Datasets:

Query-of-CC

/

Knowledge_Pile

like 19

Follow

Query-of-CC 1

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center has issued what it calls a first-of-its-kind, web-based resource combining data analyses, case studies and recommended strategies for all 50 states to help policymakers address public safety challenges. The “50-State Report on Public Safety” includes more than 300 “data visualizations” comparing crime, recidivism and correctional practices across all 50 states. The report discusses these data along with research on strategies aimed at improving public safety, giving more than 100 examples of public safety innovations drawn from every state. The center says the report “provides a playbook that policymakers can customize to tackle the issues most relevant to their communities.” Megan Quattlebaum, director of the center said that, “Data and research are essential to successfully addressing the unique conditions in each state.” The report was promised at a 50-state summit held in Washington, D.C., last fall, at which officials were given preliminary data compilations from their states. (See coverage in The Crime Report). The summit was sponsored by the CSG and the Association of State Correctional Administrators. Following up on the summit, the CSG Justice Center is working with more than 15 states to hold statewide forums on public safety with a broad coalition of stakeholders. “There is no shortage of information to examine and consider when it comes to public safety,” Bryan Collier, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, told the center. “ As the head of a state corrections agency, digesting all of the available data can be overwhelming. The 50-State Report on Public Safety organizes a wealth of criminal justice information in one place, creating an important resource that is without equal in its size and scope.” Among the report’s major points: - Between 2006 and 2016, violent crime rates decreased in 32 states. Violent crime increased in rural areas in 16 states. - The number of drug overdose deaths is almost four times higher than the number of homicides. Two decades ago, the numbers were about the same. - In 2015, states spend nearly 10 times as much on prisons as on community supervision of offenders, although there were 4.5 million people on probation and parole and 1.5 million in state prisons. - Most states track recidivism of people leaving prison. Thirty-two states use a narrow definition of the term that includes only people who are reincarcerated, not all rearrests and reconvictions. - Corrections populations increased in the last decade in 42 states, and 24 states project growth in prison populations. According to a press release from the center, Alabama state Sen. Cam Ward praised the report, saying that it “gives policymakers a blueprint for achieving results, and the strategies offered here will be useful for years to come.” Funding for the 50-State Report on Public Safety was provided by the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. Ted Gest is president of Criminal Justice Journalists and Washington bureau chief of The Crime Report.

https://thecrimereport.org/2018/08/01/drug-od-deaths-nearly-four-times-higher-than-homicides-says-50-state-report/

Reducing Incarceration Rates: When Science Meets Political Realities Work in the states documents the difficulty of this challenge, but also reveals some lessons that may help policymakers and other stakeholders reach this aim. As the United States considers ways to improve how it incarcerates people in prisons and jails—and particularly how to reduce the number of people incarcerated—it is first necessary to recognize that there is no single national incarceration policy, but instead 50 distinct state policies and one federal policy. Accordingly, pursuing improvements will require the development and adoption of reforms in 51 separate jurisdictions. An undertaking of this scale may seem overwhelming. But over roughly the past decade, researchers have conducted comprehensive analyses in approximately half of the states to identify and promote significant changes to corrections and public safety policy. As part of this story, the Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) in 2006 launched the Public Safety Performance Project. Continuing today, the project aimed to “help states advance fiscally sound, data-driven policies and practices in the criminal and juvenile justice systems that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and control corrections costs.” The project drew on the experiences of some states, including lessons learned from a comprehensive analysis that the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSGJC) conducted for Connecticut state leaders in 2003 and 2004. Around the same time, sensing a growing demand among states for the types of analyses that the CSGJC provided, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) of the U.S. Department of Justice made funding available to complement Pew’s investment to support the delivery of intensive technical assistance to a limited number of states. Then in 2010, the BJA established the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a public-private partnership between BJA and Pew, with $10 million in funding from Congress for that fiscal year. The Obama administration subsequently recommended a major increase in funding for the initiative, and by fiscal year 2014, with congressional bipartisan support, the annual appropriation had grown to $25 million. Pew and BJA have described their goal for justice reinvestment as being to support state leaders who demonstrate working across party lines to slow, or even reduce, corrections spending and to reinvest some of those savings into strategies that will increase public safety. The CSGJC has played a central role in assessing conditions in the states and delivering technical assistance to them, starting before and continuing after the launch of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. As of 2015, with support from Pew and BJA, the CSGJC has delivered intensive technical assistance to more than 20 states. In addition, Pew has funded, and in some cases provided, technical assistance to an additional 12 states as part of its Public Safety Performance Project. In the normal course of CSGJC’s studies, a team of experts, working over the course of nine to 18 months, conducts exhaustive analyses, in conjunction with local elected officials and stakeholders, to identify areas for policy changes and develop a political consensus to achieve these changes through the legislative process. In almost every case, the level of analysis of the state’s data is more extensive and thorough than anything the state has previously used to inform criminal justice policy. The timeliness of the analyses is essential to coincide with legislative sessions. Findings and recommendations must be distilled into concise actionable reports for policymakers’ consideration. Here, we summarize CSGJC’s work in four states—Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Michigan—and then explore what we have learned from these efforts, including the potential and limits of science in this area. State portraits Based on our experiences in these states and others, we believe that scientific findings supporting the case for “less incarceration” will be insufficient to achieve dramatic shifts in the use of prison and jail. Such an outcome depends on overhauling 50 sets of state laws (to say nothing of the federal system); fundamentally changing the perspective and approach of thousands of locally elected judges, prosecutors, and sheriffs who operate in independent counties and cities; dismantling an industry that supports hundreds of thousands of state and local personnel; and effectively transforming how the public thinks about punishment, particularly for people convicted of violent crimes. It takes, and will continue to take, a lot of hard work by many people at the state level to accomplish these changes. Experts and advocates pushing for reductions in the numbers of people in prison have not paid enough attention to the importance of indigent defense systems. Understanding our efforts in the four states we have singled out first requires a basic grasp of what factors drive increases and decreases in state prison populations, and what type of data policymakers need to inform decisions designed to decrease the number people who are in prison. An increase or a reduction in the number of people in prison results from a change in one of two factors: how many people are admitted to prison, or how long people stay in prison once admitted. Over the past several years, the average length of stay for people incarcerated in prison has increased considerably; according to a 2012 study conducted by Pew, people released from prison in 2009 had served 36% more time than those released in 1990. This increase is the result of a combination of factors, including sentencing laws that allow or require longer prison terms for certain types of offenses, longer percentages of sentences that must be served behind bars, prosecutorial and judicial discretion related to how defendants are charged and how their sentences are disposed, and a decline in the rate that parole is granted by many state parole boards. For these reasons, the number of people leaving prison may decline, and states that have sentenced fewer people to prison have not necessarily seen a reduction in the overall prison population. Consider the simple analogy of water in a bathtub. Even if the water coming out of the bathtub faucet slows, the water level will still rise if the bathtub is not draining at an equal or faster rate. So as sentence lengths have increased and release rates have decreased, even a significant decline in prison admissions due to lower crime is unlikely to cause a state to experience the drop in its prison population it might otherwise expect. State-level data are available that can help policymakers understand changes in each of these areas (sentencing, probation, parole); however, the data comes from different agencies that are not necessarily coordinated or working with each other with the common purpose of providing a cohesive “diagram.” State agencies may have researchers, but they usually are stretched too thin, and more importantly, have no incentives or authority to analyze and review aspects of the system not under their agency’s umbrellas. Finally, given the usual political alliances in a state, researchers and their sponsors may be seen as having an agenda that does not give them broad credibility. The technical assistance provided on a justice reinvestment project is purposely designed to compile a multiagency system analysis, developed through a transparent process working with all key stakeholders, and to create a diagram of the “bathtub and its plumbing.” A rigorous evaluation of corrections trends in a state typically requires the analysis of hundreds of thousands, and often millions, of individual case records, including those related to sentencing, corrections, parole, probation, and criminal history. Data matches involving stand-alone databases that maintain information about arrest histories, prison admissions, participation in treatment programs, and community supervision files are conducted, translating into thousands of hours of research labor. Even with such efforts, an analytical investment does not by itself translate into findings and recommendations that key decision makers in a state will find credible. While the data gathering and analysis is taking place, a bipartisan group of policymakers and stakeholders representing all three branches of government is convened to discuss the information, identify areas for policy reforms, and develop proposals for the governor and legislature to consider. Hundreds of meetings with combinations of prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officials, defense counsel, community corrections administrators, treatment providers, and victim advocates are necessary to present interpretations of the data that incorporate the perspectives of these important stakeholders. Similarly, elected officials will not seriously consider policy recommendations unless they believe that they reflect the input of these key constituencies. This process often has to be repeated, as the flux of state players due to election turnover and changes in constituencies require active engagement. Depending on the state, its complexity and expected timelines for collecting data, conducting the research, engaging stakeholders and legislators, and developing the communications strategy and proposal, the cost of providing technical assistance can range from $500,000 to $950,000 per site. This is funded from different sources as described above. If the policy changes are adopted, a “Phase II” commences to provide technical assistance to the state to help effectively implement the adopted policies. Highlights from the experiences in the four target states include: Texas. At the request of the chairman of the Texas House Corrections Committee (a Republican) and the chairman of the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee (a Democrat), the CSGJC in 2007 conducted an extensive analysis of the state’s criminal justice data and identified three important trends driving the growth in the state’s prison population. First, the number of people whose probation had been revoked and who had been sent to state prison increased 18% between 1997 and 2006, while the number of people on probation supervision had declined by 3% over the same period. Second, reductions in funding and the resulting closure of various community-based programs and facilities caused the number of people awaiting release from prison to the community to balloon (by 2007, more than 2,000 people remained incarcerated while awaiting placement to substance use and mental health treatment programs). Third, parole grant rates were much lower than the parole board’s own guideline requirements (among low-risk individuals, the board fell short of its minimum approval rate by 2,252 releases). Drawing on these findings, the state legislature approved policies effective in the 2008-09 biennial budget that increased treatment capacity in the prison system by 3,700 program slots for substance use treatment (outpatient, in-prison, and post-release) and mental health treatment, and expanded diversion options in the probation and parole system by 3,000 slots for technical violations of the conditions of their supervision or transitional treatment and substance use treatment. The funding for these policies was $241 million for the 2008-09 budget, and was based on the assumption that these policy changes would make building new prisons unnecessary, avoiding $443 million in new construction and operating costs. Indeed, thanks to these policies, the state did not need the approximately 9,000 more prison beds that were forecast in the budget plan first presented to the legislature in 2007. In fact, since then, there has been an unprecedented development in Texas: three prisons have been closed, one in 2011 and two in 2013, for a total reduction of about 5,000 beds. The prison population has declined 4%, even though the state resident population has increased by 20% in the previous decade alone. The state’s incarceration rate has dropped by 10% since 2007, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (part of the Department of Justice). Finally, between 2006 and 2013, the crime rate decreased by 20%. North Carolina. In 2009, the governor and leaders of the North Carolina House and Senate (all Democrats) were faced with projections showing that the state’s prison population would grow 10percent in the next decade. Probation revocations accounted for more than half of prison admissions, and only about 15% of people released from prison received supervision. Over a two-year period, during which a Republican was elected governor and Republicans won majorities of both chambers in the state legislature, the CSGJC analyzed hundreds of thousands of files, conducted extensive policy reviews, and met with hundreds of state and local government officials. In 2011, the state adopted policies addressing these problems, including mandatory post-release supervision; increased funding for community-based treatment and change to the way this treatment is delivered; and a comprehensive set of progressive sanctions for probationers to help them avoid revocation to prison. These policies are projected to save the state up to an estimated $560 million over six years in reduced spending and averted costs. The legislature allocated more than $8 million in treatment funding to its budget for fiscal year 2012 for improving existing community-based treatment resources. When the policies were adopted in June 2011, the state prison population was 41,032. By June 2014, the prison population had dropped to 37,665. Between fiscal years 2011 and 2014, there was a 41% decline in releases without supervision and a 50% decline in probation revocations. By 2013, the crime rate had decreased by 8%, and 10 prisons have been closed to date. Pennsylvania. Between 2000 and 2011, state spending on corrections increased 76%, from $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion, while the prison population increased 40%, from 36,602 to 51,312. The CSGJC worked with state leaders in 2011 and 2012 to produce a set of policies that redesigned the state’s residential community corrections programs to serve as parole transition and violation centers, and provided for a more comprehensive set of sanctioning responses to reduce the number of people revoked to prison for technical violations of the conditions of their parole supervision. The policies also addressed various inefficiencies in the release process, by seeking to reduce the number of days from parole approval to actual release and increase the number of parole-eligible cases heard per month. Finally, the state pursued a performance-based contract system with many of its service providers, requiring that the recidivism outcomes for participants in those programs meet or exceed the baseline set by the state’s department of corrections. These policies are projected to save the state up to an estimated $253 million over five years. According to a statutory formula, the state will reinvest a portion of realized savings into local law enforcement, county probation and parole, and victim services. The prison population began to fall in 2014, marking the first time in over 20 years that a decline had occurred in that state. The population as of June 2015 was 50,366. There has been a sharp decline in the number of people who return to prison due to technical violations of the conditions of their parole, and an aggressive use of local alternative sanctioning to address technical violations of supervision. Between 2011 and 2013, the crime rate in the state decreased by 7%. Based on the success of its first justice reinvestment effort, the state is preparing for another round of analysis to explore whether additional policy or sentencing changes can further reduce the criminal justice population. Michigan. Statewide, one out of every three state employees works for the department of corrections, and one out of every five general fund dollars goes toward the operation of the state prison system. Michigan has analyzed this situation in recent years and implemented a range of diverse strategies, including statewide reentry programs to reduce recidivism and law enforcement efforts to deter crime in cities plagued by violence. Arrests for violent crime, parolee re-arrest rates, and the number of people in prison declined since 2008. In 2013, legislative leaders and the governor expressed concern that corrections spending continued to make up a large portion of the state budget, the public remained concerned about high levels of crime in parts of the state, and the prison population showed signs of increasing again. At the state’s request, the CSGJC conducted an unprecedented study of the state’s felony sentencing system for its impacts on public safety, recidivism trends, and state and local spending. After analyzing 7.5 million individual data records and conducting over 100 in-person meetings and 200 conference calls with stakeholders, our findings showed that the state could improve its sentencing system to achieve more consistency and predictability in sentencing outcomes. The recommended sentencing changes would stabilize and lower costs for the state and counties, and allow some resources to be re-directed to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. In a report to the Michigan Law Revision Commission, a bipartisan group of legislators and members of the general public, the CSGJC presented our analyses and recommendations. With the support of local prosecutors and other law enforcement groups, state legislators introduced four bills in November 2014 to implement the recommended changes to sentencing laws and enact policies designed to increase the effectiveness of community supervision and improve the collection of victim restitution. The bills made their way through the Republican-controlled legislature, received laudatory coverage in newspapers across the state, and neared passage, until the state attorney general launched an aggressive attempt to thwart their passage. The attorney general argued that the state had already shrunk the prison population effectively; these bills put public safety at risk in the name of cost savings; and the sponsor of the legislation intended to rush the bills through during a lame duck session without sufficient consideration for the life-and-death issues at stake. Legislative support for the bills subsequently dissipated and the governor, in the midst of a reelection campaign, stayed silent. In the lame duck session that followed, where the bills’ legislative champion neared the end of his term, two bills passed, one to create a Criminal Justice Policy Commission for four years and another to update the objective and funding goals for the state-operated community corrections program. The more comprehensive sentencing policies died, although they may be reintroduced at a later time. Lessons learned Based on more than 10 years of experience conducting analyses of state criminal justice systems and the results of the CSGJC’s work in the states, we offer here nine lessons for consideration by the growing number of policymakers and others demanding the review of incarceration policies. Lesson One. Conducting the type of “systematic reviews of penal policies” that we have described is a time-consuming, resource-intensive, state-by-state undertaking. Academic institutions typically are not positioned to conduct these types of time-sensitive quantitative analyses, coupled with hundreds of meetings over the course of just a few months. Nor are academic institutions usually accustomed to the quick distillation of extensive research into practical terms that elected officials can easily convert into policy. Few state agencies anywhere have the capacity (or independence or standing among all three branches of state government) to lead this type of process. Therefore, absent an effort similar to the justice reinvestment process, it is unlikely that the states themselves will undertake a systematic review of penal policies. Lesson Two. Research-based recommendations that appear to have the singular goal of significantly reducing the prison population, regardless of the financial savings that would be generated, rarely attract broad, bipartisan support in the states. Similarly, a policy reform package presented to reduce the prison population purely for social justice reasons is typically insufficient to motivate elected officials across the political spectrum. Broad bipartisan support for policy changes that will reduce the prison population is generally contingent on the endorsement of (or at least the absence of concerted opposition from) a cross-section of stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, victim advocates, and other local officials. These constituencies are most inclined to lend such support when they are assured that the policy reforms recommended will strengthen the criminal justice system. In the states where the CSGJC has worked, we have found that policy strategies that reduce a state’s use of prison are most likely to rally this level of support when they effectively demonstrate that they meet one or more of three criteria. The strategies must focus either on opportunities to target limited resources on people most likely to reoffend, reinvest in programs that are effective in changing the behaviors of people involved in the justice system, or strengthen systems of supervision and treatment. In each of these cases, there is extensive research that shows that policies that apply these principles can be successful in reducing recidivism, which may lower prison admissions. But such success is contingent on an adequately resourced system. It is well established, for example, that caseloads for many community corrections officers are in the hundreds and waiting lists for substance use treatment slots are hopelessly long. This picture is consistent in most states. If mental health issues are added to the mix, the picture is even more challenging, with most states not able to meet basic demand for public mental health services for the general population. Again, for example, in Texas, only one-third of adults with the most severe mental illnesses are served by the state-funded community mental health services. Lesson Three. In general, states have been reluctant to reduce minimum sentences terms or to walk back efforts to achieve truth-in-sentencing, particularly for violent offenders. Without a major reduction in sentences and time served in prison for violent offenders, it is virtually impossible to achieve the 50% reduction in incarceration that some observers have advocated. Violent offenders disproportionally consume the most prison space due to their length of stay in prison. A recent examination by the Marshall Project showed that if “100% of all people convicted of drug, public order, and property crimes were released early or sentenced to punishments other than prison time, you would still need to free, say, 30% of robbery offenders to achieve a 50% reduction in the prison population.” Lesson Four. Efforts to reduce the prison population by focusing on people who have committed nonviolent offenses will confront the reality that legislative discussions evolve quickly into a lack of agreement on how to operationalize “non-violent” and how this definition will be applied in reality to particular persons. In state legislatures, advocates for reducing high incarceration rates have to face law enforcement groups, prosecutors, and victim advocates who may agree that certain offenses can be considered non-violent but do not necessarily agree on which persons will qualify as non-violent under sentencing or parole release policies. Lesson Five. States have shown little appetite for directly addressing the issue of racial disproportionality in prison. There have been individual policymakers and stakeholders in the state task forces that the CSGCJ has worked with who have raised the issue of racial disproportionality and have asked for analyses regarding this issue. But in most states where the CSGJC has worked, the governor, leaders in the legislature, and the judiciary have not worked together to make reducing racial disproportionality in the corrections system an explicit goal of their efforts. However, during the justice reinvestment process, some states have created incentives for people in prison or community supervision to earn time off their sentences or be subjected to a sanction for parole or probation violation short of returning to prison. These changes have reduced the number of people on probation or parole supervision returned to prison for minor violations of the conditions of their release. This appears to have had, either directly or indirectly, a positive impact on reducing the racial disproportionality in prison populations. States must have the capacity to collect, analyze, and report data on a routine basis, so that policymakers can monitor trends and hold administrators accountable for outcomes, and adjust policies and funding as necessary. Lesson Six. Experts and advocates pushing for reductions in the numbers of people in prison have not paid enough attention to the importance of indigent defense systems. In a 2009 report, the National Right to Counsel Committee of The Constitution Project extensively documented the neglect of the constitutional right to counsel. Most defendants that end up incarcerated are poor and, in general, receive indigent defense services from systems that are overloaded, short of investigators, and part of a low-paying defense plea machine. Significant improvements and increases in funding are needed in indigent defense systems in the states. In most of the states where the CSGJC has worked, this has not been addressed as part of the reform agenda in any salient manner. Compared with a person without effective counsel, a defendant represented effectively is more likely, following his or her arrest, to have the charges dismissed, to be released on pre-trial supervision, or to receive a sentence to probation instead of to prison. Similarly, a person who is effectively represented and convicted of a crime that carries a prison sentence is more likely to receive a shorter sentence than someone with a similar conviction who does not receive effective representation. Lesson Seven. States must have the capacity to collect, analyze, and report data on a routine basis, so that policymakers can monitor trends and hold administrators accountable for outcomes, and adjust policies and funding as necessary. Some states have these capabilities (such as Texas and Pennsylvania); most do not. Without a consistent and credible way to measure the factors that impact the prison population, the impact of alternatives to incarceration after recidivism, and the cost-effectiveness of policies, it is difficult to sustain policy reform over time. Lesson Eight. The implementation of adopted policies needs to be effective. As complicated as it is to make changes to state statutes or budgets, modifications to policy will not, in and of themselves, have a sustained impact on a state’s incarceration rate. Prosecutors, judges, and the defense bar must embrace the new policies and apply them to everyday decisions regarding arraignment, sentencing, responses to violations of conditions of supervision, and release from prison. Transforming the culture of a community corrections agency, for example, requires, among other things, extensive training and redefined personnel policies that use new metrics to evaluate someone’s performance. Requests for proposals and subsequent contracts to treatment providers must recognize the skills, workforce, and general capacity to deliver the types of services that are being promoted. This is why our justice reinvestment efforts are followed, if possible, by Phase II technical assistance to the states, to provide some momentum for effective implementation. Ultimately, though, no technical assistance can make up for lack of local interest, intense ground-level opposition, or deficient operational leadership. Addressing and overcoming such challenges are the responsibility of state and local policymakers. Lesson Nine. When legislation contemplates significant systems change and carries with it political risk, it must enjoy the unqualified, focused, determined commitment of at least the governor, an especially powerful legislative leader, or an extraordinary judicial leader willing to insert him or herself into legislative affairs, to overcome the inevitable objection of a particular constituency. The example of Michigan illustrates how, even following exhaustive analysis, debate, media coverage, and painstaking negotiation of bipartisan agreements, legislation will die when concerted opposition materializes at the 11th hour and key elected officials determine that they must dedicate limited political capital to other legislative priorities. As part of these lessons, it is worth noting that three large states that have achieved significant declines in incarceration rates did so not because of a data-driven, consensus-based approach to lawmaking (and have done so without the benefit of the justice reinvestment process). In California, the historic declines in its prison population have been achieved only after decades of neglect of the state prison system and severe overcrowding, which the state confronted fully only once the U.S. Supreme Court exhausted the state’s appeals. In 2011, in Brown v. Plata, the court declared: “This case arises from serious constitutional violations in California’s prison system. The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected.” In New York, dramatic reductions in its state prison population have not been achieved as a result of particular legislative changes, but because so many fewer people in New York City were arrested for felony offenses. And in New Jersey, the decline in its prison population is attributed to a combination of crime decreases lowering prison admissions, a change in parole policies due to a court order, and new guidelines issued by the attorney general regarding exempting the lowest drug offenders from minimum sentences due to the “drug free zone laws”. Progress, but challenges remain Advocates seeking to reduce incarceration rates and eliminate mass incarceration view the developments we have described as progress, but hardly success. The incarceration rate of sentenced prisoners under state jurisdiction decreased by 6% between 2006 and 2013, but during the same period, the national violent crime rate decreased by 30% and the property crime rate decreased by 18.%. And as documented here, a lot of hard work by many people has been behind the progress that has been made. Therefore, elected officials, especially at the state and federal level, must now revisit how incarceration fits into their vision—which has become quite entrenched over the past 30 years—of how to provide public safety. The majority of people who are in prison are there because they committed a violent crime. Reducing incarceration rates to levels that preceded the historic investment made in prison construction and operations over the past three decades means that policymakers must reject their long-held notion that lengthy prison sentences are a deterrent to violent crime. They must similarly recognize publicly that incapacitating people who commit such crimes for long periods does little to protect the public. Achieving that sort of shift in mindset requires nothing less than a fundamental cultural change. President Barack Obama’s speech to the NAACP in July 2015 in Philadelphia, where he talked about sentencing changes for non-violent offenders, and his subsequent visit to a federal prison represent unprecedented steps toward such a change. However, for some observers this is not enough, as they argue that to significantly reduce incarceration rates, it will be necessary to address the sentence lengths of those with violent offenses. On a broader level, the public must change how it thinks about punishment—and in particular its desire to see people convicted of violent crimes and sex offenses, as well as people who repeatedly commit property crime, locked up for lengthy periods. Such a conversion in thinking requires a state-by-state (and in many cases county-by-county) conversation, because each state (and communities within that state) has different cultures predisposing residents to different punishment thresholds. For example, for complex historical, geographical, and cultural reasons, states in the South have shared more punitive attitudes than other areas in the country. Therefore, what will be perceived in some quarters as minor changes in how people are punished will require wholesale changes of thinking in other portions of the nation. There is no question that the research community is more unified than ever regarding the negative consequences of high incarceration rates in the United States. The political conversation on incarceration has changed in recent years, with the “right” and the “left” finding more common ground on the need to reduce incarceration rates. Whether this consensus is sufficiently profound to translate into a historic reduction of incarceration rates—of a magnitude on the same order of the massive build up experienced over the past 30 years—remains to be seen. Much will depend on the values that candidates in upcoming elections at the state and national level articulate, along with their willingness to propose specific policy changes for reducing punishments for violent offenders.

https://issues.org/reducing-incarceration-rates-when-science-meets-political-realities/

This fall marks five years since Louisiana enacted its landmark criminal justice reforms. Signed by Governor John Bel Edwards in 2017, the 10 bills passed with strong bipartisan majorities and followed the recommendations of the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force, an interbranch body of justice system leaders and stakeholders. The new laws included changes to sentencing, corrections, and community supervision. In the legislation, policymakers focused on ensuring adequate prison space for those who pose a public safety threat, strengthening probation and parole practices, eliminating barriers to reentering society, and reinvesting savings to reduce recidivism and support victims. Using the most recent publicly available data, here are five findings about how Louisiana’s system has changed since the reforms took effect. 1. The state’s prison population has fallen 24%, driven entirely by a decline in people convicted of nonviolent offenses. Louisiana’s reforms sought to steer people convicted of less serious crimes away from prison and shorten the time incarcerated for those who could be safely supervised in the community. In the summer of 2017, before the new laws took effect, there were about 35,500 people under the Louisiana Department of Corrections’ jurisdiction held in prisons or local jails throughout the state. By the summer of 2022, that number had fallen nearly a quarter to about 27,000. A report recently presented to lawmakers showed that the declining prison population was entirely driven by a reduction in people convicted of nonviolent offenses. That number shrank by about 11,000 between 2016 and 2021. Over the same period, the number of individuals who were incarcerated for violent offenses increased by almost 1,400. These trends changed the composition of Louisiana’s prison population. Before the reforms, more than half of prison beds in the state were occupied by people convicted of nonviolent offenses. By 2021, that share had fallen to just 1 in 3. The racial makeup of Louisiana’s prison population has not seen similar changes. According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, Black people made up 67% of the prison population in 2016 and 2020—a number that is double the share of the state’s Black resident population. 2. More than $100 million has been reinvested to support victims and prevent re-offending, and recidivism rates are declining. During fiscal year 2017, Louisiana spent $625 million on adult corrections—the state’s third-highest state expenditure after health care and education, according to a report by the Louisiana Justice Reinvestment Task Force. By reducing the number of people in prison, the state saved taxpayer dollars. Policymakers were able to reinvest the majority of those savings into programs that would reduce recidivism, provide services to victims, and strengthen the juvenile justice system. By the summer of 2022, the state had saved $153 million and reinvested $107 million as follows: - $18.3 million to strengthen the juvenile justice system. - $17.7 million to support victims. - $70.8 million to community-run organizations and Department of Corrections initiatives that support re-entry and reduce recidivism. And today that reinvestment is showing signs of success. Recidivism rates have fallen by roughly a quarter since enactment of the reforms. In 2016, the share of people who returned to prison within one year after release was 15%; by 2020, that rate had fallen to 11%. 3. Similar to national trends, Louisiana’s property crime rate fell while violent crime remained below 2016 rates—until an uptick in 2020. Despite public perception to the contrary, research has found incarceration to have only a marginal impact on crime, and no association between higher imprisonment rates and lower violent crime rates. Nevertheless, public safety has been a focus of policymakers and the public; Louisiana’s crime rates show patterns similar to national trends. In the United States, property crime rates declined in recent years while violent crime rates inched downwards before increasing 5% between 2019 and 2020, according to the FBI’s summary crime data. In Louisiana, property crime rates fell 13% between 2016 and 2020. Violent crime fluctuated slightly but remained below 2016 rates until 2020 when rates increased 14% over the previous year. Louisiana was among 15 states that saw violent crime rate increases of 10% or more from 2019 to 2020. Some researchers hypothesize that an increase in gun sales and the destabilizing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as higher rates of unemployment, may have contributed to the jump in violent crime. But recent data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI show that states can cut imprisonment and crime rates at the same time. Nearly every state saw decreases in their imprisonment rate between 2019 and 2020, regardless of whether their crime rates increased, decreased, or stayed the same. 4. The community supervision population is nearly 40% smaller since the reforms, yielding more manageable caseloads for officers. Louisiana’s new laws encouraged use of probation as an alternative to incarceration and increased opportunities for people to earn supervised release from prison. The state also adopted evidence-based supervision practices to shorten the length of time people serve on probation or parole. These changes allowed officers to focus on the beginning of a person’s sentence, when, research shows, people are more likely to violate the conditions of their supervision. From 2016 to 2022, the number of individuals under community supervision declined by 38% from about 72,000 to just under 45,000. This reduction meant smaller caseloads for probation and parole officers. According to data collected by the state, average caseload size fell from 140 per officer to 91, allowing officers to give more individualized attention to cases and better address the needs of each person under supervision. (See Figure 2.) 5. Louisiana no longer leads the nation in imprisonment rates, especially when assessing nonviolent offenses. For decades, Louisiana held the dubious distinction of imprisoning more of its residents than any other state. Not long after enacting the reforms, it dropped to the number two spot; however, because other states have also reduced the number of people in their prisons, Louisiana remains in that second spot despite its still-declining prison population. Louisiana falls farther from the top, though, when looking at imprisonment rates for nonviolent offenses. In 2016, the state imprisoned people convicted of nonviolent offenses above other states with high total imprisonment rates, but by 2021, Louisiana’s nonviolent imprisonment rate was below these peers, including Mississippi, Arkansas, and Arizona. (See Figure 3.) Michelle Russell leads analysis of jails and courts data for Pew’s public safety performance project.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/11/01/5-years-in-5-things-to-know-about-louisianas-justice-system

Since 2011, Erie County, New York has experienced a 15 percent decrease in total arrests, part of an overall reduction in violent crime arrest and sentencing rates. However, Erie County officials noticed that its reentry population – defined as adults returning from federal, state, and local correctional agencies – experienced a dramatic increase in parole revocations. Erie County had previously partnered with the Greater Buffalo Racial Equity Roundtable (RER) to initiate conversations around how to improve reentry, from convening the appropriate stakeholders to identifying the desired outcomes for the enhanced reentry system. To further understand the needs of its reentry population and reduce the number of people whose paroles are revoked, Erie County requested technical assistance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Through the BJA National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC), Erie County partnered with The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center to assess its existing reentry resources and services and provide recommendations to enhance outcomes for people involved in the criminal justice system and help reduce recidivism rates across the country. The CSG Justice Center conducted a multifaceted, comprehensive mapping exercise of the county’s reentry resources. Leveraging the preexisting support from county leadership and the Greater Buffalo RER, the team conducted multiple focus groups, interviews, and surveys during site visits and meetings with reentry service providers, district judges, and county officials and directors (including those from corrections, housing, and health agencies). Additionally, the team analyzed services based on data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) and Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Notably, the county committed to an all-inclusive reentry assessment, choosing to consider the entire returning population rather than targeting smaller groups such as jail-only populations or probation/parole populations. Lack of coordination across reentry agencies, providers, and populations. Unequal access to high-quality, evidence-based services across the reentry populations. Lack of evidence-based practices in the selection of reentry service provider contracts. Low participation in pre- and post- release programs due to lack of funding, incentives to participate, and promotion. To address these challenges, the CSG Justice Center examined several areas of interest, including the intake process and pre-release programming of federal, state, and local correctional facilities; DOCCS and DCJS data; and county probation caseloads and data. This data revealed information about reentry service capacity, populations served, the use of evidence-based processes and tools, and barriers to reentry services. Onsite interviews and surveys of agencies and other partners were also critical for identifying the overlaps and gaps in current processes and services. Additionally, the team coordinated with the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC) to pull examples of other jurisdictions’ work in reentry assessment and improvement. Develop a cross-agency coordinating committee to provide guidance to funders and service providers on engaging reentry populations, developing eligibility criteria, and collaborating with partners and stakeholders. The committee would develop a shared set of reentry goals across Erie County, as well as track reentry-related agencies, service providers, and available funding. Explore the implementation of a physical or virtual reentry hub to co-locate provider services, collect preliminary risk and needs assessments, and store data from correctional and supervising agencies and reentry providers. This hub would help reduce duplicative services and expand access to resources, including family services, health and housing assistance, public benefits, and legal services. Increase the accountability of agencies and service providers. This recommendation includes developing a strategy for assessing if correctional agencies and service providers are offering high-quality programming grounded in evidence-based practices. Additionally, county leaders would develop standards and performance measures (including milestones and expected outcomes) to guide funding decisions. Develop incentives for participation in pre-release and community supervision programming, such as early release from probation/parole or motivational interviewing. Throughout the assessment, Erie County and its partners demonstrated a deep commitment to using the quantitative and qualitative data collected to effectively transform its reentry system and guide the reallocation of reentry resources and services to achieve the greatest impact. Since the assessment, the county established its own implementation task force, consisting of two committees with leaders recruited from its stakeholder groups, to oversee the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the initial report. The data-informed lessons gained from the Erie County reentry system mapping exercise are scalable to other jurisdictions across the United States. While Erie County shaped its strategy for combining the right mix of services for its reentry population by using local data, the county also leveraged information from other programs about the technical aspects of reentry (e.g., from NRRC resources). The implementation of coordinated reentry services requires a deep understanding of: the service providers and criminal justice agencies involved, as well as their commitment and support; the types of services needed (e.g., workforce training, housing, mental health, substance abuse treatment); and how these stakeholders can partner together to deliver services effectively and efficiently. Visit the NRRC website for reentry resources and more information about other jurisdictions’ work to assess and enhance reentry systems. To submit the work of your organization or jurisdiction for consideration to be featured in a future BJA NTTAC TTA Spotlight, please email BJANTTAC@ojp.usdoj.gov. If your agency or community is interested in reentry strategies or would like to apply for technical assistance, please contact BJA NTTAC at BJANTTAC@ojp.usdoj.gov to discuss your unique criminal justice needs.

https://bjatta.bja.ojp.gov/media/tta-spotlight/assessing-and-expanding-reentry-services-and-resources-erie-county-new-york

SALT LAKE CITY – Gov. Gary R. Herbert, Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, House Speaker Becky Lockhart, Chief Justice Matthew Durrant and Attorney General Sean Reyes have charged the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice with developing a comprehensive set of data-driven recommendations to increase public safety, while limiting expected growth of the state’s prison budget. The commission will submit recommendations to the governor and Legislature in November for consideration in the 2015 legislative session. “We’re calling on the foremost experts on public safety to create a new roadmap for our criminal justice system,” Herbert said, according to a statement released by his office Tuesday. “The prison gates must be a permanent exit from the system, not just a revolving door. Just like every other area of government, we need to ensure we are getting the best possible results for each taxpayer dollar.” Historically, Utah has maintained a modest incarceration rate while the crime rate has steadily declined. However, in the last decade, the state’s prison population has grown 22 percent. The state projects it will grow by another 37 percent over the next two decades, requiring 2,700 new prison beds. The state’s recidivism rate, measured by the share of offenders returning to prison within three years of being released, is 46 percent. “The Legislature must not simply consider when and where and how big to build our new state prison, but also what kind of a criminal justice system will be best for Utah in the years to come,” Niederhauser said. “It is time to reassess our sentencing and corrections policies to ensure offenders not only pay their debt to society, but become productive, strong law-abiding citizens upon their release.” The state will receive technical assistance from The Pew Charitable Trusts through the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, a public-private partnership between Pew and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. Over the past several years, more than half of the states — including Georgia, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota and Texas — have enacted justice reinvestment strategies to control their corrections spending and protect public safety. They do so by focusing their prison space on serious, chronic, and violent offenders and investing savings from averted prison growth into probation, parole, and other mandatory supervision practices that save taxpayer dollars and cut crime. Pew’s public safety performance project has worked with states across the country as they have developed fiscally sound data-driven legislation that will protect public safety, hold offenders accountable and control costs. States today spend more than $50 billion per year on corrections, yet recidivism rates remain stubbornly high. More than 4-in-10 offenders nationwide return to state prison within three years of their release, according to a press release issued by the Pew Charitable Trusts in April 2011. “Utah should be proud of our achievements in corrections and public safety,” Lockhart said. “But we are not a state that settles for ‘good enough.’ Eventually, offenders serve their time and get released. So the pressing issue is how to make it less likely that they will commit new offenses.” More knowledge regarding recidivism is present now than in the past 40 years, Durrant said. “Programs like drug and mental health courts, for example, have transformed the way we hold nonviolent offenders accountable and reduce repeat crime,” he said. “We must examine these and other evidence-based programs and practices as we build a more effective and efficient sentencing and corrections system in the state.” The program effort will identify ways Utah can shift its efforts to prevent crime and recidivism, Reyes said. “We need to ensure there is enough prison space for violent and career criminals while employing new and traditional tools of the justice system to restore lower-level offenders’ chances of reentering society as productive members, thereby shifting our incarceration focus to more effective, less expensive alternatives,” he said. In January, Herbert said in his State of the State Address that a full review of Utah’s criminal justice system will aim toward reform. Preliminary data findings show - Utah’s prison population increased 22 percent over the last 10 years and is projected to grow 37 percent over the next two decades - Prisoners are spending an average 18 percent longer in prison than they did 10 years ago - 46 percent of all offenders leaving prison return within three years. - Probation and parole violators make up two-thirds of admissions to prison - 62 percent of people sentenced to prison for a new crime were convicted of a nonviolent offense Related posts - Washington County Veterans Court, now in session - Perspectives: When did we start sending our kids off to prison? - Use real money, go to federal prison - Should sex offenders be allowed on Facebook? Email: [email protected] Twitter: @STGnews Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2014, all rights reserved.

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/08/08/hrc-prison-gates-permanent-exits-or-revolving-doors-officials-seek-roadmap-to-reform/

What crimes have the highest recidivism rates? The most frequently listed prior convictions were property crimes, closely followed by drug crimes. Drug crimes had a recidivism rate of 62.7%. Other felonies had the highest recidivism rate at 74.2%, followed closely by property crimes at 66.4%. What does recidivist mean in English? : one who relapses specifically : a habitual criminal. Other Words from recidivist Example Sentences Learn More about recidivist. Can a person be a habitual delinquent without being a recidivist? A habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist, and in imposing the principal penalty upon him the aggravating circumstance of recidivism has to be taken into account. Do three strikes laws work? “3 Strikes” Laws Won’t Deter Most Violent Crimes Its supporters claim that “3 Strikes” laws will have a deterrent effect on violent crime. According to the American Bar Association, out of the approximately 34 million serious crimes committed each year in the U.S., only 3 million result in arrests. What is another word for recidivism? Recidivism Synonyms – WordHippo Thesaurus….What is another word for recidivism? |relapse||regression| |reoffending||relapsing| |reoffense||backslide| |repetition||retrogradation| |reverting to old habits||fall| What is an example of recidivism? Recidivism is defined as doing something bad or illegal again after having been punished or after having stopped a certain behavior. For example, a petty thief who is released from jail promptly steals something else the first day. It is a major problem in the United States. What are the causes of recidivism? The cause of recidivism is complex and likely due to a combination of personal, sociological, economic, and lifestyle factors. Common explanations for recidivism include: Elements within the criminal justice system might make someone more likely to engage in criminal behavior. What are the requisites of habitual delinquency? “For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or … What is recidivism and why is it a problem? At its heart, recidivism is a person’s tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior, especially a relapse into criminal behavior. When it comes to criminal justice in the United States, for a long time, and largely is the case still today, penal codes are focused far more on punishment. Why is it important to reduce recidivism? Research shows that close and positive family relationships during incarceration reduce recidivism, improve an individual’s likelihood of finding and keeping a job after prison, and ease the harm to family members separated from their loved ones. What is the current recidivism rate in the US? 43% What does habitual criminality mean? A habitual criminal is a person who has a criminal record indicating a propensity to crime and may be subject to harsher penalties under some state statutes, which vary by state. If the person has two or three previous convictions within a specified time, the punishment for future crimes may be increased. How do you use recidivism? Recidivism sentence example - Recommittals were frequent and recidivism on the increase. - Can Improved Access to Education in our Prisons Really reduce recidivism ? - Despite the criminal element (a significant percentage of Watchers are former criminals) the recidivism rate approaches zero. Why is quasi recidivism considered a special aggravating circumstances? Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. It cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance because Article 160 specifically provides that the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. Does parole reduce recidivism? Jeremy Travis (May 2000), in a study reported by the National Institute of Justice, concluded that parole does not reduce recidivism but does just the opposite. The numbers increase in the criminal justice system when parole is not successful and the parolee is returned to the system. What is the difference between recidivism and habitual delinquent? Habitual Delinquency vs. Recidivism Difference between recidivism and habitual delinquency: 1. Number of crimes – in recidivism, there must be at least two crimes committed; while in habitual delinquency, there must be at least three crimes committed. How does recidivism affect society? Re-offending results in more crimes in our communities, and puts all of us at risk of becoming a victim of crime. Recidivism also destroys families. This absence of a male role model results in an increased chance of children resorting to criminal behavior themselves. What is quasi recidivist? Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same. He shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. What are recidivist laws? Recidivist statutes, also termed habitual offender laws, significantly. increase the prison sentences handed down to persons convicted of a violent. crime or serious felony. In fact, these statutes require that those offenders be. given a prison sentence of a significant number of years (usually twenty- Who decides a crime? Each state decides what conduct to designate a crime. Thus, each state has its own criminal code. Congress has also chosen to punish certain conduct, codifying federal criminal law in Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Criminal laws vary significantly among the states and the federal government. How does recidivism affect the economy? According to the Center for American Progress, criminal recidivism reduces annual GDP by $65 billion a year. Moving to a less punitive criminal justice system in which prisoners have access to more educational and job-training opportunities would reduce recidivism, and, by expanding the labor force, boost the economy. What is Praeter Intentionem? “Praeter intentionem” is defined as having an injurious result that is greater than that intended. The Revised Penal Code describes it as no intention to commit so grave a wrong. Which country has the highest recidivism rate? China How can we prevent recidivism? Even very basic education, like adult literacy and basic skills, can significantly reduce the rate of recidivism. Allowing inmates to finish their high school diplomas, learn a trade and technical skills, and pursue post-secondary educational opportunities while incarcerated can greatly reduce recidivism as well. Is incarceration proven to reduce recidivism? Evidence-based prison programming has been shown to reduce recidivism, save taxpayer expenditures, increase future employment for individuals who are incarcerated, and decrease rule violations in prison facilities. Substance abuse treatment in one California prison resulted in a 48 percent reduction in reincarceration. What is the purpose of destierro? What is destierro? Destierro means banishment or only a prohibition from residing within the radius of 25 kilometers from the actual residence of the accused for a specified length of time. It is not imprisonment. How much time can a habitual offender get? s 5: Am 1978 No 155, Sch 4; 1988 No 131, Sch 29; 2001 No 56, Sch 2.20. (1) The judge who, pursuant to the provisions of section 4, has pronounced a person to be an habitual criminal, shall pass a sentence of imprisonment upon such person for a term of not less than five years nor more than fourteen years. How many times is considered habitual? The definition of a habitual offender is any person that commits the same crime or breaks the same law more than once, usually three times or more, within a three year period. What is the 3 strikes law in GA? Three Strikes Rule: Under this section, any person convicted of three felonies shall, upon conviction for such fourth offense or for subsequent offenses, serve the maximum time provided and shall not be eligible for parole until the maximum sentence has been served. How much time does a habitual felon get in NC? The violent habitual felon laws were enacted in 1994. They provide for a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a defendant who, having already been convicted of two violent felonies, commits a third. Finally, the habitual breaking and entering laws were enacted in 2011.

https://musicofdavidbowie.com/what-crimes-have-the-highest-recidivism-rates/

The Neighborhood Justice Program (NJP) is one of many community-based initiatives created by Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles City Attorney, to reshape how a governmental prosecutorial agency engages with the numerous public safety challenges a city like Los Angeles faces. NJP and other programs underneath the Community Justice Initiative (CJI), such as the Dispute Resolution Program (DRP), the Homeless Engagement and Response Team (HEART), the LA Diversion Outreach and Opportunities for Recovery (LA DOOR) program, and the Prostitution Diversion Program (PDP) among others, view these challenges from a relational perspective. It is, in part, this relational perspective, where crime is viewed as a rupture in our interconnectedness, that makes NJP and the other programs so effective. Through a broad overview of NJP, I will explore how this relational perspective is implemented and some of the results created by it. NJP is a diversionary program based on restorative justice principles and handles a variety of misdemeanor offenses at the pre-filing and post-filing stages. It gives participants the opportunity to go through a community-based intervention instead of the traditional criminal justice system and avoid the possibility of a misdemeanor conviction while repairing the potential harm to the community caused by the offense. Participants must take responsibility for their actions, go through a panel process, and complete co-created obligations within a two (2) month time period for their case to be closed. Once participants cases have been closed, they are invited to participate in the program as a volunteer. The panel process is at the heart of NJP. The panel consists of a participant, a trained facilitator, three (3) volunteer community panelists, the victim when available, and an administrative coordinator (AC). Generally, all members of the panel sit in a circle, shoulder to shoulder, without tables or other physical obstructions between them. The intentional positioning of the members of the panel in a circle begins to lessen the inherent power dynamics and reminds us of our shared humanity. Currently, NJP has adopted a virtual format via videoconferencing due to the pandemic. The facilitator opens the panel by going over the confidentiality of the process and the basic format of the conversation to follow. The panel conversation occurs in four main parts: 1) getting to know the participant and/or victim; 2) what happened and why from the participant and/or victim’s perspective; 3) what was the harm caused by the participant’s choices and to whom, and; 4) how we can repair the harm. Getting to know the participant and/or victim is one step in humanizing the process. Open ended questions are asked, and the participant and/or victim are given the space to share as much or as little as desired. Commonality with, and understanding of the other, is sought by the panelists. We begin to explore what might be some of the root causes to the event and the harm caused by it. The next phase of the conversation explores what happened from the participant’s and/or victim’s perspective and why. Details and reasons often range from clear and concise to blurred or nonexistent on a case-by-case basis. We ask ourselves to sit in the discrepancies between the police report depicting the event and the participant’s and/or victim’s recollection. In the process, we are not tasked with fact finding. We are tasked to engage in deep active listening. In the third phase of the conversation we, starting with the participant, name the potential harms created by the participant’s choices. We examine how the event ripples out and affects all of us and the community in different ways. We also include the impact on the participant. By doing this, we break down the concepts of “us” and “them” and move deeper into operating from a relational framework of simply “us” as an interconnected community. The last phase of the process is exploring how we repair the harm and co-create obligations for the participant to complete within a two (2) month period of post-panel engagement. If we have listened well, these obligations are created out of the conversation organically and activate our capacity for creative problem solving. Obligations are individualized to each participant on a case-by-case basis and can range from community service to letters of reflection and/or apology to other creative solutions. We do not want to over or under burden the participant, and during this process we ask ourselves to hold the dynamic tension between compassion and accountability. At the end of the two (2) month engagement period, participants show proof of completion of the agreed upon obligations or the case is returned for prosecution. Initially, participants qualified for NJP if they committed a narrow range of eight (8) misdemeanor offenses and had no previous convictions. Due to the effectiveness of the program, participants are now eligible from a wide range of misdemeanors and individuals with previous convictions are deemed eligible on a case-by-case basis. Participants are all adults, ranging in age from eighteen (18) to approximately ninety-three (93) years of age. Participants also represent a wide range of socio-economic classes and racial/cultural identities with a majority of the participant population skewing to the eighteen (18) to twenty-five (25) age range, lower to median socioeconomic class, and Latino demographics (Los Angeles City Attorney, 2020). All the participants in the panel process are volunteers. The only exception is the AC who is a paid employee of the City Attorney’s Office. The program cannot function without the ongoing participation of the volunteer community members. Panelists and facilitators all go through required trainings, fingerprinting, and background checks to volunteer with NJP. There are close to two hundred (200) active panelists every month in order to cover each panel location. NJP has trained over four hundred (400) volunteers to date. Volunteers also represent a wide range of age, socio-economic classes, and racial/cultural identities with a majority of the volunteer population skewing toward middle to older age range, median to upper socioeconomic class, and White demographics. The ACs, who are trained in motivational interviewing, implicit-bias, intergroup relations, and effective questioning, also serve a key role in the program’s functioning and success. The AC makes initial contact with each participant, breaks down the program, completes a risk and needs assessment, schedules, and attends the participant’s panel, maintains contact with participants post-panel, and returns cases for filing if necessary. To be successful in their role, ACs must be adept at building and maintaining relationships, community engagement, data management, and program development along with other areas of expertise. They also provide the containing relational space for the process to unfold and must protect it when necessary. What are the results of this process? We first look at quantifiable and then qualitative results. The primary measures that can be quantified are recidivism rates and overall cost per case. NJP tracks recidivism over a two (2) year period at six, twelve eighteen, and twenty-four month intervals. The NJP database is fluid and recidivism percentages have a degree of variance depending on when data is processed. With that being said, the recidivism rate for NJP participants is generally around four (4) to five (5) percent with a variance of approximately point five (0.5) percent. Compare this with potential recidivism rate for felonies from thirty-five (35) (Bird, Goss & Nguyen, 2019) to roughly fifty (50) percent (Auditor of the State of California, 2019). Granted, there may be a margin of error in comparing recidivism rates between misdemeanor and felony offenses. Misdemeanor recidivism rates data is not as widely available for direct comparison purposes. Due to this, NJP engaged an independent third party to track a cohort of successfully completed NJP participants and convicted misdemeanor offenders over a two (2) year period. NJP participants recidivism rate was approximately three (3) to five (5) times lower than the convicted misdemeanor offenders recidivism rate(Los Angeles City Attorney, 2020). These are promising results though can also be skewed due to case type, severity, case selection process, etc. The next quantifiable data which can be measured to a degree is the overall fiscal cost per case to taxpayers and defendants. There is a high level of complexity in calculating an accurate cost per crime or judicial case (Hunt, Anderson, & Saunders, 2017) When we consider per case or per crime cost, we must factor in multiple variables including, but not limited to, the following: court personnel costs, police personnel costs, prosecutorial costs, public defender costs, length and duration of case costs and potential long term costs of recidivism (Hunt, Anderson, & Saunders, 2017). The combination of all these factors would most likely lead to a relative high cost per case when compared to NJP. Secondly, we must consider the immediate and potential ongoing cost of a misdemeanor conviction to our participants. Our current misdemeanor system inflicts multiple fiscal penalties on individuals and can be viewed as a way to monetize low level offenses (Natapoff, 2018). These financial burdens can lead to individuals spending time in jail or probation as they struggle to pay off the debt thus creating a greater overall fiscal cost to all of us for a low-level offense (Natapoff, 2018). For one man, as PBS NewsHour highlights, the impact a misdemeanor conviction has on his ability to be employed remains long after his initial conviction and consequent restitution (PBS NewsHour, 2015). The difficulty he experiences in getting and maintaining employment is not uncommon (PBS NewsHour, 2015). NJP and programs like it avoid or minimize these potential costs. To get a rough determination of the per case cost for NJP, we need to take into consideration the salaries of six (6) ACs, one (1) legal clerk, and one (1) supervising attorney along with other miscellaneous costs. We would then divide the total operating cost of NJP by the total number of cases resolved to get an approximate cost per resolved case. The NJP average cost per participant is approximately $710. This represents an average savings of eighty-three (83) percent when compared to the $4,277 cost of a typical misdemeanor case in California (Rempel et al., 2018). Secondly, NJP provides two (2) primary benefits to participants: there is no financial burden to go through the program, and there is no risk of a misdemeanor conviction nor the long-term consequences that follow a conviction. These benefits provide a stark contrast to the previously explored costs. What are some of the qualitative results? Participants complete an exit survey after each panel. Participants frequently report they enjoy the NJP process, feel respected, valued, and understood. Due to having multiple participants become volunteer panelists, I imagine those positive results and impact of the program would continue over time for other individuals. Due to budgetary and staffing constraints, the ability to track survey results over the same two (2) year period as recidivism is limited. The panel process gives us an opportunity to model healthy ways of being in relationship, especially when in conflict and holding each other accountable. Any disagreements among panelists are resolved in front of the participant, further modeling the individualized nature of the process. All parties are changed when we engage in a relational process with courage and vulnerability. Volunteers often express how they have become better people through their involvement in NJP and the panel process. My own ability to be in relationship has also grown, matured, and developed both personally and professionally. I come from a family system that did not provide healthy examples of how to be in conflict, relationship, or community. Participants and volunteers have modeled for me the courage, vulnerability, and commitment it takes to be deeply engaged in community and relationship. I often feel that I have gained more from my experience with them than they may have from me. Other ACs report similar experiences of growth and development. Restorative justice is not a new concept nor are programs based on it. It does, though, provide a much-needed shift from our hyper-individualistic notion of justice and reminds us of our interconnectedness. If these concepts resonate with you, I invite you to find out more about NJP at https://www.lacityattorney.org/njpand consider volunteering. NJP operates at the intersection of mental health and criminal justice reform. NJP and programs like it need the support and skill sets trained mental health professionals can offer. References Auditor of the State of California. (2019, January 31). California department of corrections and rehabilitation: several poor administrative practices have hindered reductions in recidivism and denied inmates access to in-prison rehabilitation programs. Auditor of the State of California. https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2018-113.pdf Bird, M., Goss, J. & Nguyen, V. (2019, June 20). Recidivism of felony offenders in California. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/recidivism-of-felony-offenders-in-california/#:~:text=We%20find%3A,41%20percent%20to%2035%20percent Hunt, P., Anderson, J. & Saunders, J. (2017). The price of justice: new national and state-level estimates of the judicial and legal costs of crime to taxpayers. American Journal of Criminal Justice.42:231-254. DOI 10.1007/s12103-016-9362-6. Los Angeles City Attorney (2020). Criminal case management system. Natapoff, A. (2018). Punishment without crime: how our massive misdemeanor system traps the innocent and makes America more unequal. Basic Books. PBS NewsHour (2015, July 5). How even misdemeanor violations can have lasting consequences on job prospects. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP4s9ZKSx34&t=16s. Rempel, M., Labriola, M., Hunt ,P., Davis, R., Reich ,W. & Cherney S. (2018). NIJ’s multisite evaluation of prosecutor-led diversion programs: strategies, impacts, and cost-effectiveness. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251665.pdf NJP recidivism data and source material provided by Jose A. Egurbide, Assistant to the Chief of the Criminal and Special Litigation Branch, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney. NJP average cost per participant data and source material provided by Jose A. Egurbide, Assistant to the Chief of the Criminal and Special Litigation Branch, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney.

https://herediatherapy.com/the-neighborhood-justice-program-a-relational-response-to-crime/

Abstract Expressionism is a term applied to a movement in American painting that flourished in New York City after World War II, sometimes referred to as the New York School or, more narrowly, as action painting. The varied work produced by the Abstract Expressionists resists definition as a cohesive style; instead, these artists shared an interest in using abstraction to convey strong emotional or expressive content. Abstract Expressionism had a great impact on both the American and European art scenes during the 1950s. Indeed, the movement marked the shift of the creative centre of modern painting from Paris to New York City in the postwar decades. In the course of the 1950s, the movement’s younger followers increasingly followed the lead of the colour-field painters and, by 1960, its participants had generally drifted away from the highly charged expressiveness of the Action painters. The early Abstract Expressionists had two notable forerunners: Arshile Gorky, who painted suggestive biomorphic shapes using a free, delicately linear, and liquid paint application; and Hans Hofmann, who used dynamic and strongly textured brushwork in abstract but conventionally composed works. Another important influence on nascent Abstract Expressionism was the arrival on American shores in the late 1930s and early ’40s of a host of Surrealists and other important European avant-garde artists who were fleeing Nazi-dominated Europe. Such artists greatly stimulated the native New York City painters and gave them a more intimate view of the vanguard of European painting. The Abstract Expressionist movement itself is generally regarded as having begun with the paintings done by Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning in the late 1940s and early ’50s. Technically, an important predecessor is surrealism, with its emphasis on spontaneous, automatic, or subconscious creation. Jackson Pollock’s dripping paint onto a canvas laid on the floor is a technique that has its roots in the work of André Masson, Max Ernst, and David Alfaro Siqueiros. The newer research tends to put the exile-surrealist Wolfgang Paalen in the position of the artist and theoretician who fostered the theory of the viewer-dependent possibility space through his paintings and his magazine DYN. Paalen considered ideas of quantum mechanics, as well as idiosyncratic interpretations of the totemic vision and the spatial structure of native-Indian painting from British Columbia and prepared the ground for the new spatial vision of the young American abstracts. His long essay Totem Art (1943) had considerable influence on such artists as Martha Graham, Isamu Noguchi, Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman. Around 1944 Barnett Newman tried to explain America’s newest art movement and included a list of “the men in the new movement.” Paalen is mentioned twice; other artists mentioned are Gottlieb, Rothko, Pollock, Hofmann, Baziotes, Gorky and others. Motherwell is mentioned with a question mark. Another important early manifestation of what came to be abstract expressionism is the work of American Northwest artist Mark Tobey, especially his “white writing” canvases, which, though generally not large in scale, anticipate the “all-over” look of Pollock’s drip paintings. The movement’s name is derived from the combination of the emotional intensity and self-denial of the German Expressionists with the anti-figurative aesthetic of the European abstract schools such as Futurism, the Bauhaus, and Synthetic Cubism. Additionally, it has an image of being rebellious, anarchic, highly idiosyncratic and, some feel, nihilistic. In practice, the term is applied to any number of artists working (mostly) in New York who had quite different styles, and even to work that is neither especially abstract nor expressionist. California abstract expressionist Jay Meuser, who typically painted in the non-objective style, wrote about his painting Mare Nostrum, “It is far better to capture the glorious spirit of the sea than to paint all of its tiny ripples.” Pollock’s energetic “action paintings”, with their “busy” feel, are different, both technically and aesthetically, from the violent and grotesque Women series of Willem de Kooning’s figurative paintings and the rectangles of color in Mark Rothko’s Color Field paintings (which are not what would usually be called expressionist, and which Rothko denied were abstract). Yet all four artists are classified as abstract expressionists. The abstract expressionists were mostly based in New York City, and also became known as the New York school. The name evokes their aim to make art that while abstract was also expressive or emotional in its effect. They were inspired by the surrealist idea that art should come from the unconscious mind, and by the automatism of artist Joan Miró. Abstract expressionism is the term applied to new forms of abstract art developed by American painters such as Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Willem de Kooning in the 1940s and 1950s. It is often characterised by gestural brush-strokes or mark-making, and the impression of spontaneity Key artists: Jackson Pollock, Lee Krasner, Mark Rothko, Willem de Kooning, Elaine de Kooning, Barnett Newman, Clyfford Still, Franz Kline, Harold Shapinsky, Robert Motherwell, Helen Frankenthaler, Cy Twombly, Ann Ryan, Ad Reinhardt Key dates: 1940s and 1950s References:

https://ndrw.me/abstract-expressionist/

Betty Parsons included in Abstract Expressionism Revisited at Guild Hall Museum, East Hampton, NY. The institution's press release follows: This exhibition of paintings, works on paper, and sculpture will celebrate the outstanding collection of Abstract Expressionist art owned by Guild Hall. Abstract Expressionism was an avant-garde movement of the 1950s that resulted, in part, from the dynamic interplay of artists working on the East End. Among the participants in this “artist colony” of the Hamptons were permanent residents and summer visitors. Painters included Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner, Willem and Elaine de Kooning, James Brooks and Charlotte Park, Robert Motherwell, and Grace Hartigan among others. Presentation of many works that have not been exhibited in recent years, also brings attention to the digitization of the Guild Hall collection that was completed recently. The Museum has been building a significant collection of Abstract Expressionist works, and prime examples will be combined with loans by artists who created their work on the East End.

https://alexandergray.com/news-events/betty-parsons24

Domenico Colantini was a visual artist, Born in 1938, Domenico Colantini passed away in 2018. Artists born in the same year and of the same generation are Vagrich Bakhchanyan, Anna Joanna Angstrom, Antoine Casalonga, Sibilla Bjarnason, and Josep Bestit Carcasona. Further Biographical Context for Domenico Colantini Born in 1938, Domenico Colantini was predominantly influenced by the 1950s. In the Post-War period the lens of modernism was focused, in terms of internationally, on developments in New York City. The Second World War had brought many prominent creatives to the city in exile from Europe, leading to a significant pooling of talent and ideas. Influential Europeans that came to New York and provided inspiration for American artists included Piet Mondrian, Josef Albers and Hans Hoffmann, who between them set the grounds for much of the United States’ explosive cultural growth in the decades thereafter. Influential artists of the Abstract Expressionist Generation included Jackson Pollock (who innovated his famed drip, splatter and pour painting techniques), Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Frank Kline, Barnett Newman, Clyfford Still and Adolph Gottlieb. It was a male dominated environment, but necessary revisionism of this period has emphasised the contributions of female artists such as Lee Krasner, Joan Mitchell, and Louise Bourgeois, amongst others.

https://www.artland.com/artists/domenico-colantini

Simone Degal was a visual artist. Simone Degal was born in 1925. Artists like Kosta Alex, Robert Brownjohn, Etienne Van Doorslaer, Michael Casson, and Olivier Boseret were also born in 1925. Further Biographical Context for Simone Degal Born in 1925, Simone Degal's creative work was primarily inspired by the 1950s. It can be said that the 1950s were dominated by Abstract Expressionism, a form of painting that prioritised dramatic brushstrokes and explored ideas about organic nature, spirituality and the sublime. Much of the focus was on the formal properties of painting, and ideas of action painting were unified with the political freedom of the United States society as opposed to the strictures nature of the Soviet bloc. Influential artists of the Abstract Expressionist Generation included Jackson Pollock (who innovated his famed drip, splatter and pour painting techniques), Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Frank Kline, Barnett Newman, Clyfford Still and Adolph Gottlieb. It was a male dominated environment, but necessary reassessment of this period has emphasised the contributions of female artists such as Lee Krasner, Joan Mitchell, and Louise Bourgeois, amongst others.

https://www.artland.com/artists/simone-degal

Chen Jinyan is seen as an established artist, Chen Jinyan was born in 1938. Artists like Viggo Dachmann Bentzon, Guido Baldessari, Bruce Robert Brown, Miroslav Barták, and Stan Alty were also born in 1938. Further Biographical Context for Chen Jinyan Chen Jinyan was born in 1938 and was largely inspired by the 1950s growing up. In the Post-War period the lens of modernism was focused, in terms of international attention, on developments in New York City. The Second World War had brought many important creatives to the city in exile from Europe, leading to a substantial pooling of talent and ideas. Influential Europeans that came to New York and provided inspiration for American artists included Piet Mondrian, Josef Albers and Hans Hoffmann, who between them set the grounds for much of the United States’ explosive cultural growth in the subsequent decades. Key artists of the Abstract Expressionist Generation included Jackson Pollock (who innovated his famed drip, splatter and pour painting techniques), Willem de Kooning, Mark Rothko, Frank Kline, Barnett Newman, Clyfford Still and Adolph Gottlieb. It was a male dominated environment, but necessary reassessment of this period has emphasised the contributions of female artists such as Lee Krasner, Joan Mitchell, and Louise Bourgeois, amongst others.

https://www.artland.com/artists/chen-jinyan

Twin 1867 structures served as home for Willem de Kooning, as well others associated with Abstract Expressionism. The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to add two buildings to its calendar for consideration as an individual City landmark at its meeting on September 19th, 2017. The significance of the twin buildings, collectively labeled the 827-831 Broadway Buildings, largely derives from their association with Abstract Expressionist artists in post-World War II-era, particularly Willem de Kooning. The buildings were constructed for commercial purposes in 1866-67 for tobacco company scion Pierre Lorillard to designs by architect Griffith Thomas. The buildings’ design was inspired by Italian palazzi, and is clad in marble with cast-iron columns. The ascendancy of Abstract Expressionism in the years after the Second World War moved the focal point of modern art from Paris and Europe to New York and the United States. Willem De Kooning was prominent in the Abstract Expressionist movement, and a member of a loose association of artists termed the “New York School.” De Kooning lived at 831 Broadway during a creatively fertile period of his career from 1958 to 1963. It served as his last New York City residence before he relocated to East Hampton. Painter Paul Jenkins acquired the studio after de Kooning moved out and occupied it until 2000. Museum of Modern Art curator William Rubin occupied a loft in the building, where he displayed paintings by Jackson Pollock, Marc Rothko, and Franz Kline, among works painted by the residents of the buildings. Other artists who lived and worked in the buildings included Elaine de Kooning, Jules Olitski, and Larry Poons. Landmarks Chair Meenakshi Srinivasan led a unanimous vote to add the building to the Commission’s calendar. LPC: 827-831 Broadway Buildings, 827-831 Broadway, Manhattan (LP-2594) (Sept. 19, 2017). By: Jesse Denno (Jesse is a full-time staff writer at the Center for NYC Law).

https://www.citylandnyc.org/de-kooning-abstract-expressionism/

which abstract expressionist artist was not a painter? Home About Location FAQ Post-war Europe saw the continuation of Surrealism, Cubism, Dada, and the works of Matisse. Aldrich, Larry. In 1953 Morris Louis and Kenneth Noland were both profoundly influenced by Helen Frankenthaler's stain paintings after visiting her studio in New York City. The Color Field painters sought to rid their art of superfluous rhetoric. Artists like Jackson Pollock and Helen Frankenthaler unrolled their canvases on the floor and used their entire bodies to paint. Action painting was a style widespread from the 1940s until the early 1960s, and is closely associated with abstract expressionism (some critics have used the terms action painting and abstract expressionism interchangeably). Art criticism is not a scientific undertaking. Around 1944 Barnett Newman tried to explain America's newest art movement and included a list of "the men in the new movement." : [Exhibition] December 2, 1953 to February 21, 1954", "Arshile Gorky: A Retrospective at Tate Modern, review", "L.A. Art Collector Caps Two Year Pursuit of Artist with Exhibition of New Work", "Art scene by Bill Van Siclen: Part-time faculty with full-time talent", "International Paintings and Sculpture – Woman V", "Painting at the Speed of Sight: Franz Kline's Rapid Transit", "Art History Definition: Action Painting", "Abstract Expressionism: Redefining Art, Part One | Art History Unstuffed", Metropolitan Museum of Art Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, Abstract Expressionism, "Robert Motherwell. Born in Moscow, Kandinsky gave up teaching law at the age of 30 to enrol in the Munich Academy, although he was not initially granted admission. With artists such as Paul Klee, Kandinsky, Emma Kunz, and later on Rothko, Newman, and Agnes Martin, abstract art clearly implied expression of ideas concerning the spiritual, the unconscious, and the mind. American social realism had been the mainstream in the 1930s. According to Rosenberg the canvas was "an arena in which to act". (previous page) () If you think the best abstract expressionism artist isn't as high as they should be then be sure to give them an upvote. In 1971, Linda Nochlin wrote an influential article on gender bias in art titled, Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? It was somehow meant to encompass not only the work of painters who filled their canvases with fields of color and abstract forms, but also those who attacked their canvases with a vigorous gestural expressionism. A comparison is often drawn between the American action painting and the French tachisme. Abstract expressionist paintings share certain characteristics, including the use of large canvases, an "all-over" approach, in which the whole canvas is treated with equal importance (as opposed to the center being of more interest than the edges). A painter and theorist, Kandinsky is a household name and cannot be forgoed in the world of abstract expressionism. Color field painting, Hard-edge painting and Lyrical Abstraction emerged as radical new directions. These works often combined calligraphy and abstract shapes. Both Hans Hofmann and Robert Motherwell can be comfortably described as practitioners of Action painting and Color field painting. Isamu Noguchi, The Cry, 1959, Kröller-Müller Museum Sculpture Park, Otterlo, Netherlands, Louise Bourgeois, Maman, 1999, outside Museo Guggenheim, In the 1960s after abstract expressionism, Related styles, trends, schools, and movements, Hess, Barbara; "Abstract Expressionism", 2005, Barnett Newman Foundation, archive 18/103. His first solo show was in 1948. Abstract Expressionism holds a special place on a list of iconic American cultural innovations, along with Jazz, the electric guitar and television. Rereadings into abstract art, done by art historians such as Linda Nochlin, Griselda Pollock and Catherine de Zegher critically shows, however, that pioneer women artists who have produced major innovations in modern art had been ignored by the official accounts of its history, but finally began to achieve long overdue recognition in the wake of the abstract expressionist movement of the 1940s and 1950s. His move away from easel painting and conventionality was a liberating signal to the artists of his era and to all that came after. During the final three decades of his career, Sam Francis' style of large-scale bright abstract expressionism was closely associated with Color field painting. Like Picasso's innovative reinventions of painting and sculpture near the turn of the century via Cubism and constructed sculpture, with influences as disparate as Navajo sand paintings, surrealism, Jungian analysis, and Mexican mural art, Pollock redefined what it was to produce art. He invited them up to New York in 1953, I think it was, to Helen's studio to see a painting that she had just done called Mountains and Sea, a very, very beautiful painting, which was in a sense, out of Pollock and out of Gorky. He is associated with the Abstract Expressionist movement of the 1940s and 1950s. One: Number 31, 1950 is a painting produced by Jackson Pollock in 1950. Arts magazine – Volume 52, Part 1 – Page 13, Pattan, S. F. (1998) African American Art, New York: Oxford University Press, The Cultural Cold War—The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, "Younger European painters, a selection. In Gorky's most effective and accomplished paintings between the years 1941–1948, he consistently used intense stained fields of color, often letting the paint run and drip, under and around his familiar lexicon of organic and biomorphic shapes and delicate lines. In … Yeah, that got deep. In practice, the term is applied to any number of artists working (mostly) in New York who had quite different styles, and even to work that is neither especially abstract nor expressionist. Against this revisionist tradition, an essay by Michael Kimmelman, chief art critic of The New York Times, called Revisiting the Revisionists: The Modern, Its Critics and the Cold War, argues that much of that information concerning what was happening on the American art scene during the 1940s and 50s, as well as the revisionists' interpretation of it, is flatly false or, at best, decontextualized, contrary to the revisionists' avowed historiographic principles. In the 1940s there were not only few galleries (The Art of This Century, Pierre Matisse Gallery, Julien Levy Gallery and a few others) but also few critics who were willing to follow the work of the New York Vanguard. Robert Motherwell in his Elegy to the Spanish Republic series painted powerful black and white paintings using gesture, surface and symbol evoking powerful emotional charges. Abstract Expressionism evolved through the work of each individual artist. It also was one of the first stain pictures, one of the first large field pictures in which the stain technique was used, perhaps the first one. Elegy to the Spanish Republic, 108. American artists also benefited from the presence of Piet Mondrian, Fernand Léger, Max Ernst, and the André Breton group, Pierre Matisse's gallery, and Peggy Guggenheim's gallery The Art of This Century, as well as other factors. Louis and Noland saw the picture unrolled on the floor of her studio and went back to Washington, DC., and worked together for a while, working at the implications of this kind of painting.. It had been influenced not only by the Great Depression, but also by the Mexican muralists such as David Alfaro Siqueiros and Diego Rivera. Movements which were direct responses to, and rebellions against abstract expressionism began with Hard-edge painting (Frank Stella, Robert Indiana and others) and Pop artists, notably Andy Warhol, Claes Oldenburg and Roy Lichtenstein who achieved prominence in the US, accompanied by Richard Hamilton in Britain. He was renowned not only as an artist but also as a teacher of art, both in his native Germany and later in the US. It was the first specifically American group of Artists to achieve worldwide influence and also the one that put New York City at the center of the art world, a role formerly filled by Paris. While the New York avant-garde was still relatively unknown by the late 1940s, most of the artists who have become household names today had their well-established patron critics: Clement Greenberg advocated Jackson Pollock and the color field painters like Clyfford Still, Mark Rothko, Barnett Newman, Adolph Gottlieb and Hans Hofmann; Harold Rosenberg seemed to prefer the action painters such as Willem de Kooning and Franz Kline, as well as the seminal paintings of Arshile Gorky; Thomas B. Hess, the managing editor of ARTnews, championed Willem de Kooning. Abstract expressionism arose during the war and began to be showcased during the early forties at galleries in New York such as The Art of This Century Gallery. , Pollock's work has always polarised critics. , Automatic writing was an important vehicle for action painters such as Kline (in his black and white paintings), Pollock, Mark Tobey and Cy Twombly, who used gesture, surface, and line to create calligraphic, linear symbols and skeins that resemble language, and resonate as powerful manifestations from the Collective unconscious. Pollock's energetic "action paintings", with their "busy" feel, are different, both technically and aesthetically, from the violent and grotesque Women series of Willem de Kooning's figurative paintings and the rectangles of color in Rothko's Color Field paintings (which are not what would usually be called expressionist, and which Rothko denied were abstract). Like other Abstract Expressionist painters, Rothko worked in large scale, which the artist claimed to increase the intimacy between his work and the viewer, as if larger equals closer, a perspective that grants the viewer greater access to the piece, making it … Abstract Expressionism describes a style of abstract art developed by a group of primarily New York-based painters in the 1940s and 50s, also known as the New York School. pp. The Method Of Abstract Expressionist Art. The gesture on the canvas was a gesture of liberation from value—political, aesthetic, moral.". Michel Tapié's groundbreaking book, Un Art Autre (1952), was also enormously influential in this regard. The Woman series are decidedly figurative paintings. 1965-67 | MoMA", "What is Abstract Expressionism: Mark Rothko", Pollock #12 1952 at NY State Mall project, 'Color Field' Artists Found a Different Way, "Revisiting the Revisionists: The Modern, Its Critics and the Cold War", Metropolitan Museum of Art, Heilbrunn Timeline of History, "Norman Bluhm Is Dead at 78; Abstract Expressionist Painter (Published 1999)", "EXHIBIT PREVIEW: Rediscovering David Budd: The Forgotten Abstract Expressionist", "Hans Burkhardt, 89, An Abstract Painter (Published 1994)", "John Chamberlain, Who Wrested Rough Magic From Scrap Metal, Dies at 84 (Published 2011)", "Jean Dubuffet: The Last Two Years by Donald Kuspit - artnet Magazine", Works by Johns and de Kooning Sell for $143.5 Million, "Richard Diebenkorn, Lyrical Painter, Dies at 71 (Published 1993)", "12 Women Of Abstract Expressionism History Should Not Forget", "Sam Francis: The internationally acclaimed abstract expressionist spent his last days in West Marin", "Raoul Hague, Sculptor, 88, Dies; Abstract Expressionist in Wood (Published 1993)", "Grace Hartigan, 86, Abstract Painter, Dies", "UB Anderson Gallery to Present John Hultberg: Vanishing Point", "Paul Jenkins, Painter of Abstract Artwork, Dies at 88 (Published 2012)", "Walter Kuhlman dies - abstract expressionist", "Alfred Leslie: The Last of the Really Great Abstract Expressionists, Now a Master of 21st Century Digital Art", "ABSTRACT EXPRESSIONISM: HUMANOID SCULPTURE FROM THE 3RD DIMENSION", "SEYMOUR LIPTON DIES; A SELF-TAUGHT SCULPTOR (Published 1986)", Jesse Hamlin, 'Frank Lobdell, influential Bay Area painter, dies', "Conrad Marca-Relli, Collagist and Painter, Is Dead at 87 (Published 2000)", "Review/Art; An Art of Motion: Joan Mitchell's Abstract Expressionism", "Robert Motherwell, Master of Abstract, Dies (Published 1991)", "Read the Latest from the Broad Strokes Blog", "ArtAsiaPacific: Abstract Expressionism Looking East From The Far West", "John Opper, 85, Abstract Painter (Published 1994)", "Ad Reinhardt | Smithsonian American Art Museum", "Milton Resnick, Abstract Expressionist Painter, Dies at 87 (Published 2004)", "George Rickey, Sculptor Whose Works Moved, Dies at 95 (Published 2002)", "Jean-Paul Riopelle, 78; Canadian Abstract Expressionist Painter", "Charles Seliger, Abstract Expressionist, Dies at 83 (Published 2009)", "Alma Thomas: an abstract expressionist and black artist, who fiercely resisted any labels", "Mark Tobey Biography - Infos for Sellers and Buyers", Cy Twombly, influential Va.-born abstract artist, dies at 83, "Esteban Vicente Dies at 97; An Abstract Expressionist", "John von Wicht, Painter, Dead; His Works in Leading Museums (Published 1970)", "Hale Woodruff | Smithsonian American Art Museum", "A Family of Artists: Yektai Father and Sons Share Gallery Space at Guild Hall | Hamptons Art HubHamptons Art Hub", Drafting and ratification of Constitution, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abstract_expressionism&oldid=999889111, Short description is different from Wikidata, Articles with unsourced statements from February 2019, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. During 1951 he produced a series of semi-figurative black stain paintings, and in 1952 he produced stain paintings using color. In the United States, a new generation of American artists began to emerge and to dominate the world stage, and they were called Abstract Expressionists. Matisse's work had an enormous influence on him, and on his understanding of the expressive language of color and the potentiality of abstraction. But important female abstract artists are not in short supply. My struggle against bourgeois society has involved the total rejection of it.". Like I said, Abstract Expressionism was very focused on the act of painting, but this is because these artists saw art as a way to understand the act of creation itself. In a sense the innovations of Pollock, de Kooning, Franz Kline, Rothko, Philip Guston, Hans Hofmann, Clyfford Still, Barnett Newman, Ad Reinhardt, Richard Pousette-Dart, Robert Motherwell, Peter Voulkos, and others opened the floodgates to the diversity and scope of all the art that followed them. California abstract expressionist Jay Meuser, who typically painted in the non-objective style, wrote about his painting Mare Nostrum, "It is far better to capture the glorious spirit of the sea than to paint all of its tiny ripples." Paul Jackson Pollock (; January 28, 1912 – August 11, 1956) was an American painter and a major figure in the abstract expressionist movement. To Greenberg, it was the physicality of the paintings' clotted and oil-caked surfaces that was the key to understanding them as documents of the artists' existential struggle. Abstract painting was not new, but large–scale abstraction was the breakthrough of this group — artmaking was no longer confined to the canvas on an easel. Although it is the accepted designation, Abstract Expressionism is not an accurate description of the body of work created by these artists. Hofmann, who came to the United States from Germany in the early 1930s, brought with him the legacy of Modernism. Although abstract expressionism spread quickly throughout the United States, the major centers of this style were New York City and California, especially in the New York School, and the San Francisco Bay area. Since the mid-1970s it has been argued that the style attracted the attention, in the early 1950s, of the CIA, who saw it as representative of the US as a haven of free thought and free markets, as well as a challenge to both the socialist realist styles prevalent in communist nations and the dominance of the European art markets. In addition, the artists David Hare, John Chamberlain, James Rosati, Mark di Suvero, and sculptors Richard Lippold, Raoul Hague, George Rickey, Reuben Nakian, and even Tony Smith, Seymour Lipton, Joseph Cornell, and several others were integral parts of the abstract expressionist movement. Clyfford Still, Barnett Newman, Adolph Gottlieb and the serenely shimmering blocks of color in Mark Rothko's work (which is not what would usually be called expressionist and which Rothko denied was abstract), are classified as abstract expressionists, albeit from what Clement Greenberg termed the Color field direction of abstract expressionism. This led to the American art boom that brought about styles such as Pop Art. The other abstract expressionists followed Pollock's breakthrough with new breakthroughs of their own. Paalen considered ideas of quantum mechanics, as well as idiosyncratic interpretations of the totemic vision and the spatial structure of native-Indian painting from British Columbia and prepared the ground for the new spatial vision of the young American abstracts. Hofmann's paintings are a symphony of color as seen in The Gate, 1959–1960. Arshile Gorky (born Vostanik Manoug Adoian; 1904-1948) was an Armenian-American artist who had a significant impact on the development of abstract expressionism.He is closely associated with his friend Willem de Kooning and the New York School of painters. The painter would sometimes let the paint drip onto the canvas, while rhythmically dancing, or even standing in the canvas, sometimes letting the paint fall according to the subconscious mind, thus letting the unconscious part of the psyche assert and express itself. All the greatest artists associated with the abstract expressionism movement are included here, along with clickable names for more details on that particular painter or sculptor. Hans Hofmann in particular as teacher, mentor, and artist was both important and influential to the development and success of abstract expressionism in the United States. To some extent, Pollock realized that the journey toward making a work of art was as important as the work of art itself. Serge Poliakoff, Nicolas de Staël, Georges Mathieu, Vieira da Silva, Jean Dubuffet, Yves Klein, Pierre Soulages and Jean Messagier, among others are considered important figures in post-war European painting. During the late 1940s, Jackson Pollock's radical approach to painting revolutionized the potential for all Contemporary art that followed him. Abstract expressionism in general expanded and developed the definitions and possibilities that artists had available for the creation of new works of art. , Meanwhile, other action painters, notably de Kooning, Gorky, Norman Bluhm, Joan Mitchell, and James Brooks, used imagery via either abstract landscape or as expressionistic visions of the figure to articulate their highly personal and powerful evocations. In general these artists eliminated recognizable imagery, in the case of Rothko and Gottlieb sometimes using symbol and sign as replacement of imagery. See more ideas about abstract expressionism, abstract, abstract expressionist. Additionally, it has an image of being rebellious, anarchic, highly idiosyncratic and, some feel, nihilistic. Despite this variety, Abstract Expressionist paintings share several broad characteristics. Generally speaking, each artist arrived at this free-wheeling style by the end of the 1940s and continued in the same manner to the end of his or her life. , Abstract Expressionists value the organism over the static whole, becoming over being, expression over perfection, vitality over finish, fluctuation over repose, feeling over formulation, the unknown over the known, the veiled over the clear, the individual over society and the inner over the outer. Many of those who didn't flee perished. However, it does list my most significant influences. Soon after his first exhibition, Barnett Newman remarked in one of the Artists' Sessions at Studio 35: "We are in the process of making the world, to a certain extent, in our own image. ", #1224 of 1,355 The Greatest Minds of All Time#20 of 22 Weird Personal Quirks of Historical Artists#28 of 31 The Greatest Painters Of All Time, “Don’t think about making art, just get it done. It is often characterised by gestural brush-strokes or mark-making, and the impression of spontaneity In abstract painting during the 1950s and 1960s, several new directions, like the Hard-edge painting exemplified by John McLaughlin, emerged. This list answers the questions, "Who are the most famous abstract expressionism artists?" This extreme form of abstraction divided the critics: some praised the immediacy and fluency of the creation, while others derided the random effects. Pages in category "Abstract expressionist artists" The following 200 pages are in this category, out of approximately 293 total. Younger artists began exhibiting their abstract expressionist related paintings during the 1950s as well including Alfred Leslie, Sam Francis, Joan Mitchell, Helen Frankenthaler, Cy Twombly, Milton Resnick, Michael Goldberg, Norman Bluhm, Grace Hartigan, Friedel Dzubas, and Robert Goodnough among others. He "lit the way for two generations of American artists". The Abstract-Expressionist Movement was an American post–World War II creation. As a young artist in pre-First World War Paris, Hofmann worked with Robert Delaunay, and he knew firsthand the innovative work of both Picasso and Matisse. and "Who are the best abstract expressionism artists? Lee Krasner’s marriage to Jackson Pollock was already broken by 1956. While the movement is closely associated with painting, collagist Anne Ryan and certain sculptors in particular were also integral to abstract expressionism. Although the abstract expressionist school spread quickly throughout the United States, the epicenters of this style were New York City and the San Francisco Bay area of California. The newer research tends to put the exile-surrealist Wolfgang Paalen in the position of the artist and theoretician who fostered the theory of the viewer-dependent possibility space through his paintings and his magazine DYN. Gorky created broad fields of vivid, open, unbroken color that he used in many of his paintings as grounds. Gorky's contributions to American and world art are difficult to overestimate. His paintings straddled both camps within the abstract expressionist rubric, Action painting and Color Field painting. Therefore, the standard to evaluate an abstract work is not on the painter’s side, but depends on the characteristics of the final … Greenberg became the voice of Post-painterly abstraction; by curating an influential exhibition of new painting that toured important art museums throughout the United States in 1964. By the 1960s, the movement's initial affect had been assimilated, yet its methods and proponents remained highly influential in art, affecting profoundly the work of many artists who followed. - An art movement that dominate America in the 40s and 50s. However, many painters, such as Jules Olitski, Joan Mitchell and Antoni Tàpies continued to work in the abstract expressionist style for many years, extending and expanding its visual and philosophical implications, as many abstract artists continue to do today, in styles described as Lyrical Abstraction, Neo-expressionist and others. Brooks regularly used stain as a technique in his paintings from the late 1940s. John Chamberlain, S, 1959, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Washington, DC. Another important early manifestation of what came to be abstract expressionism is the work of American Northwest artist Mark Tobey, especially his "white writing" canvases, which, though generally not large in scale, anticipate the "all-over" look of Pollock's drip paintings. In a typical Abstract Expressionist composition, there is not one focal point. In Paris, formerly the center of European culture and capital of the art world, the climate for art was a disaster, and New York replaced Paris as the new center of the art world. Nov 23, 2016. Shapiro, David/Cecile (2000), "Abstract Expressionism: The politics of apolitical painting." Pollock's energetic action paintings, with their "busy" feel, are different both technically and aesthetically, to De Kooning's violent and grotesque Women series. James Madison High School Login , Aditya Birla Finance Login , Klingon Empire Symbol , Mei Fun Translation , Raising Kane And Other Essays , Wilde Jagd Sheet Music , Uaf Admission 2020-21 , Write Opposite Of Loss Of Rupees 500 , Snoopy Clothing Australia ,

https://www3.unisa.ac.za/cbm/childrens-wall-okig/iji0rk.php?309320=which-abstract-expressionist-artist-was-not-a-painter%3F