Public Meeting Notice  Special Commission to Study LGBTQI Inmate Health and Safety Meeting

Meeting Minutes

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 11:15AM once a quorum was established.

Members in Attendance:

Co-Chair Jennifer Gaffney

Co-Chair Pamela Klein

Attorney Casey Lepisto

Michael Cox

Attorney Jennifer Levi

Justice David Mills

Attorney Elizabeth Matos

January/February Meeting Minutes Approval

Pamela Klein made a motion to approve the January minutes and Jennifer Gaffney seconded the motion.

Jennifer Gaffney made a motion to approve the February minutes as written, Pamela Klein seconded the motion.

Harvard Law School Discussion

Alexander Chen presented the report from Harvard Law School (HLS). He explained that the report was based upon two areas of information. First, they examined the data provided through the commission which included minutes, surveys, and interviews. Second, HLS spoke with the commissioners individually. Alexander pointed out three main issues that arose while examining the data which were: adequate access to healthcare, suitable housing, and a lack of standardized training.

Alexander noted that HLS spoke with several outside experts while completing the report. The experts were identified as: Ryan Thoreson, who is a scholar at Yale and a researcher at the Human Rights Watch – LGBT rights in New York City;  David Pitts, who is a senior research associate at the Vera Institute of Justice; Ilan Meyer, who is a scholar for public policy at the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law; Valerie Jenness, who is the acting Vice Provost at the University of California-Irvine; Shawn Meerkamper, who is a staff attorney at the Transgender Law Center; and Rhiana Kohl, who directs research at the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC).

Next, Alexander presented the main takeaways from the report which noted that the collection of data has several flaws. One such flaw is the inherent problem with how to identify individuals as LGBTQI. He explained the difficulty in obtaining the data as it is not practical to interview individuals as stats show that only 5 in 100 would identify as LGBTQI. Therefore, to obtain data that is accurate of the DOC population as a whole, thousands of individuals would need to be interviewed. He also noted that it is difficult to pull themes from open-ended interviews, to avoid this problem the research would need a strategic approach to elicit useful data that addresses the targeted issues.

Alexander then reviewed the benefits and deficits of using quantitative and qualitative data. He explained that although quantitative data is the preferred method, it is time consuming because everyone must be polled which can lead to high costs estimated to be over $100,000. One alternative to avoiding the high costs associated with polling every individual is to conduct internal research through self-reported information, or by focusing on smaller groups of individuals. Next, he explained that qualitative data could lead to yes or no quantitative data, but it must be designed that way which can be problematic. Alexander stated that qualitative data is better used for stories rather than numbers. He then proposed another alternative by utilizing targeted site visits. He stated that this would provide narrow, focused results which may be useful to compare against reports from other states.

Jennifer Gaffney asked Alexander Chen what he recommended the commission do regarding next steps. Alexander referred to Section C of the report which highlighted five principles. First, facilities best practices should be highlighted. Second, comparisons should be made between facilities. Third, more quantitative data needs to be collected. Fourth, individual stories need to be recorded as they provide valuable data. Fifth, obstacles in data collection should be highlighted along with their solutions. From these five principles Alexander gave the commission three recommendations: harness quantitative data; targeted site visits focused on best practices; and spotlighting instructive stories from interviews.

Pam Klein stated that she wished this report was done a while ago as it is very useful to the commission. She then proposed that the commission regroup to focus on the upcoming deadline, with the possibility of needing an extension.

Jennifer Gaffney agreed that the report should have been requested 2-3 years ago. Although she noted that an academic paper was not the initial thought when requesting the report, the goal was to summarize the commission’s work. She then stated that she does have some concerns over selection bias and agreed that the commission needs to talk about an extension for the final study due in April.

In response to Jennifer Gaffney’s concerns of selection bias, Alexander Chen and Michael Cox assured the commission that the studies used from Vera and other sources were obtained independently.

Pam Klein stated that she would like to hear what Rhiana Kohl thinks about reasonable timelines.

Jennifer Gaffney added that the DOC is constantly evolving, attempting to improve data collection. She stated that the DOC is working to collect more information outside of the commission’s scope however, reports are being delayed due to the time-consuming labor of having to individually search through data.

In response to Pamela Klein, Rhiana Kohl stated that the DOC database is not really designed for reporting in its current state. She added that it is difficult to obtain the requested data due to unreliable data collection and concerns over how data will be collected and used. She explained that currently the plan is to ask individuals through the medical intake process using a gender preference form. However, the DOC would still need to collect data from the standing population. She then noted that the DOC would need a database to post the collected data and that some people may not feel comfortable reporting. Rhiana explained that the biggest obstacles for data collection are technical upgrades along with the pandemic causing additional problems with staffing, etc. She closed by stating that she is optimistic that progress should be made within the next few months although there is a large population in county systems that need to be recorded as well.

Alexander Chen and Pamela Klein recommended that the commission continue to gather data while looking internally at the best practices within the state. HLS was proposed as taking a key role in the additional data collection on behalf of the commission.

Jennifer Gaffney stated that this approach seems like starting over and it is not clear what additional surveys or interviews would contribute to the final report at this point. She noted that it may be too late to change the methodology of the commission after three years of work.

Attorney Elizabeth Matos informed the commission that it still needs to complete all site visits as required by statute.

Casey Lepisto added that it would be good to go back for more information with the goal of obtaining clarification on provided answers to establish best practices.

Attorney Jennifer Levi and Jennifer Gaffney raised the concern of utilizing HLS to assist with the gathering of data as they may not have the authority to do so under the statute as written. The commission then asked Attorney John Melander to look into the authority granted by the statute, with the goal of providing an answer by the next meeting.

Justice David Mills stated his concern that the commission must not only tend to transgender issues, that they must address all issues within the community. He added that all individuals should have the opportunity to give their personal experiences. He noted that utilizing Zoom for data collection has been problematic for the commission.

Michael Cox stated that data collection needs to be prioritized, and that it is not that difficult to collect the data that the commission is looking for. Jennifer Gaffney responded by stating that the DOC does place a priority upon data collection. She explained that lack of data or slow reporting is due to technical obstructions and privacy concerns over obtaining such data.

Worcester H/C Visit Review

Due to time constraints this discussion was tabled until the next meeting.

Meeting Schedule Moving Forward

Pamela Klein suggested that the commission meet again before the next scheduled meeting in April to further discuss the upcoming final report. The additional meeting will be scheduled two weeks out.

DOJ Report

Jennifer Gaffney presented a summary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation regarding Restrictive Housing (RH). Jennifer noted that while the DOJ did not find any substantial violations regarding RH, the report did highlight deficiencies pertaining to the mental health watches. She explained that the Department of Correction (DOC) did not feel that the DOJ report was an accurate reflection of how the agency operates as it failed to include information on DOC practices, e.g. individuals on mental health watches are seen three times a day for medical care. Jennifer informed the commission that the DOC has submitted an appeal to the DOJ and are currently waiting for a response.

Attorney Matos asked Jennifer Gaffney is she would be able to share the DOC’s response to the report. Jennifer stated that she was unable to go into further detail while the appeal is still pending.

Due to time constraints, Pamela Klein requested that the commission continue discussion of the DOJ report during the next scheduled meeting.

County Facility Interview Schedules

Due to time constraints this subject was tabled for next meeting

Public Comment

No Comments

Adjourn

Pamela Klein made a motion to adjourn and Jennifer Gaffney seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 12:59PM.

1. Call to Order

2. Harvard Law School Discussion

3. DOJ report
 

4. Meeting Scheduling Going Forward (2nd or 3rd Wednesday of the month from 11am-1pm?)

5. Worcester Debrief
 

5. County facility interview schedules

6. Public Comment

7. Adjourn