By Tirion Havard, Sarah Bartley, Ian Mahoney,  Chris Magill,  Chris Flood

This research was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the British Academy, as part of their Understanding Communities programme. The research involved collaboration between four higher-education institutions, namely London South Bank University, The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, Nottingham Trent University and the University of Brighton. Partnerships were also formed with local and national organisations, including Clean Break Theatre Company, Restoke and Staffordshire Women’s Aid. The research focused on two communities: women with convictions (WwC) in Staffordshire and residents of Stoke-on-Trent. It used a mixed methodological approach that involved designing and delivering an arts-based transformative justice (TJ) intervention, undertaking ethnographic observations, running focus groups and conducting interviews with TJ experts. The overarching aims of this project were to see: • if TJ can effectively facilitate social cohesion and promote equality within local communities (for the purposes of this research, ‘equality’ is appraised by exploring strengths, assets, attributes, connectedness, enhanced individual welfare and social well-being); • if TJ can effectively support WwC to reintegrate and resettle into their local communities. To achieve these aims, we set out to explore and meet the following objectives: i. Identify the needs of and barriers faced by WwC when they try to resettle/reintegrate into their local community. ii. Identify and activate the strengths, assets and attributes that local communities can bring to the reintegration and engagement of WwC. iii. Determine the suitability of an arts-based approach to TJ for improving community cohesion. iv. Establish whether TJ can support the reintegration of WwC into their local community by making them feel stronger, more equal and more connected, and assess the broader impact this has on community cohesion. v. Establish whether TJ can enhance individual welfare and social well-being for both WwC and local residents and measure the costeffectiveness of the approach. vi.Inform policy and practice about the needs of WwC and how best to meet them through community-led interventions. vii. Contribute to the literature and knowledge base about using TJ to engage and integrate communities within a UK context. viii. Promote the personal and professional development of all those involved in the project. As a conceptual framework, TJ focuses on overcoming ingrained social and structural barriers to engagement and justice issues including the social, political and economic status of communities and the individuals within them. In focusing on community accountability for crime, victimisation and subsequent support for victims and people convicted of offences, TJ recognises that patriarchal social structures can legitimise violence, particularly towards women, and that the state, in this case the criminal justice system (CJS), perpetuates cycles of abuse and (re) traumatises people. TJ is vital for understanding and exploring societal attitudes to justice, and to engage with difficult conversations around the role that communities can play in addressing the harms associated with the actions of people within them  

Lonron; Nuffield Foundation, 2024. 86p.

By: Omair Gill, Mia Bird, Johanna Lacoe, Molly Pickard, Steven Raphael and Alissa Skog

Consecutive sentencing is a practice where people serve sentences for separate convictions sequentially rather than concurrently. We analyze the application of consecutive sentences among all people admitted to California’s prisons since 2015, as well as the population of people incarcerated as of March 2023. KEY FINDINGS: • Frequency. Most prison admissions (56%) are ineligible for consecutive sentencing because they do not involve convictions for multiple offenses. Among admissions with multiple convictions, half (51%) receive consecutive sentences. In total, consecutive sentences are applied to less than a quarter of prison admissions in California (22%). • Contribution to sentence length. Overall, the time added by consecutive sentences increases the average prison sentence of the entire prison population by 8.5 months (roughly 13%). ◦ Among those admitted with consecutive sentences, it increases the average sentence by 35%, or three years (from 8.6 to 11.6 years). ◦ Consecutive sentences typically involve either the full sentence for an additional offense tagged on to the primary sentence or an additional sentence equal to one-third the prescribed sentence for the lesser ofense. While only 20% of consecutive sentences are for full additional prison terms (80% are for one-third terms), full-term sentences account for roughly 70% of the additional sentence years added through consecutive sentences since 2015. • Contributing factors. Among cases with multiple convictions, consecutive sentences are more likely to be applied when criminal cases involve offenses that occurred in multiple counties, the offenses are serious or violent, the most serious offense is a crime against a person, or the individual has prior prison admissions for serious or violent crimes. ◦ Multivariate models show that the likelihood of a consecutive sentence increases with the number of prior prison admissions, number of convictions, and age of the person admitted. People admitted with second- and third-strike enhancements are more likely (by roughly 12 to 18 percentage points) to receive consecutive sentences relative to admissions with multiple convictions without these enhancements ◦ Offenses receiving one-third consecutive sentences are more likely to involve property offenses, weapons offenses, as well as offenses like evading a police officer or identity theft. By contrast, the offenses receiving full-term consecutive sentences often involve crimes against a person, child victims, and various sex offenses. • County variation. The use of consecutive sentences varies across the state. Counties in far Northern California, excluding the coast, as well as those in the Central Valley, are more likely to impose consecutive sentences. Bay Area counties and most counties in Southern California are less likely to impose consecutive sentences. ◦ Average differences across counties in the types of cases resulting in a prison admission do not explain cross-county differences in the use of consecutive sentencing. ◦ American Indian/Alaskan Native and White people are more likely to receive consecutive sentences largely because they tend to be convicted in counties that are more likely to use consecutive sentencing. The opposite is true for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people. .   

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, 2024. 39p.