Some of the key programme level assumptions reported by stakeholders were that system integration work will reduce economic inactivity, that jobs are available locally for economically inactive residents and young people, and that changes in economic inactivity and numbers of young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET can be realised and measured in the life of the programme. At the local delivery level, some of the key assumptions were that partners would buy in to and contribute to the programme, that system changes and pilots could be stood up and delivered in year one, and that LAs and local partners and VCSE organisations would be able to reach sufficient numbers of economically inactive residents and young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET within the budget provided.

Risks, challenges and barriers

A range of risks to successful delivery of the programme were raised across the case study areas, at the programme design and local delivery level. Overall, all areas expected to successfully implement the majority of their plans and see some positive changes as a result, notably in terms of improved system integration. However, stakeholders also saw numerous risks to successful implementation of their programmes and particularly to the outcome targets they had set in their delivery plans being met, with most raising concerns about delivery of specific activities within their plans (notably data sharing plans and specific pilot activities, especially those reliant on multiple delivery partners) and questions about whether specific targets would be met.

Conclusions

Overall, this research has found that the Trailblazer areas have embraced the opportunity to tailor the use of employment support funding to their area, its context and target audiences. All the areas had designed and begun to stand up highly complex programmes with multiple strands of activity. There has broadly been a highly positive response to the programme from Local Authorities and other key partner organisations.

All the Trailblazer areas expect to be able to achieve positive impact in their area and to improve system integration, pilot more bespoke services for target groups, and to engage employers to some degree.

Many areas have set targets around increases in numbers of people in placements, apprenticeships, and work. For the most part, the MOCs to achieve these outcomes are relatively clear. However, questions remain about the extent to which the proposed changes will reach target audiences and significantly impact economic inactivity in the life of the programme in all the areas as well as how sustainable the changes being made by the programme are in the long term.

1. Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the policy context and research objectives before detailing the methodological approach taken to this research.

1.1 Policy Background

The UK has seen its employment rate fall over the last five years, reversing the previous trend of declining rates of economic inactivity. The government’s Get Britain Working (GBW) White Paper[^4] (November 2024) sets out six key drivers of this trend to be addressed: ill health, lack of skills, low quality work, challenges around caring responsibilities, labour and skills shortages, and disparities between places and groups of people.

The UK government wants to increase the employment rate. It is committed to building an inclusive and thriving labour market where everyone has the opportunity of good work, and the chance to get on at work.

The current employment support system faces a number of challenges, namely that it is narrowly focused on unemployment, too centralised and siloed, and too focused on benefits and compliance. The government’s Get Britain Working (GBW) White Paper[^5] (November 2024) sets out plans to reform employment, health and skills support to tackle rising economic inactivity levels, and reduce the number of young people who are not in employment, education or training by supporting people into good employment and training opportunities, and creating an inclusive labour market in which everybody can participate and progress in work. Economic inactivity is defined as not working and not looking for work within the last four weeks or those who are unable to start work within the next two weeks[^6]. The government is working to tackle economic inactivity and is particularly focused on addressing barriers related to ill-health and providing young people with more opportunities. There is also a focus on enabling local areas, especially mayoral authorities, to work with partners to lead action to reduce economic inactivity in their areas.

As part of the GBW White Paper, the government announced that they would fund nine Economic Inactivity Trailblazers and eight Youth Guarantee[^7] place-based Trailblazers to take a new approach to system design around the individual: improving engagement with these groups and maximising the impact of existing provision, whilst also testing new approaches to engaging and supporting these cohorts. There is an implicit link between the programmes as economically inactive young people are a significant proportion of the total economically inactive population. The 17 Trailblazer areas are listed in Appendix 1. The nine Economic Inactivity Trailblazers are led by mayoral authorities and the Welsh government and received £80 million funding in 2025/2026. Three areas received a share of £45 million for dedicated input from the local NHS Integrated Care System (ICS) to fund the Health and Growth Accelerators in 2025/26, with a further £25 million funding for 2026/27 announced in February 2026[^8]. The eight Youth Guarantee Trailblazers are led by mayoral authorities in England and received £40 million of funding in 2025/26. They are focused on testing how different elements can be brought together to form a coherent support offer for young people. We note that funding for the programme was initially given for one year and that funding for year two of the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers was announced in August[^9] and funding for year two of the Economic Inactivity Trailblazers was announced in October[^10].

1.2 Research objectives 

The impact of interventions delivered either by DWP or via providers is supported relatively well by existing evidence, but there is an evidence gap on the systematic effects of local-led provision in reaching and supporting economically inactive people and young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET. DWP has commissioned an evaluation of the Trailblazer programme to address this gap which will inform design of future interventions and funding decisions. The evaluation will be an opportunity to compare how similar intervention approaches are implemented in different local contexts.

This piece of research will inform the mainstage evaluation. The overarching purpose of this research has been to develop a Theory of Change (TOC) model for each Trailblazer area as well as an overarching TOC for the programme. These assets provide a baseline and measure of change for each individual Trailblazer area. As such, these assets provide a snapshot in time, and we might expect the content of the Theory of Change models to develop as Trailblazers test and iterate what is delivered. The project has also developed a System Map for each area which, at a high level, visualises the changes to the local system made by the programme[^11]. The TOCs and System Maps will be used throughout the lifecycle of the policy to check that the initial assumptions hold up and expected progress is observed. In order for these assets to be used in the mainstage evaluation, it was necessary for there to be a degree of consistency across them, including in the depth of the TOCs and detail included in the system maps, notwithstanding significant variation across the area delivery plans and the existing support systems. While these assets may not be able to capture all of the detail, they provide a summary and enable comparison across the areas.

The project has addressed the following research questions:

1. What are the problems Trailblazers hoped to solve?

2. What are the causes of these problems?

3. How do Trailblazers plan to solve the problems identified?

4. What volume and types of participants do Trailblazers aim to engage with?

5. How do Trailblazers plan to identify and engage with hard-to-reach groups?

6. What are the underlying assumptions, and behavioural or external/contextual circumstances which may support or undermine the theories of change?

7. What are the key components of the current system?

8. Which organisations and interventions are involved and how are they interacting?

9. What are the barriers, weaknesses and opportunities in the current system?

This report addresses these questions, notably RQ 1-6 and 9, and provides an overview of the Trailblazer programme. While some insight has been gathered on RQ 7-8, the Trailblazer areas were not all at a maturity level that these could be fully explored. We anticipate that approaches and stakeholders involved will develop in these spaces over time. Detailed reports from each of the case study areas can be found in Appendix 4.

1.3 Methodology

This research has taken an iterative qualitative approach. The iterative nature of the project has enabled us to work closely, flexibly, and collaboratively with the Trailblazer areas as they have developed their plans over the course of the year and adjust the methodology at times as required to make the most of this opportunity. A qualitative approach has been taken to enable us to gain deep insight into the activities in the areas and stakeholder views about these.

The approach consisted of 19 case studies, one for each of the Trailblazer areas, and an additional two case studies for Wales. Three case studies were conducted for Wales in response to the team finding that the Trailblazer was developing three separate plans in three different local authorities in the region and these areas were working relatively independently compared with the other Trailblazer areas. 

The primary research has consisted of 19 workshops with a total of 185 participants and 52 follow up interviews across the 19 case studies. The project comprised of three phases, each of these built on knowledge of individual Trailblazer areas, providing space for the research team to explore nuances and clarifications, and allow key stakeholders to provide feedback as the plans developed. The three phases were:

• Phase 1: Review of the Trailblazer area plans and development of an initial draft TOC and System map (May-June 2025)
• Phase 2: One online stakeholder workshop for each case study area and development of the assets (August-September 2025)
• Phase 3: Up to three follow up interviews with stakeholders and refinement of the assets (September 2025).

Phase one involved a detailed review of the Trailblazer area plans and this was used to develop an initial draft of the TOC and System Map for each of the areas (conducted May to July 2025). Phase two involved a two-hour online workshop with each of the case study areas, with 8 to 15 stakeholders in most cases. The workshops were held between August and September 2025. In this session, the problem the area was addressing, and target audience was explored before the TOC and System map were reviewed and developed collaboratively with the stakeholders. The sessions focused on developing each area of the TOC and discussed the mechanisms of change (MOCs) facilitating the planned outcomes. The assets were updated after the workshop and then taken into phase three for refinement. This involved up to three follow up interviews with stakeholders, held in September 2025. A flexible approach was taken but these were conducted online and usually lasted 30-60 minutes. The workshops and interviews used a semi-structured topic guide to ensure the research objectives were covered consistently across the areas. The fieldwork was conducted via Zoom. DWP observed some of the workshops. No incentives were provided to participants.

Each case study had a lead researcher who conducted the recruitment and fieldwork for the area. Details of the area leads were provided by DWP and then a snowballing approach was taken as the area leads recommended participants for the workshops and interviews. Each workshop included a range of strategic and delivery focused staff and aimed to include key partners for each of the areas. In many cases, the workshops were split into break out groups which separated strategic and delivery staff. This enabled freer discussion, particularly of risks and challenges, but also may have meant that some delivery staff and partners were less aware of the detail of the overall plans at the time of fieldwork. Details of the sample can be found in Appendix 2.

The project worked in collaboration with the areas in order to co-produce the assets. A number of recruitment challenges were met along the way, particularly due to the fieldwork being conducted during the summer holiday period, and therefore the following adaptions were made across the sample:

• additional follow up interviews (consisting of a paired depth interview) were held in the West Midlands to address concerns that not everyone may have had time to contribute to their large workshop
• an additional interview was conducted in the North East to boost low attendance at the workshop due to summer leave
• the workshop in the East Midlands was 90-minutes in length due to time constraints for the stakeholders

In the primary research, participants were asked to describe the key risks and challenges that their area will face during delivery of the Trailblazer programme. This report describes the key risks discussed but we note that this information should not be treated as a comprehensive risk assessment of the programme.

This report consists of the main report which provides thematic findings from across the 19 case studies and an appendix which houses detailed reports from each of the case study areas (Appendix 4). This report contains quotations from stakeholders to illustrate key points. We note that the TOCs and area reports reflect information about the delivery plans that was provided by participants at the time of fieldwork, but the rapid pace of development of the programme means that these should be seen as living documents and many areas expected their plans to continue to evolve over the course of the programme. We note that the assets have not been updated with changes and developments that may have occurred after the time of data collection during the fieldwork period (stated above).

2. Key Findings

This chapter provides the main thematic findings for the programme drawn from across the 19 case studies. It provides an overview of the programme and then outlines the problems the areas seek to solve, their causes, and the target audiences before summarising key themes seen across the 19 Theories of Change (TOCs). The chapter then presents the changes to the system being made by the programme before reporting on key assumptions and risks which may support or undermine the TOCs.

2.1 Overview of the programme

The GBW Trailblazer programme involves 17 Trailblazer areas spread across England and Wales, which are working to reduce economic inactivity and the number of young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET in their area. All of the Trailblazer areas are carrying out multiple activities, but at a minimum are carrying out system integration work and testing or piloting new or improved services for specific target groups. At the time of fieldwork, some areas (notably Blaenau Gwent) reported already seeing the benefits of early integration work. 

We’re trying to knit together a very complex system… it’s a system change drive for this because it’s such a massive unknitted spaghetti.

(Stakeholder)

Overall, the Trailblazer areas have embraced what they see as the opportunity to tailor the programme to the specific needs of their area and residents. Each have their own missions and are carrying out different and bespoke programmes of activity, have different aims and outcome targets. We note that even at the regional level, some areas reported that the size and diversity of their area presented a challenge to their work.

We are designing services to meet our local economy and people’s needs… Sheffield’s economically inactive population is very different from Barnsley’s.

(Stakeholder)

There were some meaningful differences between the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, namely, the difference in the level of funding affecting the scale of activity, the sole focus on young people for the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, the role of further education providers in Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, and more focus on improving transitions from education and preventing young people from becoming NEET in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers. However, the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers are carrying out similar types of activities and working towards many similar types of outcomes. It seems that the areas have decided that similar types of activities are appropriate solutions to their identified challenges, despite the different audiences (although we note some of the Economic Inactivity Trailblazers are also working with young people as well as other audiences, and this as well as the pressure to deliver, may help to explain the lack of difference between the programmes which may have been anticipated).

All of the areas are testing and piloting new or improved services for residents and / or young people but few of the areas seem to be using the TB and Youth Guarantee “brands” specifically with the public, instead using the names of specific programmes or services in communications (exceptions include South London, East Midlands and Liverpool). Service users in many areas are therefore unlikely to be aware of the Trailblazer programme and instead will be reached and engaged by a range of bespoke local support services.

Across the programme, a variety of lead organisations and project structures and communication arrangements are in place, with some seeming to be more established than others. In particular, some areas seem to have more robust arrangements in place than others for oversight of the work by local authorities (LAs). We also note that the variety of approaches taken includes: also delivering the pan-London Youth Guarantee Trailblazer; the Welsh government is leading in Wales but three LAs are leading and designing their own programmes; and in Tees Valley the Trailblazer funding is being managed by the Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) with delivery led by Stockton-on-Tees Local Authority.

Most of the areas reported that their Trailblazer is explicitly building on previous work and programmes carried out in the area, notably on work done as part of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) programme, and many discussed not wanting to ‘reinvent the wheel’ or stand up a brand new service rather than building on existing structures (notably in London, Manchester and Wales).

We already have a lot of existing support [in London] so for us to stand something new up, a new service, doesn’t make sense.

(Stakeholder)

In many areas, the Trailblazers are working alongside other programmes and strategies, notably the NHS Accelerators in West and South Yorkshire[^12], and the Inclusive Talent Strategy in London. In some cases, these are formal partnerships (as in the case of the NHS Accelerators), but in all areas, the Trailblazers are operating in and as part of complex support ecosystems where multiple programmes are operating with varying degrees of collaboration. This will make it challenging to disentangle and attribute the impact of the Trailblazer programme, particularly in the mainstage evaluation.

It’s hard to attribute … well that’s due to Trailblazer, not SPF… we’re delivering it very much as one system.

(Stakeholder)

The Trailblazer areas started at different levels of maturity regarding their employment support systems and the level of integration and partnership working seen locally (with London, Manchester, Liverpool and South Yorkshire seeming to have higher levels of maturity). However, the areas widely agreed that gaps, duplication and inefficiency were issues and that greater integration and collaboration were needed to improve service delivery and outcomes, with many citing resource cuts as a reason why this had not previously been possible, particularly in youth services.

At the close of fieldwork (in September 2025), the areas were at different stages of development of their plans, with some further into development and delivery than others. Whilst all of the areas had high level plans in place, most reported that they saw them as live and evolving and that details were likely to continue to change as they move into year two, including in response to challenges and barriers met along the way (particularly with regards to pilot programmes and data sharing initiatives). In some cases, this meant that areas were reluctant to provide specific outcomes and/or targets, due to concerns about being held to fixed outcome measures.

2.2 Problems to solve and causes, and barriers in the current system

The Trailblazer areas reported having persistently higher than average levels of economic inactivity and low participation in work and learning among young people and lower than average educational attainment. They see these as the problems they are trying to solve and are deploying similar initiatives adapted in locally specific ways to try and address these problems. Rising youth unemployment was seen as a further challenge in the Youth Guarantee areas, and widely as disproportionately affecting care leavers and individuals with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). A number stressed that economic inactivity is different to unemployment, and an additional challenge is that some economically inactive individuals may not be looking for work (notably those with health conditions or looking after children).

A range of causes of economic inactivity and youth employment and non-participation across England and Wales were reported. Stakeholders often framed the causes of economic inactivity as barriers to employment and stressed that these vary across regions, cities and communities as well as for different demographic and lived experience groups, with this complexity adding to the challenge as there is not a one size fits all solution. Stakeholders often reported that there are wide disparities in rates of economic inactivity and the causes of this across their region and that therefore different approaches were needed within the region (particularly in London).

Regarding the causes of economic inactivity and youth unemployment and non-participation, some areas referred to specific historical features and experiences of their area which were contributing to the challenge, for example, industrial decline and generational unemployment in Yorkshire and Wales. Some areas referred to features of their local geography; for example, the rural and isolated nature of some of the Trailblazer areas and poor transport links in Wales, West of England and the West Midlands. Some areas reported that part of the challenge is that jobs and placements are not available in their area in sufficient quantities, and for young people specifically that the jobs available may not be what young people are looking for. In some cases, this was due to the rural or isolated nature of communities (West of England and Wales).   

However overall, when asked about the causes of economic inactivity, most stakeholders focused on the challenges and barriers faced by specific demographic and lived experience groups, and this informed their choice of target groups for the programme. Most of the areas stressed that, for individuals, the barriers to economic activity are multiple, complex and overlapping. Some of the key barriers reported across the case studies were:

• low educational attainment and qualifications (particularly in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers)
• poverty, deprivation and inequality (and stakeholders stressed the links between these systemic issues and mental health challenges)
• physical and mental health barriers (and challenges around access to mental health support services)
• low self-confidence (particularly for young people and women returning to work after raising children)
• lack of support for neurodivergence by support services and employers
• lack of sufficient support for disabilities and SEND needs (particularly lack of inclusive employer practices)
• challenges around marginalisation for BAME groups
• digital exclusion (particularly for older people)
• insufficient support for those with childcare and caring responsibilities (particularly young carers).
• Issues with social housing
• additional challenges for those with criminal justice system experience (particularly young people)

Some areas reported that the design of the benefits system contributes to economic inactivity as it provides a disincentive to trying work for those that would lose their benefits and then have a gap in income if they need to re-join the system.

Poor system integration was also widely reported as contributing to economic inactivity and youth unemployment and non-participation across the case study areas (particularly by the Pan-London Youth Guarantee Trailblazer). Whilst system maturity varied across the case studies, stakeholders widely agreed that the poor integration of employment support with health, mental health and education services in particular (but also housing, community and physical activity services) was preventing individuals from accessing support that could make a difference. Crucially, poor integration and lack of collaboration means that services are not reaching economically inactive residents to support them when needed. Stakeholders raised a number of system integration challenges across the programme and these commonly included:

• poor co-ordination at the strategic level meaning there are gaps, duplication and inefficiency across local areas (particularly at the commissioning stage)
• poor data sharing at the local level, of individual and aggregate level data, due to lack of technical and legal arrangements to facilitate this (making it harder to identify and track individuals and target services)
• silo-ed working and services not being sufficiently joined up at the strategic or delivery level (notably lack of spaces to network and develop communities of practice due to lack of time and resource)
• the short-term nature of many government support programmes which end before changes are embedded, and roles / services cannot be sustained without funding
• lack of sufficient formal referral pathways in place, particularly with Health and housing services
• lack of buy-in among stakeholders and delivery organisations to making referrals, sometimes due to risks to their own KPIs
• service fatigue among residents who are passed between services and have to keep re-telling their stories (which can also be traumatising for them)
• lack of trust in services among young people who are passed between services or see programmes end due to programmes ending or funding cuts
• the lack of a single accountable body for tracking 18–21-year-olds
• the post-21 support ‘cliff edge’ for care leavers driven by the lack of statutory obligation to track young people leading to a drop-off in support
• lack of sufficient leadership for youth services to create and sustain coherent offers for young people (notably in London)

There is a lack of resource to do the joining up … the teams looking at NEETs have been whittled away … they used to get people together but don’t do that anymore … there hasn’t been the resource … the Trailblazers are a great opportunity to see what we could do if we did have a bit of that resource.

(Stakeholder)

There are some issues with data sharing which makes it difficult to strategically commission things … there’s no sharing of data between local authorities, DWP, national government departments - even with each other.

(Stakeholder)

In addition, some areas reported that employers are contributing to economic inactivity where there are insufficiently inclusive employment practices in place (particularly to support people with health and mental health conditions and neurodivergence) because employers lack skills and confidence to employ and support economically inactive individuals. Some areas noted that employers may not be aware that support exists and / or may find the system hard to navigate when trying to access the support available.

This context informed the focus on system integration and piloting and provision of more tailored and bespoke support services in the plans, and in some cases creation of jobs and placements, and these beliefs about the causes of economic inactivity are key assumptions underpinning the programme TOCs.

2.3 Target audiences: types and volumes

All of the Trailblazers are focused on targeting economically inactive residents and / or young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET, but areas seemed more commonly to be targeting people with complex needs and barriers to employment. Some areas noted that working with economically inactive residents is more challenging than unemployed populations because some of them may not be looking for or interested in work.

Each of the Trailblazer areas is focusing on different specific target audiences. A list of the target audiences is provided in Appendix 3. Whilst they had target audiences, most of the areas said they would try to support anyone who is economically inactive in the area or any young person who is NEET or at risk of becoming NEET.

The Youth Guarantee Trailblazers are generally targeting 18–21-year-olds, and many were positive about this age-band being the target because this transition period can often be missed in other programmes and services. Some stakeholders thought that their Youth Guarantee Trailblazers should include 16 and 17-year-olds because this is a key period for NEET prevention work. Target groups within this population commonly include care leavers, those identified as being at risk of long-term NEET, those facing mental health challenges, and those with SEND needs. Some Trailblazers are targeting young people with youth justice involvement and transport barriers.   

The Economic Inactivity Trailblazers are focused on a range of specific target audiences, and most are targeting multiple groups (with the West London Alliance being the exception and just targeting people with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions). Many of the Economic Inactivity Trailblazers have included young people as a target audience. Target groups commonly include those with health conditions (especially MSKs); mental health conditions; younger and older residents; parents and carers, lone parents; and disabled people and those with SEND. Some areas are also targeting those with criminal justice system experience, homeless populations, and social housing residents. A small number of areas are targeting veterans, those who are neurodivergent, asylum seekers, refugees, gypsy travellers, and Roma communities. The Welsh Trailblazer areas are specifically focusing on groups who are furthest from employment, which may include people who rarely leave the house, which has implications for the outcomes and impact they are working towards.   

We’ve got a big issue with [economic inactivity]… it’s not one problem. You know, there isn’t a profile of people that need support. It’s a very wide profile with many varied and multiple issues that require personalised support.

(Stakeholder)

The Trailblazers have set their own targets for volumes of residents / young people to engage with the programme. The nature of the targets varies but usually refer to numbers engaged, referrals and programme completions and some areas have job-based targets (and these are detailed in the case study reports and TOCs). There is a wide variation in ambition across the areas, but this tends to reflect the nature of the target audiences and how close to services and employment they tend to be as well as the maturity of the area in terms of service development and integration. At a high level, volumes range from higher numerical targets in some areas (for example at the time of fieldwork the West Midlands Youth Guarantee Trailblazer who were looking to engage 1,000 young people and the Pan-London Youth Guarantee Trailblazer were looking to support 900-1,200 young people, and West Yorkshire Economic Inactivity Trailblazer was aiming for 1,300 people prevented from becoming economically inactive and South London Economic Inactivity Trailblazer was aiming for 1,170 referrals) to lower targets in areas like one of the Trailblazers in Wales who were working towards 150 referrals in Neath Port Talbot but this reflecting the hard to reach nature of their audience. This will present challenges for comparison between the areas in the mainstage evaluation.

There are a variety of approaches being taken to engaging the target audiences across the programme. These are detailed in the Activity sections of the case study reports and TOCs. Overall, areas were often using multiple approaches to engagement and these commonly included:

• outreach via local partners (notably health and FE partners and often through improved data sharing and new tools enabling earlier identification)
• outreach via the local VCSE
• new or enhanced outreach workers and/or networks of professionals
• marketing campaigns (online and OOH)
• co-design projects (particularly with young people)
• events and pop ups
• use of new self-referral mechanisms often into triage services

Questions about the reach and effectiveness of these mechanisms and whether they are sufficient to reach target audiences and achieve the outcome targets were raised across the programme, but particularly for some of the areas (detailed in the case study reports in Appendix 4). At the time of fieldwork, it was too early for the areas to tell if these would be effective and to have adapted their plans.

2.4 Theories of Change

This project has developed a baseline TOC for each of the Trailblazer areas as well as a thematic overarching programme TOC[^13]. This section summarises the commonalities seen across the sections of the Trailblazer area TOCs (inputs, activities, outcomes and impacts). More detail about each area can be found in Appendix 4.

Across the programme, some areas were clearer than others about their aims and some were further than others in developing their programme of activities and outcome targets. There was variation across the programme in how clear the mechanisms of change (MOC) were and therefore the level of risk to delivery of the outcome targets and this is detailed in the case study reports (Appendix 4).  

2.4.1 Differences between Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers

There were some meaningful differences between the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers that it is important to note throughout the rest of the report. It is particularly important to note the difference in the level of funding affecting the scale of activity between the programmes and the sole focus on young people for the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers,

Some of the other differences between the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers observed were:

• more involvement of schools and FE providers in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers
• more focus on transition from education and training into work in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers
• more focus on work with training and skills providers in Youth Guarantee Trailblazers (although this was also the case for some Economic Inactivity Trailblazers)
• more focus on building aspiration and confidence in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers (although confidence was a focus in some Economic Inactivity Trailblazers)
• more focus on NEET prevention in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers

2.4.2 Aims

Overall, the Trailblazers are working towards reducing economic inactivity in their area and the number of young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET by improving system integration and support for specific target groups. Most had outcome targets related to increased numbers in training, placements, apprenticeships, and work, and / or increases in employability of residents. Some were particularly looking to reduce place-based disparities in their region. Some Trailblazers were more focused on improving system integration and saw this as the mission of their Trailblazer (notably the Pan-London Youth Guarantee Trailblazer and London Care Leavers Trailblazer), although this would ultimately contribute to reducing economic inactivity in the long term.  

…the biggest prize is the system shift…the second biggest prize is actually we’ve…improved the lives of the relatively small number of people that have gone through this…programme.

(Stakeholder)

Whilst the focus of the Trailblazer programme is on reducing economic inactivity and the number of young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET, many stakeholders tended to talk about the aims and mission of their Trailblazer and the impact they are hoping to achieve with reference to improving health and wellbeing in their area more generally and ultimately as reducing health inequalities in the region. Wales in particular was focused on improving wellbeing and the sense of community in the three case study areas, by increasing proactive engagement with the community among economically inactive residents.

We should be seeing increasing numbers of people engaging with their communities in a positive way that’s not funded … So, they might be going to men’s sheds. They might go to the rugby club and watch the rugby a bit more often because they’ve made some friends … This should be about enabling people to increase their knowledge and capability to manage health, that in our world would be called health literacy … It’s when developed communities are able to look after themselves because they’ve got good literacy about how to do that within their system. (Stakeholder)

2.4.3 Inputs

A similar set of inputs (the resources that go into the programme) were seen across the case study areas and broadly included funding and time and expertise from a range of organisations. The most common inputs reported were:

• Trailblazer programme funding – up to £5million to each Youth Guarantee Trailblazer and up to £10million to each Economic Inactivity Trailblazer (this was split across the three LAs in Wales and in London the GLA was using some of the funding to co-ordinate across the London Trailblazers)
• Trailblazer staff time – often from combined authorities (including Trailblazer project managers, grant funding managers, system stewards, and GLA-led co-ordination for London)
• time and expertise from local partners – including strategic and delivery organisations and the harnessing of multi-agency partnerships (especially LAs, VCSE for Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, Sub-Regional Partnerships in London, and the Primary Care cluster in Wales)
• time and expertise from procured communications agencies, insight and co-design agencies, evaluation agencies, and digital agencies to build platforms (where relevant)

A smaller number of Trailblazer areas reported the following types of inputs:

• time and expertise from governance boards and their members
• time, expertise and learning from co-occurring digital infrastructure projects and other co-occurring projects and initiatives (e.g. NHS Accelerators for Yorkshire, Inclusive Talent Strategy for London, UKSPF projects, Get Greater Manchester Working Plan, Happy Healthy Blaenau Gwent, Working Denbighshire etc.)
• time and expertise from university partner (West Midlands)
• procured physical space to deliver programmes (West London, Denbighshire)
• support from local political figures (e.g. Mayoral support in West Yorkshire and for the Pan-London Youth Guarantee Trailblazer, and steering group support)
• time from residents and young people in co-design activities and youth voice groups and forums

2.4.4 Activities and outputs

Overall, all of the Trailblazers were carrying out different and bespoke programmes of activity designed to address their specific challenges, with the plans reflecting the maturity level of their support system and the partnerships available in the area and tailored to the needs of their target audiences. All of the areas are carrying out multiple activities and in some cases their programmes were extensive and complex and involved a wide range of partners (notably the West Midlands and London Care Leavers). This state of play raises a question about how the Trailblazers will be compared in the evaluation.

As a minimum, all of the Trailblazers were carrying out work to better integrate their support system and increase collaboration between services, and testing or piloting new or improved services and initiatives for their target audiences. Many were also carrying out engagement work with employers to varying degrees. Some areas reported already seeing positive results from their early system integration work (notably Wales). Given the nature of the system changes being made, for example the establishment of new roles and networks, questions were raised about how the impact of these changes would and could be assessed.

All of the areas were testing and piloting new initiatives and services for their target groups. A range of approaches were being taken across the programme. Some areas were funding a small number of well-developed support programmes for specific target groups (e.g. MSK support services in West London). Some Trailblazers were planning to carry out more extensive test and learn programmes, usually grant funding a specific number of programmes via LAs and VCSE partners (e.g. 16 projects in Liverpool, 15 in Cambridge, and 21 in the North East). Other areas were taking a more open, iterative and hyper local approach and overseeing LAs’ and partners’ use of funding for smaller, more reactive projects but were, at the time of fieldwork, unable to say exactly how a subset of the funding would be spent (e.g. South London).

Overall, there were eleven types of activities being planned for use across the programme, in different configurations in each of the Trailblazer areas. Not all Trailblazer areas were planning to use all of the types of activities and each prioritised time and resource on different combinations of activities. Table 1 below sets out and describes the activity categories. Details of the types of activities and nature of their planned implementation in each Trailblazer area can be found in Appendix 4.

Eleven types of activity

1. System change

• Activities to join up the system including: new posts (e.g. integration officers in Manchester, partnership officers in Wales, coordinators in the West Midlands, System Stewards in South Yorkshire), new networks / communities of practice  (in Liverpool for care leavers, pan London Youth Guarantee, Tees Valley, and West Yorkshire), new and enhanced triage systems and single front doors (e.g. new triage hub in South London and North Yorkshire navigators), new online landing pages / digital platforms to bring services together, new referral routes, new physical hubs (in the North East and Cambridge), new co-location of services in neighbourhoods (e.g. in Denbighshire healthcare services), new youth voice forums, and new knowledge sharing forums.

• Activities to engage and build networks with key partners (notably health and education) – including staff training.

• Activities to build the capacity of small, local support organisations (particularly in rural and isolated areas).

2. Testing and piloting new initiatives and services for target groups

• These services were often hyper local (in some places specifically place-based) and grant funded and being delivered by local partners and VCSE organisations (notably in Cambridge and Liverpool).

• The services often involved a more user-centred, personalised, holistic and wrap around approach for individuals in specific demographic or lived experience groups (e.g. MSK support services, offers for gypsy travellers or specific BAME groups, or mental health support for young people).

• In some cases, the support involved training, particularly in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers (e.g. digital skills training for young people in Liverpool, life skills training for young people in West Midlands).

• Many areas were planning to provide coaching and mentoring services, and in some cases, this would be trauma informed (e.g. London care leavers).

• In many cases, particularly in Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, the services focused on earlier identification, engagement and intervention, often by using enhanced data sharing to identify at risk individuals.

3. Awareness raising

• Activities to raise awareness of the support system and services among residents and young people (including marketing campaigns and events).

• Activities to raise awareness of the system and services among practitioners (including system mapping and staff training).[^14]

4. Expanding existing services

• Some areas were adding funding to existing programmes and services where extra capacity would help address the barriers they were targeting (e.g. UKSPF projects, the Support for Young Londoners programme, and bolstering mental health support services).

5. Building capacity and capability of VCSE sector

• Some areas were specifically bolstering their VCSE sector where they believed they were best placed to reach and engage target audiences (notably Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, Wales and Manchester Economic Inactivity trailblazers).

• In some cases, this was done via contracting arrangements with LAs (e.g. South Yorkshire).

• In some cases, this involved training of staff.

6. Improving data sharing[^15]          

• Activities to improve data sharing across services – often this involved improving digital infrastructure (e.g. getting DSAs and DPIAs in place and/or developing new tools).

• Activities included efforts to share aggregate and individual level data.

• Activities often focused on being able to use data to identify and engage individuals and/or identify and engage them earlier – including those at risk of becoming NEET or experiencing mental health challenges (particularly in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers).

• In some cases, this work was to improve tracking capabilities to be able to follow individuals through services once they had been identified (e.g. in West of England, Cambridge and Tees Valley).

7. Employer engagement[^16]            

• Activities included training on barriers to work and how to support target groups, as well as benefits of employing them – and work to improve inclusive employment practices for young people and those with disabilities.

• Activities included engagement work to encourage employers to create placements and jobs for target groups (Denbighshire, Manchester and Local London).

8. Subsidized placements

• Some areas were working with employers and directly funding or subsidizing employee bursaries, tasters, placements, internships, apprenticeships, and wage subsidies (West Midlands, Tees Valley, Cambridge, London care leavers, West of England, West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire). Wales and South London are funding placements so that residents specifically do not lose access to Universal Credit benefits.

9. Insight and co-design work

• Many areas were planning to carry out insight and / or co-design work with target groups, notably young people (particularly East Midlands and London).

• Timings for these raised questions about the extent to which the insights would be able to inform service and system design.

10. Use of practical enablers

• Many areas were planning to offer a range of personal incentives to residents with examples including: childcare vouchers (North East, Local London); travel incentives such as bus passes and driving lessons (Wales BG, Yorkshire Trailblazers, West Midlands, West of England); digital equipment to assist with job searching and applications; and job readiness support (e.g. clothes for interviews).

11. New governance arrangements            

Many areas were setting up new governance and/or leadership arrangements (notably Pan London), which they often saw as contributing to system integration, but, at the time of fieldwork, it was uncertain to what extent they would and could be sustained after the programme.

2.4.4.1 System changes

As discussed, all of the areas were carrying out system change work to reduce fragmentation and improve the integration of services at the local level. As well as co-producing the area TOCs, this project has also created system maps for each of the areas. While it was beyond the scope of the project to create fully comprehensive system maps or user journeys for each area, the system maps provide a high-level summary of the organisations involved in the support system in each area and a second map which visualises and highlights the changes to the system planned as part of the activities by the areas. The system maps indicate some of the key relationships between the organisations, but it was beyond the scope of the project to fully map and describe these.

Whilst there was variation in terms of local specifics, there was a relatively consistent set of types of actors involved in the existing support systems. Again, the types of actors involved were similar across the Economic Inactivity and Youth Guarantee Trailblazers, but differences are highlighted in the text below, with the main difference being the inclusion of schools, further education and higher education providers in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers and support services for care leavers.

At the national level, common actors involved in the system were DWP, DHSC, and DfE (more commonly included by Youth Guarantee Trailblazers). NHS England, Skills England, and MHCLG were included by some areas, and DBT by Tees Valley.

At the strategic level, areas commonly reported that combined authorities, local authorities, ICBs, and skills and employment teams or working or advisory groups or committees were involved. The Welsh Government was included in the Welsh case studies and the GLA, London Councils, Local London Partnership, and Sub Regional Partnerships were included in the London Trailblazers. Some areas also reported a range of other organisations being involved at the strategic level, namely: regional DWP organisations and staff, local NHS organisations and health boards, work and health partnerships, business boards, Public Health Wales, regional employment / skills partnerships or steering groups, police and crime commissioner’s office, chambers of commerce, and regional youth voice panels or forums (for Youth Guarantee Trailblazers).

At the delivery level, areas commonly reported that the following types of organisations were involved in the system: employment support organisations, LA delivery teams, employment hubs and career hubs and services, NHS and health partners, VCSE delivery partners, local education and skills providers including schools and FE colleges, HE institutions (especially for Youth Guarantee Trailblazers), JCP and DWP employment advice services, employers and business / employer networks, and youth services and youth hubs (for Youth Guarantee Trailblazers). Some areas also reported a range of other organisations being involved in service delivery, namely: triage and no wrong door services, growth hubs, housing providers, leisure providers, social care services and care leavers support services, relevant trusts with who they have partnerships (e.g. Shaw Trust in London), drug and alcohol services, wraparound support services, and Youth Employment UK (in Cambridgeshire).

In terms of the services and interventions being delivered in the areas, this was usually described as a rich and complex ecosystem with multiple and overlapping services (with gaps and duplication widely acknowledged). Services were said to be being commissioned in a fragmented and piecemeal fashion rather than centrally within the areas or with any overarching strategy or leadership. The service ecosystem was often said to be disparate and difficult to navigate with no single access point, although no wrong door hubs and triage services were attempting to address this in some areas.

The system maps include many specific and bespoke support services delivered by a range of partners across the areas, particularly by LA delivery teams. Programmes that were commonly mentioned included WorkWell, Connect to Work, the Work and Health programme, Restart, UKSPF funded programmes, and the National Careers Service. Training, internships, and placement programmes were mentioned in some areas, more consistently in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers. Skills, training and support for care experienced young people was included in some of the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers.

All of the areas were carrying out system change work to reduce fragmentation and improve the integration of services at the local level. In some cases, areas were carrying out insight work and/or system mapping which would inform their system change work and therefore were not clear exactly the nature of this would be at the time of fieldwork. Overall, at the thematic level, a relatively narrow set of system changes have been proposed by the Trailblazer areas:

• join up the system via new and / or improved roles, networks, triage systems, referral routes, single front doors and landing pages, and knowledge sharing forums as well as co-location of services
• develop networks and communities of practice among practitioners which sustain communication
• improve data sharing between services
• increase the capacity, capability and resilience of the VCSE sector and local delivery organisations
• add or expand improved services and interventions for target audiences
• increase availability of personal incentives in the system
• expand and deepen networks and relationships with employers
• increase the number of placements, apprenticeships and jobs in the system

The changes proposed by the areas were often about either enhancing or adding new services to the ecosystem or about improving integration between actors. In terms of joining up actors, the areas were commonly planning to try to:

• increase collaboration within and across LAs in the areas, often by creating strategies or more integrated offers to guide action (or by creating collaborative bodies such as steering groups)
• improve connections between health and education and employment support (particularly those looking to address health and mental health challenges).
• join up LA and DWP services
• increase co-ordination across various parts of the system due to the number of actors and organisations involved through co-ordinator or convenor roles (especially youth co-ordinators in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers)
• improve user journeys by improving connections between delivery organisations and services to improve service user experience (notably between health, education, housing and employment support providers) and often this was through the use of mechanisms such as a single front door, triage service, or new roles or hubs
• creating stronger partnerships between combined authorities and LAs and VCSE organisations
• creating stronger partnerships between combined authorities and LAs and business and employer groups
• creating communities of practice among specialist frontline delivery workers

2.4.5 Outcomes

Overall, each Trailblazer was working towards a different and tailored suite of outcomes that related to their planned programme of activities. Most areas had developed clear outcomes and set targets for some or all of these, although these figures varied in level of ambition across the Trailblazer areas (as described in section 2.3). Some, particularly those with less developed plans and less mature support systems, sometimes found it harder to define the outcomes they were working towards and struggled to articulate exactly how they would be measured.

I’ve got people who haven’t been out of their houses for years and then we’d expect them to get a job and that’s not going to happen. But we can work on the confidence, self-esteem and I think with Trailblazer… should be a resource where you can build that relationship up with that person and then offer them the right services for them without having that … possibly unachievable goal of getting them into employment.

(Stakeholder)

Many Trailblazer areas raised concerns about their ability to reach and support the number of people that they initially proposed for the first year, due to the time taken to design, resource and stand up the programme. Some areas had revised these down in their year two delivery proposals.

In some areas there seemed to be some lack of clarity about the Mechanisms of Change (MOCs) that will lead from activities to outcomes and impacts (particularly in Wales and the West Midlands). In some cases, this was due to plans not being finalised at the time of fieldwork and therefore outputs not being clear (for example what the output of the system mapping activity would be in the Pan-London Youth Guarantee Trailblazer or the LA delivered hyper local services in South London and other Trailblazers taking a more delegated approach). In some cases, this was due to there being space and flexibility for LAs to interpret elements of the Trailblazer plans (e.g. how the youth co-ordinator resource would be implemented by LAs in the West Midlands).

Areas were asked about their plans for their short-term outcomes, which in the workshops was framed to participants to be approximately the first year of the programme. Across the programme, the most common types of short-term outcomes planned related to:

• increased awareness
  • increased resident / young people awareness of the Trailblazer and support services available
  • increased awareness among practitioners and partners of the Trailblazer and support services in the area
  • increased practitioner awareness and understanding of work as a health outcome (particularly among HCPs)
• increased understanding and trust
  • increased understanding of the target groups among practitioners (their contexts, barriers, support needs, and locations within Trailblazer areas)
  • increased use of resident and young people voices in service design
  • increased understanding about what changes to service design are required (from insight work) and what works (from piloting and testing)
  • increased trust between services and improved practitioner mindsets towards referrals (so there is less focus on their own KPIs and raised HCP awareness of possibility of referring to employment support)
  • increased employer awareness and understanding of the barriers economically inactive residents face, their support needs, and the benefits of engaging with and employing the target economically inactive groups
  • increased skills for working with target groups among frontline staff (including education and health)
• more integrated support systems
  • more data sharing infrastructure in place (e.g. DSAs, DPIAs and MVP data sharing tools)
  • improved co-ordination across and collaboration between services – particularly between with LAs, education, health and housing services
  • more formal referral routes in place and increased referrals (particularly from health services)
• improved services and more placements available
  • more and strengthened bespoke employment support and training available – which is more person centred, holistic, and bespoke and more prevention focused, and trauma informed for Young People
  • more tasters, placements, apprenticeships, and jobs available for economically inactive residents and young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET[^16].
  • shorter MSK support waiting lists (West London and South London)
• strengthened governance and leadership arrangements in place for employment support services (particularly in London)

Areas were also asked about their plans for their medium-term outcomes which was framed as the next two to three years to participants in the workshops and interviews. Many areas stressed that they did not expect to see much change in employment outcomes within the medium term and that this was a longer-term goal and impact.

We’d like to also be able to look at proximity to the workforce … even if the actual outcome isn’t that they get a job … improved health, increased confidence, increased knowledge of health support, employment support…

(Stakeholder)

It doesn’t necessarily have to have an economic product. So, allowing people to volunteer, to engage more actively in their communities … brings about better social cohesion, better civic pride in place.

(Stakeholder)

Across the programme, the most common types of medium-term outcomes planned related to:

• more integrated, efficient, and resilient support systems with less gaps and duplication within regions and with improved relationships and more trust and collaboration between providers and partners (e.g. more evidence-based service design, partners commissioning shared outcomes, and more capacity in the VCSE sector)
• reduction in systemic barriers to target groups accessing support, seen through more integrated support systems with more streamlined referral routes and more navigable systems for users where they can more easily get to the right service the first time (e.g. strengthened transition pathways for young people)
• more data sharing between services at the individual and aggregate level (for strategic planning and earlier targeting and tracking of individuals).
• improved service reach
  • services reaching increased numbers in target groups, earlier and at the right time (especially for young people)
  • more individuals from target groups in and completing support services
• improved individual development or progress
  • improvements in the job readiness of residents and work readiness of young people in the areas
  • improvements across a range measures including confidence, aspiration, motivation, resilience, and life skills (especially for young people)
• increased engagement from and with employers
  • increased employer commit to inclusive employment practices and interest in employing target groups
  • increased employer confidence and skills in supporting health and mental health conditions, disabilities, SEND needs, and neurodivergence
  • more tasters, placements, apprenticeships, and jobs available for economically inactive residents and young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET
• improved individual and area outcomes
  • more individuals from target groups in training, placements, apprenticeships, and jobs (and more young people transitioning from HE to FE to Youth Guarantee Trailblazers)
  • improvements in people with health conditions staying in work (e.g. MSKs, mental health conditions and neurodivergence) and those with childcare challenges
  • reduced economic inactivity across the areas (although many saw this as an impact rather than an outcome)
  • improvements across a range of health and wellbeing focused outcomes (e.g. wellbeing and life satisfaction)
  • an increased sense of community and purpose (for example in Wales an outcome was to increase proactive engagement with the community)

2.4.6 Impacts

The impacts the Trailblazer areas were working towards reflected what they reported to be their aims. The types of impacts being aimed for were relatively consistent across the programme, except for in Wales where there was more focus on wellbeing and community engagement than in the other areas. There was more focus on transition to FE and apprenticeships in the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers.

It’s about … ensuring these young people are more work ready. How we measure their work readiness so that we can take them from being NEET into EET— so whether they’re into employment, education or training—and into that positive destination that we want to move them into, which is … the ultimate goal.

(Stakeholder)

Across the programme, the most common types of impact being aimed for were:

• more integrated and collaborative employment, health, education and housing support systems and VCSE sectors, using data to help identify at risk groups earlier and more effectively
  • services are more evidence based, tailored and responsive to user needs and more prevention focused for YP
  • support systems are more inclusive and equitable
  • support system for young people transitioning out of education is more connected and accessible
• a more active and productive local labour market
  • improved employability of residents and work readiness of Young People
  • more good work available in the areas (meaning sustainable, meaningful, and inclusive work) and more inclusive workplaces
  • reduced economic inactivity with less NEET young people and more people in meaningful work
  • stronger regional economies and increased productivity
• wider community and individual wellbeing impacts
  • improved wellbeing and healthier communities
  • reduced health inequalities – including seeing impacts around related measures such as enhanced social mobility; lower GP caseloads and fit notes; reduced homelessness; reduced Universal Credit customers; reduced demand on services (e.g. A&E); and cost savings and improved value for money from services
  • greater sense of purpose and community (Wales)

I think people see prevention as like from an employment perspective, it’s about preventing people falling out of work. But actually, we’re trying to prevent longer term health issues, trying to prevent social issues…it’s about that broader prevention angle and the way that our Live Well vision joins up those different services to make sure that people can live healthily and creating conditions for everybody to thrive, so we are trying to prevent people disengaging from services. We’re trying to prevent them from that kind of really long-term inactivity.

(Stakeholder)

We’ve got the ambition to reduce economic inactivity and improve health outcomes and to further demonstrate the relationship between work and health.

(Stakeholder)

2.4.7 Assumptions

Across the programme, there was seen to be a range of important underlying assumptions[^18] which may support or undermine the overarching programme TOC and the area TOCs. Some of these were seen to present greater risk to successful delivery of the programme and outcomes than others if they turned out not to be the case in practice.

The Trailblazers should give government a higher sense of security that they can devolve money, and issues will be dealt with… that suits the local agenda.

(Stakeholder)

Overall, the key programme level assumptions, which were seen to be likely to affect the success of the programme, were reported by stakeholders to be that system integration work will reduce economic inactivity, that jobs are available locally for economically inactive residents and young people at risk of NEET, and that changes in economic inactivity and numbers of young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET can be realised and measured in the life of the programme (particularly for those areas more focused on softer outcomes).

For the local delivery level, the key assumptions, that may affect the success of the programme, were that partners would buy in to and contribute to the programme, that system changes and pilots could be stood up and delivered in year one, and that LAs and local partners and VCSE organisations would be able to reach sufficient numbers of economically inactive residents and young people within the budget.

Employers are ultimately the gatekeepers. We can make young people as confident and ready as we want… if an employer doesn’t want to hire them, there’s nothing we can do.

(Stakeholder)

There’s a massive assumption that the VCSE partners are the best people to engage people that are economically inactive.

(Stakeholder)

Whilst specific detailed assumptions varied across the areas in relation to their programme designs, overall, the key assumptions reported most commonly across the programme were:

• programme assumptions
  • that regions and local areas are best placed to understand the challenges and barriers in their area and to design effective solutions to address them
  • that localised approaches are likely to be more effective in addressing economic inactivity and the number of young people who are NEET or at risk of being NEET than more centralised approaches)
  • that health and mental health challenges are a key driver of economic inactivity and that addressing them will reduce economic inactivity
  • that reductions in economic inactivity can be realised and measured in the life of the programme
  • that the Trailblazer areas will be willing and able to test innovative ideas
  • for many areas, that poor system integration (and poor collaboration and data sharing) contributes to economic inactivity and that addressing this will reach residents and reduce economic inactivity
  • that it is possible to achieve system change within the programme timeframe
  • that the programme is a safe space for experimentation to support innovation and that failure is possible and acceptable
• partner assumptions
  • that LAs and other local partners (including education, health, housing and local VCSE sectors) will be willing and able to engage with the programme and dedicate time and resources to contributing to it (often on top of their day jobs)
  • that partners and delivery organisations will be willing and able to integrate at the local level
  • that LAs and partners (including VCSE organisations) will be able to reach hard to reach audiences, notably young people, and that they are best placed to do so
  • that lead organisations and partners will be able to get funding in place in the first year and agreements through their financial processes (notably LAs)
  • that system changes and pilots can be stood up and delivery begun in one year
  • that pilots can be rolled out after the programme
• audience focused assumptions
  • that some economically inactive people in the areas, including those with health conditions and disabilities, want and are able to be economically active
  • that some economically inactive people in the areas, including those with health conditions and disabilities, are willing to travel to work (especially in rural and isolated areas)
  • that some economically inactive people will be able and willing to engage with support services
  • that some young people will want and be able to engage with work placements
• employer focused assumptions
  • that placements, apprenticeships and jobs are available locally or that employers will be willing and able to create them
  • that employers are willing to employ and able to support economically inactive residents
• other
  • that audience insight work and co-design processes will be able to inform the programme and its activities
  • that the Trailblazers can build on previous work in the local area successfully (notably UKSPF projects)

2.5 Risks, challenges and barriers

A range of risks to successful delivery of the programme were raised across the case study areas, at the programme design and local delivery level. Risks were gathered as part of the Theory of Change research in order to identify areas of the theory which might require specific attention within a theory based evaluation.

Overall, all areas expected to successfully implement the majority of their plans and see some positive changes as a result, notably in terms of improved system integration. However, stakeholders also saw numerous risks to successful implementation of their programmes and the outcome targets they had themselves set in their delivery plans being met, with most raising concerns about delivery of specific activities within their plans (notably data sharing plans and specific pilot activities, especially those reliant on multiple delivery partners) and questions about whether specific targets would be met (as detailed in the case study reports in Appendix 4).  

As noted in the methodology, in the primary research, participants were asked to describe the key risks and challenges that their area will face during delivery of the Trailblazer programme. This report describes the key risks discussed but we note that this information should not be treated as a comprehensive risk assessment of the programme and neither is this research a process evaluation and therefore does not seek to comprehensively or robustly assess the implementation of the programme so far.

2.5.1 Programme design level

At the programme design level, eight key risks areas were commonly flagged across the case study areas, with the first four raised strongly in many areas.

Firstly, timings and the speed and pace of the programme was raised as a risk by every Trailblazer area. Many stakeholders reported that they thought that a year would not be enough time to design and stand up the programme and start to see outcomes and targets delivered as in reality most areas expected to see less than six months for delivery in 2025/2026. Many stakeholders also fed back that the timings around the release of the programme brief and application period had been challenging. Many stakeholders had found the design phase challenging and raised concerns that in the long term, this may have reduced potential ambition in some areas. We note that funding was initially given for one year but that was then extended for year two during the programme.  

It’s described as a one-year programme… in reality your delivery timescale is more like six months at best.

(Stakeholder)

In addition to this, slower than expected progress in reaching and completing grant funding agreements and some local funding agreements was raised as a challenge. Stakeholders reported that this had caused issues with recruitment of project team members and also for partners, with some contributing time and resource to the programme without funding in place.

Secondly, and relatedly, numerous concerns were raised around the design of the first year of the programme. The staggered funding of the programme (with year two funding for Youth Guarantee Trailblazers announced during August and year two funding for the Economic Inactive Trailblazers announced during October) presented challenges as stakeholders needed to spend or lose the first-year funding and many flagged risks around being able to spend this in time, some due to LA and local partner financial control processes.

It’s great that we got the cash, don’t get me wrong. But then again, when you go, we’ve got to spend it in like six months, it’s like, oh, what are we going to do?

(Stakeholder)

Thirdly, the short-term nature of a programme designed to address intractable system and social issues was seen to present challenges. Questions were widely raised about the sustainability of changes being made by the programme without ongoing funding, particularly when system changes were reliant on new staff members to join up the system, or when changes were driven by pilot programmes reliant on Trailblazer funding (particularly when the VCSE sector was involved). Youth Guarantee Trailblazers in particular noted a potential negative impact for young people if another programme they are involved with ends due to lack of funding after the programme. Concern was also raised that the level of ambition in areas, particularly regarding innovation, may have been reduced by the lack of guaranteed investment after year one for most of the design phase, particularly where partners would have been required for delivery. This led some areas to question how committed DWP was to the innovation element of the programme. Fourthly, the temporary nature of the programme has also presented challenges for recruitment and retention of staff, with some stakeholders reporting difficulties recruiting and keeping high quality staff in temporary project roles and seeing this as potentially affecting the stability of project teams throughout the life of the programme.          

It’s in a short kind of burst of intense activity… It’s unclear how sustainable its effects can be as a result… really for sustainable outcomes and recouping the cost you need to have a sustained kind of intervention.

(Stakeholder)

One of the reasons [YP] don’t engage is because they don’t trust the support because it’s there and then it’s taken away. And we’re doing just that. We’re giving it to them and then taking it away.

(Stakeholder)

Finally, questions were raised about the test and learn culture of the programme. Areas leads were generally enthusiastic about this element of the programme, and some areas have included extensive test and learn programmes in their plans (e.g. Liverpool, Cambridge and North East). However, some stakeholders’ perception of DWP’s focus on monitoring data in the first year and the sense of a need to achieve results has raised concerns among some strategic stakeholders that meeting the targets the areas had set for themselves and included in their delivery plans would be the focus rather than learnings gathered from piloting efforts[^19]. There was concern in some areas about potential consequences of being seen to have “failed” if pilots do not produce results, and that this could include reputation damage with DWP for these areas[^20].  

The whole view of Trailblazer is it’s very much a test and learn programme and we feel that then having targets goes against the ethos of test and learn, because the whole point is we don’t know. We’re trying new models, we don’t know what that is going to deliver.

(Stakeholder)

Ultimately we want to deliver outcomes so in an ideal world we would want to have latched on to all of the brilliant projects that are going to absolutely deliver outcomes, and all of them would be hugely successful. But we know that that’s not likely to be the case and I’m just worried that failure will be, you know, a failure to deliver outcomes for some of the schemes will be regarded as a failure in the scheme rather than the embraced as positive learning.

(Stakeholder)

Three further risks about the programme design were widely raised:

• there was concern about the extent to which system integration work (notably new roles and networks), whilst seen as valuable in its own right, will reach young people and residents and actually reduce Economic Inactivity and support NEET prevention. There were questions raised about the extent to which new and enhanced support services will impact economic inactivity rates within the lifetime of the programme, particularly for areas working with individuals furthest from employment and who have complex needs and a long journey to employment which is unlikely to be linear (notably in North East and Wales)
• there was some concern about whether it will be possible to roll out pilots within the life of the programme, including the first year and beyond this
• there was some concern in some areas in the first year about the level of burden being created by asks from DWP for monitoring data (the frequency and volumes required) and this was seen to be taking resource away from programme design, management and delivery[^20]

2.5.2 Local delivery level

At the local design and delivery level, eight key risks and challenges were commonly raised across the case study areas. Other area plan specific risks were reported and these can be found in the case study reports (Appendix 4). Across the areas the most common risks reported were:

• in some areas, outcomes were less clear, and targets had not been set and clearly defined, particularly in areas working towards softer outcomes, and this could present delivery risks
• in some areas, it was less clear what the MOCs are that link the activities to the planned outcomes, and this presents risk to the successful delivery of impact
• in many areas, the target audiences are hard-to-reach and engage, but in some areas it was not always clear how they would be reached, particularly when it was not yet clear (or clear to delivery partners) how planned outputs would reach target audiences (particularly when these were online portals and webpages, and outputs from system mapping work) or how target audiences would be identified (particularly in Youth Guarantee Trailblazers where this is a lack of data on who is at risk of becoming NEET)
• there is a risk that target audiences may not want or be able to use support services or personal incentives, particularly young people who are disillusioned with public services and / or fatigued by being referred around between services (and may not see the Trailblazer as any different from other programmes)
• there is a risk that partners cannot commit the time and resources required to engage with and contribute to the Trailblazer programme (particularly when this is on top of their day jobs) and while all areas reported good partner engagement so far, this will need to be sustained when the delivery phase begins in earnest
• there is a risk that partners will not want to join up the system and refer residents and young people, particularly when this affects their own KPIs, and this could impact efforts to increase system integration and referrals, particularly where areas are trying to introduce shared systems
• some areas were concerned about the economic climate (and that this could worsen) and that placements and jobs may not be available in their local area, and more specifically jobs that young people will want, and that despite engagement, employers may not be willing create these
• for areas trying to improve data sharing, there are significant technical and legal barriers to overcome which may cause delays and present a risk to viability (and some were unclear how long this type of work can take) and there are also risks around data breaches once tools and platforms are up and running, particularly where individual level data, shared systems and multiple partners are involved

A smaller number of areas raised the following risks:

• some of the Trailblazers involve numerous strategic and delivery partners and there is a risk that Trailblazers may not be well managed if they do not have sufficient project management and communications arrangements in place as well as robust oversight mechanisms for work that is delegated out to partners (notably LAs)
• some areas were concerned that the programme timings will mean that there is a limit to which any planned insight and co-design work can be used to inform the design of the programme and services
• some areas were concerned that employers may not want or have time to engage with training and programmes designed to help them support economically inactive residents
• some areas stressed that they did not want to ‘re-invent the wheel’ and were therefore building on existing programmes and structures known to be effective, but this may have limited innovation work
• some Youth Guarantee Trailblazers raised risks around safeguarding for youth services
• some areas working with partners to address health and mental health barriers raised the issue of health service re-structuring and the impact this could have on the delivery of the Trailblazer (particularly where ICBs were involved)
• poor access to mental health services across the country was raised as a risk, and particularly the limited resource and capacity in CAMHS, and this presents a risk for particularly Youth Guarantee Trailblazers trying to identify young people at risk of mental health conditions
• some areas were concerned about their lack of access to evaluation expertise and their capacity and capability to collect data and measure the right things (although some were in the process of procuring evaluation partners)

3. Conclusions

This section reflects on some of the lessons learned so far at the programme and local level, as the Trailblazer areas are part way through their first year of delivery. We note that this research was carried out at an early stage of the programme when the areas were still designing and setting up their programmes and that the confirmation of funding for the second year was announced in August for the Youth Guarantee Trailblazers and in October for the Economic Inactivity Trailblazers. The research is therefore limited in what it can say about progress and experiences of implementation.  

Overall, this research has found that the Trailblazer areas have embraced the opportunity to tailor employment support funding to their area, its context and target audiences. All the areas had designed (at least at a high level) and begun to stand up highly complex programmes with multiple strands of activity, although some areas were further ahead and some plans more comprehensive than others. There has broadly been a highly positive response to the programme from LAs and other key partner organisations (including health, education and housing and the VCSE sector) and partners so far have generally been highly engaged with the programme (although sustaining this engagement will be a key risk going forwards).

All the Trailblazer areas expect to be able to achieve positive impact in their area and to improve system integration, pilot more bespoke services for target groups, and to engage employers to some degree.

Many areas have set targets around increases in numbers of people in placements, apprenticeships, and work. For the most part, the MOCs to achieve these outcomes are relatively clear. However, questions remain about the extent to which the proposed changes will reach target audiences and significantly impact economic inactivity in the life of the programme in all the areas as well as how sustainable the changes being made by the programme are in the long term.

Appendix 1: List of the 17 Trailblazer areas

Youth Guarantee Trailblazers

Liverpool City Region West Midlands Combined Authority Tees Valley Combined Authority East Midlands Combined County Authority Greater London Authority - Care Leavers Greater London Authority - Pan-London Cambridgeshire and Peterborough MSA West of England Combined Authority

Economic Inactivity Trailblazers

West Yorkshire Combined Authority North East Combined Authority South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority Greater Manchester Combined Authority Wales (three LAs involved) Greater London Authority- Local London Greater London Authority - South London Partnership Greater London Authority - West London Alliance York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority

Appendix 2: Achieved sample

	Case study Area	Workshop date	Number of workshop attendees achieved	Number of follow up interviewees complete
1	Liverpool Youth Guarantee	3 September	9	2
2	West Midlands Youth Guarantee	13 August	15	6
3	Tees Valley Youth Guarantee	15 September	9	2
4	East Midlands Youth Guarantee	6 August	13	3
5	GLA London Care Leavers Youth Guarantee	1 September and 4 September	13	2
6	GLA Pan-London Youth Guarantee	12 August	9	2
7	Cambridge Youth Guarantee	25 September	7	3
8	West of England Youth Guarantee	18 August	8	2
9	West Yorkshire Economic Inactivity	22 August	8	3
10	North East Economic Inactivity	19 September	4	4
11	South Yorkshire Economic Inactivity	18 August	10	2
12	Greater Manchester Economic Inactivity	14 August	11	3
13	Wales Economic Inactivity - Neath Port Talbot	15 September	9	2
14	Wales Economic Inactivity - Blaenau Gwent	23 September	9	2
15	Wales Economic Inactivity - Denbighshire	12 September	15	3
16	GLA - London Local Economic Inactivity	15 September	10	3
17	GLA - South London Economic Inactivity	13 August	8	3
18	GLA - West London Alliance Economic Inactivity	14 August	10	3
19	York and North Yorkshire Economic Inactivity	11 September	8	2
Total	-	-	185	52

Appendix 3: Target audience for each Trailblazer area

We note that in most cases these target groups did not exclude other economically inactive people from being supported.

	Case study area	Target audiences
1	Liverpool Youth Guarantee	Young people, specifically 18–21-year-olds with care experience and 17–18-year-olds at risk of long-term NEET.
2	West Midlands Youth Guarantee	Young people aged 18–21 who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET, with some local initiatives targeting vulnerable cohorts, including care leavers, those with special educational needs, and those with youth justice involvement.
3	Tees Valley Youth Guarantee	Young people aged 18-21 who are NEET or at risk of NEET, with a focus on those who face additional barriers to participation, including those with SEND, care leavers, young carers, and those with complex or multiple needs.
4	East Midlands Youth Guarantee	Young people aged 18-21 who are NEET and face additional barriers (including mental health challenges, limited transport access, unequal access to digital tools, care leavers, SEND young people, housing insecurity, limited English language skills/literacy and numeracy gaps, and those with criminal justice system experience).
5	GLA London Care Leavers Youth Guarantee	Care leavers aged 17-25 from across 12 London boroughs. The main focus is 18–21-year-olds.
6	GLA Pan-London Youth Guarantee	Young people aged 18-21 across London, and particularly those who are hidden NEETs (those at risk of falling into economic inactivity during key transition periods) and young people facing mental health challenges.
7	Cambridge Youth Guarantee	The Trailblazer will engage with young people who are NEET, with targeted interventions for more vulnerable groups who face the greatest barriers to employment, including care‑experienced young people, those supervised by the youth justice system, young carers, BAME groups, learners with SEND, and those with long‑term health conditions.
8	West of England Youth Guarantee	Trailblazer is placed based and focuses on three areas and a different priority cohort in each: young people who have special educational needs but who do not have an Education, Health, and Care plan (in South Gloucestershire); those in areas of high deprivation (in City of Bristol), and those in rural communities facing transport challenges (in Bath and North East Somerset).
9	West Yorkshire Economic Inactivity	Economically inactive individuals with health conditions who are furthest from the labour market (including residents returning to work after more than twelve months of ill health or absence). Within this the Trailblazer is targeting young people, care leavers, older workers with low skills or physically demanding jobs, those with caring responsibilities, lone parents, ex-offenders, and people experiencing homelessness.
10	South Yorkshire Economic Inactivity	TB will support all economically inactive individuals but targets young people who are NEET aged 18-24, those economically inactive for under two years, and people with health conditions, particularly mental health conditions and MSKs. The LAs will also target specific hard-to-reach communities.
11	York and North Yorkshire Economic Inactivity	Economically inactive individuals  and people with long-term health and mental health conditions. There will be specific focus on 16–25-year-olds (including those at risk of becoming NEET) and 50–64-year-olds as well as people with mental health needs, women and carers, veterans, rural and coastal communities, neurodivergent individuals, and those with SEND.
12	North East Economic Inactivity	Any economically inactive residents across seven LAs, but targeting marginalised groups including women, young adults, social housing tenants, carers, and those with disabilities.
13	Greater Manchester Economic Inactivity	Economically inactive residents across GM who are disadvantaged and often heavily reliant on public services, including those with health conditions, disabilities or experiencing multiple disadvantages. LAs have other priority cohorts which include those with caring responsibilities, care-experienced young people, and asylum seekers/settled refugees.
14	Wales Economic Inactivity - Neath Port Talbot	Working predominantly within the Afan Cluster with anyone who is Economically Inactive but targeting Economically Inactive people with health conditions and focusing on those furthest away from work, which may be individuals who struggle to get out of bed or leave the house, or those who have been out of work for many years.
15	Wales Economic Inactivity – Denbighshire	Working with anyone who is Economically Inactive but targets Economically Inactive individuals with disabilities, mental health challenges, health conditions, caring responsibilities, and those who are furthest from the labour market.
16	Wales Economic Inactivity – Blaenau Gwent	Aiming to engage the hardest to reach individuals who are furthest away from employment, including economically inactive individuals with long term health conditions, adults with learning difficulties and disabilities, neurodiverse individuals, carers, the Gypsy/Traveller community, young gamers and single parent families.
17	GLA - Local London Economic Inactivity	The Trailblazer is active in nine LAs in North East and South East London and the cohorts of interest vary across them but target populations include individuals with health conditions and disabilities, young people, older adults (55+), Roma communities, migrants and refugees, parents and lone parents, and care leavers.
18	GLA - South London Economic Inactivity	The Trailblazer is working in six South London Boroughs with anyone who is economically inactive but targeting economically inactive people with health conditions (particularly MSKs and neurodivergence), aged 18-24 or over 50, in social housing, from BAME groups, women, and those with no qualifications or experience of the criminal justice system.
19	GLA - West London Alliance Economic Inactivity	Economically inactive individuals living with MSK conditions.