Our Mission
To expose institutional failures, promote transparency, and demand accountability from public officials whose decisions impact citizen safety and welfare.
What We Do
Broken Institutions is dedicated to researching and documenting institutional failures that compromise public safety and democratic accountability. We focus on cases where systemic breakdowns enable preventable tragedies, examining the decision-making processes, policies, and officials responsible.
Our investigations combine traditional investigative journalism with comprehensive source documentation, providing transparent, evidence-based analysis of institutional decision-making and its consequences.
Our Approach
Evidence-Based Investigation
Every claim we make is backed by verifiable sources. We prioritize official government documents, court records, and verified news sources, ensuring our investigations meet the highest standards of accuracy and reliability.
Transparency and Accountability
We believe transparency drives accountability. All our sources are documented and made publicly available, allowing readers to verify our findings and draw their own conclusions from the evidence.
Focus on Systemic Issues
While individual cases provide the human element of our stories, our primary focus is on identifying and exposing systemic patterns that enable institutional failures across jurisdictions and time periods.
Core Values
Accuracy
Every fact is verified through multiple sources and cross-referenced for accuracy.
Transparency
All sources and methodologies are documented and made publicly available.
Integrity
We maintain strict ethical standards and avoid sensationalism in favor of factual reporting.
Independence
Our investigations are driven by evidence and public interest, not political or financial considerations.
Focus Areas
Judicial System Accountability
- Pre-trial release decisions and their consequences
- Competency evaluations and procedural delays
- Judicial immunity and accountability mechanisms
- Sentencing disparities and systemic patterns
Public Policy Analysis
- Immigration enforcement and safety protocols
- Mental health systems and institutional oversight
- Public safety decision-making and resource allocation
- Government transparency and FOIA processes
International Comparisons
- Comparative analysis of institutional systems
- Best practices from international jurisdictions
- Evidence-based policy recommendations
- Reform success stories and implementation strategies
Our Investigative Process
Our methodology combines traditional investigative journalism techniques with systematic documentation processes to ensure accuracy, transparency, and accountability in our reporting.
1
Case Identification
Focus on recent institutional failures with clear documentation and public safety implications
2
Source Collection
Gather official documents, court records, and verified media reports
3
Verification
Cross-reference all claims with multiple independent sources
4
Analysis
Examine patterns, timelines, and systemic failures
5
Documentation
Create comprehensive source archives for transparency
6
Publication
Release findings with full source documentation
Case Documentation Protocol
Source Collection Phase
Comprehensive gathering of all available primary sources, including government documents, court records, and official statements. We prioritize Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and public records access.
Timeline Development
Creation of detailed chronological sequences based on verified dates and events. All timeline entries include source attribution and verification status.
Pattern Analysis
Systematic examination of institutional decisions, policy applications, and procedural outcomes to identify recurring themes and systemic issues.
Comparative Research
International and jurisdictional comparisons to provide context and identify alternative approaches that have proven more effective.
Reform Recommendations
Development of evidence-based policy suggestions grounded in successful implementations from other jurisdictions and academic research.
Quality Control Standards
Our international comparisons follow established academic and policy research methodologies:
- Statistical Sources: UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Health Organization (WHO), and national statistical agencies
- Policy Analysis: Examination of legal frameworks, judicial procedures, and enforcement mechanisms
- Outcome Measurement: Focus on public safety outcomes, recidivism rates, and institutional effectiveness
- Contextual Factors: Consideration of cultural, economic, and social differences when making comparisons
Commitment to Accuracy
We prioritize accuracy over speed and are committed to correcting any errors that come to light. Our methodology emphasizes thorough verification and transparent documentation to maintain the highest standards of investigative journalism.