London Metropolitan University, London Accommodation Pathfinder 2nd Evaluation: Final Report (2026)
London Metropolitan University has published its second, independent evaluation of the London Accommodation Pathfinder (‘LAP’), finding early evidence that therapeutic alternatives to custody are associated with lower rates of re-offending.
Details
The LAP places males aged 16-17 in specialised supported accommodation as an alternative to custodial remand, in lieu of a custodial sentence or as part of a resettlement arrangement. The LAP aims to reduce the number of first-time entrants into custody, the over-representation of minority ethnic children in custody, reoffending and the risk of harm to children and others.
22 children were placed in the LAP, of whom 19 had left by the data cut-off. Of the 22 placements, 11 were in place of a custodial sentence and 10 in place of custodial remand, with one forming part of a resettlement from custody. All children were referred in relation to weapons offences, including eight charged with section 18 wounding with intent. The cohort presented significant vulnerabilities: 68% had prior children’s social care involvement and 73% were at risk of child criminal exploitation.
The LAP framework is informed by Child First and desistance principles. Child First practice treats meeting a child’s welfare needs as essential to reducing offending, prioritises collaboration so that support is shaped by the child’s own views and rejects the “adultification” of children, recognising that offending behaviour commonly features in adolescence and generally subsides with maturity. Desistance theory treats the move away from crime as a journey supported by “hooks for change” such as education, employment and positive relationships - with feeling safe and cared for treated as essential to building the pro-social identity on which desistance depends.
The LAP builds on these principles: children live in ordinary housing outside the secure estate, and staff can spend considerable time with them — building the trusted relationships, routines and engagement with education and work that the report treats as the foundations of desistance. The key findings are as follows:
- Reoffending: of the 19 children who had left the LAP, five (26%) had been convicted of new offences. The report compares this with published rates of 61.7% for all children leaving custody and 31.8% across the youth justice system.
- Compliance with bail conditions: LAP alumni reported that the placement helped them comply with bail and sentence conditions, with staff noting that pre-referral patterns of breaching typically ceased shortly after children moved in.
- Ethnic minority over-representation: the LAP removed or shortened the custodial time of 11 Black and seven of Mixed ethnicity, equivalent to nearly 11% and 9% respectively of those groups in the secure estate.
- Risk of harm: no incidents were recorded in which the public or victims were put at risk by a LAP resident and no child was returned to custodial remand following a managed end to their LAP bail placement. The evaluators consider that this should give courts confidence that children, including those charged with violent offences can, with appropriate support, safely remain in the community.
- Cost: at £513.11 per night, the LAP is more expensive than a Young Offender Institution but materially cheaper than a secure children’s home, secure training centre, Oasis Restore or high-need supported accommodation. Factoring in post-LAP reductions in arrests (81%), convictions (73%) and court events (89%), the evaluators estimate a net saving of £15,800.47 per child in the seven child sample used for the cost-benefit analysis. A five-child comparison group placed in supported accommodation showed the opposite: costs rose by £18,280.05 per child.
- Limitations: while the headline comparisons are encouraging, it is important to remember that the cohort is very small, post-18 outcome data was largely unavailable and the evaluators themselves state that the quantitative findings are not statistically significant or generalisable and should be treated as indicative only.
Commentary
The report offers early, indicative evidence that therapeutic alternatives to custody may be associated with lower reoffending and reductions in wider criminal justice costs, while emphasising the need for further evaluation. Several points are of practical relevance:
- Placement and compliance: the LAP’s experience suggests that an appropriate placement can make compliance with bail or sentence conditions easier for some children, a point which may be relevant when proposing community alternatives to custody.
- Remand stage: the evaluators considered that better coordination with courts while referrals were processed would have kept a further five children out of custody altogether. This highlights the need to consider suitable community-based alternatives at an early stage, which may help avoid unnecessary custodial remand.
- Safeguarding and public protection are complementary: children who present risks are frequently themselves exposed to violence, exploitation and harmful peer networks; all four children returned to custody from the LAP had prior social care involvement and exploitation indicators. A placement addressing those contextual risks may safeguard the child and reduce risk to others simultaneously.
- Alternative environment: for some children, the LAP offered physical and psychological distance from environments in which they had experienced violence, exploitation or harmful peer influences. Residents described feeling safer in the new location and said that the distance helped them cut ties with negative peer groups and focus on themselves. This suggests that the wider context in which a child is placed - not simply the support provided within the placement - can be important to desistance.
- Conditions for expansion: the report suggests that supported alternatives to custody warrant further development and evaluation, but successful expansion would require sufficiently experienced staff, trauma-informed and Child First practice, effective multi-agency working, meaningful child participation and robust longer-term outcome data.