,

About Our Research: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Data

Here at MA Appleseed, we use research to investigate and understand the pressing issues facing families and young people across Massachusetts. From that research, we develop solutions that are effective, practical, and informed by impacted community members.

But what type of data do we collect? Why? How? In this blog series, About Our Research, we will elaborate on our research ethos, data collection and analysis, and how we present our findings to advance real change.

This first blog post will address the age-old question: What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative data?

Qualitative data is focused on the subjective experiences, attitudes, and feelings of community members who are impacted by systemic injustices or who work on these issues. This kind of data is often collected via observation, interviews, focus groups, and other community-centered methods. Qualitative data tells the story behind social justice issues and trends. This kind of information helps us hear the experiences of those directly impacted by a problem, answering the “why” and “how” questions that arise regarding social inequities – why is this happening, how is this problem unfolding in people’s lives?

We analyze qualitative data by categorizing information into themes and highlighting narratives that tell the story of the issue. An example of qualitative data in action at MA Appleseed is our research on the accessibility barriers unrepresented litigants struggling with debt faced in virtual court hearings during COVID-19. For this project, we collected qualitative data through court watching (having volunteers observe and report on court proceedings) and interviews with key stakeholders.

Quantitative data is centered on objective numbers and often collected via surveys and the use of datasets, which are large collections of numerical information about a particular group or issue. This kind of data provides the hard and fast figures behind a social problem, explaining the extent of an issue using numbers. Quantitative data answers the “how much” and “how often” questions that arise when trying to address injustices.

We analyze this type of data by identifying patterns in the numbers to yield findings in ratios or percentages. For example, our School Discipline Data Dashboard presents an enormous amount of numerical data from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) in an accessible way, breaking it down by district and allowing users to see how the complexity of students’ identities correspond to instances of school discipline. Meanwhile, our report on language discrimination at the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) uses publicly available documents to highlight important data points, like the number of language access complaints received by DCF within a 10-year period.

We primarily collect and utilize qualitative data for our research projects and when appropriate, apply a mixed methods approach that combines qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. This kind of project design allows for more well-rounded research and findings. For example, our research on girls of color and the school-to-prison pipeline uses quantitative data and analysis to understand the statistical disparities that girls of color face at school. Working with a Community Advisory Board, we also interviewed current students to hear directly from impacted girls of color who could speak about their lived experiences in Massachusetts schools. Considering that numbers and statistics only tell part of the story, we need qualitative data to fill in the gaps of the narrative and understand the context of the problem. Case in point, our first joint report on this topic found that Black girls in Massachusetts are four times more likely to be disciplined at school, but this statistic can easily be misconstrued by individuals arguing in bad faith. The qualitative stories and experiences shared by the girls we interviewed added necessary context and made it clear: Girls of color are punished more often and more harshly for the same behaviors as their white female peers. The combination of numerical data and detailed stories allowed us to compile a more comprehensive report.

The next several blog posts in this series will focus on how we go about collecting different types of data, offering a window into how we engage research participants in qualitative data collection and access quantitative data from state agencies. Stay tuned!

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/by
,

2023-24 Formal Legislative Session Wrap-Up

The formal legislative session ended in the early morning hours of August 1st and while few bills ultimately made it across the finish line, we saw progress on a number of vital policies.

First, Access to Counsel was included in the FY25 state budget, with $2.5 million included to establish a statewide pilot program! Supported by a broad coalition of 240 organizations, of which Appleseed is a proud member, this marks the first big step to starting a program that can provide full representation to tenants and low-income owner occupants.

Thanks to continued leadership from Project Bread and the Feed Kids Coalition, $170 million in funding for universal school meals also made it into the budget! This will help ensure hundreds of thousands of students can continue to focus on learning instead of worrying where their next meal will come from.

The Young Student Exclusion Ban and Language Access and Inclusion Act were once again reported favorably out of committee after hearings packed with compelling testimony, but did not make it to the Governor’s desk. Similarly, two of our first-time bills focused on supporting youth and young adults also received favorable reports but did not advance further. These bills aimed to 1) ban the suspension or expulsion of students for dress and grooming violations, thereby preventing the over-policing of girls, students of color, and LGBTQ+ students, and 2) allow unaccompanied minors experiencing homelessness to consent to supportive services so they can meet their immediate survival needs.

We’re disappointed that more policy changes that would make a meaningful difference in the lives of Bay Staters did not come to fruition, but it’s important to celebrate the steps forward we did see. Of the 14 bills we supported and helped fight for this session, 11 saw positive movement through the State House and none received a negative vote. This is indispensable groundwork for the coming months and whether you shared your personal experience with state leaders, wrote to your legislators urging action, or helped us spread the word about these campaigns – thank you for helping us come this far.
Throughout the fall, we’ll be meeting with our legislative champions and coalition partners to strategize for next session. Some of the prep work we’ll be doing includes redrafting bills, conducting deeper policy research, mobilizing in more communities, and building on all the momentum we’ve developed so far.

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/by
,

Celebrating Women’s History Month: Spotlight on Carolin Hetzner

From members of the staff to dozens of volunteers, MA Appleseed is proud to be led by so many remarkable women. This Women’s History Month, we’re thrilled to shine the spotlight on one of our exemplary board members, Carolin Hetzner, Senior Manager of the Court Service Centers, Massachusetts Trial Court!

Sharing her insights, advice, and invaluable perspective, Carolin’s dedication to justice and community empowerment inspires us each and every day.  

What does justice mean to you?

Justice can mean so many things, but for me it is equal access to the courts and resources. Ensuring that no one is excluded because of barriers such as lack of language access, immigration status, race or gender bias, literacy, or disability. Access to this justice looks different for everyone. While it does often involve accessing the courts, access to justice can also take the form of advocacy for legislation or providing an individual guidance on processes that eliminate the need for court involvement.  

Why is Board service meaningful to you?

Board service allows me an inside look at the important work that Appleseed staff does daily. It provides me with a different perspective on how communities can be better served through legislation, and allows me to learn from other board members’ experiences and perspectives. 

If you had to give one piece of advice to young women just starting out in the workforce, what would you say?

I would have two pieces of advice. First, having a boss who sees your value, listens to your voice, and leads by example is invaluable and can inspire you to bring your best self to work every day.  Second, no one knows everything even after years of practice. Give yourself grace when you don’t know something and ask lots of questions.  

Are there any female barrier breakers or role models, either from history or your personal life, that you look up to?

There are so many women, both professionally and from my personal life, that inspire and encourage me to be the best version of myself. I find tremendous inspiration from my coworkers, colleagues, and closest friends. Women who not only juggle demanding work, personal, and family schedules, but often make time for community service as well. My first role model, like many people, is my mother. As a single mother, she overcame obstacles such as limited English proficiency and financial insecurity, to provide me and my siblings a better life. She has always led by example, teaching us the value of kindness, respect, and giving back to the community. Values that I now try to pass on to my own child. 

 

This Women’s History Month, let’s celebrate leaders like Carolin Hetzner, whose tireless efforts enrich our communities and pave the way for a more equitable future. Carolin, we extend our deepest gratitude for your unwavering commitment to justice and your vital contributions to MA Appleseed!

 

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/by
,

Missing the Mark on School Safety: How City Officials’ Call for Law Enforcement in BPS Actually Harms Students

By Asia Foland

Contaminated rooms, unbearable class temperatures, and… metal detectors? Boston Public Schools are still working to meet students’ needs. Police are not going to help.

In June of 2022, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, former BPS superintendent Brenda Cassellius, chair of the Boston School Committee Jeri Robinson, and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) Commissioner Jeff Riley signed the “Systemic Improvement Plan” (SIP) targeting the district’s most urgent problems: among them late buses, failures to equitably serve students with disabilities, and deteriorating facilities.

Last month during a state education board meeting, DESE commissioner Riley called Boston’s progress on implementing this plan “incomplete” (2). He noted empty staff positions across the district, including leaders for the multilingual education office, a “coordinator of problem resolution” to address school safety and parent concerns, and senior staffers for special education (2,3).

More than half of Boston’s schools were built before World War II and since 2007, only four projects for new renovations and schools – out of three dozen – have been approved (1). And BPS has not yet renovated school bathroom facilities throughout the city, despite pledging to do so under the SIP (2). The consequences of this disrepair are well-known: oppressively hot classroom temperatures, crumbling walls and ceilings, and exposure to environmental contaminants.

And yet, amid BPS’s mounting public and legal obligations, how have certain Boston leaders responded?

With calls for police.

Though BPS removed police from schools in 2021, four Boston city councilors published a public letter this past January urging Mayor Wu to reinstate police and metal detectors in schools (4). In their letter, the city counselors — Erin Murphy, Michael Flaherty, Ed Flynn, and Frank Baker — declared the need for these security measures despite acknowledging the public’s “differing opinions” surrounding their use.

But this isn’t a matter of “differing opinions.” 

Visible and physical security measures in schools have been overwhelmingly discredited. According to a report by Citizens for Juvenile Justice, an analysis of 15 years of metal detectors in schools came up with “insufficient evidence that their use decreased crime or violence in schools,” instead finding “their presence made students feel less safe” (5).  

Yet in their letter, Boston City Councilors labeled metal detectors “non-invasive.” This is far from reality: for those forced to walk through them every morning before they can learn, metal detectors are invasive – physically and psychologically. And when we make our schools feel like prisons, our children feel less secure. 

Police presence also has no positive impact on school safety outcomes, according to a meta-analysis of 12 studies done by the WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center (6). Instead, Black and brown students are disproportionately targeted within their schools, specifically for low-level offenses that in no way require law enforcement (7). In a district where students of color make up 85% of student enrollment, placing police in schools would detrimentally diminish an encouraging learning environment.  

But there is another path Boston can take. Evidence-based approaches, centered around restorative justice and preventive measures, have been proven to reduce student arrests and foster a safe learning space. These include conflict resolution, personal reflection, community reconciliation, and more. And they’re not a new phenomenon: when Denver Public Schools implemented restorative practices in 2011, suspension rates decreased by 44% (8). 

These strategies would relieve our city councilors’ safety concerns by identifying the underlying causes of conflict instead of their visible outcomes. As Leon Smith, Executive Director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, remarked, “It would be unfortunate to see Boston move in a regressive way, doubling down on approaches that research shows are not effective rather than shifting resources to approaches shown to both address student need and improve school safety and climate” (9).  

Fundamentally, not only does law enforcement ineffectively ensure school safety compared to restorative action, but it also fails to address the urgent dangers posed by Boston’s declining facilities. Police officers cannot protect students from exposure to asbestos or lead in the neglected buildings they patrol. Police officers cannot ventilate classrooms or keep them within tolerable temperatures. Students deserve real safety at school – not just the illusion of it. And with such blatant neglect on display, it would be outrageous to funnel crucial funding and resources toward failed law enforcement measures. 

To their credit, Boston has made recent progress in meeting their students’ needs. But that does not mean we cannot hold them accountable. This moment is crucial for Boston Public Schools, and we must be diligent. Using reactionary force does not ensure student safety in schools. And when the district is still struggling to serve all students, allocating time and resources toward ineffective discipline would only set them back. It’s time for Boston leaders to expand their definition of school safety and support investments that genuinely address our students’ needs.

 

Sources:

  1. Massachusetts spends thousands more on school construction aid for white students than for students of color, https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/05/27/metro/massachusetts-school-construction-aid/
  2. One year into school improvement plan, state official grades Boston’s progress ‘incomplete’: https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/06/27/boston-school-improvement-plan-one-year-later-progress-update
  3. Another year, another incomplete grade for Boston Public Schools: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/07/06/opinion/boston-public-schools-jeff-riley-blistering-criticism/
  4. https://twitter.com/ErinforBoston/status/1611476972076507136
  5. Mowen, Thomas and Freng, Adrienne. “Is More Necessarily Better? School Security and Perceptions of Safety among Students and Parents in the United States”. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205221/
  6. Stern, A., & Petrosino, A. (2018). What do we know about the effects of school-based law enforcement on school safety? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. https://www.wested.org/ resources/effects-of-school-based-law-enforcement-on-school-safety
  7. Thurau, L. and Wald, J. Controlling Partners: When Law Enforcement Meets Discipline in Public Schools, 54 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 977 (2009-2010). https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/ nyls_law_review/vol54/iss4/5/ 
  8. Cregor, Matt and Damon T. Hewitt. “Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Survey from the Field.” (2011).
  9. Boston Public Schools quietly negotiating with city police to formalize relationship: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/16/metro/boston-public-schools-quietly-negotiating-with-city-police-formalize-relationship/

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/by
,

Debt Forces Massachusetts Families into Crisis. Barriers in Virtual Court Hearings Can Make Things Worse.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, self-represented litigants faced an uphill battle in the civil justice system. For a person unable to afford an attorney and forced to walk into court alone, something as small as knowing how or where to file a form could be a confusing, anxiety-inducing process.

Then COVID-19 hit. Thousands lost jobs, fell sick, and struggled to stay afloat. The skyrocketing legal needs of Bay Staters overwhelmed existing services. Courthouses shuttered, shifting to conduct court hearings virtually over the phone and through Zoom.

At the beginning of the pandemic, MA Appleseed began exploring the impact these virtual hearings had on self-represented litigants. We chose to focus on small claims debt collection cases where self-representation is the norm and the consequences of a poor outcome can be severe. People can lose vital income, get saddled with a reduced credit score that haunts them for years, and even face threats of eviction or incarceration.

Law students from Western New England University gave up their school breaks, volunteering to spend hours observing virtual small claims sessions across the state. The students followed up by interviewing the litigants they observed, gaining more insight into their firsthand experience. With project partners, we examined the patterns and recurring problems that emerged from these observations.

This research project culminated in our most recent collaborative report, You’re Still Muted: Access to Justice Barriers in Massachusetts’ Virtual Small Claims Court. Our findings are all-too familiar. At every turn, those who are already the most vulnerable when interacting with the court – low-income litigants, individuals with disabilities, limited English proficient litigants – face barrier after barrier in their attempts to engage with the legal process and achieve a fair outcome. In addition to technology-related hurdles, like litigants dropping out of hearings unexpectedly, a lack of standardization across court practices increases accessibility problems. Deeply entrenched inequities embedded in financial and legal institutions and the compounding effects of the COVID-19 pandemic mean this disproportionately harms communities of color, further widening the racial wealth gap.

Lack of a law degree and the inability to afford to hire an attorney should never be the reason a person loses their livelihood, their home, or is driven deeper into poverty. And as a state with vast racial wealth inequality, taking steps to eliminate these barriers is critical.

Some of the changes we recommended are simple, such as requiring clerk magistrates to introduce themselves and explain their role at the start of every court session. Others may require more coordination, like working with local legal service providers to establish “lawyer for the day” programs where there aren’t any now. Several recommendations seek to remedy issues of basic fairness. For example, standardizing how we treat litigants who appear late to a remote session or fail to show up at all, whether they’re a well-financed debt collection company or a single mother without an attorney.

Solving this problem is possible and the potential benefits are enormous. A study from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that closing the racial wealth gap would grow the state’s economy by $25 billion in just five years. When people successfully navigate the civil justice system and resolve their legal problems, they can break out of cycles of upheaval and help build stronger, thriving communities. As for the courts, improved accessibility during virtual hearings will increase court efficiency and improve public perception of the courts as a fair institution.   

Court systems across the country have a reputation for being slow to change. They are built on tradition and precedence. But the COVID-19 pandemic forced everyone to rapidly adapt in the face of emerging crisis. The Massachusetts Trial Court rose to that challenge and showed that it can be done – that change is possible. At the height of the pandemic, we saw how court staff and Court Service Center managers worked with creativity and dedication to meet the needs of the thousands of people who sought their help. Amid statewide aspirations for an equitable pandemic recovery and the reality that disparities burdening low-wage workers and communities of color have intensified, these efforts to transform the courts and meet the goal of “justice for all” must continue. 

Virtual court, in one form or another, is here to stay. The rapid transformation that the civil justice system went through has provided Massachusetts with a treasure trove of data, information, and powerful lessons about the role technology can play in our future, both good and bad. And unless the needs and experiences of our most vulnerable litigants are centered in that future, a fair outcome in court and all the collateral benefits that come with it – stability, prosperity, and opportunity – will remain accessible only to those able to afford it.

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/by
,

Massachusetts Appleseed Participates in the 2021 Stand Against Racism Campaign

This spring, Massachusetts Appleseed joined over 250 companies, schools, community organizations, and others as participants in the 2021 Stand Against Racism Campaign, hosted by the Alliance of YWCAs of Massachusetts. Through three discussion sessions during April and into early May, Massachusetts Appleseed staff and Board members gathered together to discuss and reflect on the ways in which white supremacy is embedded in our education systems, experiences in employment, and every facet of our lives.

Massachusetts Appleseed staff and Board members participate in the 2021 Stand Against Racism Campaign.

Participants from three separate discussion sessions: Deborah Silva (Executive Director), Melanie Rush (Research and Policy Assistant), Madeline Poage (Development and Communications Associate), Peter Tobani (Board Member), Zeia Fawaz (Spring Research Intern). Not pictured: Melanie Todman (Chair of the Board of Directors) and John Shutkin (Vice Chair of the Board of Directors).

Together, staff and Board members discussed, “The Muddled History of Anti-Asian Violence” by Hua Hsu, “Racism Is Not a Historical Footnote” by the legendary Bill Russell, “Rotundamente Negra (Rotundly Black)” by Shirley Campbell, and Kimberlé Crenshaw’s keynote address at the 2016 Women of the World festival.

A number of themes emerged throughout our conversations, with participants reflecting on the failure of the American education system to adequately educate students about systemic racism, the consequences of this failure, the impact of microaggressions, the importance of engaging directly with all perspectives, and more.

Our final discussion centered predominantly on Kimberlé Crenshaw’s keynote address, which resonated with staff particularly strongly. In it, Dr. Crenshaw describes the origin of the #SayHerName campaign and lists some of the many Black women killed through racist police violence – Eleanor Bumpurs, Margaret Mitchell, Michelle Cusseaux, Tanisha Anderson, Natasha McKenna – and how the women in these examples were being evicted, experiencing homelessness, in need of mental health services, or vulnerable in other ways. But rather than being treated with understanding or support, they were met with brutality, violence, and silence. At its most fundamental, Dr. Crenshaw’s address reminds us that racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and poverty are intertwined, and until we treat them as such, they will continue to persist.

Massachusetts Appleseed staff also utilized the digital pledge board provided by YW Boston during the campaign, committing to specific ways we will each participate in the fight to eliminate racism in our work and in our lives. Through these pledges, staff members aim to strengthen our ongoing work to develop projects through the lens of anti-racism and ensure all components that make up Massachusetts Appleseed – from governance, to programs, to fundraising – align with our Statement of Values. The Statement of Values was created collaboratively by staff and the Board of Directors in 2020 and through it, we are explicit in affirming that our commitment to promoting access to justice and opportunity goes hand in hand with our commitment to combating all forms of systemic racism.

Massachusetts Appleseed's digital pledge board, completed during the 2021 Stand Against Racism Campaign.

Massachusetts Appleseed’s digital pledge board, completed during the 2021 Stand Against Racism Campaign.

Massachusetts Appleseed has recently deepened its decade-long work to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline by focusing on the specific ways girls of color are targeted and excluded from their learning environments. As we convene students, educators, advocates, and other community members together to inform and guide our research and advocacy efforts, the tools provided through this campaign will help us build an anti-racist, intersectional foundation on which to do so.

We are so grateful to YW Boston and the Alliance of YWCAs of Massachusetts for providing these resources, and to all the guest curators for their selections and discussion guides. We look forward to continuing to make space for these collaborative and essential conversations, hold ourselves accountable, and center anti-racism in our work to build a more just, inclusive future.

Recommendations for further reading and watching from Massachusetts Appleseed staff and Board members:

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/by
, ,

Featured Volunteers: The Liberty Mutual Legal Department

Logo for Liberty Mutual InsuranceWhen Kathy McGrath, the pro bono manager for Liberty Mutual’s legal department, heard about the Homeless Youth Handbook project, she immediately knew she would easily find willing volunteers. And she soon had 25 people signed up to help make a Massachusetts version of the Homeless Youth Handbook that the Baker McKenzie law firm had spearheaded in 10 places already.

“Liberty has a robust pro bono program,” she said, “and many of our lawyers and paralegals already had experience on key legal issues such as obtaining domestic violence restraining orders, finding housing, and accessing education.”

What subjects the volunteers didn’t already know, they were willing to learn about to make the handbook comprehensive and useful. 

Another motivation for Liberty getting involved with the handbook was the valuable organizational support from MA Appleseed. The staff at Appleseed greatly assisted the drafters from Liberty and Boston Scientific by compiling a thorough list of online research sources for Massachusetts law. Then the staff assembled a network of local subject matter experts, who they have been working with to review and edit the drafts volunteers submit to ensure the finalized handbook is thorough and accurate.                        

Participating in the handbook was a great fit for the Liberty legal department because one of the primary goals of the company’s charitable foundation is addressing homelessness, with a special emphasis on preventing youth homelessness. For example, in 2018, Liberty Mutual funded the purchase of Liberty House, a transitional residence for young people experiencing homelessness managed by Bridge Over Troubled Waters. The staff at Bridge Over Troubled Waters were excited when Attorney McGrath told them about the handbook, seeing it as providing legal information to supplement Bridge’s own app that helps young people experiencing homelessness navigate resources for shelter, meals, mental health, and more. In fact, Bridge agreed that it would have the final draft of the handbook reviewed by teenagers experiencing homelessness to confirm it was written and organized in an understandable way.     

“MA Appleseed has done a wonderful job coordinating the handbook project,” McGrath said. “With so many authors collaborating and experts reviewing the handbook sections, something this complex needed the structure that Appleseed provides. I think the handbook is going to be truly useful to homeless young people and the network of providers who guide them.”

“Not only has Liberty consistently been a champion of our most vulnerable youth over the years,” said Deborah Silva, Executive Director of MA Appleseed, “but we have been amazed by their tireless dedication to this project, especially during such a difficult time. As the world has shut down around us, the Liberty team and all our volunteers continue to write and turn in handbook chapters, which will enable us to get the finished resource into the hands of the young people who need it as soon as possible. We rely on pro bono assistance at MA Appleseed, and partners like Liberty are an extraordinary gift. I couldn’t be more grateful for their hard work and the time and energy they have donated to make this know-your-rights resource a reality.”

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Featured Monthly Donor

Thank You, Jennifer Sunderland: Board Member, Boston Attorney, and Generous Monthly Donor!

 

Image of Jennifer Sunderland, Member of Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice's Board of Directors

Jennifer Sunderland, Board Member

Jennifer is a Massachusetts native who attended college and law school here and clerked for judges in the Massachusetts Trial Court and Supreme Judicial Court. As a public defender for four years, Jennifer witnessed the importance of expanding access to justice within our legal system firsthand. After working for three boutique law firms doing civil litigation, she started her own law firm with a former colleague this past January. They focus on criminal defense and business and employment litigation.

“When I first became involved in MA Appleseed, I particularly appreciated the organization’s approach of engaging stakeholders in order to develop evidence-based solutions,” Jennifer said. “It has a unique mission and approach, and I think its work fills a gap in finding solutions to systemic access to justice problems.”

Jennifer is a champion of MA Appleseed’s Board of Directors. She has spearheaded multiple events like last September’s Trivia Night during which her team, the Lady Killers, came close to winning the ultimate prize! A committed donor, she recently began giving on a monthly basis last November.

“By giving monthly, I can do my part to help ensure MA Appleseed has consistent and regular support,” Jennifer said. “Also, it’s easier because I can give a smaller amount over time rather than a larger amount at one time. Now that donating monthly is an option, I cannot see a downside to doing it. It also saves me from having to think about it because my donation is automatically processed every month – one less task to worry about!”

“Because MA Appleseed is a small organization, it has the ability to be nimble and flexible where other nonprofits might be burdened and slowed by bureaucracy,” she added. “However, because it is smaller, every bit of support counts!”

To join Jennifer and become a monthly donor, click here and sustain MA Appleseed’s work all year with a gift of $15 a month.

Jennifer Sunderland has been a member of Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice’s Board of Directors since 2016.  

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/0 Comments/by
,

Coronavirus Has Made Courts Go Remote. Will This Lay The Groundwork For Using Technology to Expand Access to Justice In The Future?

By Jake Hofstetter | Research and Policy Associate

The coronavirus crisis has impacted every part of society, and even public institutions are having to be flexible and creative to respond to the pandemic. Schools are using remote learning, governments are offering unemployment applications online, and libraries are lending e-books. The court system is no different. With social distancing in place and public gatherings prohibited, courts in Massachusetts have mostly closed and moved many of their hearings and services to remote formats. Although tragic, the COVID-19 pandemic creates an opportunity for us to experiment with new ways of delivering justice and to determine how well remote services and courts hearings work once the coronavirus emergency has subsided. The question will be not only how well these measures have functioned in a crisis, but what we can learn from remote services to potentially make our legal system work more fairly after the pandemic ends.

Massachusetts’ legal system has responded quickly to combat the spread of coronavirus. The Trial Court has closed all the Commonwealth’s courthouses and postponed all proceedings except for emergency matters related to criminal activities, child welfare, domestic violence, and other urgent concerns. According to the courts’ order, these hearings should be held remotely (if possible), using technological tools such as telephones or video conferencing. All non-emergency concerns have been delayed until at least May, and indigent litigants now are able to file their forms electronically (e-file) free of charge in cases where e-filing is available. Legal aid organizations have also begun to offer more remote services, and the six Court Service Centers, court-run centers that provide self-help assistance to litigants, have started limited remote services for cases that the courts are still handling.

What is happening in Massachusetts mirrors what is happening nationally. At least three quarters of states have restricted entry to their courthouses while every state has generally suspended proceedings or allowed local entities (like counties or cities) to suspend proceedings. Three states have mandated the use of remote/virtual hearings while many more, including Massachusetts, have partially required or urged the use of virtual hearings. These steps have led some states to use Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Webex, and other software to hold virtual hearings. All of these moves indicate that remote court proceedings and legal services are having a moment, the scale of which wouldn’t have been possible to imagine only a few months ago.

Remote services are not just convenient workarounds for our current crisis – they also represent powerful tools for increasing access to justice for everyone. Even when there are not travel restrictions or social distancing regulations, the act of coming to court can create a serious barrier for many working and low-income people. It requires taking a day off work, finding childcare, coordinating transportation, and other practical challenges for many litigants. Plus, most cases don’t require only coming to court once, they require multiple appearances that create an even larger burden, especially for court users without lawyers (self-represented litigants, or SRLs for short). On top of that, many litigants who seek to take advantage of free self-help services have to return to courts and wait in line for long periods due to limited capacity at Court Service Centers. Court buildings themselves are also intimidating for many people. Legal jargon, high-priced lawyers, and complicated forms can make anyone nervous, especially those without legal representation.

But it’s not just hearings and legal assistance that can go remote. Court systems can also use existing programs that allow litigants to fill out court forms online and then e-file their documents. Known as document assembly programs, this type of software guides users through an interview where they answer questions and enter information that pertains to their case. After the user completes the digital interview, the program takes the user’s information and automatically fills out the relevant legal form(s), similar to how Turbo Tax works. Document assembly programs not only make filling out confusing forms easier but also save litigants the time of having to come to court to file forms or get help filling them out. Efforts to use these programs to respond to the pandemic are already underway in Massachusetts. Suffolk Law School’s Legal Innovation & Technology Lab (LIT Lab) has already started an initiative, known as the Document Assembly Line Project, to take urgent forms from Massachusetts courts and “create mobile-friendly accessible versions of online court forms and pro se materials in multiple-languages.” In its finalized form, this program will let Massachusetts court users fill out documents online within the comfort and safety of their own homes.

Of course, remote services are not without drawbacks. Holding hearings over Zoom or a conference call presents the same challenges that normal staff meetings do: people talk over each other, internet connections go out, people get distracted. The same populations that already struggle with finding representation or navigating the legal system may not have access to strong enough internet connections or lack technological literacy to use software like Zoom or document assembly programs. For self-represented litigants, using a phone line may also increase confusion over what is going on in their cases. Regarding due process, advocates fear moving to entirely remote hearings may reduce the quality of representation and independent monitoring for defendants. For example, defendants can’t speak to their attorneys privately if they are participating in a conference call with a judge and prosecutor. Similarly, cases may not receive a full or fair hearing due to remote technology or the speed at which the court holds its Zoom call. Remote court hearings also mean a judge is only hearing a voice, not seeing a face, which can remove much of the humanity from what may be intensely personal cases. Any remote solutions will always have to balance these concerns with the convenience of taking court hearings and services online.

When this crisis is over and we are tempted to return everything to “normal,” it will be essential to take the time to look back, and evaluate whether remote services helped or, in some cases, hurt litigants’ efforts in court. This is a chance for us to see how well these tools can work, to test their capacity on a large scale, work out problems, and better understand how going remote can expand access to justice. Once the dust settles, we’ll also have a new trove of data, perspectives, and outcomes from which we will be able to analyze which emergency measures might be worth keeping around for the future. If court systems take advantage of those lessons learned, we’ll have the chance to lay the foundation for remote legal and court services that increase access to our courts and lead to a more welcoming system for all court users.

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/0 Comments/by
,

The Massachusetts Access to Justice Commission Gets It Right on Courthouse Cell Phone Bans

By Jake Hofstetter | Research and Policy Associate

In just two decades, cell phones have gone from convenient accessories for making calls to essential tools in our everyday lives. Without our phones we lose not only our capacity to entertain ourselves in waiting rooms, but also the ability to access a repository of information we need for every aspect of our lives. Because of our reliance on our iPhones, there are only a few places where visitors are banned from possessing cell phones: prisons, secret military installations, and, more surprisingly, 56 Massachusetts courthouses. Although well-intentioned, these bans separate court visitors and litigants from an essential tool in managing their cases, leaving many court users without attorneys at a serious disadvantage.

Cell phone bans exist to minimize distractions and make sure courthouses remain safe and confidential. Ringing phones and noises from videos or apps disrupt the functioning and integrity of legal proceedings. On the darker side, gangs or other criminals may use cell phones for photographing or intimidating witnesses and undercover police officers. Although these concerns are legitimate, they shouldn’t outweigh the harm that cell phone bans cause as well as the common-sense solutions that can prevent the misuse of cell phones without banning them.

Evidence from reporting, independent research, and the court system’s own internal investigation continue to show that cell phone bans are harmful to court users representing themselves without attorneys. A report from the Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice published last summer demonstrated that cell phone bans prevent court users from presenting evidence, scheduling court dates, and referencing information needed for filling out legal forms. The fact that lawyers can bring their cell phones to court makes these policies even more unfair for those representing themselves. The court system’s own internal investigation, released by the Massachusetts Access to Justice Commission last month, also found that blanket cell phone bans created “unacceptable hardships” and should be replaced with more permissive policies such as universal exceptions for those with official business at the court and storage options for facilities that truly need to prohibit cell phone use for security reasons.

Besides frustrating the efforts of those trying to represent themselves in court, cell phone bans also create serious burdens for all court visitors and users. Court users regularly use cell phones to manage childcare, transportation, and their absences from work. Since many people do not know about cell phone bans before coming to court and there are no options for storage, some court users may be left to decide whether to attend their court appearances or not. Others choose to hide their phones outside courthouses in the bushes or pay private businesses to store their phones. These options may lead to court users losing their phones or having to pay extra money, that they may not have to spare, to store them.

Most courthouses don’t need cell phone bans to be safe or orderly. In fact, many courthouses in Massachusetts (and across the country) do not have cell phone bans and function without serious disruptions or witness intimidation. Unfortunately, a minority of court users will always take calls in inappropriate places or, worse, record court proceedings for nefarious purposes. As the court system’s own internal investigation noted, however, it is fairer to court users to regulate the use of cell phones rather than the possession of cell phones. The first approach leads to reasonable policies where cell phone use can be restricted in certain facilities or courtrooms. The second approach creates an unfair burden on those who cannot afford to hire an attorney to represent them and makes it difficult for all members of our technology-attached society to use courthouses.

Changing cell phone bans in courthouses may seem like a small step, but it is an important one in expanding access to justice in Massachusetts. The growing numbers of people who must represent themselves in court already have trouble navigating our complex legal system without having to give up an essential tool like their smartphone. The court system and Access to Justice Commission deserve credit for their willingness to study this issue as well as their recognition that cell phone bans are harmful and should be replaced with more permissive and effective policies. These changes will also assure that our legal system remains fair and up to date with the rapid technological change occurring all around us.

 

Want to stay informed on the latest issues Massachusetts Appleseed is working on?
Sign up for our mailing list.

/0 Comments/by