Introduction
In Massachusetts, law students at Northeastern University School of Law (NUSL) are exploring how obtaining data, specifically through public records requests (PRRs), can be used to dismantle the “Cradle to Prison” (C2P) pipeline. The C2P pipeline refers to the web of systems that, from birth and even earlier, channel youth—disproportionately low-income youth of color—into future incarceration. Reliable and publicly accessible data is vital to create juvenile justice policy to dismantle this pipeline. Yet, unfortunately, existing data related to how individuals enter the C2P pipeline and what factors might influence entry is often incomplete or inaccurate.
One remedy is supplementing existing data with PRRs (any request memorialized in writing to inspect or copy public records) to school systems and police departments. However, there are significant obstacles and challenges when engaging in PRRs in Massachusetts. Some include high-volume requests at certain departments, which results in non-response or delayed response, and departments that may not have the resources to compile and respond to requests within the ten days they are required to respond. This article will highlight some of these challenges and describe the realities of performing a PRR in Massachusetts. It will also give some specific examples of the work that NUSL is undertaking in their C2P project with the goal of increased data accessibility to facilitate dismantling (or reducing entry into) the pipeline.
Cradle to Prison Pipeline in Massachusetts
Over the past three years, NUSL’s Center for Public Interest Advocacy and Collaboration (CPIAC) worked with the College of Arts, Media & Design (CAMD) to map the C2P pipeline and highlight intervention points. The project discovered that certain data around key entry points to the pipeline was missing. For example, the project found that, “data related to early childhood involvement with Department of Children and Families (DCF) and foster care placement, disability services, school discipline, and court and police juvenile diversion programs” were all missing. Data must be reliable and accessible in order to complete key research around pipeline entry, which can be used to inform future advocacy, legislation, and action. Therefore, data on pipeline entry needs to be supplemented in some way in order to continue research.
Public Records Requests – Benefits and Challenges
PRRs are one way to supplement this data. The Massachusetts Public Records Law and its regulations aim to ensure that people have the right to access public information, including books, papers, recorded tapes, financial statements, and other documentary materials and data. Gaps of data for C2P research can be filled by submitting PRRs to school systems and police departments—this is a project that a law student would have the knowledge and capacity to take on, and it gives students experiential legal training. In 2016, Massachusetts Governor Baker signed into law House Bill No. 4333, “An Act to Improve Public Records.” According to an article in the Boston Bar Journal, this was the first significant reconstruction of Massachusetts’ Public Records Law since 1973, and it was “intended to improve access to public records, address administrative challenges that were faced by … [those] responding to expansive public records requests, and promote cooperation between requestors and custodians.” Despite this overhaul, there are still barriers to easily obtaining data.
The updated PRR law went into effect in 2017 after a 2015 report by the Center of Public Integrity that gave Massachusetts a “D+” for government accountability and transparency. The report found that routine records can take weeks or months to obtain from agencies, and the requesters are often subject to large fees. Since the “D+” grade in 2015, there has not been another report released. From a practical standpoint, advocacy organizations often lack the funding and resources to follow through with every single PRR filed. Under the new law, records custodians must only respond if the request reasonably describes the public record sought, the public record is within the possession or control of the agency that received the request, and the custodian receives payment of a reasonable fee as outlined in subsection (d). However, this must be done within ten calendar days following receipt of a request for inspection or copy of a public record. In the old version of the PRR law, a custodian only needed to respond “without unreasonable delay.” This part of the law was changed to balance the interest in timely disclosure of public records with administrative interests. Another change in the new law was the availability of attorney’s fees and punitive damages. The purpose here was to enhance enforcement efforts. The new law creates a presumption in favor of awarding fees and costs if the requester obtains relief through judicial order or consent decree or if the agency provides the documents after a complaint is filed.
Even with the overhaul of Massachusetts’ laws, there are still criticisms of the system. Critics point out that, theoretically, state public records laws give citizens a right of access to government information; however, these laws can be misused. Keith Rizzardi articulates these critiques in a 2015 paper at the Local Government Law Symposium. He points to the high volume of requests at certain departments and says that “citizens can manipulate the government and harass public servants by creating countless public records requests.” He also posits that if the government’s response is too delayed or has an error, even in good faith, “citizens can file the most trivial of lawsuits, knowing that they will be paid fees and costs.” Rizzardi finishes by stating that “[t]he public records laws have granted the people rights without responsibility. People can, and do, misuse these laws, seemingly immune from consequences.” However, despite these criticisms, public records remain a barrier to obtaining needed information for research in the C2P Pipeline. Therefore, solutions need to maintain a public right of access while reducing the potential for misuse of these laws.
NUSL’s CPIAC engaged in a PRR project beginning in the summer of 2022 in partnership with Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CfJJ). Requests went out to Massachusetts police departments asking for data on “school-based arrests” and referrals. This data is an example of some of the crucial insights needed to dismantle the C2P pipeline by gaining an understanding of necessary unknowns: How many students are arrested within an educational space? What does this cohort look like? What schools have the highest number of arrests? How does this connect to school discipline? Although the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) publishes data related to school discipline and arrests, advocacy organizations have seen in prior PRR that the DESE data does not always match police departments. This type of inconsistency is just one example of why it is necessary to supplement and check existing data through PRRs. However, when departments are overwhelmed or need more resources to fulfill requests, this can pose a challenge.
One solution proposed is to increase open data initiatives. These initiatives help governments reduce the number of requests they receive while also increasing transparency. Open data initiatives aim to inform the public by providing open data in a variety of areas. This would allow the public to be able to view data surrounding areas that interact with the C2P pipeline, such as arrest data, school discipline, etc. However, there are also downsides to these initiatives. Missing data can result in misinterpreting or analyzing the data incorrectly. Additionally, data is regulated by privacy and consent laws that can hinder open data projects depending on the type of data that is being collected. For example, much of the data sought about the C2P pipeline will likely have some privacy and consent issues because it involves minors. Finally, open data projects usually pose a significant cost, and sustaining open data projects is challenging without continuing funds, staffing initiatives, and resources.
Conclusion
Obtaining accurate data is vital to move legal research projects forward and inform policy decisions. This includes the C2P pipeline, a system that has unlimited data points that needs continued study. PRR projects like NUSL’s work are easy to replicate and will bring crucial information into the public sphere for more advancement in this space. While open data initiatives may be the most desirable way to increase data transparency, privacy, and consent, laws often hinder those options. Therefore, participating in PRR projects is a tangible way to obtain needed information. There can be criticism around these projects because PRRs can be misused. A major example of this misuse is the high volume of requests in certain departments. Yet, this is critical information. Educating law students and attorneys about best practices for requesting and accessing publicly available data through current channels can reduce this misuse. It also will enhance transparency within the justice system overall. Now, more than ever, it is important to create future policies to dismantle the C2P pipeline and continue supporting law students’ work in this space.
About the Author
Hannah Saturley is a third-year law student at Northeastern University School of Law (NUSL). Originally from Cape Elizabeth, Maine, she graduated from Colorado College with a degree in Psychology in 2019. After college, she attended the University of Pittsburgh to obtain her Masters of Social Work where she focused on Community Organizing and Social Action. During her 2nd year at NUSL, she had the opportunity to work as a Research Assistant to Professor Stevie Leahy, which allowed her to explore the topic of juvenile justice work and participate in a public records request project to aid in data collection used to dismantle the “Cradle to Prison” pipeline. This experience inspired this article.