Data in Danger: Interview with Dr. Jennifer Peirce

Dr. Jennifer Peirce is a criminal justice researcher at the Vera Institute, a nonprofit policy and research organization dedicated to prison reform. She currently contributes to Vera's Beyond Jails Initiative as an associate director of research. In this conversation with Newsjunkie staff reporter Morgan Kriesel, Dr. Peirce discusses the challenges of reaching marginalized populations, why researchers should collaborate with advocacy groups, and ways to combat top-down erasure of our most vulnerable peers.

“That's a number that doesn't exist. Officially, there's no way of determining that…”

Tell me a little bit about your work with the Vera Institute.

I've been a researcher at Vera for about seven years. I've worked on a few different projects over the years. Currently, the team that I'm on focuses primarily on reducing local county jail incarceration and pretrial detention. So we do a lot of work with local jail data.

You worked with Black & Pink on the Advancing Transgender Justice survey. I'd love to get into that project. I know Black & Pink did a version in 2015, but that was a wider pool of LGBTQ people. I want to get into how the new participant pool was selected, and how that all worked.

Advancing Transgender Justice is a project that we did from about 2019 through 2024 in partnership with Black & Pink National.

The 2015 report that you're referring to, Coming out of Concrete Closets, was conducted by survey through the mail by Black & Pink, and it targeted all LGBTQ+ people in prisons who were connected with Black & Pink. That's in part why they had a larger sample size, because it was a larger group of people.

Based on some of the topics of interest over the years, and recognizing that the experiences and needs of people who are transgender—many of them overlap with LGBTQ people broadly, and with all people in prison broadly, but there are some elements that are specific to trans people—we decided to do a follow up project, specifically focusing on people who are trans, who are in prison.

Trans people in prison are a hard-to-reach group because they’re a numerically small group spread out across many facilities. That's just a practical issue. Additionally, some states do track people's gender identity in their official records for various reasons. Some states do, but that data may not be the most up to date or accurate. And there are valid reasons that trans people in prison may not disclose that they are trans to the official authorities, in the data system or otherwise.

One obvious reason is that there's a potential for being targeted or facing additional harassment. In the study, we certainly heard about harassment by other incarcerated people, and also by prison staff. Some people opt for a protection strategy that involves being less open about that, while others opt for a protection strategy that involves being very open about it, and explicitly affiliating themselves with fellow LGBTQ+ people and/or advocates on the outside. So people make different choices depending on their conditions, and some states have more space for that kind of open community building than others based on their policies.

And additionally, even in the places that do sort of attempt to track [trans populations], that administrative data can only tell us certain things. It’s limited information about people's trajectory in the criminal justice system. And we wanted to hear a little bit more in qualitative detail, in people's own words, about their experiences, both in the community and with the criminal justice system—outside of prison as well as inside prison. So it was a mixed-methods project in that sense that we wanted to hear more detail in people's stories.

This project came out of those kinds of conversations, and so we partnered with Black & Pink National. Vera served as the research organization, and Black & Pink was really the connector and the subject matter expert on the issues. And we decided to reach out to people who were already connected to Black & Pink's network, who had identified as trans to Black & Pink, not necessarily to the prison officials in the facility where they were currently residing. We did this for a few reasons. One is that we wanted to reach people who already were somewhat open about being trans.

We sent the survey to approximately 600 people across the country, and we ended up getting a sample of 280 valid responses. That would be people who, based on their survey answers, are trans or non-binary and in prison. That is the sample that we used for publishing this survey.

The survey asked about their first contact with the criminal legal system, first arrest, early experiences with police and courts, length of time incarcerated. And then there were various questions around experiences of living in prison, about housing assignment, who they're living with, solitary confinement, access to health care, access to specific forms of gender affirming health care, sense of safety or risk, and then some sort of broader questions.

Do you know how many trans people were incarcerated when you were doing this study?

That's a number that doesn't exist. Officially, there's no way of determining that because of the reasons I described earlier. Gender identity is not a category that is systematically collected by all state DOCs [Department of Corrections]. And additionally, people have valid reasons not to report that, even if it were being collected. So the short answer is no, we don't really know.

And then, as you probably know, in early 2025 the new federal administration sent out an executive order that removes the gender identity category from some of the federal data collection processes. It was unclear and difficult to collect before, and that adds in an additional complication that makes it even harder. Although that only applies to the federal system.

I've seen estimates from about 2022 that said there were around 5,000 to 6,000 incarcerated trans people. Does that seem right to you? Do you have a different estimate?

I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. We weren't really looking for an overall estimate.

I'm just curious—as far as a representative sample goes, what can 280 responses tell us?

That's a fair question. Again, we reached out to people who had already identified as trans to Black & Pink. Just to start out with, that's obviously a lower number than the total amount of trans people in prisons in general. Like I said, we sent out about 600 surveys to that list of people through regular mail, and the survey response rate was about 47%, which is a very strong response rate for social science surveys. Generally, rates are much lower with people who are behind bars.

About 20% of our sample responded from a solitary confinement situation when they were actually filling out the surveys. Again, that speaks to the difficulty of reaching people. This also occurred overlapping with the pandemic, so we didn't have the opportunity to be in person in any facilities to speak to people directly.

It certainly is not meant to be a representative sample of all trans people in prison, and it leans towards those who are probably more open about being trans, given what I said earlier about their affiliation with Black & Pink. But we think that that was a reasonable balance to strike in order, A) for the practicalities of knowing who to reach, and B) for the ethical and privacy considerations—not wanting to essentially flag anyone inadvertently, who didn't want to already be receiving correspondence on these kinds of topics. And so it's a pretty good sample, given that balance that we were trying to strike.

And additionally, as a mixed-method survey, you balance broad generalizability with depth of information. You’re able to have some numbers and some percentages about people's experiences in the system, with what their experiences with restrictive housing or health care access were using the qualitative information that they provided. Many people wrote us pages and pages of their own words about their own experiences, and so that's part of the value. So yes, it's not in the 1,000s, but it does have some of that depth that you don't get from national surveys that don't have the qualitative aspect.

For example, we asked about people's gender identity with a set of closed categories as well as an option to put things in their own words. And then we consolidated those categories after the fact. For analysis, we asked a lot of Yes/No questions or kind of like, A Lot, Somewhat, Not Very Much, Not at All, style questions, and then some questions that were just open text.

So who was mainly responsible for developing these questions? Was that mostly Black & Pink?

We built that together in partnership with Black & Pink.

“Marginalized groups, who are maybe less trusting of government-led efforts, will be more responsive when there's a trusted partner organization involved…”

Do you know how Black & Pink built this trust and formed these relationships [with incarcerated trans people]?

Black & Pink National is a long-standing organization of mostly formerly incarcerated people who provide support in various forms to LGBTQ+ people in prisons across the country. They regularly send newsletters resources, they have a pen pal program, and so there's kind of an active network. So that is a certain degree of comfort. And of course, not everyone necessarily chooses to participate in that, but they do have a pretty good reach.

I think it's interesting, the space that's created from federal and other reporting systems pulling away, maybe leaving room for more grassroots organizations working with research organizations like yours. I’m looking for ways to promote that to researchers who are kind of in the lurch right now, like—“there are advocacy organizations, maybe grassroots organizations, who have direct experience with the people or the subject that you're looking to study.” Do you have any tips on how to form connections with advocacy groups?

I think it's important to reach out to research organizations, advocacy organizations, or policy makers directly, as well as to universities, to say, “This is the question that we're trying to answer. What is possible with the available data? How could we combine it with other data sources, bring in qualitative data, reorganize the available data, or whatever the right approach might be?” That really helps to come up with findings that might be useful.

It's especially important for harder to reach groups. Marginalized groups, who are maybe less trusting of government-led efforts, will be more responsive when there's a trusted partner organization involved that can give some insight to asking questions in a way that is respectful and thoughtful of people's past experiences and sensitivities.

It also helps to have policymakers and the general public understand what data can and cannot show us. There's a lot we can see from data, but there are also limitations, obviously. So explaining the benefits and the constraints on that is another aspect [of collaboration].

We've been working with advocacy groups, and other research and policy groups, to put forward evidence-based research about who's actually impacted by the criminal justice system and the immigration systems, to push more government accountability through data transparency. Sometimes we collect our own data, sometimes we compile data from other sources. It really depends on who we're partnering with.

“This is a long-standing issue and lots of groups are working to make changes on this front. That's not going to stop.”

Do you expect, as the federal research system is hit over and over again, further drops in data quality and releases, and do you have plans on how to address those things moving forward?

Like I said before, we already saw that. There was an executive order in January of 2025 that changed the definition of sex for people in federal prisons to refer only to sex assigned at birth. So that has certainly limited our ability to understand gender identity for the federal agencies that are affected by that executive order, even though many state agencies are continuing to collect gender identity data as before. Generally, these changes are disruptive and will result in the lesser quality of data, both in the granularity and in the standardization over time. The data sometimes show opportunities for change, or metrics about what's going well and what's not. But when there's less federal government detail, it makes it harder to make those interventions.

It's important to remember that there were many gaps before with regard to sexual orientation, gender identity, and also other demographic data points, like race and ethnicity. The criminal justice agencies for many decades, long before 2025, have operationally defaulted to a binary way of thinking about sex and gender. And there's a notorious lack of clarity on how we track Hispanic and Latino people's race and ethnicity in different systems. The changes at the federal level make it harder and, at the same time, this is something that researchers and policy makers have been grappling with for many years, even prior to these recent changes.

We're continuing to work on it and do the best we can. And that involves doing some of what I mentioned before—pulling together different sources, building new partnerships, talking to people directly when it's possible, collecting our own data if the government data isn't adequate. This is a long-standing issue and lots of groups are working to make changes on this front. That's not going to stop.

The [Advancing Transgender Justice] project that we published in 2024—we are continuing to have meetings and outreach with government advocates and research folks in different domains who are interested in those findings and talking through the implications of those findings for their particular agencies and contexts. We are continuing to think about how we talk about and organize data on sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation, as well as race and ethnicity, when we are pulling from local, state, and federal datasets around people in jail and people in prison [for Vera’s Incarceration Trends project]. And we’re thinking carefully about how we manage the gaps that may emerge from some of these changes. It's a work in progress, and we're working on it along with other researchers in the field.

“…there is a chilling effect. [Reduced information] could translate to reduced services and reduced funding.”

If we can zoom out and kind of look at the consequences that these marginalized communities might face as a result of being erased in this data, how does this affect trans people on the inside?

At a symbolic and general public discourse level, it certainly has a chilling effect. And a general message that there is less space, and less encouraging and welcoming environments, for trans people to be honest and forthcoming about their gender identity while incarcerated, and any of the needs that they may have related to being trans. That general chilling effect, unfortunately happens even when it's just affecting federal agencies.

Additionally, of course, prison agencies and jail agencies are responsible for the safety, and well being, and health of the people who are in their custody. So it is important for those agencies to understand who is in their care so that they can provide the adequate health care and other services that people need. Refusing to be serious about understanding who is trans or non-binary, whether that's about data collection or just about day to day operations, is probably going to have a negative effect on being able to provide services.

The first step to providing services is to understand what those needs are, by not asking about a particular group, that is cutting them off from the get-go. Some of these services may continue to be offered, even without formal data collection, but it certainly constrains our ability to improve those services and to track outcomes in a meaningful way.

And we're seeing that some of these services are not being offered. We had the administration announce that federal prisons will no longer be continuing gender affirming care. When we can't get data on people who are now being denied care, what does that mean? If I can kind of put a spin on it, why is that dangerous?

Well, it's a failure of institutional responsibility to not offer or to cut off needed health-care services for any group that's in custody. So just in general, that is a negative outcome for people who need health care, or other housing or social services.

Not having data specific to trans people limits general health-care metrics, or general safety metrics in prison—like I said before, we need to understand the experiences of people receiving those services, and whether they are actually improving their well being and their health—and especially limits understanding of issues that we know disproportionately affect trans people in custody, such as risk of verbal harassment, physical violence, and sexual assault.

When we have the targeting of a marginalized group—like trans people, like immigrants—do you see the erasure of data on these groups as part of this targeting process?

I can't speak to the motivations of any entity, but there is a chilling effect. [Reduced information] could translate to reduced services and reduced funding. I think that is ultimately one negative effect that comes from some of these changes at the federal level.

“Prisons and jails are places where our governments have direct control... That really is a distillation of our core responsibilities, values, and mandates as a society.”

I've gotten some pushback on this focus area of my [Prairie Fire] project. People have asked me, “Look, why should we care about prison data at a time like this, when there's so much to care about?” What is your response to that? Why should we be concerned about this data?

Well, first of all, there are millions of our fellow Americans behind bars every day. Many of them are in solitary confinement, or experiencing harassment and violence from other incarcerated people and from prison staff. We should care about their well-being as fellow humans, full stop.

Secondly, prisons and jails are places where our governments have direct control over, and responsibility for, the safety and well being of the people—people in their custody who don't have the freedom to seek those services elsewhere. That really is a distillation of our core responsibilities, values, and mandates as a society. So we should care about the data that reflects those practices for that reason.

As we're seeing due process being thrown out the window, we have a secret-police-type federal agency kidnapping people off the streets, I feel that being able to look at who is in the prison system and why is really important. It’s a way to understand who the administration is targeting and their rationale, or their non-rationale. Do you have a response to that?

I think it's important no matter what, whichever administration happens to be in place at the federal level. It's important for governments to collect data on their own practices, and it's also important for independent researchers and advocacy groups to access that data and to collect their own data, so that we can interpret those numbers and trends in a way that's meaningful for pushing for policy change that generates more due process, and safety, and better outcomes for everyone together.

“…we need everyone to play a role.”

We talked about how the independent justice research area has been around for a while, how it's been in contact with advocacy groups, in contact with the government. Do you see the independent scene as an overall benefit to scholarship in this area, or is it more of a patch-up job for something that should be done by the government?

I think we need everyone to play a role. Governments, whether federal, state or local, have a responsibility to collect data and to publish analysis of trends and outcomes of programs that they're implementing. And we also need independent researchers in nonprofits and university spaces to be doing research that's asking those same questions, critiquing, and asking different questions. And we also need advocacy groups to be taking those findings and bringing them to our elected officials to push for changes so that we can move in a positive direction as a society overall. So all of the above.

Gotcha. It’s an all-hands-on-deck situation.

Yes.