Evaluation of Intensive Alternatives to Custody pilots

Posted by Joe Gardham on July 12, 2011

his summary presents the main findings from a range of research, conducted by Sheffield Hallam University and the Greater Manchester Probation Trust, exploring the learning from the Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) pilots. It also contains background information and statistics collected by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

Greater Manchester ProbaKey points

The Intensive Alternatives to Custody (IAC) pilot programme ran from 2008/09 to 2010/11 to test the use of intensive community orders in diverting offenders from short-term custodial sentences.
There were 1,851 IAC orders started across all seven regions in England and Wales between 1 April 2008 and 8 March 2011.
Stakeholders reported that the benefits of an IAC order over a Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) were the ability to monitor risk more effectively through intensive supervision and greater flexibility in managing breaches.
Concordance rates (instances of IAC proposals made in Pre-Sentence Reports and the percentage of these which resulted in an IAC order being imposed) were generally high, although they varied considerably across the sites.
There was considerable variation between the group of offenders targeted in each pilot area and the interventions delivered in each site.
Each IAC order had an average of 3.4 requirements.
The most frequently recorded offences IAC orders were issued for were violent offences, theft and handling, and burglary.
Feedback from stakeholders suggests they saw offenders with the following characteristics to be most suitable for an IAC order: a chaotic lifestyle, multiple needs, previous custodial sentences and motivation to change.
As of 1 March 2011, the compliance rate for IAC orders was 56%.
Feedback from a range of stakeholders suggests the IAC order and the way in which it was delivered was perceived to have had a positive impact on offenders and the potential to impact on reoffending.
The estimated weighted average cost of an IAC order per offender was around £5,000 a year.
When IACs are compared against short custodial sentences, given the differential costs between these two disposals, IACs are likely to be more cost effective (in terms of the costs of each sentence and the expected costs of future offending), provided that they do at least as well as short custodial sentences in rehabilitating offenders and provided that offenders given an IAC order are those who would otherwise have got a short-term custodial sentence.
The evidence currently available suggests up-tariffing by sentencers was relatively low, i.e. the IAC sentences were not inappropriately targeted at offenders who might not have been at risk of receiving a custodial sentence. However, this should be explored fully before we can conclude whether there are cost savings from the use of IAC orders.