Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Office of Racial Equity urges stronger data governance after initial criminal-justice report
Summary
State Office of Racial Equity staff told the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6 that Vermont’s criminal-justice data are scattered, inconsistent and often incomplete, and outlined plans for a data governance council, dashboards and more agency collaboration; staff said they will send an amended version of their initial report within days.
Susanna Davis, executive director of the Office of Racial Equity, told the House Committee on Judiciary on Feb. 6 that the division’s initial report on criminal-justice data contains useful findings about racial disparities but must be amended because of data-quality problems and stakeholder questions. Tiffany North Reid, data manager for the Division of Racial Justice Statistics, and Anthony Jackson Miller, a data analyst, presented the division’s work and next steps.
The division’s main takeaway, Davis said, is that Vermont’s available criminal-justice data are inconsistent, incomplete and scattered across agencies, which hinders analysis and public engagement. The report will be updated and reissued in the next day or two, she said, to correct errors and respond to concerns raised by data partners.
Why it matters: the Division of Racial Justice Statistics was created by statute to collect and analyze racial-disparity data and to recommend standards and practices. Committee members pressed staff on whether the division can standardize collection and whether additional statutory changes or legislative support will be needed to make the data comparable across agencies. The division described immediate priorities including a Data Governance Council, shared dashboards, improved public datasets and capacity building for agency data staff.
Division staff listed operational constraints and staffing. Tiffany North Reid said the division currently has a manager, one analyst, one vacant analyst position and one temporary, grant-funded analyst; staff told the committee that federal grant funding that supports the temporary position may be uncertain in future budget cycles. Staff said they are working with the Agency of Digital Services (ADS) on a data-lake project and expect ADS to participate in the proposed Data Governance Council.
On the report’s methodological limits, Davis and Reid said several commonly used concerns complicate interpretation: inconsistent data fields across agencies, many blank or suppressed fields in public datasets, the state’s small subgroup sizes that complicate statistical significance testing and differential-privacy procedures applied to federal population data that can skew counts for small jurisdictions. Reid and Davis emphasized that qualitative evidence and comparisons with similar jurisdictions are additional tools for assessing disparate impact when quantitative subsets are small.
Staff described existing and planned collaborations. Reid said the division is working with ADS on technical infrastructure, with the Vermont Criminal Justice Council (VCJC) on dataset access, and has sought data from the Department of Corrections (DOC), the Agency of Education (AOE) and the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Reid also described an early-childhood collaboration funded through a Building Bright Futures grant aimed at connecting life-course and prevention data to criminal-justice metrics.
Committee discussion focused on process and next steps. Committee members asked whether the Data Governance Council can be established administratively or would require new legislation; staff said the council is being framed under the division’s current work with ADS and that Susanna Davis would follow up with details. Anthony Jackson Miller flagged statutes that govern how agencies collect data and said clarifying statutory language could help standardize collection across the state.
No formal legislative actions or votes occurred during this presentation. Staff committed to sharing an amended annual report “in the next day or two,” to continue behind-the-scenes work with data holders, to assemble a Data Governance Council with agency and IT representation, and to develop dashboards and training to support data equity and interpretation.
The committee paused for a break after the presentation; members said they would return to the report and the subject of potential statutory changes once the division submits the amended report.
Ending: Division staff said they will continue technical and stakeholder work and provide a revised report to the committee imminently. Staff requested legislative support for clarifying statutes and additional resources where needed.
