Apologies for the late update, as my DCYF saga continues. In Part 1, I put in a Right To Know requesting the volume and locations of DCYF abuse and neglect reports being made. The RTK payload (w/out the boilerplate) was rather simple.
For the Division of Children,Youth and Families (“DCYF”) and the time frame starting January 1, 2018 to today, June 17, 2023 (inclusive):
- Initial incident reports of neglect of a child/children, all sources
- Initial incident reports of abuse of a child/children, all sources
- Initial incident reports of neglect and abuse of a child/children, all sources
Only three data elements for each governmental record are demanded:
- Date of complaint filed with DCYF
- Complaint/incident type [neglect | abuse | neglect and abuse]
- Originating Town | City from where the complaint was filed
No other identifying or personal identifying data elements are requested or desired.
That was sent on 6/19/2023 1:13:02 PM. I got a response the next day that it was received and was being sent to the data folks for the response. There was a concern from DHHS Deputy Chief John Martin concerning the ability to narrow into individuals as the targets of those incidents (emphasis mine right now):
…My only concern is that we do not release data at so low a level of granularity when there is the possibility of constructive identification. If a report of abuse or neglect is made in a town with a very small population and we provide the specific date the report was made, it is possible that the identity of the alleged victim and/or alleged perpetrator could be derived using other sources of information, such as police reports or news accounts. Therefore, it may be necessary for us to withhold certain information in accordance with RSA 91-A:5,IV. For example, it may be necessary in some instances to withhold the name of the town if its population is very small, or it may be necessary to provide the month and year of the report, but not the specific day.
DCYF anticipates that it will take up to 30 days to pull the data. I will provide the data to you as soon as I receive it and make any necessary redactions.
Valid points. I get it, but my response was this:
…My only concern is that we do not release data at so low a level of granularity when there is the possibility of constructive identification.
Which is why I asked for only 3 data items per incident. With such a paucity of data, there is no way to be able to tie it back to any particular family.
…we provide the specific date the report was made… it may be necessary to provide the month and year of the report, but not the specific day.
Point made. While part of my research was to see what days of a week or month turned out to be “least” and “maximal”, I am willing to amend my RTK to be MM/YYY. Would you want me to re-submit or can we do a “Gentleman’s Agreement” based on this email?
Or, formally state that I will forgo any attempts to use other sources in “pinpointing” within a town (that which you are worried about)? I’m not looking for specific people with this RTK.
And all of my answers are absolute truth – I’m not looking to identify anyone – the construction of my RTK strictly marks that down (see above, Date, Complaint type, and town). And if DCYF does its job correctly, the Police do THEIR jobs correctly (which, in this case, is the protection of the Privacy of all involved) nowhere would there be “leakage” as to a family or individual.
So 30 days to receive the dataset. When I receive it, it will be interesting to see what the first takeaways will be.
