This is an historical criminological project which will explore the first government-run youth institutions in England; the reformatory schools. The criminal justice system (CJS) remains the only institution where the deliberate infliction of pain on children is sanctioned in the UK. Child protection advocates argue that the restraint techniques used causes unnecessary harm. Yet, they are justified under the pretence of controlling children within the secure estate. This research will explore the narratives of 'justification' from an historical perspective. This will be done by consulting regional reformatory records (institutional level), parliamentary reports (political level), and newspapers (public level). Since children have been imprisoned, they have been mistreated and abused. How was the use of physical force justified, criticised and/or ignored within these historical institutions and within the wider context of the political/public domain? This long historical lens will enable an understanding of the continued acceptance of the mistreatment of children within the secure estate today. This project has a three legged output strategy, which are inter-related; academic, policy and public engagement. (1) I will contribute to the academic debate through this interdisciplinary project through academic peer review journal articles and conference papers in the field of both child abuse studies and criminology to ensure I both learn from and add to these different, but related, fields of study. Similarly, I will hold a symposium at the close of the project to bring together interdisciplinary speakers working in or studying different institutionalised settings across the globe (not limited to the Criminal Justice System). This will enable the project to have wider impact. (2) The findings from the project will enable me to feed into the policy debate for future policy reform. I will write a Policy Briefing Document for History and Policy for dissemination amongst relevant All-Party Parliamentary Groups and a shorter Fact Sheet version for wider distribution. (3) Often change is enabled due to public interest and awareness of the issues. As such, this project will also engage with the public to raise awareness and support for the issues at hand through an inclusive Blog/Podcast Series, public-facing talks hosted by already established networks with a ready audience built in, and lastly through a written piece in the public-facing media outlet The Conversation. In this way, this project will work towards an increased knowledge and understanding of the issue of mistreatment of juveniles in institutions over time. I will add to the interdisciplinary field of institutional studies, feed into policy reform debates for change in youth justice, and inform and engage with the public on issues of harm in historical settings involving oft overlooked offending children.

It is claimed that Art for Reconciliation (AfR) produces work that reflects, represents, or responds to multiple forms of political conflict in ways that encourage conflict transformation. This claim is reflected in international political and financial support for the growth in AfR. We question the validity of this claim - not because it is untrue, but because as noted in the AHRC Cultural Value report, "long-term evaluations of arts and cultural initiatives in post-conflict transformation have rarely if ever been attempted". Without such an 'attempt' we face a series of problems. Firstly, the various outcomes of AfR are not adequately understood. AfR can potentially replicate the divisions of conflict. Or, it can enable processes of healing, witness testimony and inter-community engagement. It can be transformational and stimulate positive relational change between communities in conflict. If we do not research these differing forms and outcomes then AfR will not possess the definitional robustness required to adequately understand how positive reconciliatory outcomes can be realized. Secondly, we do not possess proper evaluative forms which measure how AfR achieves a shift out of and away from conflict. Evaluations are often tied to audience reaction as opposed to more in-depth and grounded techniques that measure positive relational change between communities in conflict. Thirdly, we do not know how funding practice, community response and the management and production of art affect the landscape of AfR. Fourthly, without robust techniques and grounded research the value of AfR cannot be adequately disseminated. Finally, when we locate art as conflict transformation it is generally non-transferrable. Better knowledge production concerning AfR will aid wider dissemination. In solving these problems we will develop a co-produced research project that grounds its methods in interaction with funders, policy makers, arts managers, artists and communities engaging in AfR. Through a focused study of funded AfR our research project aims to: 1. Determine if AfR initiatives do, or possibly could, affect meaningful conflict transformation; 2. Share evidence regarding art as conflict response beyond the arts community and communicate its value to those who are currently unaware; 3. Develop ways in which transformative AfR can be achieved through better evaluation, auditing and articulation; 4. Create an evaluation mechanism that promotes deeper understanding of what is actually taking place within AfR to all sectors involved in designing and delivering this work; 5. Develop a dissemination strategy to share information about creative arts engagements and interactions which respond to conflict and aim for meaningful reconciliation; 6. Contribute to effective knowledge that highlights the value of art as a facilitator of conflict transformation. Knowledge transfer is important not only to develop social science and arts/humanities engagement, but to develop and show how art may play a role in broader conflict transformation processes. Current frameworks, typologies and methodologies, both in academia and amongst communities of practice (i.e. funders, policymakers, artists and arts managers, and community support professionals) do not always reflect or adequately evaluate transformative outcomes. Ultimately, we seek to address these aims in ways that can have direct, meaningful and purposeful impact on the work of funders, communities of practice and the public. The project will speak to how communities respond to conflict and work to better explain, understand and appreciate how their lived experiences of harm and injustice, inform that response. The dissemination strategy will be used by groups involved in different types of reconciliation projects to sustain and develop conflict transformation activity.

The COVID-19 crisis is changing the shape of crime. Drawing on crime science, this research will inform evidence-based policy and practice. Lockdown requires people to stay home, leading to domestic violence and child abuse increases. Yet social distancing means police are arresting fewer suspects: reduced services at time of greater need. COVID-19 gives fraudsters a 'conversation starter' to approach people in-person, via text, email and online. Remote working and online leisure activities, furloughs and financial difficulties, provide more potential targets for online crimes of various types. Vulnerable groups including the elderly and disabled are more at risk. Yet a Harvard study (Kissler et al. Science, 14 April) suggests that, absent a vaccine, social distancing may continue into 2022, perhaps 2024. So we will anticipate crime effects of prolonged, graduated or cyclical exit strategies. We will also anticipate post-crisis scenarios, seeking to sustain declines in crimes like burglary, to avoid them returning to 'normal'. We will use (1) national police data, (2) detailed data from three police partners, (3) fraud and e-crime data from industry, and (4) sources from other agencies such as Childline (for unreported crime). Pre/post-change analysis will use a combination of time-series and spatial modelling. Nesting force-level analysis in the national and international context will allow us to gauge scalability. We have police and industry partners, national (Home office, National Police Chief's Council, College of Policing) and international advisors. The aim is to inform policy and practice, producing 16 deliverables including policy and practice briefings and research articles.