a Better Bubble™

ProPublica

His Overdose Death in a Halfway House Bathroom Illustrates a System Lacking Accountability

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

The last time Iris Román Prieto saw her son, he was leaving their family Christmas Eve party to report back at the Colorado Springs halfway house where he was completing a two-year sentence for burglary.

After arriving at the facility, Robert Román Prieto called to let his mom know that he was safe.

And he then dialed his fiancée, Jasmin Black, who had dropped him off. After 15 minutes, at around 11 p.m., Black heard through the phone a grunt, a thud and then silence.

Alarmed, she called the facility, which is run by ComCor Inc., and pleaded with a staff member to check on Román Prieto, according to a police report.

He was in his bed asleep, the staffer assured her before hanging up.

The lifeless body of Román Prieto, 30, was found around 4:30 a.m. on Dec. 25, 2021, facedown on the bathroom floor, still holding his phone, according to the police report. Nearly five hours had passed since Black’s call asking staff to check on him. Staff told police that the last head count had occurred at midnight, and Román Prieto was not accounted for.

Law enforcement found half a blue pill, later identified as fentanyl, in Román Prieto’s wallet. Security footage showed he had purchased the potent synthetic opioid from two facility residents in the parking lot after exiting Black’s car.

Had ComCor staff followed state standards and the company’s own policies, they would have monitored security cameras trained on the parking lot, searched Román Prieto for contraband, and conducted a head count every two hours, which includes a visual check of each resident.

“If that person had checked on Robert when they said that they would, if that would have been taken care of right away, he would still be alive,” said his mother.

Román Prieto’s overdose death was the third fatality involving substance use at the facility in the span of eight months, according to coroner reports obtained by ProPublica.

His family believes he was seeking the pain reliever oxycodone, which illicit fentanyl is often made to look like. The day before, he had strained his back moving bags of concrete at the family’s new restaurant, according to his family.

Joselymar Román shows a hat she had custom made to memorialize her brother Román Prieto, who often wore a Boston Red Sox snapback.

Mark Wester, the executive director of ComCor, said in a written statement that staff followed all protocols and that an investigation three months later by county employees found no deficiencies in the facility's response. Wester denied ProPublica’s request to review the county investigation. A public records request to El Paso County found no documentation of such an investigation.

State auditors in 2017 noted that the facility wasn’t following procedures, writing that the cameras were “unviewed,” that staff wasn’t verifying clients’ physical presence, and that “pat searches” to control contraband when entering the building did not meet state standards. Two years later, auditors reiterated the need for staff to confirm the presence of each client during head counts, particularly when “the client is sleeping or in the bathroom.” A plan was implemented in 2019 that addressed the auditors’ concerns, according to Wester.

For years, ComCor and many other halfway house operators in Colorado’s community corrections system have been cited by the state Office of Community Corrections for failing to comply with security standards, which can lead to dangerous consequences. Audits, staff incident reports and internal documents reviewed by ProPublica revealed that the facilities have been host to sexual assaults, frequent escapes, recurring drug use and overdose deaths.

Yet regulators rarely use their authority or financial leverage to force facilities to improve their safety practices.

The problems persist, in part, because although the Office of Community Corrections oversees the system, 22 local community corrections boards also regulate what happens inside individual facilities. ProPublica found that most of the local boards — which are staffed by elected officials, parole officers, law enforcement, prosecutors and judges — work in tandem with halfway house operators, often looking past violations and failing to follow up when audits identify problems. Many boards haven’t audited the facilities they oversee in five years, or ever, meaning operators make millions of dollars from state contracts with minimal oversight.

Two days after Román Prieto’s death, when the El Paso County community corrections administrator reported it to the state, the administrator didn’t mention that ComCor had failed to monitor its facility and residents and instead characterized the facility’s response as “very good,” according to an email obtained by ProPublica. Román Prieto had received three doses of Narcan, a drug used to reverse opioid overdoses, the administrator, Angel Medina, said.

A toxicology screen ordered by the El Paso County coroner and obtained by ProPublica found no naloxone, the medication in Narcan, in Román Prieto’s system.

ComCor Inc.’s halfway house in Colorado Springs

El Paso County referred ProPublica to ComCor for comment, saying the company is responsible for “all day-to-day operations.”

Medina, who left his position in April, declined an interview request and wouldn’t comment on the case, but said in a written statement that the board's first commitment is to public safety. “The staff and Community Corrections Board strive to ensure the providers work toward the highest standards set by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. This is accomplished by a genuine and sincere commitment to transparency and accountability,” he said in the statement.

The lack of oversight and accountability in Colorado’s halfway houses contributes to a system in which people who pass through the facilities — whether they’re transitioning out of prison or sentenced directly to community corrections by a judge — are more likely to end up incarcerated than rehabilitated. Of those who enroll in a Colorado halfway house, only 35% will successfully complete a program and stay out of the criminal justice system for at least two years, according to state data.

ProPublica reported earlier this year that overly punitive policies, a scarcity of employment training, a lack of effective drug treatment programs, financial costs that sink residents into debt, and a system void of transparency and oversight also contribute to the system’s failures.

“Of all of the stages in the criminal law system … I think this is probably one of the most opaque,” said Wendy Sawyer, research director for the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonpartisan criminal justice think tank based in Massachusetts. “There’s just a sort of [a] black hole.”

Inadequate Audits

Colorado’s halfway house system was established in 1974 to address prison overcrowding and provide addiction treatment, job training and other services to those leaving prison or avoiding incarceration through alternative sentencing programs. But the state has rarely evaluated whether it’s working.

It’s been more than 20 years since the halfway house system was independently audited. A 2001 review by the Office of the State Auditor, an independent agency within the Colorado legislative branch, found many problems, including “low levels of compliance” with state standards among halfway house operators and little enforcement of standards by state or local regulators. Out-of-compliance facilities still received contracts over and over, according to the assessment.

Auditors also found that it was impossible to determine how the 22 local community corrections boards, which contract with halfway house providers using state money, spend their administrative funds. “Few boards actually provide any type of systematic program oversight,” they wrote.

A photograph of Román Prieto and an urn containing his ashes, at right, are displayed on the mantel with other items memorializing him above two of his daughters, Naddia Román, 7, and Mariela Román, 8.

Steve Allen, who worked for 17 years as a legislative budget analyst, said he tried for years but failed to get more information about facilities from the state’s Office of Community Corrections. “I never had a clear picture” of how facilities were using state funding, he said. “I did the best I could, but things really never changed.”

The auditors recommended that the local boards should no longer be involved in routine administrative functions such as billing and administering contracts, and that reporting requirements be established.

In response, the state agreed to require “measurable performance expectations” in contracts. But 20 years passed before the metrics to do that were established, in 2021. Facilities now get additional funding if enough people graduate from a halfway house program and if recidivism rates are kept low enough, but they aren’t penalized if they don’t hit those marks.

In 2023, community corrections facilities will be eligible for even more state funding as part of a “pay-for-success” model that state regulators hope will improve the abysmally low success rates. Every three years, each facility will receive two new assessments: the PACE — which measures program quality, including whether rehabilitation programs are backed by research — and the CORE, which looks at facilities’ security practices.

These new audits, however, will evaluate fewer than half of the nearly 100 state standards for the facilities and rely on the same state and local oversight practices that have consistently failed to hold accountable poorly performing halfway house providers.

The OCC conducted the new assessments at every facility between 2017 and 2021, but it didn’t identify plans for improvement, something it says it will start doing next year.

Greg Fugate, director of communications and quality assurance for the Colorado Office of the State Auditor, said the state hasn’t conducted another independent audit of the system because the law doesn’t require it and the office hasn’t received a request to do so. But the governor or any lawmaker could request one, and the state auditor could initiate one at the office’s discretion.

The Office of Community Corrections is required to review facilities’ compliance with state standards every five years, but the law doesn’t specify how extensive the inspections need to be or what happens when problems are found. The office also conducts some audits for specific treatment programs and monitors certain standards through its billing system, including background checks and fingerprinting requirements for new hires, according to Katie Ruske, manager of Colorado’s Office of Community Corrections, which is part of the Division of Criminal Justice. In 2017, the office conducted 11 “limited scope” audits that evaluated state standards beyond what’s covered in the PACE and CORE reviews, focusing only on security practices. None have been done since.

ProPublica obtained audits conducted by the OCC since 2017 through public records requests. They show many facilities frequently do not comply with state standards for security and program quality, and the homes rarely face serious consequences for those failures.

A 2017 Office of Community Corrections audit of ComCor found that security was “inadequate to effectively monitor the facility, client movement and general activities.” (OCC audit obtained and annotated by ProPublica) The audit describes inadequate head-count practices to verify residents’ presence in the halfway house. (OCC audit obtained and annotated by ProPublica) “Significant issues” were found with pat searches, “leading to insufficient contraband control.” (OCC audit obtained and annotated by ProPublica)

Some facilities lacked documentation for disciplinary actions and resident escapes, and sometimes didn’t report sexual assault allegations. Facilities failed to adequately train staff, monitor clients and prevent drugs from entering the halfway house, auditors wrote.

Where state auditing falls short, local community corrections boards are supposed to fill the gaps, according to Ruske. “They need to do their own auditing so that there is more time inside of those programs and facilities, more oversight than just what our office can provide,” said Ruske.

“The statutes and our contracts still make it very clear that we can hold subcontractors accountable if we need to,” she said. “And we have done that in our history … to the point of program closure. That hasn't been during my tenure, but that has happened in the past.”

In 2016, Colorado lawmakers provided additional funding to improve employee training, retention and recruitment at halfway houses — $134,000 for smaller facilities and $269,000 for larger facilities. But they are not required to report how that money is used and the state doesn’t audit whether it goes to the intended purpose.

Christopher Bonham, who worked in security at ComCor, said he received two days of training when he was hired in 2016. It didn’t prepare him for dealing with residents who struggled with substance abuse, he said.

Bonham said more staffing and better training might have prevented an overdose death he witnessed in 2016. It was the night shift, and he had been dealing with an “onslaught of guys needing pat-downs, Breathalyzers, everything.” A few hours had passed since he last patrolled the facility, he said.

“When you’ve got 120, 130 guys walking around and there’s only two of you on shift, it’s like a human tsunami,” said Bonham, who worked for the organization on and off for five years. “That’s what it’s like at a lot of these places. They try to go with the absolute minimum staffing.”

A minimum of two staff members work the night shift in each security office, according to Wester, ComCor’s executive director. The company has two facilities with a total of three security offices.

The other staff member on duty yelled for Bonham to go to Room 7, he said, where a 26-year-old resident enrolled in the treatment program for serious addictions was unconscious. Bonham and his colleague tried to resuscitate the man before paramedics arrived, Bonham said. The next day, Bonham said, the hospital told him the man had been taken off life support. A coroner’s report indicates he died of an overdose of methamphetamine and heroin.

Christopher Bonham, who worked security at ComCor, at a park in Colorado Springs

Bonham and others brought concerns about staffing levels and training to management many times, he said. The response was always the same: They’d look into it. The facility began stocking Narcan, he said. But little else changed.

After two more overdose deaths and more pleas to upper management to improve training and staffing that went unheeded, according to Bonham, he left the organization in November 2021. Román Prieto’s overdose death occurred a month later.

Wester said in response to a 2021 state audit that the facility has been “redeveloping” its new employee orientation to include a week of classroom training and time shadowing more-experienced employees.

But he acknowledged to ProPublica there have been times when that wasn’t the case. “A year ago, we were down 25 staff,” he said in June. “So we were trying to do rapid hiring and so for a time, we did shorten the orientation. It wasn’t the best circumstance.”

Preparing to Be Audited

Some who’ve worked in the system say auditing doesn’t provide a true reflection of what happens inside the facilities.

When auditors arrived at ComCor Inc. in July 2021 to conduct a PACE audit of its rehabilitation programs, Broderick Rimes, a security manager, felt like a student who had all the answers to the exam he was about to take. The auditors from Colorado’s Office of Community Corrections had provided an outline of what to expect and given the facility two months to prepare.

Rimes, a former investigator for the military, said his bosses gave him funds to “beautify” the rundown motel-turned-correctional-facility. He instructed residents to plant flowers and build new outdoor staff seating, and he rewarded their free labor with a barbecue. He had new fans installed, which hushed residents’ complaints about the heat.

Weeks earlier, the facility had been understaffed, according to Rimes.

Audits in 2017 and 2019 noted an “alarming rate of employee turnover,” along with other staff-related problems, such as disciplinary practices that did not follow fairness and due process requirements and a failure to control contraband entering the facility.

The day of the 2021 audit, Rimes’ “best and brightest” staffers were working. Many had received pay increases so they’d have “happy faces” for the visitors, according to Rimes.

Under the direction of his supervisors, Rimes had recruited residents to join a new “mentorship program,” which would be showcased during the audit. Those who agreed to participate received perks: bigger rooms, air conditioners, extra attention from staff and the promise of new gym equipment. This ensured the clients had positive things to say about the program, Rimes said.

Auditors gave ComCor one of the highest scores in the state.

According to Wester, the facility received similarly high marks from local regulators, including Medina, the El Paso County community corrections administrator.

“Mr. Medina was able to only see what we allowed him to see,” Rimes said.

Broderick Rimes, a former security manager at ComCor, at his home

Rimes said he felt like he was deceiving the auditors, but believed that the potential boost in state funding from a good audit would improve conditions at the facility.

But as soon as the auditors left, things went back to the way they were before, he said.

Upper management halted the mentorship program, saying it was never formally approved. The mentors were moved out of their improved rooms. The AC units and fans were returned on the grounds that they were “violating fire code.” Rimes said he was scolded for letting residents perform maintenance tasks such as installing fans and outdoor seating without being paid.

Rimes said it was clear that he’d been manipulated too.

He had to tell residents that they weren’t getting the promised gym equipment.

“I couldn’t look those clients in the face,” said Rimes. “What am I going to tell them? That we lied to them?”

ComCor’s Wester told ProPublica that the facility had ample time to prepare for the audit because it had been delayed due to the pandemic. The audit was originally scheduled for March 2020.

He also stressed that the purpose was not to catch facilities by surprise. The requirements “are not a secret,” said Wester, who is also the chairperson of the Colorado Community Corrections Coalition, a trade group that lobbies on behalf of halfway house operators. “We are always improving our environment, our management and our services.”

Wester called Rimes’ mentorship program “fledgling” and said it was replaced by a more robust one. The pay increases staff received were not related to the state evaluation, he said. Wester said he was aware of the other changes Rimes made but they weren’t done for the audit and were instead part of a broader effort to improve the facility.

A month later, Rimes resigned.

“It sucks because I live in this community, so it’s not like I don’t see these clients,” he said in June. “I know the bad stuff that I participated in.”

Local Boards Rarely Step In

Colorado’s halfway house system was designed like many other state programs — giving local governments as much control as possible. That led to the creation of community corrections boards in each of Colorado’s 22 judicial districts. The boards operate independently, and state statutes are silent on who can sit on those boards and for how long.

The boards are directed to ensure that facilities are complying with state standards, but many have never audited the facilities they oversee. Twelve boards are required by the OCC to conduct their own audits, according to their annual reports, but only six have consistently done so since 2017, according to audits obtained by ProPublica.

The boards vary drastically in their makeup, protocols and oversight.

They distribute state money and have the authority to accept or deny people’s enrollment in halfway house programs, essentially operating as an unofficial court overwhelmingly staffed by law enforcement and other members of the criminal justice system.

Across the road from the ComCor halfway house. State standards and the company’s own policies call for security cameras trained on the parking lot to be monitored.

Allen, the former legislative budget analyst, attended a handful of their meetings. He recalled a man who took a plea deal from a district attorney so he could go to community corrections instead of prison. The board denied the man’s application.

“Who voted against it? The representative from the DA’s office,” he said. “I’m sorry, there is something wrong with that system.”

Advocates say transparency is necessary because boards could cherry-pick applicants who would improve their facility’s success rate, a metric now used to financially reward facilities.

A 2018 law requires each board to use an evidence-based decision-making tool to avoid discrimination in such decisions. But boards are allowed to design their own tools without state input. Some refuse people who receive alternative sentences for violent crimes, people from other judicial districts who have been convicted of a sex crime, and people who have been arrested for selling drugs.

Despite funding these boards, the Office of Community Corrections gathers little information about their activities apart from an annual report, leaving state lawmakers who approve their funding in the dark about halfway houses’ operations. Facilities are required to report how many people escape each year –– there have been 936 so far this year, according to state data –– and how much rent each facility collects from residents. During the 2020 fiscal year, facilities collected approximately $15 million in rent, according to the Office of Community Corrections’ annual report.

The community board for Alamosa County does not publish information online about when or where it meets or who its board members are. Colorado’s open meetings law requires that meeting notices be posted “in a formally designated public place at least 24 hours before a meeting.”

“We don’t post our information because there’s some privacy issues. We never have,” said Patrick Stanford, who has been the community corrections coordinator for Alamosa County for more than 20 years.

Through public records requests, ProPublica obtained information on the board’s membership, which consists of four current and former district and county judges; one court executive; two parole and probation officers; a public defender; the district attorney; a sheriff; a police chief; two former or current county commissioners; the mayor; and a local mental health provider.

In response to a follow-up question from ProPublica, Stanford said that he has sent the meeting information to be posted in the Alamosa County Courthouse but he could not verify that it was posted.

Steve Zansberg, a Denver-based lawyer and president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, said that while posting in the courthouse would technically be in compliance with the law, “it is certainly not in compliance with its spirit.”

The local board for Alamosa or the county government has not conducted its own audit of the halfway house it oversees since at least 2017, despite being directed to do so by the OCC, according to public records.

A 2019 state audit of Advantage Treatment Center in Alamosa detailed practices that did not comply with state law, according to the report, including how often residents were monitored when they left the facility, processes for substance use testing, how client medications were handled, how escapes were documented and the levels of staffing that were maintained.

The report found that the facility was in full compliance with only two state standards. But neither the state, the local board nor the facility operator required corrective action, according to Stanford.

Joshua Mayhugh, the vice president for Advantage Treatment Centers, said in a written statement that steps were taken internally to correct the noncompliance, including “technical training,” but did not provide details.

It wasn’t the first time the state had taken issue with Alamosa County’s halfway house. The previous operator, San Luis Valley Behavioral Health Group, is among the few to ever have a contract canceled by the state for egregious violations of state standards, including falsifying documents and failing to hire qualified treatment staff, according to Ruske and public records. Less than a year later, the provider decided to close the facility, according to Kylee Sowards, San Luis Valley’s marketing and communications specialist. She said in an email that no one employed at the time of the closure currently works for the company.

Following the 2019 audit, Stanford said he met with the local board and the facility to discuss the audit, but he couldn’t point to anything that had been done to address the concerns beyond installing more security cameras. There has not been a follow-up audit.

“We have a pretty good track record, and I’m not just saying that. I think if you look around the state, Advantage Treatment Center has a good track record,” he said. “Not perfect, no one’s perfect.”

“I think most of the board members … feel pretty good about how things are going,” Stanford added.

“If They Had Searched Him, He’d Be Alive Today”

Román shows a necklace charm given to her by her brother Román Prieto. “He wanted to be better, and they took away that opportunity,” she said.

Román Prieto’s family was never notified of his death by ComCor.

Black learned of her fiancé’s death from his roommate, who called her that Christmas morning. She then called Román Prieto’s sister, who was wrapping presents when the phone rang.

“He was so full of life,” Naddia Román said. “He was doing really, really good. He was more around his kids, more around his family. He wanted to be better, and they took away that opportunity.”

Román Prieto’s stepfather, Ivan Rios, emailed the facility in late December asking for more information and security footage. He never got a response.

“If they had searched him, he’d be alive today,” Rios said. “He was a victim of ComCor.”

Correction

Dec. 9, 2022: This story originally gave incorrect details about the number and timing of certain halfway house audits. Eleven limited-scope audits were conducted, not eight, and the audits were conducted in 2017, not since 2017.

by Moe Clark, photography by Eli Imadali

She Reported Her Medication Was Stolen at a Halfway House. She Was Blamed Instead.

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Soon after Shannon Lucas began serving a sentence at a Colorado halfway house, her medication began to disappear.

Lucas had been sentenced to eight years in community corrections in lieu of prison for her role in a 2018 burglary involving her ex-boyfriend. At 41, she had never been in trouble with the law before.

“I did believe that I was in a place that was for justice,” she said of her first weeks at the Larimer County Community Corrections facility in Fort Collins in October 2018. “I really thought going in there that I was going to be protected.”

That would change less than a month later when she reported the theft of her prescription medications, which treat her post-traumatic stress disorder and severe anxiety. Instead of help, she got a lesson in how little recourse residents of these facilities have to address wrongdoing in the system.

Lucas filed a complaint with management, which, instead of investigating, wrote her up for “medication misconduct.”

Her lawyer requested security footage from the facility that might show who’d taken the pills. A judge ordered that it be given to the attorney on the condition that it not be released to anyone else.

Lucas filed a complaint when her prescription medication for post-traumatic stress disorder and severe anxiety went missing.

Tim Hand, the facility’s director, and Emily Humphrey, director of Larimer County’s criminal justice department, did not respond to requests for comment.

Halfway houses hold residents’ medications and provide doses under supervision. And the Larimer County Community Corrections facility had a documented problem with tracking medications, according to state records.

A 2016 audit found that 1 in 4 of the medication counts that auditors reviewed were inaccurate and that staff were not “consistently following policy and procedures” to address inaccuracies. Auditors said corrective action was needed. A 2019 audit found that the facility did not have procedures for disposing of medications. State auditors have not reviewed the facility’s medication practices since.

When residents of Colorado’s halfway houses believe they are victims of wrongdoing, they are often left with few options for restitution in a system that lacks a streamlined, independent complaint process and does little to allay their fears of retaliation.

Each facility is required to have a grievance policy, but dozens of residents from multiple halfway houses told ProPublica that they didn’t use it because they feared staff would retaliate. Even residents who’d graduated from a program said they were reluctant to criticize their old facility because their parole officer could send them back there. A person can be expelled from a program for “any reason or for no reason at all,” a 2012 law says. People who get expelled are typically incarcerated or resentenced.

A 2017 audit of a different Colorado facility, ComCor, found that formal complaints were not “consistently maintained, reviewed or responded to.” Clients said they believed complaints “simply wound up in the trash,” auditors wrote.

Mark Wester, the executive director of ComCor, said that the facility allows “clients to work in the community, be productive citizens, receive client centered treatment, while having accountability and supervision that improves community safety.” Wester did not respond to a request for comment about the handling of complaints.

Lucas sits with her daughter Ava LeVan, left, doodling at their home in Fort Collins. “I was so scared I wasn’t going to be able to see my daughters” if the Larimer County facility sent her to prison because of her complaints, Lucas said.

The state has the power to investigate residents’ complaints but it rarely does, according to Katie Ruske, manager of the state’s Office of Community Corrections. Complaints submitted to the state are forwarded to one of the local community corrections boards, which ProPublica found often look past violations or fail to follow up to see if problems are addressed.

Ruske, who has held her job since 2018, could recall only one such investigation, which involved an alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Starting in 2023, the state will review client complaints as part of its audits.

At the Larimer County Community Corrections facility, Lucas noticed in late October 2018 that more pills had disappeared. Lucas asked the staff member on duty to count them: 24 pills were missing.

In a panic, Lucas submitted a second complaint to staff and called 911. Lucas said she needed documentation to replace the medication before she went into withdrawal. “I can have seizures, I can die if I don’t take my medication,” Lucas said.

LeVan brushes Lucas’ hair at their home.

A Larimer County Sheriff’s Office incident report indicates that Lucas spoke to Officer Aaron Hawks, who suspected she was taking more than the prescribed amount of her medication. (An internal affairs investigation would later find that the officer violated policies, including failing to maintain an “impartial attitude” toward Lucas by calling her “a felon” and referring to community corrections staff as “vetted.” The report states he did not gather the evidence that would be necessary to conclude Lucas was at fault.) The Larimer County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment.

The facility responded by issuing Lucas a Class 1 violation — the most serious — for submitting a “false” police report. Such violations can result in termination from a program, according to the facility’s guidebook.

“If I am revoked from this program, I am going immediately to prison” for eight years, Lucas said. “I was so scared I wasn’t going to be able to see my daughters.”

Lucas appealed to management, who quickly denied her complaint. She wrote another appeal and met with the facility’s assistant director, who told her that she too believed Lucas was responsible for the missing medication, Lucas said. Lucas was then required to attend an administrative hearing with management to determine if she would be terminated from the program. Her request to have a lawyer present was denied.

She was ultimately allowed to remain in the program, but her sentence was extended by a month, according to court documents.

Lucas laughs with her daughter Olivia Lucas, left, and LeVan as they eat. She is completing her sentence at home after graduating from the halfway house’s residential program.

Under the direction of her doctor, she began receiving weekly prescriptions instead of monthly so she could keep a closer eye on her medication. But pills continued to disappear.

In March 2019, she gave her new prescription to a staff member, Lauren Hand. Lucas recalls the correctional services specialist telling her, “Shannon, there’s two pills missing but I’m not gonna say anything.”

A month after Lucas left the facility in April 2019, Lauren Hand was charged with two misdemeanors and a petty offense for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, official misconduct and theft. She resigned shortly after, according to an incident report.

By then, Lucas had graduated from the residential program and moved home to complete her sentence with frequent check-ins at the facility.

Lauren Hand, who is the daughter of the facility’s director, Tim Hand, did not respond to requests for comment.

The outcome of the charges against Lauren Hand is unclear because the documentation is not public. According to Raymond Daniel, records manager for the district attorney’s office in the 8th Judicial District, the case would still appear in public records even if the charges were dropped. However, if the case was sealed or expunged, the public would not be able to view the records, he said in an email.

Hand worked at another halfway house in Boulder before accepting a position at a youth detention center operated by the state’s Division of Youth Services in October 2021, according to her LinkedIn profile. As of January 2022, she no longer worked there, according to a spokesperson for the agency.

Lucas filed a lawsuit over her stolen medication against Lauren Hand and other staff members at the Larimer County Community Corrections facility, as well as the board of county commissioners and the local community corrections board. Lucas alleged that staff at the facility retaliated against her for reporting the missing medication to police.

The judge dismissed the case in July 2022, saying, among other things, that Lucas’ allegations were overly broad. Lucas has filed an appeal.

Though Lucas is back at home with her daughters, she is required to report to the facility for drug tests, sometimes multiple times a week, and for meetings with her case manager. She said it’s a struggle to enter the facility without having a panic attack.

Employees at the halfway house emphasize the importance of taking responsibility for one’s actions, she said, but staff aren’t always held to that standard.

“They still say that I was stealing my medication,” Lucas said. “They literally could have just done the right thing. They could have just listened to me.”

Lucas at home. She says her pets have helped her cope since returning.
by Moe Clark, photography by Eli Imadali

“Kids Seem to Be a Paycheck”: How a Billion-Dollar Corporation Exploits Washington’s Special Education System

1 year 11 months ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Seattle Times. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

Donna Green hit her breaking point last summer, six months into her job as the top administrator at the Northwest School of Innovative Learning.

She had grudgingly accepted when her request for classroom computers was ignored and a furniture order for what she called an “embarrassingly barren” campus was answered with plastic folding tables. She’d worried that her staff was inexperienced but had figured her decade in special education would help fill that void.

But then her corporate bosses told her to cut the hours of staff already struggling to serve high-needs children.

To Green, it meant that Northwest SOIL, Washington state’s largest publicly funded private school for children with disabilities, would fail to deliver on the promises it had made to school districts that send it more than 100 students and millions of dollars a year.

So she sat at her desk after classes let out for the day in August 2021 and typed up a resignation letter to the school’s owner, effective immediately.

“It is truly like living in the dark ages,” she wrote about the school, detailing its cost cutting at the expense of students. “I cannot ethically or morally be a part of this any longer.”

Northwest SOIL’s corporate owner, Universal Health Services, has for years skimped on staffing and basic resources while pressuring managers to enroll more students than the staff could handle, an investigation by The Seattle Times and ProPublica has found. The psychiatric hospital chain touted its first acquisition of special education schools in 2005 as a “comfortable fit” with its businesses, and Northwest SOIL staffers said they saw the profit motive drive day-to-day decisions.

Northwest School of Innovative Learning’s Tacoma campus (Ramon Dompor/The Seattle Times)

School districts pay programs such as Northwest SOIL, called nonpublic agencies, to provide specialized instruction for students whose needs can’t be met in traditional public schools. But dozens of complaints filed with the state and school districts in recent years, along with interviews with 26 former administrators, teachers and assistants, show that Northwest SOIL received public money without providing the services or education that its students needed — or that taxpayers paid for.

Northwest SOIL collects about $68,000 in annual tuition per student — more than triple the average per-pupil cost for a K-12 student in Washington — while a student with the highest needs can bring the school as much as $115,000 a year, all paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Last week, The Times and ProPublica reported that the state’s failure to regulate this corner of Washington’s special education system had allowed the school to operate for years with little to no curriculum and with staff so poorly trained that they often resorted to restraining and isolating students.

Former Staff Describe Conditions at Two Northwest SOIL Campuses

With no teaching credentials or experience, Kelly Nilsson said she was put in charge of an entire classroom at Northwest SOIL’s Tacoma campus. Jami Visaya, a special education teacher for 15 years, was shocked at the lack of curriculum and resources at the Redmond campus. Their experiences offer a look into how Northwest SOIL runs its schools for vulnerable students.

(Lauren Frohne and Ramon Dompor / The Seattle Times)

UHS, which earned nearly $1 billion in profit last year, has long faced criticism that it squeezes patient care to maximize profit at its more than 400 hospitals and residential facilities nationwide.

While the company’s residential youth treatment centers have drawn national attention recently as federal regulators investigate abuse allegations, very little media or regulatory scrutiny has been directed at UHS’ special education day schools across the country. But The Times and ProPublica found that the company settled at least two lawsuits alleging it had provided insufficient staffing at schools in California or billed public agencies for services it didn’t provide, though the company didn’t admit wrongdoing in either case.

UHS is one player in a small but growing market of special education and disability services, as investors recognize the potential for profit from insurance, public education funding and other sources. A February report by a private equity watchdog group noted a flurry of recent corporate acquisitions of autism service providers. One national broker marketing the sale of a special-needs private school group touted it as a good investment and “extremely profitable.”

“There’s a lot of money at stake here,” said Kathleen Hulgin, a University of Cincinnati associate professor who studies the funding of private special education schools. Companies know they can depend on steady revenue with a “stable, publicly funded system.”

Northwest SOIL collected at least $38 million in tax dollars over the five school years ending in 2021. While all of its tuition comes from public sources, it’s unclear how much profit the school made, because it doesn’t have to report its spending to the state.

In 2019, a speech language pathologist visited Northwest SOIL’s Tacoma campus and documented a school in disarray. In the auditorium, she said, there was broken furniture and other items strewn about. (Courtesy of Andrea Duffield)

Fairfax Hospital, the UHS subsidiary that owns Northwest SOIL, defended the program in a statement to the Times and ProPublica, saying, “We strongly deny any allegation that we understaff and/or pressure staff to increase admissions in order to maximize profits.” UHS said it had no comment beyond Fairfax’s statement.

Fairfax also said it “strongly refutes claims regarding the intentional billing of services not provided” and rejected the claims in Green’s letter, calling it “a gross misrepresentation of our standards and the quality of educational services.” The school said it recently brought in new education materials and computers, and it added, “To say that the school didn’t offer the students a basic curriculum or textbooks is simply untrue.”

But Green said what she saw at Northwest SOIL went against what she had envisioned when she took the job.

Northwest SOIL — with three campuses in Tacoma, Redmond and Tumwater — relied on a bare-bones staff that earned far less than they could have at local school districts, Green said in an interview, making it difficult to recruit and retain qualified educators.

“There was no education whatsoever,” said Adriene Taulbee, a recreational therapist at Northwest SOIL’s Tacoma campus from 2019 to 2021. “It’s a moneymaking scheme for Fairfax, and the kids are the ones that are paying the price for this.”

Skimping on Staff

A 2009 Northwest SOIL yearbook shows the school once hewed more closely to Green’s vision of what a specialized school could do. It features photographs of classrooms staffed with one teacher and two assistants each, with class sizes no larger than 10. Smiling children pose in front of shelves brimming with books and walls decorated with posters and art.

Though Northwest SOIL has long struggled to keep staff and used restraint and isolation on students, at times it had more resources. In its early years, the school strived for a “full holistic approach, treating these kids as part of a family,” said Tamara Zundel, who launched the school in 2000 as its first director.

But after UHS bought Fairfax Hospital and Northwest SOIL in 2010 as part of its $3 billion acquisition of a psychiatric hospital chain, there was little special education training for staff and hardly any textbooks or supplies, according to interviews with former employees.

“They had one room with like some ratty textbooks, maybe three per subject,” said Ellen Grover, who taught at the Tacoma campus from 2016 to 2018. “That was just kind of the expectation — that you work with what we have, which is nothing.”

A teacher resource room at the Tacoma campus. “The entire space was a mess and not a functional workspace,” the speech pathologist wrote in a report sent to the Shelton School District. (Courtesy of Andrea Duffield)

A Times analysis of Northwest SOIL’s staff lists from 2017 to 2022 found that the school’s three campuses — which serve students from kindergarten through high school — averaged only one certified special education teacher for every 18 students.

In contrast, Seattle Public Schools’ latest union contract requires higher staffing ratios for students with moderate to intensive needs: one special education teacher and three education assistants in every classroom with 10 elementary students or 13 secondary school students. (Maintaining these ratios was a flash point of the city’s teachers’ strike in September.)

While some Northwest SOIL campuses had staffing ratios that at times approached Seattle’s standard, the Tacoma campus was a consistent outlier. The widest gap occurred in 2017 when the campus enrolled 106 students but had just two special education teachers, a Times and ProPublica review of state records found. In those records, Northwest SOIL listed four other people as special education teachers even though they lacked such a credential.

"You’d be surprised how much simple — I’m talking very basic — training on special education was lacking,” Green said in an interview. “If you don’t have the right staff, you cannot be promising that you can take in these children.”

A Rochester School District official visited Northwest SOIL in 2018 and pointed out the lack of academics. (Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction document obtained, annotated by The Seattle Times and ProPublica)

Fairfax Hospital and Northwest SOIL said in a statement that it is not “meaningful” to compare the school to unionized public schools that serve different populations. Christopher West, who took over as CEO of the hospital in January, said that, under his tenure, the school made a push to hire more special education teachers. As of June, the school had 10 certified special education teachers serving 119 students.

A Times and ProPublica analysis also revealed that, at times, the school relied heavily on emergency substitute certifications — a category that allows people who don’t have teaching degrees to fill temporary gaps.

From 2017 to 2022, an average of one-fifth of the staffers at the Tacoma campus, the school’s largest, had emergency substitute certifications. Some staff worked under such certifications for as long as eight years. Others taught even after their certifications had expired, state records show.

These students “require highly specialized intervention, and unless you have people there and the resources, the chances are they are just being warehoused,” said Vanessa Tucker, a special education professor at Pacific Lutheran University near Tacoma.

Low pay contributed to a constant churn in staff and drew mostly underqualified candidates, former staffers said. Green said the school offered teachers with special education certification a starting salary of $45,000. Base pay for a first-year teacher in Tacoma schools is about $62,000, while special education teachers typically earn more.

At age 21, Kelly Nilsson had no education experience or credentials, but she was hired in 2017 as an educational assistant at Northwest SOIL’s Tacoma campus and assigned to a room with as many as 10 teenage boys with extreme behavioral challenges. After a few months, the class’s teacher left, and Nilsson was put in charge.

“They do not pay you well enough for what you’re doing,” said Nilsson, who said her starting wage was under $13 an hour.

Kelly Nilsson was 21 when she was hired as an educational assistant at Northwest SOIL. Shown here with her baby, she said she regrets being part of a school that “might not have been doing things right, doing things that the kids deserved.” (Erika Schultz/The Seattle Times)

Nilsson, who said she led the class for eight months before resigning in 2019, described multiple kids punching and breaking windows and staff frequently calling the police when children ran away from the campus.

“The kids aren’t bad,” she said, but the school, instead of helping them cope with their behaviors, often worsened their problems.

UHS denied staff requests for furniture and education material, former employees told The Times and ProPublica. Even school meals were paltry: typically cold hospital food shipped in from Fairfax, former staffers said.

“They can only get one of everything — one burnt microwaveable pizza and a milk and a bag of carrots — when this is a growing 13-year-old boy,” said Jami Visaya, a special education teacher who quit in 2018 after 18 months at Northwest SOIL’s Redmond campus. “Why couldn't we get them healthier food?”

In its statement, the school said it strives to supply “proper nourishment and healthy meal choices.”

In a 2016 employee review, Northwest SOIL’s director lauded an administrator for increasing enrollment and reducing costs. (Washington Department of Health investigative file obtained, annotated by The Seattle Times and ProPublica)

Dave Beling, a former director at the school, lauded employees who brought in more students while spending less money. In a 2016 employee review of a top administrator, Beling set a target of getting 50 students enrolled, according to Washington State Department of Health records. He also praised the administrator for “reducing cost” while “increasing student census by double.”

Beling, who worked at the school until 2020, did not respond to interview requests.

His LinkedIn profile describes one of his accomplishments at Northwest SOIL as overseeing “operational improvements which resulted in improved profit margins.”

“Kids Seem to Be a Paycheck”

Lynette Wilson’s son spent two years at Northwest SOIL’s Tacoma campus. Most days, she said, he surfed YouTube videos instead of learning.

Resources for parents navigating nonpublic agencies in Washington

At Northwest SOIL, he regressed, losing reading and communication skills. Wilson withdrew him from the school in 2021 after he returned home with bruises on his face, chest and back. She reported it to the police, but the investigation faltered when her son, who has severe autism, couldn’t say what had happened and the school couldn’t explain the injuries.

“It was like glorified babysitting,” Wilson said. “How do you not know what’s happening to your students?”

In a statement, Fairfax Hospital declined to answer specific questions about the incident, but emphasized that police investigated and found no wrongdoing.

Lynette Wilson’s son came home from Northwest SOIL one day in 2019 with what appeared to be burns and bruises on his back, shoulders and forehead, his family and group home reported to police. (Courtesy of Lynette Wilson)

Wilson’s son should have had a one-on-one aide, which was required in the contract between Northwest SOIL and his home district, but the school shuffled around staff to fill holes, she said. Northwest SOIL typically charges districts more than $3,000 a month per student for such aides in addition to more than $5,000 a month for tuition.

Several former employees said one-on-one aides often took on the role of classroom assistants for overwhelmed teachers, instead of acting as aides to a specific child.

It was a complaint Green raised in her resignation letter. “It felt unethical, honestly, like school districts were paying that money, but the company was prepared to ignore that,” Green said in an interview.

Fairfax Hospital denied leaving children without one-on-one aides but said such aides “do help out in the classroom.”

Green’s letter was one of thousands of pages of records about Northwest SOIL obtained by The Times and ProPublica through public records requests to seven state agencies and 45 school districts.

Donna Green resigned as director of Northwest SOIL’s three campuses in August 2021 after just six months in the job. (Tacoma Public Schools records obtained, annotated by The Seattle Times and ProPublica)

Parents and school district special education officials brought similar complaints to the state, asking for investigations or seeking advice on what to do.

In 2018, a parent of a fourth grader from Rochester, just south of Olympia, called state education officials begging for attention because her son was “not getting the help he needs or deserves” at Northwest SOIL’s Tumwater campus, state records show. The school was short-staffed, and the boy wasn’t learning much, the parent said.

“I feel like this is not being ran as a school but as a business,” the parent told Washington’s education department. “Kids seem to be a paycheck.”

A parent called the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2018 to report that her son wasn’t getting a one-on-one aide at Northwest SOIL. (OSPI document obtained, annotated by The Seattle Times and ProPublica)

A month later, Rochester’s special education director, Laura Staley, alerted state officials that Northwest SOIL had billed the district for services it hadn’t provided.

The school told the district it needed to pay an additional $3,000 a month for a one-on-one aide for a Rochester elementary school student, describing him as the “highest need” student in the program. Four months into the agreement, Staley asked how the aide was doing. The school acknowledged that it had only recently hired one.

Fairfax Hospital didn’t specifically respond to Rochester’s allegation but said “any discrepancies related to improper billing are unacceptable and are thoroughly investigated.”

Top special education officials from the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction visited Northwest SOIL’s Tumwater campus in 2018 after a flurry of complaints, including the one from Rochester.

The state later notified Northwest SOIL that it was delaying renewal of the school’s annual application to accept students until its owners turned in a financial audit proving that “revenues provided by school districts are being used to provide the services” for students.

Scott Raub, the agency’s administrator for these private schools, told The Times and ProPublica the notification was merely a form letter to remind Northwest SOIL that it was required to provide an audit once every three years and did not indicate that the state intended to investigate the allegations.

UHS responded by sending a companywide annual report, which included a financial audit that outlined the multibillion-dollar corporation’s revenue and spending in all its facilities across the country. The 300-page report doesn’t mention Northwest SOIL.

Still, OSPI approved the school’s renewal, as it has every year since.

State Superintendent Chris Reykdal defended OSPI’s renewal of Northwest SOIL’s annual applications, saying in an interview that the agency’s role is limited by state law. The system puts the onus of responding to problems on the dozens of school districts that contract to send students to Northwest SOIL — even though they may not be aware of problems flagged by other districts.

A Push for Profits and Referrals

Before UHS acquired its first therapeutic day schools in 2005, the company — the largest operator of psychiatric hospitals in the country — had no previous experience operating this type of specialty school.

By expanding its behavioral health footprint into education, executives noted, the company would have opportunities to refer children “up the chain” to more acute settings like residential treatment centers or inpatient care.

“We think it’s an extremely comfortable fit with our existing businesses,” Steve Filton, the company’s chief financial officer, said in an earnings call that year.

Fairfax Hospital no longer has an adolescent inpatient unit, but Northwest SOIL said that, even when that unit was open, it rarely referred students to Fairfax. “To suggest that NWSOIL is in business to serve as a referral source for other behavioral health service lines is baseless and inaccurate,” the school said in a statement.

Before long, some of the same problems now happening in Washington surfaced at the company’s schools in California. UHS ran its California campuses with a “skeletal crew” of unqualified teachers and a minimum number of aides, former employees alleged in a lawsuit that they filed against UHS in 2008. Staff lacked proper training, they said, and relied heavily on restraints to control students. UHS denied it violated any laws and agreed to a $3.5 million settlement.

Former UHS employees in California and a past student filed a separate whistleblower lawsuit in 2009 on behalf of the state, accusing UHS of fraudulently billing education agencies. The company staffed classes with unqualified aides and falsified attendance records, the lawsuit alleged. UHS settled the case for $4.25 million without admitting wrongdoing.

“They were warehousing the kids and not providing sufficient education,” Michael Sorgen, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Sacramento Bee in 2010. “They make a lot of money by charging all this money for educational services. I think it’s a nationwide scam.” (Sorgen was unavailable for comment for this story.)

Northwest SOIL’s Tumwater campus (Ramon Dompor/The Seattle Times)

UHS shut down at least eight of its California schools as the whistleblower case proceeded and closed at least three others within a year of the settlement.

Unlike in Washington, California has extensive requirements for operating private schools that accept public school students with disabilities. California requires its schools to provide attendance records proving that students showed up on days outlined in billing statements. California also requires a teacher with special education credentials in every classroom and a specific ratio of students per teacher, typically 14-to-1.

Washington has no such requirements. The state calls for only one special education teacher per school and collects no data on attendance or academic progress at these private schools. And the state has afforded UHS wide latitude to run its program with little intervention.

When UHS lobbied to bring a similar system to Alaska in 2016, lawmakers balked.

UHS owns a psychiatric hospital in Anchorage called North Star Behavioral Health, which provides patients with access to education. The Anchorage School District employs the teachers.

Six years ago, UHS pushed for a bill that would have allowed North Star and other psychiatric facilities to build education programs and hire their own teachers, essentially taking that control — and significant taxpayer money — away from school districts. North Star argued that the bill would result in more academic instruction and improve students’ transitions back to traditional schools.

The arrangement would have given UHS access to a deep pool of state funding reserved for students with some of the most severe disabilities — as much as $80,000 a year per student, said Patrick Reinhart, the interim executive director of the Alaska Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education.

The governor’s council was “pressured heavily” by North Star, Reinhart said, though the proposal faced pushback from disability rights advocates. The council initially supported the bill, Reinhart said, but soon “realized it was primarily a money grab.” The bill died in the Legislature, never advancing out of committee.

UHS declined to comment on the Alaska legislation.

In Washington, Reykdal, the state superintendent, said state lawmakers could step in and say to OSPI, “We want you to have more aggressive oversight over private providers.” He said, “That is a legitimate policy question.”

Green, the former director, thought the state already had the oversight power it needed. When she submitted the school’s application for renewal in 2021, staffing at the three campuses was thin. Even though the state requires only one special education teacher per school, Green found it troubling that her staff had only six certified special education teachers for 120 students. She thought the application would surely be flagged.

“I turned it in thinking ‘Oh boy, I’m going to get a call, someone is going to say something,’” she said. OSPI never commented on the staffing levels.

“I just really feel like there’s a major gap here,” Green said. “These are our neediest kids. I felt like there was no one looking out for them.”

Manuel Villa of The Seattle Times and Haru Coryne of ProPublica contributed data reporting, and Alex Mierjeski of ProPublica contributed research.

by Lulu Ramadan, Mike Reicher and Taylor Blatchford, The Seattle Times

Agents of Influence: How Russia Deploys an Army of Shadow Diplomats

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

BUDVA, Montenegro — Near a teeming town square along the Adriatic coast, where ancient city walls surround the ruins of bygone empires and shops and churches rise over the sea, Russia’s newly appointed representative to this tiny Balkan nation opened his consulate office.

Boro Djukic, the first honorary consul named by Russia in Montenegro, was supposed to use his prestigious post to champion cultural ties and the interests of local Russian business owners and tourists — a benevolent bridge between the two countries.

Instead, the middle-aged former bureaucrat took on an aggressive role in Montenegro’s politics, backing a movement that aimed to empower allies of the Kremlin and working to undermine the fragile government of a country considered a valuable U.S. ally in a turbulent region.

Russia’s former honorary consul in Montenegro maintained a consulate in Budva, a picturesque town on the Adriatic coast. (Matthew Orr)

Watch video ➜

While honorary consul from 2014 to 2018, Djukic helped found a hard-line, Kremlin-backed political party that sought to force the country’s withdrawal from NATO. When the party needed a headquarters, he went one step further, offering his family home in a posh neighborhood in Podgorica, Montenegro’s capital.

A sign near the front door read: “Residence of the Honorary Consul of the Russian Federation.”

Boro Djukic (Illustration by Matt Rota for ProPublica and ICIJ)

Djukic was part of a faithful network of honorary consuls embedded by the Russian government around the world that has supported President Vladimir Putin amid his most contentious military and political campaigns, including the February invasion of Ukraine that has killed or injured thousands of civilians, an investigation by ProPublica and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists found.

Under Putin, Russia has become an enthusiastic supporter of the largely unregulated system of international diplomacy, which for centuries has empowered private citizens in their home countries to serve as liaisons for foreign nations.

Experts say Russia is using honorary consuls as part of a strategy to move public opinion in the Kremlin’s favor and, over time, weaken pro-Western governments, particularly in European countries vulnerable to influence. In one high-profile case, intelligence officials tied two consuls in North Macedonia to an alleged Russian propaganda campaign to destabilize a stretch of southeastern Europe.

Never miss the most important reporting from ProPublica’s newsroom. Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

In Montenegro, Ljubomir Filipovic, a political scientist and former deputy mayor of Budva, said Djukic helped spread chaos and dysfunction in a country that has struggled to establish an identity since it became a sovereign nation in 2006.

“He went beyond what an ordinary honorary consul would do. He went even beyond what an official diplomat would do,” said Filipovic, who tracked Djukic’s activities as consul. “The intention was to damage the social fabric of Montenegro — and he did that.”

Honorary consuls were once deployed primarily by smaller countries unable to afford career diplomats in critical foreign outposts. The arrangement is now used by most of the world’s governments as a way to further their interests in regions where embassies are far away or too costly to maintain.

Under international treaty, honorary consuls receive some of the same privileges and protections provided to career diplomats, including the ability to move consular bags across borders without inspection and maintain archives and correspondence that cannot be searched.

Consuls, however, are widely expected to be unobtrusive advocates, volunteers who focus on cultural and economic ties without proselytizing the political views of the governments they represent. “Apolitical in their words and deeds,” according to guidelines approved by an international association of consuls.

Many consuls fulfill that role honorably: promoting industry, the arts and academia on behalf of their appointing countries; assisting stranded or sick travelers; and helping with visa applications.

But a global investigation led by ProPublica and ICIJ identified at least 500 current and former honorary consuls who have been accused of crimes or become embroiled in controversy, including some who exploited their status for profit, to advance criminal activities or to dodge law enforcement. The scale of the abuse emerged in a review of thousands of pages of court documents, government reports and media accounts from dozens of countries.

Russia, which for decades did not appoint honorary consuls, has increasingly leveraged the system in service of its political agenda. Inside Russia, several of Putin’s closest associates secured their own honorary consul appointments — with the privileges that come with the title — and formed an advocacy group called The League of Honorary Consuls. Outside Russia, the government has appointed honorary consuls on six continents, quadrupling their number to more than 80 in the first decade after Putin took office.

Consuls appointed by the Russian government have denounced Western sanctions and criticized NATO. An American who served as Russia’s honorary consul in Denver traveled to Crimea several years after Russia invaded Ukraine and seized the peninsula. She visited a museum and posed for photos, while the U.S. State Department reported that torture, arbitrary arrests, ethnic violence and corruption were rampant there under Russian rule.

This year, as Russian rockets fell on Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, at least two honorary consuls representing Russia spoke out again. “I’m sorry he did not do it sooner,” one consul, Constantine van Vloten in the Netherlands, declared in support of Putin.

A consul in Spain appeared on Russian state television to decry violence he attributed to the “Ukrainian terrorist state.” Before he was named consul, Pedro Mouriño Uzal traveled to Crimea as an independent observer and vouched for the “absolute normality and tranquility” of a 2014 referendum, widely condemned as illegitimate, to incorporate the region into Russia.

Uzal told ProPublica and ICIJ that criticism of the vote was unfounded and that Ukraine has “joined the ranks of terrorist organizations that attack civilian infrastructure and take lives of civilians.” Van Vloten said in a statement that he has no personal relationship with Putin and that he wished the military operation had started sooner “so that it could end sooner the civil war.”

Several of Russia’s honorary consuls quit to protest the invasion. But others have remained in place even as countries in Europe and Asia expelled Russia’s career diplomats.

Though Russia does not release lists of its honorary consuls, ProPublica and ICIJ were able to identify consuls appointed by Russia who have served in at least 45 countries.

One is a hotel and nightclub owner in Mexico whose personal security guard is accused by Mexican officials of meeting at the consul’s properties with leaders of an organized crime gang known as The Russians, according to a 2021 military intelligence report.

Another was a businessman in Equatorial Guinea whom Russia named an honorary consul in 2011 after he was imprisoned for selling cruise missiles — capable of carrying nuclear warheads — to Iran and China. He is no longer a consul and could not be reached for comment. The consul in Mexico did not respond to requests for comment.

In Montenegro, Djukic remained a consul for about four years. In 2018, the government stripped him of his title reportedly as part of a coordinated response by governments, unrelated to Djukic, to the poisoning of a former Russian military intelligence officer who had become a British spy. Russian agents were accused of carrying out the attack; Moscow denied any involvement.

Djukic, who did not respond to requests for comment, has denied acting improperly as consul. “I am not a Russian citizen, but as a person who loves Russia, I represented it in the best possible way,” he told local media after Montenegro terminated his diplomatic status.

This year, one day after the invasion of Ukraine, Djukic denounced NATO and praised Putin on social media.

Putin, he wrote between heart emojis, stopped “American domination over the whole world.”

Putin’s Circle

Honorary consuls are nominated by foreign governments but serve at the discretion of their home countries. There are thousands of consuls, though no one has a more precise estimate because dozens of governments don’t publicly release the names of their appointees.

Under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, consuls are entitled to a coveted series of benefits that can include special identity cards, passports and license plates. They cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed in the official course of duty and their offices, and correspondence and consular bags are protected from searches.

For decades, what was then the Soviet Union declined to appoint consuls overseas or approve requests by foreign governments for consuls on Soviet soil. Soviet leaders saw honorary consuls as nothing more than “bourgeois spies,” scholar Geoff Berridge wrote in his widely cited book about diplomatic law and practice.

Soon after Putin became president in 2000, however, Russia fully embraced the honorary consul system. The title afforded protections and diplomatic credentials to a new class of well-connected elites.

ProPublica and ICIJ found a who’s who list of Russian power brokers and oligarchs — in mining, steel, gas, oil and banking — who have had honorary consul status.

In 2002, four of Putin’s associates founded the League of Honorary Consuls. Little is publicly known about the group, but Russian government documents show that the league spends donations on the “defense and support” of consuls.

The organization is based in Putin’s hometown of St. Petersburg, where he was a leading liaison to foreign diplomats during his rise to national power.

A 2010 photo of sanctioned Russian businessman Yury Kovalchuk in St. Petersburg (Alexander Nikolayev/AFP/Interpress/Getty Images)

The founders secured their own honorary consul appointments: one from Brazil, another from Bangladesh, a third from Seychelles. Putin himself reportedly recommended that the government of Thailand appoint as consul the fourth organizer, Yury Kovalchuk, an oligarch the U.S. government has called “a personal banker” to Putin and other senior government officials.

In 2019, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made clear that his government supported the honorary consul system. Meeting with the leaders of some of the smallest countries in the Pacific region at the United Nations in New York, Lavrov announced: “We are actively using the institution of honorary consuls. … I think we should expand the practice.”

ProPublica and ICIJ found that at least nine current and former consuls in Russia have been sanctioned for their reported ties to Putin or for supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine. That includes Kovalchuk, whom U.S. authorities blacklisted in 2014 after the Russian invasion of Crimea and again in March after the latest attack on Ukraine.

Kovalchuk did not respond to requests for comment.

Under Putin, Russia also nominated a cadre of its own consuls around the world. Some were Russian expatriates, others influential local magnates of culture and industry.

Russian regulations for honorary consuls in the late 1990s said the volunteer diplomats would promote “friendly relations … the expansion of economic, trade, scientific, cultural and other ties.”

In Montenegro, Djukic went much further.

“He’s Everywhere”

Born in Podgorica in 1970, Djukic grew up eating his mother’s dumplings and borscht. His father worked for a time as a director of a tobacco factory and later moved to the Soviet Union.

In 1989, with the Soviet bloc unraveling, Djukic went to Moscow. Then 19 and knowing little Russian, he struggled to find his way.

“My first impressions were not very joyful,” he later told a Russian-language newspaper in Montenegro. “It was like being thrown into the past by a time machine. … I ended up in a half-starved Moscow with dirty, broken streets, empty counters, shops without shop windows. People were driving old cars.”

After working for an Austrian trading company, he returned in 1997 to Montenegro and found work as an adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 2013, Ukraine named him an honorary consul in Montenegro.

Djukic said in an interview at the time that he wanted to give back, helping Ukrainian tourists with visa problems and families with emergencies while on vacation, routine duties of honorary consuls.

“It’s time to give from yourself, to do useful things,” he said.

That consulship ended; Djukic said only that the decision was tied to leadership changes after Russia annexed Crimea in early 2014.

He was soon appointed a consul by Russia, initially maintaining a low profile even as tensions in Montenegro continued to rise.

Yachts in Budva near the former consulate office of Boro Djukic (Matthew Orr)

Watch video ➜

The country of 620,000 had once been part of Yugoslavia and, later, part of a smaller federation with neighboring Serbia. By the time Djukic became consul in 2014, setting up his office near a town square in Budva, Montenegro was an independent nation seeking to become a member of NATO.

That position made Montenegro, with longstanding ties to Moscow and an influx of Russian tourists and investment, a high-stakes battleground between Russia and the West.

In 2016, Montenegrin authorities disrupted an Election Day coup attempt by Russian military intelligence operatives and others who had plotted to overthrow Montenegro’s government and kill its pro-Western prime minister.

A man is escorted by Montenegrin police to court in Podgorica in October 2016, when authorities disrupted an Election Day attempt to overthrow Montenegro’s government. (Savo Prelevic/AFP via Getty Images)

Montenegro joined NATO the following year, a move celebrated by political leaders and diplomats as a guarantee against foreign meddling.

“It will never happen again that someone else decides instead of us and our state behind our back, as was the case in the past,” Montenegro’s then-Prime Minister Dusko Markovic said at a ceremony in Washington, D.C.

The founding document for True Montenegro was signed by Djukic in 2017 (Obtained by ProPublica and ICIJ)

In the Senate a few weeks later, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., praised Montenegro’s leaders and warned of Putin’s “long-term campaign … to erode any and all resistance to his dark and dangerous view of the world.”

“Every American should be disturbed,” McCain said.

Four months later in October 2017, Djukic took a bold public step.

As honorary consul, he helped organize a trip to Moscow for Marko Milacic, one of Montenegro’s most well-known anti-NATO populist leaders. Milacic had already been convicted for organizing what local media described as an unauthorized protest. Reporting to prison to serve a 20-day sentence, Milacic had paused outside to burn a blue-and-white NATO flag.

In Moscow, according to a subsequent social media post by Milacic, the politician met with Sergei Zheleznyak, a top Putin ally who was under U.S. sanctions for his involvement in the annexation of Crimea.

Two months after the trip, according to records obtained by ProPublica and ICIJ and reporting by local media, Djukic signed the founding documents for True Montenegro, a Kremlin-backed, right-wing political party led by Milacic. Djukic would later acknowledge that the party set up its headquarters at his family home in a Podgorica neighborhood of expansive houses and foreign embassies.

Djukic offered his family home to True Montenegro, the Kremlin-backed political party he helped establish. (Matthew Orr)

In 2018, shortly after the Montenegrin government removed Djukic as consul, he stood alongside Milacic at a press conference, endorsed True Montenegro and defended his own involvement in politics.

“If I had several million euros or dollars, I would legally offer them to Mr. Milacic,” Djukic told reporters. “Why? Because I like his idea.”

Djukic also commented on Facebook that he had been “persecuted” by NATO. And in an interview with a Russian media outlet, he defended the men behind the attempted coup in 2016, calling one of the plotters a “comrade, friend” and saying there was no conspiracy.

“If there was something like that, I would know for sure,” Djukic told the interviewer. “This is in the same category as everything else that has been done against Russia in recent years. There was no coup d’état. The maximum that could be … someone in a drunken conversation said, ‘Come on, let’s kill someone.’”

Milan Jovanovic, an analyst for a democracy group in Montenegro that tracks disinformation, said Djukic was an influential force. “He went from national Montenegrin to … the closest possible cooperation with Russia,” Jovanovic said.

In a two-bedroom apartment crowded with books about philosophy and religion, Filipovic, the political scientist and former Budva deputy mayor, watched the former consul’s appearance at the True Montenegro press conference. Filipovic took to social media, posting commentary, media reports and photos that Djukic had put on Facebook.

“He went beyond what an ordinary honorary consul would do,” Ljubomir Filipovic, former deputy mayor of Budva, said of Djukic. (Matthew Orr)

One photo showed the former consul in a black T-shirt emblazoned with the word “Russian,” his arm around Alexander Zaldostanov, leader of the pro-Kremlin motorcycle gang known as the Night Wolves. The U.S. Treasury Department had previously sanctioned Zaldostanov, whose nickname is “The Surgeon,” accusing him of leading an organization that recruited fighters and committed crimes during the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea. He could not be reached for comment.

In another photo, Djukic brandished a machine gun in front of a wall of rifles, rockets and other military paraphernalia.

Djukic in a photo he posted on social media in 2018 (via Facebook)

“He’s everywhere,” Filipovic said in a recent interview in a Budva coffee shop overlooking the Adriatic Sea. “It’s sharp power that masquerades as soft power. It’s not the power of attraction. It’s the power of coercion.”

Russia’s Reach in Denver

Nearly 6,000 miles away in Colorado, the last remaining honorary consul for Russia in the United States lost her post in March as Russian forces invaded Ukraine.

After Russian forces invaded Ukraine this year, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis sought to decertify honorary consul Deborah Palmieri. (via Colorado governor’s office)

“Colorado is … severing diplomatic ties with Russia,” Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, wrote in a letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., seeking the decertification of honorary consul Deborah Palmieri. “Should at some point the regime change in Russia to one that honors global order … Colorado will reconsider.”

The State Department subsequently withdrew recognition of Palmieri’s consular status, the governor’s office said. The State Department did not respond to questions about Palmieri or the governor’s request.

Russia has nominated a series of American citizens as honorary consuls on U.S. soil. They included the founder of a Russian art museum in Minnesota, the president of a Russian trading firm in Puerto Rico and the former president of St. Petersburg College in Florida, who in 2007 penned a newspaper column titled “Putin and Me.”

“Their definition of ‘democracy’ is different than ours,” Carl Kuttler Jr. wrote, calling Putin “perceptive,” “detail oriented” and a “muscular man” with “an amazing intellect.”

In an interview, Kuttler, who is no longer an honorary consul, said his work included trade, education and helping Americans with adoptions and that he “never was asked to participate in anything but the most ethical of ventures.”

In 2016, the State Department revoked the status of all but one of the Russian-appointed consuls in the United States after reports that Russian intelligence officers were harassing U.S. diplomats in Moscow. Only Palmieri stayed on.

Before she was appointed consul in 2007, Palmieri publicly supported Putin, writing in a publication for the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce that he was achieving democracy “at his own pace.”

As consul, she worked out of a downtown Denver rowhouse, with photos of the Kremlin and Red Square in the dining room, and promoted the Deb Palmieri Russia Institute, a provider of training to businesses seeking to enter the Russian market. Her website, which is no longer active, noted that she has worked with hundreds of U.S. and Russian companies, including Aeroflot, Russia’s state airline.

After Russia sent troops into Crimea in 2014, Colorado lawyer Olena Ruth, who was born in Kyiv, organized a rally in support of Ukraine and marched with scores of others to the consulate.

“She was just ignoring the Ukrainian question,” Ruth said in a recent interview. “Nobody wanted to have her presence here.”

Three years later, Palmieri was among a group of Americans who toured annexed Crimea, visiting a local university and a museum and posing for photos. On her website, Palmieri described the trip as a “fact-finding visit.”

“She was a participant in the trip?” said Rusty Butler, a retired college administrator and former honorary consul for Russia in Utah, when told about the 2017 visit by reporters. “I can’t wrap my head around seeing myself in that role.”

Palmieri in an undated photo (Obtained by ProPublica and ICIJ)

Palmieri, whose website included an undated picture of herself greeting Putin, has kept a low profile since she lost the consul post and did not respond to emails and calls seeking comment.

A retired Colorado federal bankruptcy judge, Sid Brooks, who once helped train Russian judges about independent judiciaries, said he knew Palmieri from events at the consulate. Brooks said he stepped back from his own work in Russia in recent years because of Putin’s policies.

“I don’t know what triggered the [removal] of Deb Palmieri as honorary consul, but as far as I’m concerned, that’s just fine,” Brooks said. “I always thought it was a little bit curious that [as consul] she seemed to continue her efforts to promote exchanges.”

“Intelligence Bases”

In North Macedonia, another fragile Balkan democracy, honorary consul Sergej Samsonenko became one of the most visible promoters of the Kremlin.

A Russian-born entrepreneur who made millions as the founder of an international sports betting company, Samsonenko built a four-star hotel in the capital that he called Hotel Russia and helped fund a landmark Russian Orthodox church that, according to local media, an archbishop described as a “part of the Russian soul on Macedonian soil.”

In 2016, Samsonenko was named honorary consul for Russia. He set up his consulate in Bitola, an ancient trading hub near the Greek border that had served as a cultural and political junction under the Ottoman Empire, earning the nickname “City of Consuls.”

In 2017, a North Macedonian intelligence report found that the consulate offices in Bitola and in the lakeside city of Ohrid represented “intelligence bases” used by Russia as part of an alleged propaganda campaign aimed at creating conflict in the Balkans and isolating countries like North Macedonia from the West.

“Performing intelligence activities from diplomatic consular missions is a widely used method of the Russian Federation … from which they are collecting, processing, analyzing and distributing information,” noted the report, first obtained by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

The report also described Samsonenko’s financing of the Russian church, saying “religious influence [of the Russian Federation] is an important segment of the Russian strategy.”

North Macedonia joined NATO in 2020. This past summer, the government withdrew its approval of Samsonenko’s honorary consul position.

Samsonenko declined to comment to ProPublica and ICIJ beyond dismissing reports about him as “lies and slander.” He has previously denied using his diplomatic status to support Russian intelligence operations.

“I am not a political person, I am an honorary consul of Russia and I should support the politics of my home country,” Samsonenko told the Macedonidan magazine Fokus in 2019.

He added, “Of everything written about me … one of the many lies [is] that there is a spy center in Bitola, in my consulate.”

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson previously called Samsonenko’s dismissal “yet another politically charged gesture.”

Lingering Divisions

In early fall, four years after Djukic lost his honorary consul post in Montenegro, red and white election posters promoting the True Montenegro political party that he co-founded lined a busy mountain pass connecting the capital to Budva.

Filipovic, the former deputy mayor, said he fears that pro-Russian interests will drive his country of birth back to the Kremlin. In September, authorities expelled six Russian diplomats in Montenegro who were suspected of espionage.

Filipovic said he blames Djukic and others for helping to fuel the unrest that has roiled the country.

“The honorary consul position gave him stature. It gave him a position in society,” Filipovic said. “He was an agent of Russian influence.”

Djukic has regularly posted on social media, sharing photos and comments about his love for Putin, Russian religious orthodoxy and his former position as honorary consul.

In July, he reposted a pro-Russia video that circulated on social media. “Beautiful women. … No cancel culture. … Economy that can withstand thousands of sanctions,” the narrator proclaimed. “Time to move to Russia.”

Djukic’s social media post (via Facebook)

A few days later, Djukic also posted a red and white image of the Kremlin and “First Honorary Consul of the Russian Federation in Montenegro” written above it in Russian.

In his post, he included three words: “JOY. JOY. JOY.”

Reporting was contributed by Delphine Reuter and Jelena Cosic, of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists; Saska Cvetkovska, of the Investigative Reporting Lab; Dejan Milovic, of MANS; Dmitry Velikovskiy, of iStories; Leo Sisti, of L’Espresso; and Emily Anderson Stern, Jordan Anderson, Michelle Liu, Grace Wu, Linus Hoeller, Dhivya Sridar, Quinn Clark and Henry Roach, of the Medill Investigative Lab.

by Debbie Cenziper, ProPublica; Will Fitzgibbon, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists; and Eva Herscowitz, Hannah Feuer and Michael Korsh, Medill Investigative Lab

The Cold War Legacy Lurking in U.S. Groundwater

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

In America’s rush to build the nuclear arsenal that won the Cold War, safety was sacrificed for speed.

Uranium mills that helped fuel the weapons also dumped radioactive and toxic waste into rivers like the Cheyenne in South Dakota and the Animas in Colorado. Thousands of sheep turned blue and died after foraging on land tainted by processing sites in North Dakota. And cancer wards across the West swelled with sick uranium workers.

The U.S. government bankrolled the industry, and mining companies rushed to profit, building more than 50 mills and processing sites to refine uranium ore.

But the government didn’t have a plan for the toxic byproducts of this nuclear assembly line. Some of the more than 250 million tons of toxic and radioactive detritus, known as tailings, scattered into nearby communities, some spilled into streams and some leaked into aquifers.

Congress finally created the agency that now oversees uranium mill waste cleanup in 1974 and enacted the law governing that process in 1978, but the industry would soon collapse due to falling uranium prices and rising safety concerns. Most mills closed by the mid-1980s.

When cleanup began, federal regulators first focused on the most immediate public health threat, radiation exposure. Agencies or companies completely covered waste at most mills to halt leaks of the carcinogenic gas radon and moved some waste by truck and train to impoundments specially designed to encapsulate it.

But the government has fallen down in addressing another lingering threat from the industry’s byproducts: widespread water pollution.

Regulators haven’t made a full accounting of whether they properly addressed groundwater contamination. So, for the first time, ProPublica cataloged cleanup efforts at the country’s 48 uranium mills, seven related processing sites and numerous tailings piles.

Uranium Mill Waste Is Concentrated in the Four Corners Region (Data obtained by ProPublica via public agency documents and satellite imaging tools. Map by Lucas Waldron, ProPublica.)

At least 84% of the sites have polluted groundwater. And nearly 75% still have either no liner or only a partial liner between mill waste and the ground, leaving them susceptible to leaking pollution into groundwater. In the arid West, where most of the sites are located, climate change is drying up surface water, making underground reserves increasingly important.

ProPublica’s review of thousands of pages of government and corporate documents, accompanied by interviews with 100 people, also found that cleanup has been hampered by infighting among regulatory agencies and the frequency with which regulators grant exemptions to their own water quality standards.

The result: a long history of water pollution and sickness.

Reports by government agencies found high concentrations of cancer near a mill in Utah and elevated cancer risks from mill waste in New Mexico that can persist until cleanup is complete. Residents near those sites and others have seen so many cases of cancer and thyroid disease that they believe the mills and waste piles are to blame, although epidemiological studies to prove such a link have rarely been done.

“The government didn’t pay attention up front and make sure it was done right. They just said, ‘Go get uranium,’” said Bill Dixon, who spent decades cleaning up uranium and nuclear sites with the state of Oregon and in the private sector.

Tom Hanrahan grew up near uranium mills in Colorado and New Mexico and watched three of his three brothers contract cancer. He believes his siblings were “casualties” of the war effort.

“Somebody knew that this was a ticking atomic bomb,” Hanrahan said. “But, in military terms, this was the cost of fighting a war.”

A Flawed System

When a uranium mill shuts down, here is what’s supposed to happen: The company demolishes the buildings, decontaminates the surrounding soil and water, and encases the waste to stop it from leaking cancer-causing pollution. The company then asks the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the lead agency monitoring America’s radioactive infrastructure, to approve the handoff of the property and its associated liability to the Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management for monitoring and maintenance.

ProPublica’s analysis found that half of the country’s former mills haven’t made it through this process and even many that did have never fully addressed pollution concerns. This is despite the federal government spending billions of dollars on cleanup, in addition to the several hundred million dollars that have been spent by companies.

Often, companies or agencies tasked with cleanup are unable to meet water quality standards, so they request exemptions to bypass them. The NRC or state agencies almost always approve these requests, allowing contaminants like uranium and selenium to be left in the groundwater. When ingested in high quantities, those elements can cause cancer and damage the nervous system, respectively.

The DOE estimates that some sites have individually polluted more than a billion gallons of water.

Bill Dam, who spent decades regulating and researching uranium mill cleanup with the NRC, at the DOE and in the private sector, said water pollution won’t be controlled until all the waste and contaminated material is moved. “The federal government’s taken a Band-Aid approach to groundwater contamination,” he said.

The pollution has disproportionately harmed Indian Country.

Six of the mills were built on reservations, and another eight mills are within 5 miles of one, some polluting aquifers used by tribes. And the country’s last conventional uranium mill still in operation — the White Mesa Mill in Utah — sits adjacent to a Ute Mountain Ute community.

So many uranium mines, mills and waste piles pockmark the Navajo Nation that the Environmental Protection Agency created a comic book superhero, Gamma Goat, to warn Diné children away from the sites.

A comic book produced by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1999 warns children about the dangers of abandoned uranium mines, mills and waste in the Navajo Nation. (Illustrations by Jay Robinson. Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica)

NRC staff acknowledged that the process of cleaning up America’s uranium mills can be slow but said that the agency prioritizes thoroughness over speed, that each site’s groundwater conditions are complex and unique, and that cleanup exemptions are granted only after gathering input from regulators and the public.

“The NRC’s actions provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment,” David McIntyre, an NRC spokesperson, said in a statement to ProPublica.

“Cleanup Standards Might Suddenly Change”

For all the government’s success in demolishing mills and isolating waste aboveground, regulators failed to protect groundwater.

Between 1958 and 1962, a mill near Gunnison, Colorado, churned through 540,000 tons of ore. The process, one step in concentrating the ore into weapons-grade uranium, leaked uranium and manganese into groundwater, and in 1990, regulators found that residents had been drawing that contaminated water from 22 wells.

The DOE moved the waste and connected residents to clean water. But pollution lingered in the aquifer beneath the growing town where some residents still get their water from private wells. The DOE finally devised a plan in 2000, which the NRC later approved, settling on a strategy called “natural flushing,” essentially waiting for groundwater to dilute the contamination until it reached safe levels.

In 2015, the agency acknowledged that the plan had failed. Sediments absorb and release uranium, so waiting for contamination to be diluted doesn’t solve the problem, said Dam, the former NRC and DOE regulator.

In Wyoming, state regulators wrote to the NRC in 2006 to lambast the agency’s “inadequate” analysis of natural flushing compared to other cleanup options. “Unfortunately, the citizens of Wyoming may likely have to deal with both the consequences and the indirect costs of the NRC’s decisions for generations to come,” the state’s letter said.

ProPublica identified mills in six states — including eight former mill sites in Colorado — where regulators greenlit the strategy as part of a cleanup plan.

When neither water treatment nor nature solves the problem, federal and state regulators can simply relax their water quality standards, allowing harmful levels of pollutants to be left in aquifers.

First image: A photo of a site marker at the Gunnison disposal cell taken in September 2022 by government officials. Second image: A 1992 report from the Department of Energy showing how to move waste from the Gunnison mill. (Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica)

County officials made a small area near the Gunnison mill off-limits to new wells, and the DOE suggested changing water quality standards to allow uranium concentrations as much as 475 times what naturally occurred in the area. It wouldn’t endanger human health, the agency said, because people wouldn’t come into contact with the water.

ProPublica found that regulators granted groundwater cleanup exemptions at 18 of the 28 sites where cleanup has been deemed complete and liability has been handed over to the DOE’s Office of Legacy Management. Across all former uranium mills, the NRC or state agencies granted at least 34 requests for water quality exemptions while denying as few as three.

“They’re cutting standards, so we’re getting weak cleanup that future generations may not find acceptable,” said Paul Robinson, who spent four decades researching the cleanup of the uranium industry with the Southwest Research and Information Center, an Albuquerque-based nonprofit. “These great mining companies of the world, they got away cheap.”

NRC staffers examine studies that are submitted by companies’ consultants and other agencies to show how cleanup plans will adequately address water contamination. Some companies change their approach in response to feedback from regulators, and the public can view parts of the process in open meetings. Still, the data and groundwater modeling that underpin these requests for water cleanup exemptions are often wrong.

One reason: When mining companies built the mills, they rarely sampled groundwater to determine how much contamination occurred naturally, leaving it open to debate how clean groundwater should be when the companies leave, according to Roberta Hoy, a former uranium program specialist with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. She said federal regulators also haven’t done enough to understand certain contaminants at uranium mills.

In one recent case, the NRC fined a mining company $14,500 for incomplete and inaccurate groundwater modeling data. Companies use such data to prove that pollution won’t spread in the future. Freeport-McMoRan, the corporation that owns the fined mining company, did not respond to a request for comment.

At a 2013 conference co-hosted by the NRC and a mining trade group, a presentation from two consultants compared groundwater modeling to a sorcerer peering at a crystal ball.

ProPublica identified at least seven sites where regulators granted cleanup exemptions based on incorrect groundwater modeling. At these sites, uranium, lead, nitrates, radium and other substances were found at levels higher than models had predicted and regulators had allowed.

McIntyre, the NRC spokesperson, said that groundwater models “inherently include uncertainty,” and the government typically requires sites to be monitored. “The NRC requires conservatism in the review process and groundwater monitoring to verify a model’s accuracy,” he said.

Water quality standards impose specific limits on the allowable concentration of contaminants — for example, the number of micrograms of uranium per liter of water. But ProPublica found that the NRC granted exemptions in at least five states that were so vague they didn’t even include numbers and were instead labeled as “narrative.” The agency justified this by saying the groundwater was not near towns or was naturally unfit for human consumption.

This system worries residents of Cañon City, Colorado. Emily Tracy, who serves on the City Council, has lived a few miles from the area’s now-demolished uranium mill since the late 1970s and remembers floods and winds carrying mill waste into neighborhoods from the 15.3-million-ton pile, which is now partially covered.

Uranium and other contaminants had for decades tainted private wells that some residents used for drinking water and agriculture, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The company that operated the mill, Cotter Corp., finally connected residents to clean water by the early 1990s and completed cleanup work such as decontaminating soil after the EPA got involved. But the site remains without a final cleanup plan — which the company that now owns the site is drafting — and the state has eased water quality standards for molybdenum, a metal that uranium mining and milling releases into the environment.

First image: Golfers watch as wind blows uranium mill waste off a now-covered pile at the Cotter Uranium Mill. Second image: Drone footage shot in July 2021 that shows the site of the former Cotter mill. (Photos courtesy of Emily Tracy. Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica)

“We have great concerns about what it might look like or whether cleanup standards might suddenly change before our eyes,” Tracy said.

Jim Harrington, managing director of the site’s current owner, Colorado Legacy Land, said that a final cleanup strategy has not been selected and that any proposal would need to be approved by both the EPA and the state.

Layers of Regulation

It typically takes 35 years from the day a mill shuts down until the NRC approves or estimates it will approve cleanup as being complete, ProPublica found. Two former mills aren’t expected to finish this process until 2047.

Chad Smith, a DOE spokesperson, said mills that were previously transferred to the government have polluted groundwater more than expected, so regulators are more cautious now.

The involvement of so many regulators can also slow cleanup.

Five sites were so contaminated that the EPA stepped in via its Superfund program, which aims to clean up the most polluted places in the country.

At the Homestake mill in New Mexico, where cleanup is jointly overseen by the NRC and the EPA, Larry Camper, a now-retired NRC division director, acknowledged in a 2011 meeting “that having multiple regulators for the site is not good government” and had complicated the cleanup, according to meeting minutes.

Homestake Mining Company of California did not comment on Camper’s view of the process.

Only one site where the EPA is involved in cleanup has been successfully handed off to the DOE, and even there, uranium may still persist above regulatory limits in groundwater and surface water, according to the agency. An EPA spokesperson said the agency has requested additional safety studies at that site.

“A lot of people make money in the bureaucratic system just pontificating over these things,” said William Turner, a geologist who at different times has worked for mining companies, for the U.S. Geological Survey and as the New Mexico Natural Resources Trustee.

If the waste is on tribal land, it adds another layer of government.

The federal government and the Navajo Nation have long argued over the source of some groundwater contamination at the former Navajo Mill built by Kerr-McGee Corp. in Shiprock, New Mexico, with the tribe pointing to the mill as the key source. Smith of the DOE said the department is guided by water monitoring results “to minimize opportunities for disagreement.”

Tronox, which acquired parts of Kerr-McGee, did not respond to requests for comment.

All the while, 2.5 million tons of waste sit adjacent to the San Juan River in the town of 8,000 people. Monitoring wells situated between the unlined waste pile and the river have shown nitrate levels as high as 80 times the limit set by regulators to protect human health, uranium levels 30 times the limit and selenium levels 20 times the limit.

“I can’t seem to get the federal agencies to acknowledge the positions of the Navajo Nation,” said Dariel Yazzie, who formerly managed the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund Program.

A 1977 report from the EPA acknowledging water pollution at the Shiprock mill (Photo by the Department of Energy. Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica)

At some sites, overlapping jurisdictions mean even less cleanup gets done.

Such was the case near Griffin, North Dakota, where six cows and 2,500 sheep died in 1973; their bodies emitted a blue glow in the morning light. The animals lay near kilns that once served as rudimentary uranium mills operated by Kerr-McGee. To isolate the element, piles of uranium-laden coal at the kilns were “covered with old tires, doused in diesel fuel, ignited, and left to smolder for a couple of months,” according to the North Dakota Geological Survey.

The flock is believed to have been poisoned by land contaminated with high levels of molybdenum. The danger extended beyond livestock. In a 1989 draft environmental assessment, the DOE found that “fatal cancer from exposure to residual radioactive materials” from the Griffin kilns and another site less than a mile from a town of 1,000 people called Belfield was eight times as high as it would have been if the sites had been decontaminated.

But after agreeing to work with the federal government, North Dakota did an about-face. State officials balked at a requirement to pay 10% of the cleanup cost — the federal government would cover the rest — and in 1995 asked that the sites no longer be regulated under the federal law. The DOE had already issued a report that said doing nothing “would not be consistent” with the law, but the department approved the state’s request and walked away, saying it could only clean a site if the state paid its share.

“North Dakota determined there was minimal risk to public health at that time and disturbing the grounds further would create a potential for increased public health risk,” said David Stradinger, manager of the Radiation Control Program in the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality. Contaminated equipment was removed, and the state is reevaluating one of the sites, he said.

“A Problem for the Better Part of 50 Years”

While the process for cleaning up former mills is lengthy and laid out in regulations, regulators and corporations have made questionable and contradictory decisions in their handling of toxic waste and tainted water.

More than 40 million people rely on drinking water from the Colorado River, but the NRC and DOE allowed companies to leak contamination from mill waste directly into the river, arguing that the waterway quickly dilutes it.

Federal regulators relocated tailings at two former mills that processed uranium and vanadium, another heavy metal, on the banks of the Colorado River in Rifle, Colorado, because radiation levels there were deemed too high. Yet they left some waste at one former processing site in a shallow aquifer connected to the river and granted an exemption that allowed cleanup to end and uranium to continue leaking into the waterway.

Uranium contamination extends several miles in an aquifer under the Bluewater disposal site in New Mexico. (Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica)

For a former mill built by the Anaconda Copper Company in Bluewater, New Mexico, the NRC approved the company’s request to hand the site off to the DOE in 1997. About a decade later, the state raised concerns about uranium that had spread several miles in an aquifer that provides drinking water for more than 15,000 people.

The contamination hasn’t reached the wells used by nearby communities, and Smith, the DOE spokesperson, said the department has no plans to treat the uranium in the aquifer. It’s too late for much more cleanup, since the DOE’s Office of Legacy Management’s mission is to monitor and maintain decommissioned sites, not clean them. Flawed cleanup efforts caused problems at several former mills after they were handed off to the agency, according to a 2020 Government Accountability Office report.

“Uranium has been overplayed as a boom,” said Travis Stills, an environmental attorney in Colorado who has sued over the cleanup of old uranium infrastructure. “The boom was a firecracker, and it left a problem for the better part of 50 years now.”

“No Way in Hell We’re Going to Leave This Stuff Here”

Mining companies can’t remove every atom of uranium from groundwater, experts said, but they can do a better job of decommissioning uranium mills. With the federal government yet to take control of half the country’s former mills, regulators still have time to compel some companies to do more cleanup.

Between 1958 and 1961, the Lakeview Mining Company generated 736,000 tons of tailings at a uranium mill in southern Oregon. Like at most sites, uranium and other pollution leaked into an aquifer.

“There’s no way in hell we’re going to leave this stuff here,” Dixon, the nuclear cleanup specialist, remembered thinking. He represented the state of Oregon at the former mill, which was one of the first sites to relocate its waste to a specially engineered disposal cell.

First image: A warning sign at the Lakeview disposal site. The photo appeared in a DOE annual report. Second image: A 1984 report from the Oregon Department of Energy discusses possible sites to host relocated mill tailings. (Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica)

A local advisory committee at the Lakeview site allowed residents and local politicians to offer input to federal regulators. By the end of the process, the government had paid to connect residents to a clean drinking water system and the waste was moved away from the town, where it was contained by a 2-foot-thick clay liner and covered with 3 feet of rocks, soil and vegetation. Local labor got priority for cleanup contracts, and a 170-acre solar farm now stands on the former mill site.

But relocation isn’t required. At some sites, companies and regulators saw a big price tag and either moved residents away or merely left the waste where it was.

“I recognize Lakeview is easy and it’s a drop in the bucket compared to New Mexico,” Dixon said, referring to the nation’s largest waste piles. “But it’s just so sad to see that this hasn’t been taken care of.”

Methodology

To investigate the cleanup of America’s uranium mills, ProPublica assembled a list of uranium processing and disposal sites from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s most recent “Status of the Decommissioning Program” annual report, the WISE Uranium Project and several federal agencies’ websites. Reporters reviewed fact sheets from the NRC and the Department of Energy before studying the history of each mill contained in thousands of pages of documents that are archived mainly in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, known as ADAMS.

We solicited feedback on our findings from 10 experts who worked or work at the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, the Southwest Research and Information Center, the University of New Mexico and elsewhere. Additionally, we interviewed dozens of current and former regulators, residents of communities adjacent to mills, representatives of tribes, academics, politicians and activists to better understand the positive and negative impacts of the uranium industry and the bureaucracy that oversees uranium mill cleanup.

We also traveled to observe mill sites in New Mexico, Utah and Colorado.

Help Us Report on Uranium Mining, Milling and Enrichment

Maya Miller and Lucas Waldron contributed reporting.

by Mark Olalde, Mollie Simon and Alex Mierjeski, video by Gerardo del Valle, Liz Moughon and Mauricio Rodríguez Pons

DOJ Tried to Hide Report Warning That Private Border Wall in Texas Could Collapse

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.

A private border wall built along the Rio Grande in South Texas could collapse during extreme flooding, according to a federally commissioned inspection report that the government sought to keep secret for more than a year.

The 404-page report, produced by the global engineering firm Arcadis, confirms previous reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. It also shows for the first time that the federal government independently found structural problems with the border fencing before reaching a settlement agreement with the builder, Fisher Industries, in May.

Under the agreement, which ended a nearly three-year legal battle between the International Boundary and Water Commission and Fisher Industries, the company must inspect the fence quarterly, remove bollards and maintain a gate that would allow for the release of floodwaters. It must also keep a $3 million bond, a type of insurance, to cover any expenses in case the structure fails.

Engineering and hydrology experts told the news organizations the bond is inadequate to cover the kind of catastrophic failure described by Arcadis and raised concerns that the federal government’s decision to settle the case cuts against the report’s findings.

The company modeled different scenarios using the extreme weather conditions caused by Hurricane Beulah, a 1967 storm that dumped about 30 inches of rain in some areas of the border region and caused the banks of the Rio Grande to overflow. The modeling showed that the fence “would effectively slide and/or overturn” during major flooding, and that it starts to become unstable during much smaller and more frequent floods.

According to the report, the fencing doesn’t meet basic international building code and industry standards and has a foundation far shallower than border barriers built by the federal government.

“Every single conclusion in the report points to it not needing to be there and shows it is actually negatively affecting the area,” said Adriana E. Martinez, a professor and geomorphologist at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. (She was not involved with the report.)

Martinez, who studies the impact of border barriers in South Texas, questioned how much more evidence the state and federal governments need to take down the fencing and prevent future construction along the Rio Grande.

Arcadis referred questions about its assessment to the Department of Justice, which represented the IBWC in the lawsuit, arguing the fence violated a treaty with Mexico that requires both countries to approve any development that can affect the international boundary. A DOJ spokesperson declined to answer specific questions about the settlement or about why the government fought the release of the report.

The news organizations obtained the report on Nov. 15 after multiple Freedom of Information Act requests and 15 months of back-and-forth with the federal government, which initially denied the request. The DOJ reversed course and released the report after ProPublica attorneys threatened legal action.

As part of the settlement, federal officials ordered that Fisher Industries and its subsidiaries destroy all copies of the Arcadis report, alleging that it contained “proprietary information.”

“Reading this and seeing the settlement that came out of this, it’s as though they completely disregarded the Arcadis report,” said Amy Patrick, a Houston forensic structural and civil engineer and court-recognized expert on wall construction. “I can see why they were dragging their heels so much on letting it get out because (the report) basically completely dismantled this idea that the fence will be OK.”

Mark Courtois, an attorney for Fisher Industries, said that the construction company “strongly disagreed with the opinions in the Arcadis report and refuted those opinions to the satisfaction of the IBWC.” He said the company worked with the IBWC, which is charged with oversight of the international treaty, to “reach a mutually agreeable resolution of all matters pertaining to the fence, including any issues raised by the Arcadis report.”

“Construction of the fence was completed nearly three years ago, and we continue to be confident in its design and construction,” Courtois said.

Sally Spener, a spokesperson for the IBWC, denied that Fisher was able to counter the conclusions in the Arcadis report to the agency’s satisfaction.

In an email to the news organizations, Spener said that the agency accepted the report’s findings, which showed a far greater impact on the flow of the Rio Grande than the builder had claimed. Despite that, she added, the settlement agreement’s requirements address the agency’s concerns that the barrier would violate the treaty.

But the settlement agreement won’t address the report’s findings that the fence was built on a flawed design and featured construction shortcomings that could contribute to its collapse, said Alex Mayer, a civil engineering professor at the University of Texas at El Paso.

“It just shows the shoddiness of the whole effort. It worries me even more,” Mayer said.

Tommy Fisher, president of Fisher Industries, started to construct the fence in 2019 with financial support from the online fundraising campaign We Build the Wall. The nonprofit was set up to help former President Donald Trump build his “big, beautiful wall” along the length of the border. In the end, four of the nonprofit’s top leaders, including Trump’s former adviser Steve Bannon, were arrested on fraud and other charges connected to the fundraising scheme.

Trump pardoned Bannon in January 2021. But in September, Bannon was indicted on state charges in New York. Bannon called the charges “nothing more than a partisan political weaponization of the criminal justice system.”

The three other men, including Brian Kolfage, an Air Force veteran who led the organization, face sentencing on Jan. 31 in federal court on various fraud and tax-related charges. Kolfage and another man pleaded guilty in April. The third man was convicted in October.

Soon after construction of the fence began, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in federal court to try to halt the work, claiming that Fisher Industries was violating the treaty with Mexico. A state district judge in Hidalgo County granted the government a temporary restraining order to stop construction, but a federal judge later reversed it.

During a January 2020 court hearing, Fisher claimed that his bollard wall design would bring security to the actual border by addressing the flooding and erosion concerns that previously prevented the federal government from building near the river’s edge.

The 3-mile project was completed in February 2020, making it the first border fence built directly on the riverbank in South Texas. We Build the Wall contributed about $1.5 million of the $42 million total cost, with the rest coming from Fisher, according to court testimony.

The areas around the private border fence soon started to show signs of erosion. Six hydrologists and engineers told ProPublica and the Tribune in July 2020 that the foundation of the fence was too shallow and that a series of gashes and gullies where rainwater runoff had scoured the sandy loam beneath the foundation raised stability concerns.

Following the organization’s news articles, Trump tried to distance himself from the project, saying on Twitter that it had been constructed to make him look bad.

Fisher called the news organizations’ reporting on engineering concerns “absolute nonsense” during a 2020 podcast interview hosted by Bannon.

“I would invite any of these engineers that so-called said this was gonna fall over, I’ll meet ’em there next week. … If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you probably shouldn’t start talking,” he said. “It’s working unbelievably well. There’s a little erosion maintenance we have to maintain.”

As climate change contributes to more extreme weather, better understanding the erosion that is occurring is critical, Martinez said.

“We know that there are more extreme hurricane seasons that are occurring due to climate change, so we know that it’s more likely that the fence is going to get flooded out in the Rio Grande,” Martinez said. “It’s just a matter of time before something happens.”

The fence outside Mission is one of two private border barriers built using private funds, but it may not be the last.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has embarked on an effort to build fencing along the state’s 1,200-mile border using a mixture of state funds and crowdsourced private dollars. And Trump said he would continue border wall construction while announcing last month that he would again run for the country’s highest office.

Ryan Patrick, a former U.S. attorney whose office first filed the lawsuit against Fisher, said that by settling the case and requiring a bond, the government limits the risk of losing at trial. Patrick left office before the settlement was negotiated. He continues to believe that the judge should not have allowed Fisher to build the fence.

The settlement doesn’t prevent someone from constructing on the floodplain in the future, he said, but it shows that the government will not give unrestricted authority to potential builders. “You are going to have long-term care and custody of that thing,” he said.

Amy Patrick, who is not related to Ryan Patrick, offered a different perspective.

The structural engineer said that the government’s handling of the legal case, and what she sees as an apparent indifference to its own engineering report, could set “a precedent that credible engineering will be disregarded in similar projects in the future.”

Help Us Investigate Texas Border Security Initiatives

by Perla Trevizo and Jeremy Schwartz

Fintechs Made “Massive Profits” on PPP Loans and Sometimes Engaged in Fraud, House Committee Report Finds

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Financial technology firms at the front lines of approving loans through the Paycheck Protection Program — intended to help small businesses survive during the pandemic — lacked fraud controls, chased high fees to the detriment of some borrowers and sometimes exploited their business relationships to arrange suspect loans for the companies’ own executives. One such executive falsely claimed in loan documents to be a Black veteran and received loans through multiple business entities.

These are among the findings in a report released Thursday by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, which investigated the role financial technology firms, known as fintech companies, played in propagating PPP loan fraud. The committee referred its findings to the Department of Justice and to the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General.

“Even as these companies failed in their administration of the program, they nonetheless accrued massive profits from program administration fees, much of which was pocketed by the companies’ owners and executives,” said Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the subcommittee’s chairman, in a statement released with the new report. “On top of the windfall obtained by enabling others to engage in PPP fraud, some of these individuals may have augmented their ill-gotten gains by engaging in PPP fraud themselves.”

Fintechs were often the front door to the PPP program: They processed huge quantities of loan applications and were hired in part to vet the documents for obvious signs of fraud before sending them on to lenders. But the vetting was often lacking. The investigation kicked off shortly after ProPublica reported that one fintech, Kabbage, approved hundreds of loans for fake farms, including what claimed to be a potato farm in Palm Beach, Florida, an orange grove in Minnesota and a cattle farm on a sandbar in New Jersey. “The illegitimacy of these purported farms,” Clyburn wrote in a letter to Kabbage at the time, “would have been obvious if even the bare minimum of due diligence had been conducted on the loan applications.”

The report found that Kabbage at one point had only one full-time anti-fraud employee and considered the risk of approving fraudulent loans minimal. “A fundamental difference is the risk here is not ours — it is SBAs,” said one risk manager to his team when asked about identifying fraudulent loans, according to a company email cited in the committee’s report. Kabbage’s then- head of policy wrote that “at the end of the day, it’s the SBA’s shitty rules that created fraud, not [Kabbage].”

In a statement, the company said it was proud of the role it played in supporting businesses during the pandemic. “Kabbage’s existing online lending platform was able to process the sudden flood of loan applications, in a timely manner, in the midst of a national crisis and in light of ever-changing federal lending rules,” it said. “Kabbage adhered to the applicable rules and regulations in good faith.” The statement accused the committee of reaching a predetermined conclusion and asserted that the report does a “disservice” to the American people.

The House report heavily cites ProPublica’s reporting and its public database of PPP loans, as well as reporting from the Miami Herald, Bloomberg, the Project on Government Oversight and others.

According to the report, fintech firms acted as “paths of least resistance” for fraudsters looking to get taxpayer-funded loans, all the while lining owners’ pockets with lucrative fees for doing so. The companies were paid for every loan paid out and were incentivized to process loans quickly without doing much due diligence.

One such lender singled out in the report, Blueacorn, instructed staff to push through high-dollar loans that the company called “VIPPP” loans internally. The original fee structure for PPP loans meant that small loans netted Blueacorn and other services a few hundred dollars, while large loans would yield tens of thousands of dollars.

In Slack messages obtained by the committee, Stephanie Hockridge Reis, one of the company’s founders, made clear what the priorities should be. In one message, she said “closing these monster loans will get everyone paid.” In another, referring to a $1.9 million loan as a “deal,” she wrote, “I don’t need to tell you how much Blueacorn makes off that loan alone.” She said of lower-dollar loans, “delete them, who fucking cares.”

Slack messages obtained by the committee show a founder of Blueacorn directing employees to ignore smaller loans in favor of larger ones.

For the second round of PPP loans, the government changed the fee structure, making small loans much more lucrative to incentivize getting money to small businesses and the self-employed. But ProPublica’s reporting from January showed that those most in need were sometimes left in a lurch by companies like Blueacorn. The companies lured customers with promises of quick approval of PPP loans, and once would-be borrowers were approved, they were locked in: Federal rules prohibited them from applying for a PPP loan elsewhere. Even if the loans were approved, though, the money didn’t always make it to borrowers. A ProPublica analysis showed that hundreds of thousands of loans were likely canceled because of quick approvals that fell apart after additional screening.

Blueacorn did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Its current CEO, Barry Calhoun, told ProPublica in response to questions for a past article that the SBA should have helped by allowing lenders to access more documents that would ensure the borrower was legitimate. “A few adjustments would’ve gotten rid of a lot of the lazy fraud,” Calhoun said. “Because there was so much ambiguity, it encouraged a lot of people.”

Scores of people wrote to ProPublica, perplexed that they showed up in our database of PPP recipients despite never having received money. They reported receiving quick approvals in spring 2021, followed by various snafus and then a monthslong runaround from companies like Blueacorn. Eventually, the lenders working with Blueacorn and other servicers would withdraw their initial approval and no funds were paid.

Terry Kilcrease contacted ProPublica after applying for a loan through Blueacorn in May 2021. After going back and forth with the company for months, he said, Blueacorn formally canceled his loan, telling him that his documentation made inconsistent claims. Kilcrease told us the application took just a few clicks to fill out, and he doesn’t remember the exact documents that were requested.

“The big companies made out like fat cats, the lenders made out like fat cats, all these companies that already had plenty of money,” Kilcrease told ProPublica in a previous article. “The people like me who are struggling to get there were just completely forgotten about.”

Not only did Blueacorn collect millions in PPP fees, the House report uncovered that top Blueacorn executives and close associates received more than $650,000 in PPP loans of their own. Hockridge Reis and her husband, Nathan Reis, received nearly $300,000 — in part through separate companies, much of it processed through Blueacorn or its business partners.

Capital Plus, a lender that worked with Blueacorn, discovered some of these loans and requested Reis and Hockridge Reis repay over $100,000, according to the report. But the committee found that at least six more loans were listed as forgiven.

Loan applications reviewed by the House committee likely would not have passed muster if more stringent controls had been in place. Reis falsely listed himself as an African American military veteran in one, according to the report. In another application, he claimed to be an independent contractor in his wife’s business, but documentation obtained by the committee shows he was never paid by that company. Finally, both Reis and Hockridge Reis answered “no” to a question about whether they owned other businesses on multiple PPP loan applications for multiple businesses. The report cites these inconsistencies and indicators of potential fraud as meriting further investigation by the SBA’s Office of Inspector General, as well as the DOJ.

A lawyer for Reis and Hockridge, who have both left Blueacorn, did not reply to a request for comment. According to public records, Reis relocated to San Juan, Puerto Rico, following his work at Blueacorn. In a video obtained by the subcommittee and viewed by ProPublica, he shows off a thick roll of cash in a bar last year, and in another video he and his wife are shown on a balcony of a luxury beachfront apartment. According to corporate records, Reis started a new company, a lending service consultancy named Lender Service Consultants LLC. The address for the company is a different three-story luxury apartment. It sold for $2.3 million in 2020 and features a plunge pool and two koi ponds.

by Ken Schwencke

ProPublica Is Seeking New Applicants for Our Local Reporting Network

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Applications are now open for three spots in ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network. We’re seeking local journalists who are interested in investigating wrongdoing and abuses of power in their communities.

Our new partnerships will begin on April 1, 2023, and continue for one year. This group of projects is made possible by a grant from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

The following categories of newsrooms are eligible to apply:

  • Public media organizations.
  • Local nonprofit journalism outlets that are members of the Institute for Nonprofit News.
  • News organizations (nonprofit or for-profit) in communities supported by Knight Foundation programs: Aberdeen, South Dakota; Akron, Ohio; Biloxi, Mississippi; Boulder, Colorado; Bradenton, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; Columbia, South Carolina; Columbus, Georgia; Detroit; Duluth, Minnesota; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Gary, Indiana; Grand Forks, North Dakota; Lexington, Kentucky; Long Beach, California; Macon, Georgia; Miami; Milledgeville, Georgia; Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Palm Beach County, Florida; Philadelphia; San Jose, California; St. Paul, Minnesota; State College, Pennsylvania; Tallahassee, Florida; and Wichita, Kansas.

ProPublica will pay the salary (up to $75,000), plus an allowance for benefits, for each full-time reporter. Local reporters work from and report to their home newsrooms, while receiving extensive support and guidance for their work from ProPublica, including collaboration with a senior editor and access to ProPublica’s expertise with data, research, engagement, video and design. The work will be published or broadcast by your newsroom and simultaneously by ProPublica.

Applications are due Feb. 1, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. Pacific time. Here are the details for those interested in applying.

ProPublica launched the Local Reporting Network at the beginning of 2018 to boost investigative journalism in local newsrooms. It has since worked with more than 50 news organizations. The network is part of ProPublica’s local initiative, which includes offices in the Midwest, South and Southwest, plus an investigative unit in partnership with The Texas Tribune.

The Local Reporting Network has had a significant impact in the communities where it has partnered with newsrooms.

MLK50, a nonprofit news organization in Memphis, Tennessee, reported on how the area’s largest hospital system sued and garnished the wages of thousands of poor patients, including its own employees, for unpaid medical debts. The hospital subsequently curtailed its lawsuits against patients, erased $11.9 million in unpaid medical debts, dramatically expanded its financial assistance policy for hospital care and raised the minimum wage it pays employees. The stories won the Selden Ring Award for Investigative Reporting.

Our partnership with the Miami Herald looked at the deeply troubled Florida program intended to provide services and a financial cushion for the families of children born with devastating brain injuries. The series found that the program protected doctors at the expense of suffering families and that it had amassed $1.5 billion in assets while families waited for help. The reporting pushed the state Legislature to quickly enact long-needed reforms and spurred the program’s executive director to roll out further benefits for the families and subsequently resign.

And our collaboration with Nashville Public Radio (WPLN) went deep into one county in Tennessee that was arresting and locking up children at extraordinary rates. The series about Rutherford County was read more than 3.5 million times and spurred demands for reform. Eleven members of Congress called for the U.S. Department of Justice to open a civil rights investigation. Tennessee’s governor called for a review of Rutherford County’s juvenile court judge. In January 2022, legislators introduced a bill to remove the judge, citing an “appalling abuse of power.” An hour after ProPublica wrote about that bill, the judge announced that she would retire this year rather than run for reelection.

Applications to join the Local Reporting Network should be submitted by newsroom leaders proposing a particular project and a specific reporter. If you lead a newsroom and are interested in working with us, we’d like to hear from you about:

  • An investigative project. The proposed coverage can take any number of forms: a few long stories, an ongoing series of shorter stories, text, audio, video or something else. Please tell us why this coverage will be crucial to your community, lay out any similar coverage that has been done before it, say why this project has particular urgency now and offer a plan for executing the work. Please also explain why your region and your newsroom are right to tell this particular story.
  • The reporter whom you ideally envision spearheading the work and the market salary you would need to pay them from April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2024. This could be someone already on staff or someone else — for example, a freelancer with whom you hope to work. Please include a personal statement by the reporter explaining their interest, at least three clips and, of course, a resume.

Freelancers are also welcome to apply but must submit a joint application with an eligible news organization willing to publish their work.

We will be holding a Q&A webinar about this opportunity on Jan. 3, 2023, at 1 p.m. Eastern time. Please sign up to receive an email invitation to join us over Zoom.

Please submit your proposal using this form by Feb. 1, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. Pacific time. We have a detailed list of frequently asked questions available on our site. If you have questions that aren’t answered there, please email us at Local.Reporting@propublica.org.

ProPublica reporters and editors are also available to give feedback on your application before you submit it. Please send your proposals to Local.Reporting@propublica.org no later than Jan. 13 and someone will get back to you within a few days. Entries will be judged principally by ProPublica editors. Selected proposals will be announced in March.

by ProPublica

St. Louis Can Banish People From Entire Neighborhoods. Police Can Arrest Them if They Come Back.

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Inside the Enterprise Center, the St. Louis Blues hockey team was losing a home game to the Edmonton Oilers. Outside, a man named Alvin Cooper was lying on a venting grate on a 38-degree night.

A St. Louis police sergeant asked him to move, according to an officer’s December 2018 report. Cooper refused. The sergeant and the officer pointed to signs that said “No Trespassing” and “No Panhandling.” Cooper said, “I ain’t going nowhere.” The officers tried to handcuff Cooper, one of them using “nerve pressure points on his jaw and behind his ear,” the other delivering “several knee thrusts” to Cooper’s right leg.

The officers arrested Cooper and booked him on charges of trespassing and resisting arrest. Two weeks later, a city prosecutor dropped the resisting arrest charge, while Cooper pleaded guilty to trespassing and signed an agreement offered to him by the prosecutor saying that as a condition of his probation, he would stay out of downtown St. Louis for a year.

The neighborhood order of protection, as the agreement is called, meant that Cooper could be arrested if he so much as set foot inside a 1.2-square-mile area — more than 100 city blocks — that is home to many of the organizations that provide shelter, meals and care to St. Louis’ homeless people.

The agreement Alvin Cooper signed meant that he could be arrested if he entered a 1.2-square-mile part of St. Louis. However, that area is home to many of the organizations that provide shelter, meals and care to the city’s homeless. (Municipal Division of the Circuit Court of St. Louis)

Other American cities order people to stay away from specific individuals or places, and some have set up defined areas that are off-limits to people convicted of drug or prostitution charges. But few have taken the practice to St. Louis’ extreme, particularly as a response to petty incidents, according to experts in law enforcement.

Seattle and some of its suburbs, including Everett, have blocked off certain areas of their cities as “exclusion zones” where people who have been convicted of drug or prostitution offenses can be arrested. The practice has long been criticized by civil rights advocates, but city leaders say it has helped reduce crime.

Cincinnati once barred people convicted of drug offenses from its own “exclusion zones.” But a court struck down the practice as a violation of the constitutional freedoms of association and movement, and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 let that ruling stand. The Chicago suburb of Elgin adopted rules in 2016 that ban people who have repeatedly caused nuisances from some sections of the city, but it has been enforced sparingly.

In St. Louis, neighborhood orders of protection affect large swaths of the city and are typically in effect for a year or two, although some orders have had expiration dates in 2099, according to records obtained by ProPublica. A person who violates an order may face a fine of up to $500 or be sentenced to as long as 90 days in jail.

Victor St. John, an assistant professor of criminology at Saint Louis University, said even limited bans may have a dire impact “in terms of individuals not being able to engage with family members or friends.”

“It’s a restriction on resources that are publicly available to everyone else,” he said, adding, “I haven’t heard of entire neighborhoods.”

Yet just how rare the practice is across the country is difficult to assess, in large part because it has not been closely tracked. University of Washington professors Katherine Beckett and Steve Herbert, who have studied Seattle’s efforts, said in their 2009 book, “Banished: The New Social Control in Urban America,” that banishment is “rarely debated publicly” and that cities’ tactics are “largely deployed without much fanfare.”

“I think part of the problem is that these legal tools are very much under the radar,” Beckett said.

This 2019 St. Louis police report indicates that an officer stopped a “reoccurring nuisance” who had been barred from the city’s downtown through 2099. (St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department incident report)

When neighborhood orders of protection are employed in St. Louis, critics say that they are too often used against people with mental health issues or who may be homeless, and that banishing an individual from a large section of the city may violate their civil rights. They say the orders fail to address the underlying problems contributing to their behavior.

Instead, they simply move problems from one part of the city to another.

The ACLU of Missouri said that it had explored a lawsuit to challenge the practice a decade ago but eventually did not because the organization did not have enough information and did not have consistent contact with a potential plaintiff.

“City courts violate the constitutional rights of Missourians when they issue broad, arbitrary banishment orders untied to any legitimate governmental purpose,” the group said in a statement. “The fact that such orders are used against people who have committed harmless, petty crimes only makes plain that the orders are about inconveniencing the vulnerable, and not about public safety.”

Some people have been barred from multiple neighborhoods. Some have been arrested for violating their bans multiple times within a few days.

“It reeks of redlining,” said Mary Fox, the longtime lead public defender in St. Louis who now heads the state’s public defender system. “It reeks of everything that happened before the Civil Rights Act went through — just allowing them to keep certain people out of their neighborhoods.”

Neighborhood orders of protection are another way policing in St. Louis is employed on behalf of the wealthy and against those most vulnerable. A ProPublica investigation showed how residents of affluent city neighborhoods hire private policing companies to patrol public spaces and protect their homes and busineses, creating dramatic disparities in how local law enforcement is provided.

Private policing and neighborhood orders of protection often go hand in hand, with private police officers doing much of the work to enforce the orders, according to emails obtained by ProPublica.

The city’s Municipal Court paused issuing neighborhood orders of protection at the start of the pandemic — not because of any policy change but because the process requires the defendant to appear in court and city courts are closed to in-person proceedings.

But police have issued citations for violations of the orders as recently as July 2021, records show. Some defendants also face active court cases for alleged violations. Moreover, a city ordinance authorizing the orders remains in effect, and St. Louis police are under orders to collect evidence that can help prosecutors pursue orders of protection.

St. Louis Municipal Administrative Judge Newton McCoy said in an email that defendants may be subject to neighborhood orders of protection “on a case by case basis” as a condition of probation “if they repeatedly commit offenses in certain neighborhoods.” He said court officials are “working to determine next steps for when all in-person municipal court hearings will resume.”

The banishments require the consent of the defendant, but some lawyers question whether defendants really have any choice but to sign. In one instance, a man was arrested for trespassing while gathering on a city sidewalk with friends across the street from a downtown homeless shelter. He agreed to stay out of downtown but was subsequently arrested for a violation and served three months in jail, a case highlighted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“I don’t think the actual terms of the neighborhood order of protection were clear to my client,” said Maureen Hanlon, an attorney for the public-interest law group ArchCity Defenders. “It states that he consented to it, but he was unrepresented at the time.” She entered the case after his incarceration for violating the order, “which, on paper, he agreed to, but in reality, I really question whether or not someone can agree to an order like that without counsel.”

ProPublica was not able to determine how many neighborhood orders of protection have been issued over the past two decades. Court cases are typically sealed after the successful completion of probation. It was also unclear if any remained in effect.

Megan Green, who on Nov. 8 was elected president of the city’s Board of Aldermen and is the city’s second-highest ranking official, said she has long heard from advocates for the homeless who say the orders make it difficult for the city’s most vulnerable people to receive meals or other services.

Green said she wants to study the use of neighborhood orders of protection to “understand the implications. And if we need to take a look at a revision, I think, potentially do that.”

“If you are banning somebody from downtown from the area where services are, that makes it that much harder to address the needs,” Green added. She said she also found it problematic that “if you’re just banning somebody from a certain area, and never addressing the behavior, chances are that behavior just moves to another block or another neighborhood.

“So I’m not sure how effective something like this is at achieving what folks are going for, either.”

Neighborhood leaders and police officials have defended neighborhood orders of protection as a tool for residents and businesses to make their streets safer by sending a message to criminals that they are not welcome.

St. Louis police Sgt. Charles Wall said the department merely enforces the orders once they’re issued.

Jim Whyte, who manages a private policing initiative in the city’s upscale Central West End, said neighborhood orders of protection are “used all over the city to kind of address these very problematic people.”

Whyte said that the orders were sometimes difficult to enforce. “If the person was involved in panhandling or a crime incident, I’d call the prosecutor and say, ‘Hey, this guy was down here Thursday violating the order.’” Whyte said that the prosecutor would ask if there was an arrest and he would say “like, ‘No, there weren’t any police around.’”

In those cases, Whyte said, prosecutors would not support charging the person with a violation.

Cooper could not be reached for comment. His mother, Karen Johnson, said her son, now 39, has suffered from schizophrenia since graduating from high school. His use of prescription medication, she said, led to reliance on street drugs and a life that spiraled into homelessness. During his ban from downtown, he moved out of the city and stayed with a family member in suburban Cool Valley. The court’s action to ban her son from downtown was “wrong,” his mother said. “That’s where he was getting a lot of help — the downtown area.”

This fall, she said, he was shot and wounded in an assault while he was living in a hotel.

The impetus for neighborhood orders of protection is murky. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen in 2003 unanimously passed the ordinance laying out penalties for violating orders, but it’s not clear if they existed before. Three of the bill’s four living sponsors — Jay Ozier, Dionne Flowers and James Shrewsbury — said they do not remember what prompted the measure. The fourth, Craig Schmid, could not be reached. None remain on the board.

“Particularly if you’re talking about it in terms of panhandling or something like that, I don’t see how I could have been in favor of it,” said Ozier, who served from 2002 to 2003.

The language in the ordinance suggests it was aimed at drug offenders. “Whereas, the illegal distribution, possession, sale and manufacture of controlled substances continues to plague our neighborhoods,” it reads. But in practice, the police in St. Louis have used the orders of protection more broadly.

To obtain an order, a representative for a neighborhood must document that a person who has been arrested has repeatedly caused trouble there. A prosecutor can use this statement as part of the neighborhood’s request for the order of protection. The prosecutor can then offer the agreement to the defendant, typically in exchange for dropping one or more charges against them.

The text of the order — with specific boundaries of the banishment area — is then added to a St. Louis-area criminal justice database, which can be accessed only by police and court officials. When police officers run the name of a person who has been issued an order of protection, the database will alert the officers.

For several years, neighborhood leaders viewed the orders as a tool for taking back their streets — sending criminals a message that they are not welcome. In 2014, for instance, about 50 residents of the city’s Tower Grove South neighborhood successfully petitioned a Circuit Court judge to order a carjacking suspect to stay away as a condition of release. “The show of solidarity from the residents of Tower Grove South played an important part in the positive outcome of today's hearing,” the neighborhood’s website boasted. “Congratulations TGS!”

As late as 2015, the website for the city’s top prosecutor, Jennifer Joyce, featured a page where residents could view the names and photos of people who had been banished under neighborhood orders of protection.

The circuit courts, which handle misdemeanors and felonies, have not issued a neighborhood order of protection at least since progressive prosecutor Kimberly M. Gardner succeeded Joyce in 2017. But the practice has persisted in Municipal Court, where defendants face infractions, typically do not have lawyers and cases receive little public scrutiny.

St. Louis police are under orders to help prosecutors seek and obtain neighborhood orders of protection. (Special order from the Office of the Chief of Police, City of St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department)

Some cases can linger for years, as police repeatedly seek and enforce neighborhood orders of protection against the same people with little evidence that the orders are effective. In a report in 2017, a St. Louis police officer wrote that he was working for the department’s downtown bike unit and trying to combat a “rise in quality of life violations” downtown. He said a motorist complained about homeless people outside the city’s Dome, where the NFL’s Rams used to play.

One of the men the motorist pointed to was Gary Accardi, who the officer said was a “well-known panhandler,” according to his report. Accardi was holding a cardboard sign that said: “Homeless, Please help. God Bless.”

Four years earlier, in 2013, police had cited Accardi five times for violating a neighborhood order of protection, and he had spent 10 days in jail. As the officer approached, he wrote in his report, Accardi ran away yelling, “I don’t want to go to jail!” The officer wrote that he caught up with Accardi and put him on the ground to get him under control.

Accardi was charged with panhandling, resisting arrest and impeding traffic. Weeks later, Accardi agreed in municipal court to stay out of downtown St. Louis for one year.

Gary Accardi agreed to this neighborhood order of protection in 2017. (Municipal Division of the Circuit Court of St. Louis)

Over the next few years, the order against Accardi was repeatedly extended and he was cited for violating it 17 times from July 27 to Oct. 17, 2018; on two occasions during that stretch he was cited twice in the same day.

In April 2019, while St. Louis Cardinals fans packed Busch Stadium downtown for opening day, police officers spotted Accardi outside the stadium and issued him a summons for violating the order.

Accardi was issued a summons for violating a neighborhood order of protection on April 5, 2019. (St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department incident report)

The next day, Accardi was rifling through a trash can outside the stadium and another officer cited him yet again for the violation.

Accardi was again cited on April 6, 2019, the day after a previous citation. (St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department incident report)

Stephanie Lummus, a lawyer who has represented Accardi in some of his cases, said a judge in 2020 declared him incapacitated and placed him under a guardianship. The guardian, she said, ordered her not to speak on his behalf.

Lummus said she frequently appears in municipal court on behalf of clients with cases on the court’s mental health docket — a special court day designed to match vulnerable people with services that can help them.

“I would sit there and wait for my client,” she said. “And I’d watch these people on the mental health docket sign these neighborhood orders of protection unrepresented, not knowing what the hell was going on. And I was just like, This is not the place for that, you know. These people are on the mental health docket for a reason. Why are you doing this?”

In some St. Louis neighborhoods, private police companies have enforced neighborhood orders of protection. Minutes from a 2018 meeting of a downtown community improvement district indicate that a private policing contractor had pursued neighborhood orders of protection for 25 “persistent offenders.”

Officers working off-duty for The City’s Finest, St. Louis’ biggest private policing company, have enforced neighborhood orders of protection in the Central West End, emails show.

“Neighborhood orders of protection are legal and issued by the courts,” the firm’s owner, Charles “Rob” Betts, said in an email. “If you have an issue with it you should probably discuss such with the court system that issues them. Or better yet, talk to the residents and businesses that are severely affected by aggressive panhandling.”

Whyte’s office, which serves as a substation for The City’s Finest in the Central West End, had a bulletin board where the names of people with neighborhood orders of protection are posted. That way the private officers know whom to look for, emails obtained by ProPublica through a public record request show.

Whyte recalled the case of a woman with chronic drug problems who he said was a persistent panhandler in the Central West End and who had been accused of petty theft. Neighborhood leaders sought to banish her after she created repeated problems.

“We were seeking an order of protection against her because she didn’t live in the neighborhood, didn’t work in the neighborhood,” he said. “She had tallied up a number of incidents and police contacts.”

He said the neighborhood never sought the orders “as an immediate action, it was always used as kind of, ‘Well, we have no other choice.’”

In the fall of 2018, the clock had run out on neighborhood orders of protection against some people who had been banished from the Central West End. Whyte wrote to Richard Sykora, a lawyer for the city who was in charge of pursuing the orders in municipal court.

“Many of our NOP’s have expired and unfortunately many of our problem people have returned to the CWE area,” Whyte wrote, adding, “We would appreciate you looking into obtaining NOP’s on the following subjects.”

Whyte described one person as having “been observed buying narcotics” and another as having stolen a tip jar from a coffee shop. One was “mentally unstable” and “very disruptive at local businesses.” Another had repeatedly violated a previous neighborhood order of protection and, Whyte wrote, “continues to be a persistent panhandler.”

Yet another, Whyte wrote, had been working with an organization that offers behavioral health services but he “has resumed aggressively panhandling.”

An email from Jim Whyte, who manages a private policing initiative, to Richard Sykora, a lawyer for the city, asks about obtaining neighborhood orders of protection. (Emails obtained by ProPublica)

Sykora wrote to Whyte a few days later saying he would seek new neighborhood orders of protection against most of the people Whyte had listed. In one case, Sykora told Whyte, the judge had made only half the neighborhood off-limits so the person could get to his job without breaking the law. Whyte told Sykora that he had checked with the employer and the defendant didn’t really work there. “Could we get the order modified?” he asked.

Sykora did not respond to a request for comment.

Whyte’s requests led to some of those people being banished again. They could be arrested on sight for setting foot in the 1.9-square-mile neighborhood. And some of them were.

Whyte said the neighborhood has sought orders for people that were “running amok in the Central West End neighborhood. They wouldn’t heed any other warnings by the police, they wouldn’t conform, their behavior was antisocial.”

“The reality is they don’t go to other neighborhoods” after being ordered to stay out of the Central West End, he said. “They don’t care about the order of protection.”

Whyte said that since in-person court hearings have stopped, the neighborhood had hired a homeless outreach coordinator to try to address vagrancy in the neighborhood.

One person the neighborhood has banished was Lorse Weatherspoon, a homeless man with a history of petty crimes. He was arrested in the Central West End in 2018 on suspicion of trespassing and burglary after a private policing company posted a $250 reward for his arrest. It isn’t clear what happened with those charges, but the city charged him with five violations of his ban from entering the neighborhood.

“Lorse Weatherspoon was responsible for a crime a night,” said Jim Dwyer, chairman of one of the Central West End business districts that hires private police.

Whyte said residents would send him surveillance video of prowlers, “And I’m like, ‘Oh, that’s Lorse Weatherspoon trying to see if he can get a bike out of your garage or steal your lawn mower.’”

Neil Barron, Weatherspoon’s lawyer, said the order was a “blatantly unconstitutional violation of a person’s right to freely travel.”

“Think about all the money used on this,” he added. “Does it solve the problem? Does it make the community safer? Does it help Lorse Weatherspoon rehabilitate himself? No, it doesn’t.”

Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

by Jeremy Kohler

A Billionaire Got the Chicago Mayor’s Support to Lease Public Land. Then He Wrote Her Campaign a $25,000 Check.

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for Dispatches, a newsletter that spotlights wrongdoing around the country, to receive our stories in your inbox every week.

Update, Nov. 30, 2022: This story has been updated to include a statement from a Joe Mansueto spokesperson, who reached out after the story was published.

For months, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has pushed a controversial plan to turn over public housing land to a professional soccer team owned by an influential billionaire.

In mid-November, that billionaire owner of the Chicago Fire Football Club, Joe Mansueto, donated $25,000 to the mayor’s reelection campaign.

And now, a member of the City Council is asking the city government’s top watchdog and ethics officials to investigate whether the contribution violates prohibitions on pay-to-play politics.

“I believe this represents a gross & familiar abuse of power and, at a minimum, a potential violation of the City of Chicago’s Governmental Ethics Ordinance,” Alderman Raymond Lopez wrote in a letter to Deborah Witzburg, the city’s inspector general, and Steve Berlin, executive director of the city’s Board of Ethics. Lopez cited sections of the ordinance that prohibit gifts and political contributions meant to influence official decisions.

Mansueto, though an ally, had never given to Lightfoot’s political fund before his Nov. 17 contribution, according to election disclosure records. (Mansueto’s family foundation has donated to a number of cultural and nonprofit entities, including ProPublica.)

On Wednesday, Lightfoot’s campaign spokesperson praised Mansueto and fended off the criticism.

“Mr. Mansueto has been a socially responsible leader in Chicago’s business community, investing in our neighborhoods and supporting a range of philanthropic initiatives. We are proud to have his support for our grassroots campaign,” spokesperson Christina Freundlich wrote in a statement.

She added: “Government decision-making is firewalled from political campaign activities, and our team executes a rigorous vetting process on every contribution to ensure we have complied with all campaign finance rules and laws.”

A spokesperson for Mansueto did not address the campaign contribution but stressed that the business leader is committed to the city. “Joe believes in investing in historically disinvested parts of Chicago, a vision he shares with Mayor Lightfoot as a way to lift up the city as a whole,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement

Mansueto made the donation the same week Lightfoot released the first ads in her bid for reelection against 10 challengers in February. And it came as officials work to finalize a deal that would let Mansueto’s team take over 23 acres of valuable land that have long been set aside to house low-income families.

At Lightfoot’s behest, the Chicago Housing Authority agreed to lease the site to the Fire so the team can build a new training facility. But the Lightfoot administration and the CHA have kept many of the key details secret. The CHA did not conduct a formal bidding process, and it has refused to release a copy of the proposed agreement or show how it determined the value of the land.

Lopez is one of Lightfoot’s leading council critics, but in September he sided with her and voted in favor of a zoning change the Fire needed to build the new practice facility. He said in an interview that he still supports the Fire’s project but wrote the letter with “disdain” for the mayor’s decision to accept the campaign donation.

“I look forward to the independent investigation by the IG,” he said.

On Wednesday, as Lopez sent his letter, CHA residents and housing advocates protested the land deal outside the headquarters of Morningstar, the investment research firm that Mansueto founded and serves as executive director.

by Mick Dumke

Editor’s Note: A Review of Criticisms of a ProPublica-Vanity Fair Story on a COVID Origins Report

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

On Oct. 28, ProPublica and Vanity Fair published a story about an interim report on the origins of COVID-19 released by the Republican oversight staff of a Senate committee. The interim report was the product of a far-reaching investigation into the question of how the pandemic began, and we wanted to give readers an inside view of the team’s work and share independent experts’ views of its findings.

The debate over COVID-19’s origins has been contentious from the start, and the report’s conclusion that the pandemic was “more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident” triggered criticism. Scientists, China observers and others questioned the Senate team’s findings and our reporting about them.

Over the past several weeks, reporters and editors at both publications have taken a hard look at those criticisms.

Our examination affirms that the story, and the totality of reporting it marshals, is sound.

We re-interviewed some of our original sources and reached out to other specialists to address questions that were raised about the work we did to put in context the evidence cited by the interim report. In particular, we took a close look at how Toy Reid, a State Department political officer on loan to the committee, translated a Chinese Communist Party branch dispatch that was cited in both the interim report and in our story as evidence that staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) may have been responding to a biosafety hazard or breach.

We commissioned three Chinese language experts with impeccable credentials who were not involved in the original story to review Reid’s translation. They all agreed that his version was a plausible way to represent the passage, though two also said they would have translated the words to refer to the dangers of day-to-day lab operations. The third produced a translation that was in line with Reid’s. All agreed the passage was ambiguous. We have updated the story to underscore the complexity of interpreting that dispatch.

We have added additional context to the story. We have also identified two factual errors inconsequential to the premise of the story. They have been corrected.

It remains clear that in 2019, the WIV was addressing serious safety issues while scientists there faced pressure to perform. Risky coronavirus research took place in laboratories that lacked the maximum biocontainment safeguards, according to the interim report.

A series of WIV patents and procurement notices “suggest that the WIV experienced persistent biosafety problems relevant to the containment of an aerosolized respiratory virus like SARS-CoV-2,” the interim report says. On Nov. 19, 2019, the same day a senior government safety official arrived at the WIV to discuss what a meeting summary described as a “complex and grave situation currently facing [bio]security work,” the WIV sought to procure a costly air incinerator. One expert told us such equipment could be used as a “quick fix” if the HEPA air filtration system had failed in some way. A few weeks after that procurement notice, the WIV filed a patent application for an improved device to contain hazardous gases inside a biological chamber, like ones used to transport infected animals.

The interim report described the WIV’s struggles to find disinfectants that were effective enough to kill dangerous pathogens without corroding metal. In November 2020, with the pandemic well under way, the WIV filed a patent application for a new disinfectant. The patent said existing disinfectants corrode metals in ways that could allow pathogens to escape, “resulting in loss of life and property and serious social problems.”

The director of the WIV’s highest-level biosecurity lab acknowledged in September 2019 that some Chinese facilities researching dangerous viruses had “insufficient operational funds for routine yet vital processes.” Dr. Gerald Parker, a biosecurity health expert and adviser to the interim report, said he found such revelations “a recipe for disaster.” He added: “You further couple that with an authoritarian regime where you could be penalized for reporting safety issues. You are in a doom loop of pressure to produce, and if something goes wrong you may not be incentivized to report.”

We continue to see our story as a measured exploration of the array of questions raised about the WIV’s laboratories. The possibility that a biosecurity breach at the WIV occurred, and sparked the pandemic, remains plausible.

We plan to keep reporting on this issue and expect new evidence to emerge. It is our view that both the natural-spillover and laboratory-accident hypotheses for the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic merit continued investigation. Given the human toll, which continues to mount, it is imperative that we continue this work.

For those who want to know more details about our exploration of issues raised, our reporting methodologies and conclusions, we are providing more information below on:

More on the Translations and Interpretations

After the Vanity Fair-ProPublica story appeared online, questions began to emerge on social media about Reid’s translation of a key passage of a Chinese Communist Party branch dispatch dated Nov. 12, 2019, on the WIV website. According to Reid’s translation, it begins by pointing out that the lab works with dangerous pathogens and that once the test tubes are opened, “it is just as if having opened Pandora’s Box.” While the lab had “various preventive and protective measures,” it was nonetheless important to “avoid operational errors that give rise to dangers.”

The next phrase was the focus of the criticism. It appeared in bold letters in the interim report:

“Every time this has happened, the members of the Zhengdian Lab [BSL4] Party Branch have always run to the frontline, and they have taken real action to mobilize and motivate other research personnel.”

Our story shared Reid’s thought process. We wrote:

“Reid studied the words intently. Was this a reference to past accidents? An admission of an ongoing crisis? A general recognition of hazardous practices? Or all of the above?”

Reid recognized that there was an ambiguity in the phrase he translated as “Every time this has happened.” Did the word “this” refer to the daily dangers of doing experiments in a lab that handles deadly pathogens? Or did it point to the “operational errors that give rise to dangers”?

Before we published our story, Reid told us he found the passage to have a defensive tone. In the story, we quote Reid as concluding, “They are almost saying they know Beijing is about to come down and scream at them.”

Seven days later, on Nov. 19, a senior Chinese official arrived from Beijing to the WIV for a small, high-level safety training. A meeting summary said that the official had come bearing important oral remarks and written instructions from China’s senior leaders, including General Secretary Xi Jinping, related to “the complex and grave situation currently facing [bio]security work.”

To Reid, the mention of instructions from party leaders and reference to a “complex and grave situation” reinforced that the Nov. 12 dispatch was an attempt by the party branch to deflect criticism for something that had gone awry, as he explained.

We interviewed three experts on Chinese Communist Party communications before publication and shared with them the dispatches as they appeared in Chinese on the WIV website. We conducted the interviews on background to get their candid input. They expressed concerns regarding personal safety, given the sensitivity of the subject matter. All agreed with Reid’s interpretation that the safety training on Nov. 19, 2019, as described in the meeting summary, appeared to be urgent, nonroutine and related to some sort of biosafety emergency.

To assess the criticisms of Reid’s work that were raised after the story was published, we commissioned three Chinese translators, each with more than a decade of experience. One has translated for officials at the highest levels of the American and Chinese governments. We wanted their objective view of what the passage said, so we asked them to translate it and did not mention the interim report. After they had done that, we went back and asked them to review Reid’s translation from the report.

All three of their translations were different from one another’s and different from Reid’s. Yet, each agreed that Reid’s translation was one plausible way to translate the passage into English. Our translators looked at the Chinese characters that Reid had translated to read “Every time this has happened” and instead said they read them to mean “on such occasions” or “at every such an occasion.”

Before one of the translators was told what Reid had written, she said she thought the word “occasions” referred to when lab workers make mistakes that lead to hazards — an interpretation that mirrored Reid’s. The two others said they thought “occasions” referred to something more routine: opening test tubes for experiments. The language in Chinese, all three agreed, was ambiguous and could be read either way.

Some readers noted that the Nov. 12, 2019, passage actually appeared in August 2019 in a party publication. The existence of the earlier reference, they argued, proved that its repetition in November meant that it could not refer to a biosecurity emergency at that time.

We took a close look at the August 2019 post and asked our translators and the experts we consulted to do so as well. While the posts were very similar, the version uploaded on the WIV website in November 2019 was slightly different. It included additional language after the sentence that compared opening test tubes of viruses in the lab to opening Pandora’s box. The translator we commissioned who had the most experience rendered the additional language as follows: “These viruses are untraceable both coming and going, and although there are various protective measures, it is still necessary for lab workers to operate very carefully in order to avoid creating dangers through mishandling.” The translator was puzzled by the August post because without the language added in November, “it sounds as if they are leading the charge to open Pandora’s box,” she said. “If I were reading it, I’d be scratching my head.” That additional sentence, she said, “means that they go to the front lines to show everybody to be careful and not to cause errors that would be dangerous.”

One of the experts we consulted before and after publication, a former senior U.S. intelligence official, said the language added in November 2019 gave the post a defensive posture and was consistent with Reid’s analysis that party members were responding to some type of incident. The Chinese idiom that Reid translated as “come without a shadow and leave without a trace,” he said, “is a nice phrase to describe something that sneaked up on you and there was no way to defend against it. They’re basically saying to whoever this is being delivered to: ‘We didn’t see it coming. We did the best that we could to deal with the problem.’”

More on the Corrections and Added Context

There are two sentences in the story that have been corrected.

We reported that a Chinese military vaccinologist who had in the past collaborated with the WIV, Zhou Yusen, was the first to apply for a patent for a vaccine against COVID-19. The interim report stated that Zhou “was the first to patent a COVID-19 vaccine on February 24, 2020.” In fact, other researchers around the world sought patents before Zhou’s Feb. 24, 2020, filing.

However, it was the timing and nature of Zhou’s patent application and subsequent research papers that raised questions for interim report researchers.

In our review of early SARS-CoV-2 vaccine patent filings, the U.S. patent applications we found that predated Zhou’s were provisional applications, a number of which forecast experiments they planned to do in the future. Many of these applications were for vaccine candidates proposing to use a technology like mRNA. Such applications could be filed with the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence in hand and minimal experiment data.

By contrast, Zhou filed a full patent application for a different kind of vaccine that required more upfront work before its submission. Our story says, “In his patent application and in subsequently published papers, Zhou documented a robust research and development process that included both adapting the virus to wild-type mice and infecting genetically modified ones with humanized lungs.” We have updated the story to make clear why Zhou’s work stood out to the interim report researchers.

In our article, we quoted two independent experts and one adviser to the interim report about when they thought Zhou’s research was likely to have begun. After reviewing the patent and the papers, two said that they thought Zhou would have had to have started this work no later than November 2019. Jesse Bloom, a virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, said he believed Zhou’s timetable was feasible since his team had substantial expertise and ongoing work developing similar SARS-related coronavirus vaccines, but only if “everything went right.”

We have also corrected the sentence stating that Gabriel Gras was the last French expert at the WIV. We have learned that at least one other French scientist came to the WIV after Gras left.

Elsewhere, we’ve clarified language. Our story said that party officials at the WIV’s top biosafety lab “repeatedly lamented” the problem of “the three ‘nos’: no equipment and technology standards, no design and construction teams, and no experience operating or maintaining [a lab of this caliber].” We found two references to this concept in party branch dispatches on the WIV website in 2019. These Chinese Communist Party dispatches, we reported, “are often couched in a narrative of heroism — a focus on problems overcome and challenges met, against daunting odds.” We have updated the story to clarify that authors of those posts referred to the “three ‘nos’” as a recounting of problems from early in the lab’s construction that they said had been overcome, rather than a reference to ongoing struggles.

However, one of the experts on party communications we consulted saw the inclusion of the “three ‘nos’” in WIV dispatches as a telling sign that these serious problems from the beginning were “part of the DNA of this lab.”

On Whether the Lab Leak Is a Question Worthy of Exploration

Our story and the interim report pointed to a pair of oft-cited scientific analyses of COVID-19’s origins, one of which concludes that the pandemic was likely the result of multiple zoonotic events in which “two distinct viral lineages” of SARS-CoV-2 that had been circulating among animals at a Wuhan market infected people there.

Michael Worobey, an author on both papers, undoubtedly speaks for many when he says that natural spillover is “the only plausible scenario for the origin of the pandemic.” We repeatedly heard the perspective that the scientific case on the origins of COVID-19 is closed and that exploring the possibility that the coronavirus could have leaked from a Chinese laboratory is something no news organization or government official should take seriously.

We believe the opposite, that it remains an essential avenue for exploration to prevent future pandemics. And as interviews with other scientists before and after publication have made clear, the question is far from resolved. In their view, there is not enough evidence to establish how the virus first reached the now-infamous Wuhan market or to assert that zoonotic spillover is the sole possible explanation for the pandemic’s origin.

Bloom, the virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, is among those scientists. “I’ve never seen anything as controversial as this in my field,” he said. “The amount of toxicity is out of control. Each side feels uniquely wronged. To me, it remains an open question.”

The story noted that the interim report also left this question open: “The authors of the interim report do not claim to have definitively solved the mystery of COVID-19’s origin.” And the story also said the interim report is “no likelier” than studies of a zoonotic origin to “close the book on the origins debate, nor does it attempt to.”

Bloom believes the findings of the interim report and the story reinforce a need to continue to explore all possible causes of the pandemic. At the same time, he recognizes that the reactions to these investigations underscore the difficulty of having a dispassionate conversation about these questions. “Right now, this whole topic is so politically fraught, it’s hard for people to give objective assessments,” he said. “We may need an independent commission to get to the bottom of this.”

by Stephen Engelberg

What’s Really at Stake in a Politically Charged Supreme Court Case on Elections

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

To hear some tell it, a Supreme Court case set for argument on Dec. 7 could spell the end of democracy in the United States. If the Republicans who brought the case, Moore v. Harper, prevail, state legislatures will effectively be free to override the votes of their citizens in presidential elections, the doomsayers predict. That might allow a future presidential candidate to undo an election, much as Donald Trump attempted, but failed, to do in 2020.

The Atlantic warned that the “Court’s right-wing supermajority is poised to let state lawmakers overturn voters’ choice in presidential elections.” The Guardian opined that a ruling in favor of the GOP would mean that “whether Republicans win or lose elections via the popular vote will not matter because they will be able to maintain power regardless.” And Slate called Moore v. Harper “the Supreme Court case that could upend democracy.”

Those fears are overblown. They ignore other legal protections that would prevent the theft of a presidential election. A state legislature can in fact choose which electors to pick, legal scholars generally agree, as those bodies routinely did in the early days of the republic. But a legislature has the power to decide to handle a vote that way only before citizens begin casting ballots in a given election.

“No matter what the Court decides” in Moore v. Harper, as New York University law professor Richard Pildes has put it, “it would still not mean state legislatures could choose simply to ignore the popular vote in their state and appoint presidential electors themselves after the election.” Federal law, for example, requires states to choose their electors on Election Day. And several federal courts have held that after-the-fact changes raise questions of due process and equal protection. A state legislature can’t simply swoop in after the voting and rewrite the rules for a completed election because it didn’t like the outcome.

Still, Moore v. Harper has major implications for other aspects of elections, including gerrymandering. The case arises from a fight over redistricting by the Republicans who control both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly. This year, the state’s Supreme Court, voting in line with its 4-3 Democratic majority, ruled that the legislature’s congressional district map was a partisan gerrymander that violated the North Carolina Constitution. Ordinarily, that would be the end of the matter. Federal courts typically can’t second-guess a state court’s interpretation of its own laws.

But North Carolina’s Republican legislators found a way to get the case to friendlier terrain: the U.S. Supreme Court. They argued that the North Carolina court’s ruling violates the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause states that the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding congressional elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof,” unless Congress overrides them. The North Carolina Republicans want the Supreme Court to bar state courts from interfering with state legislatures when it comes to congressional elections.

A ruling in their favor would effectively insulate partisan gerrymanders from legal challenges. It would also complicate how states administer elections and neutralize other parts of state constitutions that govern voting and elections, ranging from guarantees of ballot secrecy to automatic voter registration. An examination of the case, and the way it traces its origins both to local political battles in North Carolina and to the legal contest that decided the 2000 presidential election between George Bush and Al Gore, reveals a lot about how the exigencies of a political moment can shape the law for decades.

There’s plenty of irony here. Republicans fought for years to keep federal courts from examining partisan gerrymanders. They won that fight in a 2019 case, Rucho v. Common Cause, which also originated in North Carolina. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, declared that federal courts had no authority to review cases concerning partisan gerrymandering. But he went out of his way to note that alternatives remained: “provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply.” Democrats in swing states had already begun to do precisely what Roberts suggested: bring cases under state laws in state courts, many of which remain receptive to Democratic views.

That has caused a case of apparent buyer’s remorse for Republicans. Having previously persuaded the court to stay out, many of the same legislators who succeeded in the Rucho case are back at the high court, begging the justices — now a 6-3 conservative majority — to reinsert themselves into the fight.

It's further proof that victories don’t always deliver the expected results, a lesson that applies to both law and politics. Republicans, for example, spent years challenging campaign finance restrictions and triumphed in a line of cases starting with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, only to see Democratic fundraisers exploit those rulings and outspend them in recent elections. (Whether this gusher of money in politics has been good for the country is an entirely different question.)

A similar phenomenon could occur if the Republicans prevail in Moore v. Harper, at least when it comes to redistricting. Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos ran a series of simulations recently that projected voting outcomes if each state could gerrymander at will. He concluded that “nationwide, North Carolina is more the exception than the rule. Overall, Democrats would modestly benefit from a holding that state legislatures’ ability to draw congressional districts can’t be limited by state courts.” He projected that Democrats would net two to three congressional seats. If that turns out to be true, what’s good for North Carolina Republicans may not end up being good for all Republicans.

Many of the apocalyptic scenarios posited by Democrats trace their origins to the party’s calamitous Supreme Court defeat in Bush v. Gore in 2000. That case, not coincidentally, emerged from a state — Florida — where a Republican legislature was attempting to outmaneuver a state supreme court that was largely liberal. The Florida Supreme Court had ruled that the state constitution authorized it to extend the deadline for county election boards to complete ballot recounts in that year’s presidential election, which turned on the whisper-thin margin in Florida. Democrats saw the ruling as the ordinary interpretive work of a court; Republicans contended that it amounted to altering election rules after the fact.

Bush’s legal team appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the state court had acted in violation of the presidential electors clause, a provision of the federal Constitution that resembles the elections clause in structure as well as name. Where the elections clause concerns congressional elections, the electors clause empowers states to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” That, Bush’s lawyers argued, prohibited state courts from altering election laws enacted by the legislature, as they contended Florida’s high court had done.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore opinion awarded the presidency to Bush on other grounds. But three justices — then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — issued a concurring opinion seen as the genesis of what is today called the independent state legislature theory.

There are many versions of the independent state legislature theory, but in broad outline, it holds that, by assigning legislatures the authority to set the rules for federal elections, the U.S. Constitution implicitly insulates those rules from ordinary state-level checks on the legislative function, like judicial review. As Rehnquist put it in his concurrence, “This inquiry does not imply a disrespect for state courts but rather a respect for the constitutionally prescribed role of state legislatures.”

Today, the Bush v. Gore decision is often conflated with parallel maneuvers by Republicans in the Florida Legislature, who began the process of voting to award the state’s electoral votes to Bush. But their strategy mostly turned not on the constitutional theory but on an obscure 1845 statute that allows state legislatures to pick their own presidential electors if their state has “failed to make a choice” for president on Election Day. (The 1845 law was mainly intended to accommodate emergency conditions, like natural disasters, legal scholars have found. But Florida Republicans argued that their state’s problems in 2000 amounted to a failed election. Congress is expected to do away with the law during the current lame-duck session.)

The independent state legislature theory didn’t catch fire. In fact, a Supreme Court majority — the four liberals plus Justice Anthony Kennedy — rejected it the one time the high court addressed it head on, in a 2015 case that upheld the constitutionality of Arizona’s independent redistricting commission.

But the theory made a comeback, courtesy of four members of the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc, in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. In several potential swing states, like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, Democrats had persuaded state courts to adjust election rules to address complications created by the COVID-19 pandemic and postal delays — in many cases, extending the date by which mail ballots had to reach election officials. When Republicans appealed, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. But Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, at times joined by Thomas, all wrote versions of the same thing in opinions that did not carry the weight of precedent. As Gorsuch put it in one such passage: “The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”

Even as the independent state legislature theory largely faded from discussions of presidential elections between 2000 and 2020, it persisted in litigation over redistricting. With conservative justices skeptical that federal courts had the power to undo partisan gerrymanders, reformers — mostly aligned with Democrats — began to find success proposing ballot initiatives that would place redistricting in the hands of independent commissions. Democrats also turned to state courts to challenge restrictive voting and election laws, including Republican gerrymanders. State constitutions tend to be more expansive and easier to amend than the federal charter, and relying on state law insulated the cases from a Roberts court hostile to many liberal voting and election law claims. The independent state legislature theory was one of the only ways Republicans could get the U.S. Supreme Court to save them from Democrats’ state-level maneuvers.

Some of the fiercest redistricting battles were playing out in North Carolina. In the election of 2010, the GOP gained control of both chambers of the state legislature for the first time in over a century, due partly to a Republican operation targeting swing states ahead of the 2011 redistricting process. In their heyday, North Carolina Democrats were hardly gun-shy about gerrymandering, and the Republican majority approached redistricting with equivalent ruthlessness. Liberal advocacy groups and Democrats went to court, and for the next decade, redistricting litigation became a near-constant. In 2016, North Carolina Republicans suffered a serious setback: Their congressional district map was struck down as a racial gerrymander. So they pivoted to explicitly partisan gerrymandering, using data on voting patterns to dilute Democratic Party voting power.

More lawsuits followed. But the options narrowed in 2019, when the Rucho decision closed federal courts to opponents of partisan gerrymandering.

In North Carolina, redistricting for the present decade got underway in late 2021. Fed up with endless litigation, Republicans pledged to forego the use of data on race or party preference and to draw maps in transparent fashion — on computers in committee rooms, subject to public scrutiny via YouTube livestreams.

The process looked different, but the maps it produced did not. North Carolina’s electorate is very closely divided. Yet under the new congressional maps, Democrats would win only three of the state’s 14 congressional districts — four in a good year. Republicans would take the other 10 or 11.

How GOP lawmakers had managed to draw such slanted maps without partisan voting data remains a matter of dispute. But several state judges saw clear evidence of a gerrymander; one opinion called the maps “extreme partisan outliers,” creating so few competitive districts as to be “incompatible with democratic principles.” This February, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution bars partisan gerrymandering of this sort. In response, lawmakers redrew the congressional map. But that, too, failed to pass muster. Following a process established by the legislature, the trial court then appointed special masters to redraw the map for the 2022 election; lawmakers could give it another crack afterward.

The resulting map reflected the roughly equal split between Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina. This fall’s House election yielded a delegation of seven Democrats and seven Republicans.

Over the past two years, many national Republicans have fixated on the independent state legislature theory. But in North Carolina, it was almost an afterthought until Republican lawmakers wanted a pathway to the Supreme Court.

At its core, Moore v. Harper boils down to what the Constitution means when it assigns each state’s legislature the task of regulating congressional elections: Does that mean the legislature is subject to the traditional oversight of state courts and the gubernatorial veto? Or does it mean the legislature acting alone, with no such oversight? If it’s the former, then laws setting the rules for federal elections are no different than any other laws. If it’s the latter, things get complicated.

If the elections clause was meant to exclude other parts of state government, then the most extreme version of the theory is also the most natural reading of the clause: Only the strictures of federal law can check how state legislatures regulate congressional elections. That position, however, is too extreme for all but Trump’s closest allies, like John Eastman, an architect of Trump's attempt to use the independent state legislature theory to retain power after the 2020 election, who filed an amicus brief advocating for it.

For their part, the North Carolina lawmakers maintain that state constitutions, as enforced by state courts, can’t impose substantive obligations or restrictions on the legislature’s power to regulate federal elections. This position reflects their principal concern: North Carolina Republicans waited a century to pry political power away from the Democrats, and they feel aggrieved that state courts keep interfering with the pursuit of their agenda.

The state’s GOP lawmakers see the case through local eyes, according to Pat Ryan, who until earlier this year served as deputy chief of staff to Phil Berger, the top Republican in the Senate. Ryan described the case as the latest parry in “a battle over separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.” That view is echoed by local Democrats and liberal activists. The Republicans didn’t really care about coup fantasists in the Trump camp, or even the national party’s broader ambitions and plans. “This is all about their fight with the judiciary,” Pricey Harrison, a Democrat on the House Redistricting Committee, told me. “They’re trying to figure out how to game the system.”

Many Republicans concerned with the national stage, meanwhile, have argued for a narrower version of the independent state legislature theory: State constitutions can limit how legislatures regulate federal elections, but only if they’re sufficiently specific.

That would operate to the benefit of national Republicans in two respects. First, it would let them undo recent state supreme court rulings that they dislike while retaining the ones they like. So, for example, rulings rejecting GOP gerrymanders not only in North Carolina but also in Pennsylvania rely on open-ended provisions in their state constitutions. By contrast, in New York, where the state’s high court overturned an aggressive Democratic gerrymander this year, the state charter contains an explicit ban on partisan gerrymandering. Second, it would give Republicans’ allies in the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc maximum flexibility to bend future election disputes the GOP’s way. The line between sufficient and insufficient specificity, after all, is in the eyes of the beholder.

Federalizing state lawmaking isn’t a natural right-wing position, and tellingly, many conservative legal luminaries of the past few decades have filed briefs opposing the independent state legislature theory in any form. “It is rare to encounter a constitutional theory so antithetical to the Constitution’s text and structure, so inconsistent with the Constitution’s original meaning, so disdainful of this Court’s precedent, and so potentially damaging for American democracy” in its effects on redistricting and election administration, reads the brief of the legal team representing individuals and advocacy groups opposing the North Carolina GOP. The legal team includes J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge widely admired in conservative legal circles. Another conservative former federal appellate judge, Thomas Griffith, joined an amicus brief opposing the independent state legislature theory; yet another was backed by the co-founder of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi. Most legal scholars, historians and election officials — liberal or conservative — offer similar views.

Supporters of the independent state legislature theory rely chiefly on selective readings of earlier Supreme Court cases and attempt to play to the originalist preferences of some conservative justices. The historical record surrounding the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and early state charters offers little illumination. Still, the North Carolina lawmakers rely heavily on a document that many historians regard as a fabrication, written not during the time of the Constitutional Convention in the late 1780s but in 1818. As the brief Luttig joined puts it, “Casting about for an originalist response, Petitioners cite the so-called ‘Pinckney Plan.’ But that ‘Plan’ is a thoroughly discredited document concocted 30 years after the Convention.”

The frustration of the GOP lawmakers at the North Carolina Supreme Court’s Democratic majority is understandable on one level. The state court justices, in the case that led to Moore v. Harper, hang an awful lot on fairly thin reeds; they derive a prohibition on partisan gerrymandering from four very broadly phrased clauses in the state constitution. One reads, simply, “All elections shall be free.” (The frustration for North Carolina Republicans may ease in the near future: The GOP won two state Supreme Court seats in elections this month and come January, the court will have a 5-2 Republican majority. That suggests that, should the Republican lawmakers make yet another attempt at a gerrymander, they may receive a more favorable outcome.)

Yet more understandable still is the worry of those opposed to the independent state legislature theory — that the parochial concerns of one state political party will justify upending the regulation of federal elections nationwide.

Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

by Ian MacDougall

City Receives Half a Million Dollars for Air Monitoring After Report Reveals Elevated Cancer Risk

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Environmental Protection Agency has granted the state of Mississippi $500,000 to conduct air monitoring in Pascagoula, a year after ProPublica reported elevated cancer risks from industrial air pollution in the city.

Residents in the Cherokee Forest subdivision had long complained of toxic fumes and persistent health problems including headaches, dizziness and nausea. The neighborhood is surrounded by industrial sites, including a Chevron oil refinery and a shipbuilding facility that Bollinger recently purchased from VT Halter Marine.

ProPublica’s unique analysis of air pollution data estimated that parts of the neighborhood were facing a dangerous overlap of hazardous emissions including chromium, nickel and benzene. Residents spent years filing complaints with the state, attending public hearings and reporting odors and symptoms, with limited results, ProPublica reported. Officials with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality took several air monitoring samples from the subdivision in 2016 and 2017, but did not continue testing despite finding concentrations that exceeded EPA guidelines on cancer risk.

In its series “Sacrifice Zones,” ProPublica used Pascagoula as a case study of one of the largest failures of environmental regulation: The lack of community air monitoring for hazardous pollutants and the rarity of regulators intervening when citizens complain of excess pollution.

The EPA recently announced community air monitoring grants to 132 recipients, including the Mississippi agency. State officials will use the grant to measure key pollutants in the Cherokee neighborhood and determine “whether air quality problems exist, the associated level of risk to the community, and opportunities to mitigate such risk including identification of possible sources of elevated concentrations.”

The Mississippi agency plans to conduct air monitoring for one year, communications director Jan Schaefer said in an email. It will monitor continuously for particulate matter and collect 24-hour samples of air once every six days to track other pollutants. Those samples will be analyzed for methane, reduced sulfur compounds, benzene and related toxic chemicals.

The locations of the monitors, the start date and other technical details have yet to be determined.

The yearlong monitoring plan will be much more extensive and rigorous than past air sampling conducted in Pascagoula. Experts say long-term, sustained monitoring like this is often required to prove the impacts of industrial pollution.

Chevron Pascagoula Refinery (Kathleen Flynn, special to ProPublica)

A “systematic study, if done correctly and transparently, will provide a much clearer view of what is going on and how levels track with activities in the plants,” said Dan Costa, a former EPA scientist who is now an adjunct professor at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health.

In an email, Schaefer said ProPublica’s reporting did not influence Mississippi’s decision to conduct monitoring.

But resident Barbara Weckesser, whose pleas for this very kind of monitoring went unheeded for more than a decade, said she believes ProPublica’s reporting “absolutely” helped propel the grant and has bolstered the ability of her group, the Cherokee Concerned Citizens, to finally get regulators and the public to listen.

“We now had something we could take that was concrete proof” of our experiences and that would tell people to “pay attention,” she said. This is the monitoring system “we should’ve had nine years ago,” she added. Weckesser said she’s grateful for what she hopes will be an improved process. “I’m hoping the EPA will be on top of it and do a little bit more than they have. And I think they will.”

Bollinger and the EPA didn’t respond to requests for comment. A Chevron spokesperson directed ProPublica’s inquiries to the Mississippi agency.

Jennifer Crosslin, a volunteer organizer with Cherokee Concerned Citizens, said she is cautiously optimistic, but worries about whether the results will be good enough to pinpoint a specific facility as a polluter. The neighborhood lies near numerous shipyards, chemical plants and a Superfund site. ProPublica’s analysis of EPA data shows that five of those facilities, including the Chevron refinery and Bollinger shipyard, release carcinogens that elevate cancer risk in the subdivision.

Crosslin said she hopes Mississippi officials will work with her group on the monitoring design. When she asked regulators for a copy of its EPA grant application, they told her to submit a public records request, she said.

Schaefer said the agency wants input from “all interested stakeholders” but can’t begin the community engagement process until it receives the funds promised by the EPA. The grant application is a public record, Schaefer added, and the agency is “more than happy” to provide it to any third party who requests the document through the legal process.

Weckesser said the agency’s plan to sample for benzene only once every six days allows polluters to time their emissions for when the monitoring canisters aren’t running: “Do you think those fools over there don’t know that?”

Costa said state officials could get around that by monitoring on a more random schedule and not publicizing when they plan to collect samples. He was heartened by the EPA grants and said the agency is routinely understaffed and forced to play whack-a-mole on industrial pollution.

“Our plan has not yet been developed but we do know it will not include the broadcasting of when samples will be taken,” Schaefer said in an email. “EPA must approve the details (including the sampling schedule) as they are responsible for the oversight of the $500,000 they are providing to us.”

The new data will add to a growing pile of evidence of problems with Pascagoula’s air. In April 2021, the EPA conducted extensive mobile monitoring there. Using infrared cameras, the agency spotted plumes of hazardous chemicals streaming from Chevron’s flares, tanks and other equipment. Researchers drove a vehicle with air monitoring equipment past various facilities and found spikes of benzene concentrations as high as 217 parts per billion near the refinery.

The CDC recommends limiting short-term benzene exposure to 9 parts per billion. The EPA, which requires refineries to conduct its own benzene monitoring along the boundary of each facility, expects annual average concentrations to stay below 2.7 parts per billion.

The EPA’s mobile monitoring provided a series of snapshots, with concentrations going up and down at different locations, Costa said. “If the levels stay zero or low, you can be reasonably assured there is little going on.” The results show “there’s lots of fugitive benzene, and benzene is just one of those slam dunk chemicals.” It’s been known for decades that benzene can cause blood cancers, he said, “and you have to invest in ways of keeping it contained or cleaning up the air.”

Costa was concerned enough about the results that he tried to discuss them with EPA staff. He emailed several senior staffers at the EPA regional office in charge of Mississippi and identified himself as the former National Program Director for the agency’s Air, Climate & Energy Research Program, Costa said. He never heard back.

ProPublica, too, inquired about a more detailed round of monitoring the EPA conducted in the wake of ProPublica’s questions about Pascagoula. The EPA regional office told ProPublica last year that it conducted additional monitoring in late summer 2021, using advanced equipment that could pinpoint the source of specific leaks. Those results have not been released, and the agency didn’t respond to questions about what they found.

“I’m sure if that kind of concentration of benzene were wafting over Arlington, Virginia, something would be done about it,” Costa said. In Pascagoula, an industrial city with legacy pollution and houses wiped out by Hurricane Katrina, the story is quite different, he said. “These are citizens of Mississippi that deserve respect and attention to a problem. And they don’t have the financial guns to make this happen.”

by Lisa Song

After a Stillbirth, an Autopsy Can Provide Answers. Too Few of Them Are Being Performed.

1 year 11 months ago

After Dr. Karen Gibbins’ son was stillborn in 2018, doctors could not explain why it happened.

She underwent genetic testing, which came back normal, and an examination of her placenta, which her medical records show was “notable for the lack of evidence” of an infection or any abnormalities.

But Gibbins didn’t give up hope of finding an answer. She had also asked for an autopsy.

For Gibbins, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Oregon Health & Science University who has published research on stillbirths, her son’s death in her 27th week of pregnancy hit painfully close to home. Her expertise added urgency to her desire to understand what had gone wrong.

When the final autopsy results came back about six months later, she was stunned to learn that her son, whom she had named Sebastian, had a rare disease caused by her antibodies attacking the cells in his liver.

By then, Gibbins, who had a son at home, had learned she was pregnant again. She forwarded the report to her doctor, who started her on grueling weekly infusions of antibodies. When she suffered an unrelated complication at 32 weeks and began bleeding heavily, her doctor delivered her baby immediately.

Where there was silence after Sebastian’s birth, Everett cried when he was born.

Gibbins with her two living sons at her family’s home in Portland (Kristina Barker, special to ProPublica)

“If we had not had that autopsy,” Gibbins said, “my third child would have died as well.”

Researchers and national obstetric groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, have called on doctors and hospitals to offer a stillbirth evaluation, a systematic assessment that includes placental exams, genetic testing and autopsies.

But too often they are not done, making the already complex task of determining the causes of death even more difficult. In about one-third of stillbirths, the cause of death is never determined, according to a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report.

Some doctors do not offer patients the postmortem exams after a stillbirth; some patients decide against them without fully understanding the potential benefits. The federal government doesn’t cover the cost of an autopsy after a stillbirth, though many experts say it should be viewed as a continuation of maternal care.

Research has shown that placental exams may help establish a cause of death or exclude a suspected one in about 65% of stillbirths, and autopsies were similarly useful in more than 40% of cases.

While placental exams, autopsies and genetic testing are all recommended, at the very least the placenta should always be tested, said Dr. Drucilla Roberts, a perinatal pathologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School.

“It’s the heart and lungs of the baby” while in the womb, said Roberts, who added, “The placenta should definitely be evaluated in every stillbirth.”

But in 2020, placental exams were performed or planned in only 65% of stillbirths, the most recent CDC data shows. Meaning that in thousands of stillbirths that year, the placenta was thrown out without ever being tested.

Autopsies are performed in even fewer cases. Those exams, according to CDC data for 2020, were conducted or planned in less than 20% of stillbirths.

Experts blame the low rates on several factors. Because an autopsy often is performed in the days following a stillbirth, doctors and nurses have to ask families soon after they receive news of the death if they would like one. Many families can’t process the loss, let alone imagine their baby’s body being cut open.

What’s more, many doctors aren’t trained in the advantages of an autopsy, or in communicating with parents about the exam. Doctors also often don’t tell patients that, for example, families can still have an open casket funeral after an autopsy, because the incisions are done in such a way that they can easily be covered by clothing.

“I think a lot of times there can be misconceptions among providers,” said Dr. Jessica Page, an assistant professor and maternal-fetal medicine specialist at University of Utah School of Medicine and Intermountain Healthcare. And if doctors aren’t providing compassionate and informed counseling on the potential benefits of the exams, patients may lose the opportunity to learn why their child died.

“It impairs our ability to give them thorough counseling regarding risk in future pregnancies,” Page said. “It’s hard to reduce the rate of stillbirth if we don’t understand why they all happen.”

Page is working to help doctors better counsel patients about autopsies following a stillbirth, and she and Gibbins are planning to apply for a federal grant to develop a step-by-step tool to walk patients through the autopsy process.

The need for evaluations is underscored by the current stillbirth crisis. Every year more than 20,000 pregnancies in the U.S. end in stillbirth, the death of an expected child at 20 weeks or more. About half occur at 28 weeks or more, after the point a fetus can typically survive outside the womb.

But the stillbirth rate has received little public attention, which has been made worse by insufficient research and the experience of some mothers who have complained that medical professionals ignored or dismissed their concerns. One study found that nearly one in four U.S. stillbirths may be preventable.

In the summer of 2020, Kendra Skalski arrived for her doctor’s appointment with her hospital bag packed. It was a day before her due date, and she was uncomfortable and ready to deliver. Skalski asked her doctor what the earliest date was that she could have a scheduled delivery, but she said her doctor told her not before 41 weeks.

This was her first pregnancy, and Skalski said she didn’t know she could push back.

But hours before Skalski was scheduled to be induced, she realized she hadn’t felt the baby kick. She called her doctor’s office and was told to head in to the hospital early. Skalski said the person she spoke to didn’t sound worried, so Skalski wasn’t worried either.

“I just remember thinking everything was fine,” Skalski recalled.

At the hospital, the staff collected her insurance information. She laughed with her husband, a New York City firefighter, as she filled out the paperwork.

When the nurse struggled to find the baby’s heartbeat, Skalski thought the monitor was broken. She searched her husband’s face, staring intently at his eyes, hoping for reassurance. “Everything is going to be OK,” he told her.

Then a doctor confirmed that her baby, a girl she had named Winnie, didn’t have a heartbeat.

“This isn’t happening,” Skalski recalled saying. “This isn’t happening.”

Skalski couldn’t comprehend her loss, let alone the decisions she then had to make. Induce the delivery of her dead daughter or go home and come back in the morning? Vaginal delivery or cesarean? Burial or cremation? Placental exam or autopsy?

The doctor, she said, told her an autopsy likely wouldn’t find anything. Skalski also struggled with her own feelings of guilt; she wouldn’t be able to live with herself, she said, if the autopsy revealed that she had somehow caused her daughter’s death. And the thought of someone cutting open her daughter left her distraught. She said no to the autopsy.

She now regrets that decision. The doctor had asked her about the autopsy before she had even delivered her daughter, she said, and no one explained to her that she might want the results after the shock wore off.

“I wish that I had been more well-informed,” she said. “I wish that someone had said, ‘OK, this is nothing that you did. Let’s find out what it was.’”

Skalski said she chose Northwell Health, New York State’s largest health care provider, because of its reputation. A spokesperson for Northwell Health did not answer questions about Skalski’s care but said its hospitals follow ACOG guidelines and consider inducing a mother between 41 and 42 weeks, though doctors weigh a variety of factors, including communication with expecting mothers, “in order to provide the best possible care for each individual patient.”

In addition to possibly helping her understand why her daughter died at 41 weeks, the autopsy could have offered her and her doctors some clarity when she got pregnant again. Skalski became the inaugural patient of the Rainbow Clinic at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, the first of its kind in the U.S., which is modeled on similar clinics in the United Kingdom that employ specific protocols to care for people who have had a stillbirth.

In August, Skalski gave birth to her daughter, Marigold.

Although general pathologists can perform autopsies and placental exams, perinatal pathologists undergo specialized training to help them know what to look for in cases of stillbirth. By all estimates, the U.S. is currently suffering from a shortage of perinatal pathologists, said Dr. Halit Pinar, a longtime perinatal pathologist and professor at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. He worries that recruiting a well-trained perinatal pathologist after he retires will be a challenge.

“Perinatal pathology is not glorious,” he said.

Younger doctors know choosing another pathology specialty may be a more secure professional path, he said, but perinatal pathology is critical, and autopsies after a stillbirth are essential. Some of Pinar’s most rewarding moments have come from being able to provide closure to mothers and explain that they are not to blame.

When his team received a federal grant that covered autopsies through the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, the stillbirth autopsy rate reached around 95%, he said. Once funding ended, he said, the number of autopsies fell to around 30% to 35%.

Medicaid, he said, should consider paying for autopsies after stillbirths as an extension of postpartum coverage.

“If there is reimbursement, so that it’s not on the shoulders of the hospital budget, it is going to help,” Pinar said. “This is part of maternal care.”

Many larger academic hospitals absorb the cost of autopsies, but some families have said uncertainty around whether the cost of the autopsy was covered affected their decision not to have an autopsy done.

A spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said federal payment for autopsies is not permitted because Medicare and Medicaid laws do not allow for their coverage.

The Stillbirth Health Improvement and Education (SHINE) for Autumn Act, a bill co-sponsored by U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. and Cory Booker, D-N.J., seeks to improve stillbirth research by providing training in perinatal autopsies, but the legislation has not passed the Senate.

Even if a family wants an autopsy, it doesn’t guarantee that it will happen.

Stephanie Lee’s daughter, Elodie Haru Ansari, was stillborn last year.

Lee was 36 weeks pregnant, though her belly was so big people frequently asked if she was having twins. Still, medical records show Elodie weighed 3 pounds, 10 ounces at birth. Lee, a registered nurse, said her doctor had suspected her daughter might have had a birth defect where her esophagus did not develop properly.

Lee and her husband, Tunaidi Ansari, wrestled with so many unanswered questions that there was no doubt in their minds about the autopsy. Lee signed the paperwork to have one performed.

They waited for weeks to receive the results, but when they never arrived, she asked her doctor about the delay. The doctor called her, and only then, she said, did she and her husband learn that the hospital never performed the autopsy.

“We were promised an autopsy,” Ansari told the doctor. “We were promised every single thing to test for, and the most basic thing was the autopsy, which they said was done on the same day or the next day, and we don’t have it.”

As he spoke, Lee sobbed.

A hospital administrator later wrote Lee a letter that explained that the autopsy consent form was not sent to the correct office, and “as a result, the morgue was not made aware of the request for autopsy.” In light of the “break-down in communication,” the administrator said, the hospital was updating its procedures. “Although it is not possible to change the outcome in your case,” she wrote, “I want to assure you that all measures are being taken to prevent a circumstance like this from ever occurring again.”

Neither Weill Cornell Medicine, where Lee received her care while pregnant, nor NewYork-Presbyterian Alexandra Cohen Hospital for Women and Newborns, where she delivered her stillborn daughter, responded to requests for comment.

On a recent Friday, Lee, who is pregnant with her second child, gathered her family to celebrate what would have been Elodie’s first birthday. She hung a banner and balloons above a table filled with stuffed animals, flowers and photos of Elodie. In the center was a five-layered tteok cake, a Korean rice cake traditionally served when a child turns one.

Later that evening she held the urn with Elodie’s ashes next to her belly and said goodnight to both her daughters. The next morning, she ordered her coffee as usual, under the name “Elodie.”

Stephanie Lee and her husband, Tunaidi Ansari, are now expecting their second child. (Stephanie Mei-Ling, special to ProPublica)

Help Us Report on Stillbirths

by Duaa Eldeib

She Wanted an Abortion. A Judge Said She Wasn’t Mature Enough to Decide.

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article was produced in a partnership between ProPublica and The New York Times Magazine. It is not subject to ProPublica's Creative Commons license until Dec. 28, 2022.

On a hot Texas morning in 2020, Giselle, who goes by G, slipped her arms into a borrowed blazer, flipped up the nose ring in her septum so it couldn’t be seen and walked into the Coryell County Courthouse. It was the first time she had ever been to court. She was 17, 11 weeks pregnant and already beginning to show. She was going to ask a judge for authorization to seek an abortion. Her lawyer had explained that she needed to prove that she was mature enough to make this decision. G squeezed her lips around her braces, reminding herself not to smile. She didn’t want the judge to see her as a child.

Because G was a minor, her access to an abortion was governed by the state’s “parental involvement” law. She could have either notified her mother or father and gotten consent, or she could have filed a petition in her home county, asking for what’s known as a judicial-bypass hearing. She had chosen to petition. In the carpeted courtroom, G explained that she didn’t know her father, who was investigated by Child Protective Services after being accused of molesting her when she was a toddler. Though the case was inconclusive and he denies abusing her, he eventually gave up his parental rights. G didn’t trust her mother, whom she viewed as unreliable and volatile. They had bounced among houses and boyfriends for stretches of G’s life. A year before, G packed up her things and left.

G at 16 in June 2019, on a trip to a lake with her friends (Archival photo by Parker Hill and Isabel Bethencourt)

When she discovered she was pregnant, she traveled to an abortion clinic in Austin, about 60 miles south of where she lived in Copperas Cove, a city of 37,000 where nearly everyone works on Fort Hood, the nearby military base. The clinic referred her to Jane’s Due Process, an organization that helps minors navigate judicial bypass. Ten days later, its staff found G a trained attorney. It took G a week to schedule a ride to meet with the lawyer, who asked about her grades, extracurricular activities, babysitting experience and which birth control method she would use in the future. Then, before her court date was scheduled, the District Court judge assigned to the case recused himself. Although he didn’t say why, many judges choose not to take a case in which they might have to approve an abortion. The clerk needed to book a visiting judge. Altogether, G had spent four weeks trying to get a hearing. And now, on June 18, 2020, four months shy of her 18th birthday, G knew that her future was at this judge’s discretion.

“Have you had to deal with your mom dealing with your braces?” her lawyer asked, hoping to show the judge that G couldn’t depend on her mother. Since she left home, G explained, her mother had been withholding payment on her braces, telling the orthodontist that G needed to cover the cost.

When her lawyer asked her why she was seeking an abortion, G said she didn’t think she would make a suitable parent. She had just graduated from high school and was working as a cashier at the H-E-B supermarket chain. Her goal right now was “taking care of myself and financial needs to the best of my ability.” She had broken up with her boyfriend, Cecil, after she found out she was pregnant, concerned that he wouldn’t be there for her. Neither of them believed that they were ready to raise a child. He didn’t make enough as a brick mason to move out of his parents’ house, and for a year, G had been crashing with friends. An abortion, she believed, would be “in the best interest of the fetuses.”

She had thought about adoption, she told the judge, but it was not for her. “I don’t feel like I can grow something in my body for nine months and then physically hand it away.” When her lawyer asked her what she expected after the abortion, G regurgitated the warnings from “A Woman’s Right to Know,” a Texas Health and Human Services pamphlet that her lawyer told her to study in preparation for the hearing: She would bleed, cramp and feel emotional and depressed. G told the judge that she had made a list of pros and cons in her journal: “Cons: Killing something growing inside of me. Guilt. Constant guilt from others. Pros: Continue life without being pushed back. Freedom.”

The judge said he had a few questions. “I probably misheard you, but I thought you said ‘fetuses,’ instead of ‘fetus.’”

G winced, annoyed with herself for using the plural. “It’s two,” she said. Twins. The judge wanted to know if she had received counseling at the abortion clinic. “Did they give you, for instance, any statistics about how many women regret or don’t regret it five, 10, 12, 20 years from now?” They hadn’t.

“I’m basically standing in the stead of your parents by making this decision,” the judge continued. “In doing so, I want to make sure that I would treat this as if you were my daughter.” G tried to control the muscles in her face. She didn’t want to reveal her frustration that this gray-haired man with deep-set eyes was imagining himself as her father, whom she had feared since she was a child. The judge explained that he wanted to take the long view, focusing on her health. This is a high-risk pregnancy, G thought, or at least that’s what the clinic told her. If he cared about my health, he would say yes to an abortion. “Obviously, it’s a monumental decision,” he said. “It’s a life-changing decision.”

The judge told G that he didn’t want to rule immediately. First, he wanted G to visit a crisis pregnancy center and have an ultrasound. He recommended two Christian organizations that counsel women to keep their pregnancies. G replied that she had tried to go to one in town, but it was closed because of COVID-19. The judge said he wanted her to try another. Under Texas law, the names of judges in bypass hearings typically remain unknown, so what the judge said next was striking. He gave G his cellphone number and told her to call him once she attended her appointment. “I’m a judge in Waco,” he said, adding that his name was David Hodges.

At 73, Hodges is retired, though he still fills in on cases. He served as a county-level judge until 2002, when he violated the state’s election code by running as a Democrat but voting as a Republican. The Democratic Party removed him from the ballot, and he stepped down as a full-time judge. Hodges has ruled on about a dozen judicial-bypass cases. He hates them, he told me — none of his peers want to be the arbiter in these hearings. He sees his role as similar to that of a jury determining whether a convicted criminal defendant “should be given life in prison or the death sentence,” he said. “I consider this decision to have that kind of weight.” He told me he didn’t want to impose his personal views about abortion on G — he believes that life begins soon after a fetal heartbeat — but he did want her to have an ultrasound, because “statistically, if the proposed mother is shown the ultrasound, they will change their mind and decide they don’t want to have an abortion.”

G knew none of this, but she was aware that crisis pregnancy centers opposed abortion. As she walked out of the courtroom, her lawyer tried to reassure her. “Maybe he is saying if you do this, he will grant it?”

The next morning, G caught a ride 50 miles south to a crisis pregnancy center, where a woman displayed her ultrasound on a large screen and turned up the volume of the fetal heartbeats, which sounded like galloping hooves. The woman read off the supposed risks of abortion — the chance of death, the likelihood of infertility — and printed photos titled “Baby A” and “Baby B.” G left the center frightened and angry and immediately called her lawyer to file an affidavit. “I am walking into this situation thankful for all the information and care I have received,” the document read. “I am asking the court to sign an order allowing me to have an abortion.”

That afternoon, G’s lawyer called her. Hodges had denied her petition, ruling that she wasn’t mature enough to make this decision. G could appeal, the lawyer said, but G’s mind was already replaying her testimony. She had stuck to the conventions of the bypass hearing, spinning a story about her life that portrayed her as an upright woman: She was studious and diligent at work; she could save money and pay bills. Now she just wanted to do it over. Her life was a mess, a loop of false starts, deferred plans and upheaval. All she wanted was to tell the judge the truth: She wasn’t mature enough to be a mother.

G holds a photo of herself taken during her pregnancy, “pretending to be happy,” she says.

Parental-involvement laws were some of the first abortion restrictions passed after the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, and they are one of the few on which voters across the political spectrum have long agreed, with roughly 70% of adults in favor of them. When the court ruled in June on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe, 36 states enforced these statutes. Some require minors to notify a parent; others require them to get the consent of one or both parents. Several require that they do both. If a minor chooses not to involve a parent, she must prove to a judge that she is mature and well-informed enough to make a decision about abortion. Or, depending on the state, she can prove that having an abortion, or doing so without involving her parent, is in her best interest.

To their supporters, these laws are common sense: Parents have responsibility for their child’s well-being, and it’s reasonable that they be involved in ending a pregnancy. When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, he explained on MTV that he had signed a parental-notification law as the governor of Arkansas because, after an abortion, “who helps the kid pick up the pieces?” Teenagers, especially younger ones, may not be mature enough to make a well-thought-out choice about abortion, proponents argue. For the past century, the Supreme Court has also recognized the authority of parents to raise their children as they see fit — in their education, religion, health care. If a school nurse determines that a child would benefit from Advil, the nurse usually needs permission from the child’s parent before administering it. With a decision as charged as abortion, most parents similarly want to be consulted. Lawmakers say that requiring minors to engage their parents offers protection, honors a family’s values and encourages dialogue at home.

Critics of the statutes point out that most teenagers involve their parents in their abortion decision regardless of state law. Opponents are especially concerned for teenagers who live in homes that are abusive, neglectful or otherwise unsafe. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have each noted that although a parent’s involvement is helpful in many cases, a mandate introduces the risk of violence or rejection for young people in unsupportive families. The Academy of Pediatrics also finds that it delays care. Youth advocates point to the hundreds of thousands of minors in the United States who don’t live with their biological or adoptive parents — those in foster care or staying with relatives. Or they talk about the rights that they believe young people deserve, regardless of whether their parents are dangerous. “It’s not just about young people as victims,” says Jessica Goldberg, who works for the reproductive rights group If/When/How on reducing barriers for young people and eliminating the statutes. “Forced parental involvement in the abortion decision ignores all young people’s bodily autonomy.”

The judicial-bypass procedure has been presented as a compromise, balancing the interests of teenagers and their parents. Almost every state that requires parental involvement includes the option for a minor to go before a judge instead. The compromise hinges on the belief that the hearings are fair, efficient and shielded from politics. In states where clinics connect teenagers with experienced attorneys and where the court staff is trained, the process can go smoothly. In others, it’s a crapshoot. The question of “maturity” is open to wildly different interpretations, particularly when assessed by a judge who answers to voters. In many counties, teenagers who try to file petitions find courts that are unprepared or biased; research surveys have shown that it’s common for staff to turn away callers or delay bypass hearings. Judges sometimes announce their intention to issue denials before the hearing or try to persuade teenagers to carry their pregnancy to term; in Alabama, one judge announced, “This is a capital case,” and suggested that the petitioner would be damned to hell. In a 2020 study on attorneys’ experiences in Texas, lawyers recounted regular activism on the bench. One judge told minors to “refrain from any sex prior to marriage.” Others appointed counsel who spoke out against abortion.

The most recent data indicates that about 90,000 minors become pregnant each year, and 25,000 end their pregnancies. Compared with adults, teenagers have a tougher time coming up with money for an abortion and, if they don’t have a car or a license, more trouble getting to a clinic. They are much less likely to have a credit card to order abortion pills online. Because their periods aren’t as regular, they tend to detect their pregnancies later. No one knows how many teenagers across the country can’t get abortions because of parental-involvement laws. There’s no count of those who are denied by judges or those who want an abortion but can’t come up with a way to travel or skip school or find a lawyer. Because the cases are sealed, even the number of bypass petitions filed each year is a mystery. Several lawyers told me that they know only the initials of their teenage clients, and many shred the files after hearings. Before the Supreme Court reversed Roe, in 12 states where some numbers were available — compiled by researchers, attorneys or public health departments — around 1,000 total petitions were filed yearly.

Legislators began passing parental-involvement laws in the mid-1970s, as liberals and conservatives came to believe that curbing teenage pregnancy would improve the economic lives of young women and cut costs for the government. But over the past several decades, evidence has suggested that instead of changing the sexual behavior of teenagers, these laws push many young women into motherhood before they want it. Given the Dobbs decision this summer, the consequences of these restrictions will most likely become more pronounced.

Without the protection of Roe, almost every state in the South and the Great Plains is expected to ban or severely limit abortion, denying access to both adults and minors. As state courts weigh in on abortion restrictions, the laws continue to shift; at the moment, 14 states are poised to protect the right to abortion and do not have, or do not enforce, parental-involvement laws (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington). More than 20 still allow most abortions and also maintain parental-involvement laws. Several of these states — including Florida, Kansas, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — border regions of the country where abortion is being criminalized. They are among the closest options for teenagers in states with bans.

14 States Ban Most Abortions, and 22 More Require Teens to Get Approval From a Parent or a Judge

The 14 states, plus Washington, D.C., that allow minors to seek abortions without an adult’s approval are often hundreds of miles away from teens in the South and Great Plains.

Note: States are marked as banning all or most abortions if they have blocked abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy and are currently enforcing that ban; some additional states’ bans are not currently in effect due to litigation. This data is current as of Nov. 28, 2022. (Map combines data obtained by ProPublica with data published by If/When/How; map by Lucas Waldron, ProPublica)

The farther a teenager needs to travel to a clinic where they can consent to an abortion on their own, the less likely they are to end their pregnancy. From 1992 to 2015, as parental-involvement laws proliferated, the distance the average minor would need to travel increased from 58 miles to 454 miles. “You can see the country closing in on teens,” says Caitlin Myers, a professor of economics at Middlebury College who mapped this changing landscape in a recent paper. She estimates that in this time, parental-involvement laws were responsible for 108,000 additional teenage births.

As new bans take hold, driving distances will grow longer for many teenagers who want an abortion. An adult in Dothan, Alabama, for example, could travel 90 miles to Tallahassee, Florida, for the procedure. A 17-year-old would have two options: She, too, could go to Tallahassee, but she would have to file a petition, which the court would ask her to write herself before she is appointed an attorney. If she tried to visit an abortion clinic to learn the facts of the procedure, the clinic would refuse to schedule a consultation without judicial authorization. She would attend her bypass hearing, where a judge would expect her to know the medical risks of an abortion. The judge would have three days to decide how to rule. In many circumstances, the teenager would need to do this without alarming her parents by going missing. Her second option would be to travel to the nearest clinic in a state without a parental-involvement law — in Carbondale, Illinois, 590 miles away. Or, faced with these choices, she might weigh a third option: She could give up.

For Millions of Teens, Getting an Abortion Can Mean Traveling to Illinois, Washington, D.C., New Mexico or Minnesota Note: The distance from each county to the nearest abortion provider was calculated using the population center of each county and road networks generated by the HERE API. (Credit: Data analysis by Caitlin Myers; maps by Lucas Waldron, ProPublica)

After Hodges’ ruling, G didn’t know where to turn. She had told her friends that she was set on becoming the opposite of her mother, who had become pregnant with her — unintentionally — at 19. G grew up depending on government assistance for food and didn’t believe it would be fair to bring children into the world without financial security. She was scared of finding herself in romantic relationships like her mother’s, which sometimes led to catastrophe: G or her mother would call the cops, or the two would flee or kick the guy out. A former classmate of G’s mother, Brandi Rickert, who took them in at one point, told me that she worried about G when she was a child. Rickert could see that G wanted stability but that her mother was unable to provide it. G knew that her mother grew up in a violent home and that she was doing what she could to keep G safe. “She took hits for me,” G told me.

In G’s memory, though, her mother could turn dark in an instant. Jennifer Clark, the mother of one of G’s friends, told me that when the two briefly lived next door, she often heard G’s mother screaming, calling G “an attention whore,” “a piece of shit.” In the spring of G’s sophomore year, while she was in an online home-schooling program, G worked two jobs, including as a hostess at Razzoo’s, where she put in as many as 30 hours a week. She was expected to pay rent to her mother. (G’s mother says she never used that language or asked for G’s earnings, and she disputes G’s characterizations of her and how she parented.) That G was unusually self-sufficient, dreamy and also impulsive could put those around her off-balance. Sometimes G was a people pleaser, offering to cook or clean for Clark in a honey-sweet voice. Other times, she would shut down, refusing to talk to anyone. Occasionally, she would explode out of nowhere, throwing friendship-ending tantrums. “Well,” Clark said, “all that was learned behavior.”

Just before she became pregnant, G was finally hopeful about her future. Once she left her mother’s house, she reenrolled in high school, where the principal said that she worked harder than anyone on campus. “I didn’t know whether she wanted to be a short-order cook or a brain surgeon,” he told me, “but quite frankly, she could write her own ticket doing whatever she wanted to do.” G wasn’t yet thinking about her career. She wanted to party and celebrate her graduation, leave Copperas Cove, get an apartment of her own and comfortably support herself.

Since middle school, G identified as gay — all her relationships had been with girls, and she had envisioned building a life with another woman. Falling for Cecil had taken her by surprise. When they first got together, she recognized the ease she felt being in public with him, no longer nervous about leers or snide remarks. But she had always struggled to trust guys, and being with Cecil didn’t change that. “I still seem to keep thinking about my past, worried that it’s going to repeat itself,” she wrote in her journal. “I worry I wasn’t, won’t ever be, ready to be with a male.”

After her bypass hearing, G stopped eating and showering and responding to texts. She didn’t want people to know about her pregnancy; the few friends she told had ghosted her. “I’ve been alone my entire life, but being pregnant is an entirely other lonely cycle,” she wrote. “I don’t have drive, energy.” Her friend Shana, who was 36 and married with three children, was letting G stay in her living room on a mattress, which she had cordoned off with a bookcase and a shower curtain. Some days, Shana told me, she had to pull G out of bed and escort her to the front yard just to get some sunlight.

Shana and G on Shana’s property, where they both live

G hadn’t decided whether to challenge the judge’s ruling. She knew that Shana would respect whichever choice she made, but Shana believed that abortion was immoral, except in cases of rape or incest. She considered twins the ultimate blessing. In one outburst, which she later apologized for, Shana told G that she would be murdering two people. Cecil was no help with the decision. G thought that he was too irresponsible to offer guidance; he didn’t even clean his bedroom. Somehow the burden of figuring out what to do was falling to her, even though Cecil thought that he must have forgotten to put on a condom. G was paralyzed: She could appeal Hodges’ ruling with no certainty that it would be overturned, or she could accept the voices around her — Shana’s, the judge’s, the Christian counselor’s — that all wanted her to have the children. She had already spent weeks getting her first court date, and she couldn’t shake a sense of defeat. Overwhelmed, she decided that she wouldn’t decide. She preferred to ignore that this, too, was a decision.

After several weeks of nothing, G began to embrace her situation. She told Cecil that she was still pregnant, and they agreed that it was best to get back together to raise the twins. Knowing that she was afraid he would abandon the kids, Cecil promised that he never would. “It wouldn’t sit right with my conscience, and also, my mom would kill me,” he told me. In an effort to address her mood swings, G enrolled in counseling, telling her therapist that she worried she didn’t “even know what a healthy relationship looks like.” The pages of her journal turned to shopping lists with cost tallies: swaddling blankets, car seat head thing, breast milk bags, boobie ice packs. She started a photo album with ultrasounds and pictures of her belly. Every two weeks, Shana or Cecil drove her to the hospital in Temple, about 40 miles east, for a checkup. G’s slim frame was transforming: arms swelling, neck spasming, ankles pounding under new weight. In August, when G was five months pregnant, one of her doctors diagnosed the fetuses with syndactyly, a rare congenital condition characterized by fused fingers and toes. G wasn’t surprised; Cecil had it, and she adored his body, but she also understood that her children would need special attention.

G’s old journal, showing a list of expenses

G got a job at a day care center, which seemed like an ideal opportunity. She committed to muscle memory how to change a diaper and balance bottles to feed two infants at a time; she learned about choking hazards, the tricks to quickly mixing formula. The children’s bottomless energy, though, seemed to grate more on her than on her co-workers. The high-pitched shrieks, the sticky faces, the careless way their limbs flailed. Slowly, she realized she wasn’t irritated but envious. Without a “normal” childhood of her own, she resented the children who appeared to have one.

Eight dollars an hour was getting her nowhere, and she couldn’t handle more work on her feet. A friend told her that she could make extra money selling videos of herself on an app called Whisper. Buyers had a kink for pregnant women. At night, when Shana’s family was sleeping, she filmed herself, shielding her face with a red sequined eye mask. Cecil didn’t like it, but he couldn’t argue with her rationale. This was money she was making for their children, so they wouldn’t go without. She tried not to think about her own disgust. She had never wanted to sell her body, but soon she was bringing in as much as $400 a week. Like an actor, she imagined herself in a fictional story. “I’m a whole different character — this isn’t me.”

In November, G’s doctor recommended bed rest, advice that she took, though her employer didn’t provide paid leave. Her twins kept kicking her bladder, making her urinate spontaneously. She had gained more than 50 pounds, and she needed help just getting dressed; Shana bought her a foot-long shoehorn so that she could slip her feet into sneakers she couldn’t reach. On Dec. 9, 2020, 36 weeks into her pregnancy, G braided her long, caramel hair into pigtails, asked Shana for a final photo shoot while she held her bulging belly and drove with Cecil to the hospital to be induced. The epidural didn’t seem to work, her pain level hovering between a seven and a 10. Twenty-six hours later, G gave birth to twin girls. For what seemed like only a moment, the nurse placed them on G’s chest. They looked like wrinkly aliens. I’m supposed to be feeling something right now, she thought. She wanted a fierce, visceral love to take over, a tight grip of purpose. Instead, she felt empty.

Judicial-bypass hearings date back to a 1979 Supreme Court case, Bellotti v. Baird, in which the court declared Massachusetts’ parental-involvement law unconstitutional. The ruling rested on a previous decision that states cannot give parents “an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto” over a minor’s abortion. But in an unusual majority opinion, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote that states could require parental involvement if they also allowed minors to go directly to a judge to ask for permission to end a pregnancy. He proposed that judges could be tasked with assessing whether the minor was mature enough to make the decision, though he conceded that maturity is “difficult to define, let alone determine.” A concurring opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, scolded Powell for advising states on how to rewrite their laws, but legislatures began passing statutes that fell in line with Powell’s vision. The power to veto a minor’s abortion shifted from a parent to the state.

How the courts interpret maturity has since proved to be arbitrary. Judge Hodges told me that “of course it’s subjective.” He also said that part of his thinking in denying G’s petition was that he disagreed with her statement that she wouldn’t make a suitable parent. “My thought process was, You sound very mature to me, for a 17-year-old, living on your own, paying your own rent, making these decisions,” he said. “Sounded to me like she actually, probably would make a good parent.” His view was paradoxical: He believed that G was mature enough to raise two children, but he had ruled that she was not mature enough to decide if she was ready to be a mother. By law, the assessment of a teenager’s maturity should apply solely to her ability to choose whether to have an abortion — not to her ability to parent.

In Florida, for example, judges of bypass proceedings are asked to consider minors’ “overall intelligence,” “credibility and demeanor as a witness” and “emotional development and stability,” among other characteristics. In January, a 17-year-old who was planning to be a nurse was denied an abortion partly because she told the judge that her grade-point average was 2.0 and, at another point in the proceeding, said she was currently making B’s. “Clearly, a B average would not equate to a 2.0 GPA,” the judge wrote, concluding that her intelligence was below average. (An appellate court overturned the ruling, explaining that her current grades could have lifted her GPA.)

With Bellotti, the Supreme Court transformed abortion from the medical decision it was deemed to be in Roe into an act fraught with cultural meaning. If a teenager wanted to opt for a cesarean section, she didn’t need a parent’s approval — but if she wanted an abortion, she did. The state was forcing a parent’s involvement in one medical procedure but not the other. Shoshanna Ehrlich, a professor of gender studies at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, argues that it was here that the court provided one of the earliest hints that it was moving toward promoting birth over abortion. The maturity test was not about a teenager’s ability to weigh the benefits and risks of her medical choice. “If a pregnant teen on Monday says, ‘I want to be a mom,’ the teen is vested with full decision-making capacity,” Ehrlich says. “And let’s say she wakes up on Tuesday and says, ‘Wrong decision; I can’t be a mom.’ Then suddenly she is not an autonomous decision-maker. What happened between Monday and Tuesday? Did she lose her maturity?”

The Bellotti ruling came as teenage pregnancy was igniting public anxiety. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, then affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, had released a report in 1976 that announced an “epidemic” of teenage pregnancy, a term that was quickly picked up by politicians and the news media. The discourse disregarded half the story. The teenage birth rate hit its peak that century in the 1950s, when adolescents were more likely to be engaged or married, and it was in decline by the 1970s. But the legalization of abortion had given rise to a new demographic measure, the pregnancy rate, which included births, miscarriages and abortions, and this measure for teenagers was rising. During the sexual revolution, more single women of all ages were having sex, more women were having abortions and more white women were having children without marrying. But teenagers, especially Black teenage girls, became a focus of concern.

Liberal reformers argued that teenage motherhood led to poverty, and they used the public attention to lobby for expanding reproductive health services and comprehensive sex education. Conservatives cited the Guttmacher report to try to shut down those programs. Not only did they take moral issue with sex between teenagers, but they also cast adolescent mothers as a drain on government funds. Parents, they argued, needed resources to control the sex lives of their teenage children. After the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980, the conservative agenda prevailed.

Over the following decade, after restrictions on abortion multiplied across the country, the National Abortion Rights Action League hired consultants to shape a new campaign. Focus groups were most roused by the notion that the government’s abortion laws were interfering with the sanctity of the family, so the consultants gave NARAL a more relatable slogan: “Who Decides? You or Them?” As William Saletan describes in his book on the abortion wars, “Bearing Right,” NARAL staff members never thought the “you” in their slogan would be taken to mean parents rather than pregnant women, but the “you” was so flexible that it could refer to anyone in a family. When Democratic candidates started noticing the appeal of parental-involvement laws, many decided to support them; with NARAL’s new phrase, they could be “pro-choice” and “pro-parent” at the same time. Soon, politicians on both sides of the abortion debate — in Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Virginia — were rallying voters around mandated parental involvement. By the end of the 1990s, a majority of states had instituted the laws. About half of those states were blue.

In the weeks after G gave birth, she couldn’t summon a connection with her babies. She had moved into a bedroom in Shana’s house, and she noticed how Shana brightened while teaching the twins how to stick out their tongues. G wished that she lit up, too. When Cecil was over, he missed the goofy things G used to do, like weird dances and voices. “She didn’t really do that too much,” he told me. “She would say, ‘Stop, I’m not in the mood.’”

Pictures of G and Cecil in the girls’ room

For months, G and Cecil had been trying to find a place of their own in Copperas Cove, but without any credit history, they were poor candidates. In early 2021, they were finally approved for a big, two-bedroom Section 8 apartment, at $583 a month. Cecil was working as an overnight stocker at H-E-B and slept during the day; almost all of the parenting fell to G. At times, the babies’ giggles made her laugh, and she loved how, in the middle of their fits, if she sang opera-style, they would break out in smiles. Still, she was struck with rageful fantasies. Her primary care doctor had diagnosed her with postpartum depression, but medication wasn’t helping. Once, she found herself squeezing their fleshy bodies to stop them from crying. Sometimes, she was haunted by images of smothering them with a pillow or chucking them across the room. I shouldn’t be alone with these kids, she thought. I’m an unstable mother. She couldn’t tell anyone, and she was doing her best to control her anger. If Child Protective Services were called, she worried that her girls might be placed with someone who could not restrain herself. “You have to live with these fantasies,” she told me. “You’re told to shut up and deal with it.”

Although G had applied for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the safety net program for low-income parents, she was denied because their household income exceeded the $231 monthly threshold. Cecil covered the rent, fast food, utilities and their car payments, but G wanted an income of her own. Rachel and Michael Borego, the parents of a friend, offered to watch the babies at their home on the weekends, allowing G to get a job as a waitress. G kept asking Cecil to help clean, at least wash his own dishes. He complained about his exhaustion and her nagging; he felt that he had lost his dream to build a streetwear brand and that he couldn’t meet the impossible expectations of fatherhood. “I feel like a single mother already,” G wrote to Cecil in a letter. “I love you for just being there, holding me and giving me a slice of peace that I didn’t think existed, but I’m not happy.”

That spring, G found herself stuck on TikTok, addicted to videos about “the simulation theory” — a conspiracy that we’re all living in a kind of Matrix. G felt so cratered by her own powerlessness that the world around her had stopped feeling real. Even her ties to her former self were slipping away, she wrote in her journal. “I used to have fire in my eyes, I used to be the strongest fighter I know.” Now it seemed that her discipline, her ability to hustle for the future, was pointless. Cecil wished he knew how to give her motivation.

In September, G and Cecil broke up, but because G couldn’t afford to leave, she moved into the closet in the girls’ bedroom, sleeping on a mattress next to diapers. She watched herself slipping into behaviors she had seen in her mother: the bouts of anger, the deep retreats. “I’m trying to get me back,” she wrote. “I want to be bubbly, outgoing again.” Shortly after, G moved into the Boregos’ red brick home with the twins. She got a job at a call center, making $480 a week. The average cost of child care for one infant in Texas is about $190 a week; she couldn’t afford to send two. Instead, G and Cecil split the cost of a babysitter. Rachel, who worked in accounts payable, and Michael, a technician for AT&T, bought the girls clothes and books and toys.

For months, G had been doing her best to push down suicidal thoughts, but now they were coming back stronger and more frequently. “I know that my kids need me, but I need to be done.” After she drafted a goodbye letter to her girls and slipped it behind a framed sonogram, she knew she needed help. Rachel agreed to take care of the babies if G signed a power of attorney. On Nov. 11, 2021, a month shy of the twins’ first birthday, G checked herself into Canyon Creek Behavioral Health, a nearby psychiatric hospital.

At Canyon Creek, the sterile rooms were quiet and still. G talked with a doctor about her mother, whom she called her “birth giver,” and when she discussed her children, she agonized over not having “the mom gene.” A doctor diagnosed her with major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, prescribing new medications. “I miss my girls,” she wrote. “Not the crying lol. But I miss their smiles, I miss their sweet hugs & when they lay their heads down (on me).” She was there, she reminded herself, so the twins could have a strong role model, but the shame of leaving, of taking time for herself, wouldn’t go away. “I feel like I’m hurting the girls by doing this, disappearing,” she wrote. “I feel like all I do is hurt them.”

Later that month, when G returned to the Boregos’ house, Rachel began to wonder if G wanted to be a mother. For G, it was no longer that simple. To prepare for Christmas, she had started working four jobs: taking orders at McDonald’s, cleaning the kitchen at Monty’s BBQ, delivering for DoorDash and selling plasma for extra cash. Even then, she wasn’t earning what she needed to raise her girls on her own; Cecil’s work schedule allowed him to take them only two days a week. In the thick of that stress, when she worried that her girls were absorbing her negativity, she hid in her bedroom to protect them from it.

In February, Rachel and Michael approached G with an idea. They could tell that she wasn’t happy, and they were willing to take care of the girls for six months if G wanted space to get her life on a steadier path. They could settle on a more permanent arrangement after that. They had fallen in love with the girls, they said, and if G wanted to relinquish custody, they would try to adopt them right away.

Despite G’s fear that the Boregos wanted to take the twins from her, she couldn’t deny that she felt relief. “I’m not ready to give the girls up,” G told the Boregos. She usually speaks with a flat affect, but Rachel noticed her eyes tearing up. She wanted to move out for a trial. She packed her bags and left that night.

G working a delivery shift at Papa Johns

Whenever G’s friends asked how she was doing, she was torn between the desire to say the truth — that she was angry at herself, the government that made her have children, the expectation that she would love being a mother — and the similarly strong desire to deflect, so she wouldn’t be seen as a bad mom. The times she tried to talk about her frustration, she knew she elicited disdain, as if she had done this to herself. Almost no one showed her sympathy for being a single teenage mother.

Self-destructive, dependent on the state, doomed to failure — those are the stereotypes that have come to characterize teenage mothers since the moral panic of the 1970s. But what both liberals and conservatives miss in their legislative efforts is the research that has left a growing group of sociologists, demographers and economists with a different conclusion about the relationship between early childbearing and poverty. Frank Furstenberg, an emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania, ran a three-decade-long study on teenage mothers, beginning in the mid-1960s; his first substantive results, which came in during the 1970s, challenged widely held assumptions, even his own. A great majority of youths who become pregnant are, like G, already living in low-income neighborhoods with underperforming schools and low-wage job prospects. The consequences ascribed to teenage mothers are not so much a function of becoming pregnant as they are a function of growing up in poverty. Teenage motherhood isn’t the root cause but rather an indicator.

Since the 1990s, the teenage pregnancy rate has declined drastically — more than 70% — in part because of less sex among youths and increased use of quality birth control. With the new combination of the Dobbs decision and entrenched parental-involvement laws, though, many social scientists expect that, for teenagers who do become pregnant, the birth rate will rise again soon. By and large, these mothers will be adolescents, like G, who grew up poor. What policymakers and researchers have not yet studied are the financial and psychological consequences of parental-involvement laws that force these teenagers into early motherhood.

Today many states that legally defend the right to an abortion for adults still limit that right for teenagers. Maryland enforces a soft version of parental notification, allowing physicians, rather than judges, to determine if a minor is mature enough to make this choice or if an abortion is in their best interest. But Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island all enforce standard parental-involvement laws. In some, legal networks have sprung up to help guide teenagers through the judicial-bypass process. The Women’s Law Project, which provides representation in Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, receives about two calls a week for help with hearings across the state, but Sophia Elliot, one of its staff attorneys, told me that there aren’t enough trained lawyers in most counties to meet the need. It’s not clear that all the teenagers who are looking for help ever find her organization. “There is always a question of, Who are we not seeing?” she told me. “Oftentimes, the failures in this system are silent.”

As the Supreme Court has shifted to the right in recent years, states have begun to diverge on parental-involvement laws. A few have tightened their restrictions — switching from laws that require parental notification to those that require consent, or mandating that teenagers file petitions in their home counties rather than in more progressive cities, or demanding that minors show “clear and convincing evidence” of their maturity, rather than a “preponderance of evidence.” But three states have liberalized their restrictions. Last year, Illinois repealed its parental-notification law. This summer, a Minnesota District Court judge ruled that the state law that required both parents be notified of their child’s abortion decision violated the state constitution. In Massachusetts in 2020, advocates including the state’s NARAL affiliate at the time tried to eliminate the law there. Although their effort fell short of a full repeal, Massachusetts did change its statute so that it now applies only to those who are 15 and younger.

Elizabeth Janiak, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School whose research on the Massachusetts law helped inform the Legislature, told me that even changing the statute was politically challenging. Parental-involvement laws, she now believes, will not go away any time soon, even in firmly blue states. “From what we saw here in Massachusetts, and how sensitive this law was for legislators, it wouldn’t surprise me if these abortion restrictions were the last to go.”

G in her loft bed in November

When I visited G in May, she was living on Shana’s property in a one-bedroom camper, which the Boregos helped her buy. She was calmer than I had ever seen her, more focused. Twinkle lights dangled from the ceiling, and scented candles lined her dresser. The camper had no water yet, so G used the bushes as her bathroom, and because the roof leaked when it rained, she had lined the floor with towels.

We went outside, where G sat on a swing under the canopy of an oak tree. She wasn’t sure what to do. G didn’t have room for the girls in her RV. She had 83 cents in her bank account, and if her children were with her, she wouldn’t be able to feed or even bathe them. There was no way that she could give them what the Boregos could: a big house, their own bedroom, routine affection. She was waiting for a pro bono lawyer to answer her questions about possibly giving guardianship rights to the Boregos. She was scared that if she did, she might lose the girls forever, that she would regret this down the line, the same way she now regretted continuing her pregnancy. She would also have to talk with Cecil, who still cared for the girls two or three days a week and could petition the court for full rights. He’s capable of being more involved, so is he the better parent? she wondered. She was ashamed, she said. She was still doubting her ability to do the one thing her mother did do: keep her child. “I was never ready for this, and I knew that,” she said. “I tried telling people, and they didn’t listen.”

Her six-month trial with the Boregos ended in August, but G still wasn’t prepared to make a decision. Instead, she extended the trial, signing a new power of attorney. The Boregos have moved to a larger house, 30 minutes away, and every few weeks, G visits her children, though it’s painful to see them. When she walks through the door, the girls no longer run up to hug her. Their distance stings, but she knows that it stems from her absence. She keeps missing more firsts, she told me: their first steps, their first sentences, the first time one of them asked, “What’s up?”

Several weeks ago, G texted me in the middle of the night, worried: She could give up her parental rights, as her father did, or she could raise her children without the stability or the warmth that they deserve, as her mother did. In her own experience, both left her feeling abandoned, unloved. She didn’t know which one was worse.

G, with the twins and Rachel and Michael Borego

Are You in a State That Banned Abortion? Tell Us How Changes in Medical Care Impact You.

Doris Burke contributed research.

by Lizzie Presser, photography by Parker Hill and Isabel Bethencourt for The New York Times

Endgame: How the Visionary Hospice Movement Became a For-Profit Hustle

1 year 11 months ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This story is exempt from our Creative Commons license until Feb. 3, 2023.

Over the years, Marsha Farmer had learned what to look for. As she drove the back roads of rural Alabama, she kept an eye out for dilapidated homes and trailers with wheelchair ramps. Some days, she’d ride the one-car ferry across the river to Lower Peach Tree and other secluded hamlets where a few houses lacked running water and bare soil was visible beneath the floorboards. Other times, she’d scan church prayer lists for the names of families with ailing members.

Farmer was selling hospice, which, strictly speaking, is for the dying. To qualify, patients must agree to forgo curative care and be certified by doctors as having less than six months to live. But at AseraCare, a national chain where Farmer worked, she solicited recruits regardless of whether they were near death. She canvassed birthday parties at housing projects and went door to door promoting the program to loggers and textile workers. She sent colleagues to cadge rides on the Meals on Wheels van or to chat up veterans at the American Legion bar. “We’d find run-down places where people were more on the poverty line,” she told me. “You’re looking for uneducated people, if you will, because you’re able to provide something to them and meet a need.”

Farmer, who has doe eyes and a nonchalant smile, often wore scrubs on her sales routes, despite not having a medical background. That way, she said, “I would automatically be seen as a help.” She tried not to mention death in her opening pitch, or even hospice if she could avoid it. Instead, she described an amazing government benefit that offered medications, nursing visits, nutritional supplements and light housekeeping — all for free. “Why not try us just for a few days?” she’d ask families, glancing down at her watch as she’d been trained to do, to pressure them into a quick decision.

Once a prospective patient expressed interest, a nurse would assess whether any of the person’s conditions fit — or could be made to fit — a fatal prognosis. The Black Belt, a swath of the Deep South that includes parts of Alabama, has some of the highest rates of heart disease, diabetes and emphysema in the country. On paper, Farmer knew, it was possible to finesse chronic symptoms, like shortness of breath, into proof of terminal decline.

When Farmer started out in the hospice business, in 2002, it felt less like a sales gig than like a calling. At 30, she’d become a “community educator,” or marketer, at Hospice South, a regional chain that had an office in her hometown, Monroeville, Alabama. Monroeville was the kind of place where, if someone went into hospice, word got around and people sent baked goods. She often asked patients to write cards or make tape recordings for milestones — birthdays, anniversaries, weddings — that they might not live to see. She became an employee of the month and, within a year, was promoted to executive director of the branch, training a staff of her own to evangelize for end-of-life care.

Things began to change in 2004, when Hospice South was bought by Beverly Enterprises, the second-largest nursing-home chain in the country, and got folded into one of its subsidiaries, AseraCare. Not long before the sale, Beverly had agreed to pay a $5 million criminal fine and a $175 million civil settlement after being accused of Medicare fraud. Its stock value had slumped, and Beverly’s CEO had decided that expanding its empire of hospices would help the company attract steadier revenue in “high-growth, high-margin areas of health care services.” Less than two years later, as part of a wave of consolidations in the long-term-care industry, Beverly was sold to a private-equity firm, which rebranded it as Golden Living.

It might be counterintuitive to run an enterprise that is wholly dependent on clients who aren’t long for this world, but companies in the hospice business can expect some of the biggest returns for the least amount of effort of any sector in American health care. Medicare pays providers a set rate per patient per day, regardless of how much help they deliver. Since most hospice care takes place at home and nurses aren’t required to visit more than twice a month, it’s not difficult to keep overhead low and to outsource the bulk of the labor to unpaid family members — assuming that willing family members are at hand.

Up to a point, the way Medicare has designed the hospice benefit rewards providers for recruiting patients who aren’t imminently dying. Long hospice stays translate into larger margins, and stable patients require fewer expensive medications and supplies than those in the final throes of illness. Although two doctors must initially certify that a patient is terminally ill, she can be recertified as such again and again.

Almost immediately after the AseraCare takeover, Farmer’s supervisors set steep targets for the number of patients marketers had to sign up and presented those who met admissions quotas with cash bonuses and perks, including popcorn machines and massage chairs. Employees who couldn’t hit their numbers were fired. Farmer prided herself on being competitive and liked to say, “I can sell ice to an Eskimo.” But as her remit expanded to include the management of AseraCare outposts in Foley and Mobile, she began to resent the demand to bring in more bodies. Before one meeting with her supervisor, Jeff Boling, she stayed up late crunching data on car wrecks, cancer and heart disease to figure out how many people in her territories might be expected to die that year. When she showed Boling that the numbers didn’t match what she called his “ungodly quotas,” he was unmoved. “If you can’t do it,” she recalled him telling her, “we’ll find someone who can.”

Farmer’s bigger problem was that her patients weren’t dying fast enough. Some fished, drove tractors and babysat grandchildren. Their longevity prompted concern around the office because of a complicated formula that governs the Medicare benefit. The federal government, recognizing that an individual patient might not die within the predicted six months, effectively demands repayment from hospices when the average length of stay of all patients exceeds six months.

But Farmer’s company, like many of its competitors, had found ways to game the system and keep its money. One tactic was to “dump,” or discharge, patients with overly long stays. The industry euphemism is “graduated” from hospice, though the patient experience is often more akin to getting expelled: losing diapers, pain medications, wheelchairs, nursing care and a hospital-grade bed that a person might not otherwise be able to afford. In 2007, according to Farmer’s calculations around the time, 70% of the patients served by her Mobile office left hospice alive.

Another way to hold on to Medicare money was to consistently pad the roster with new patients. One day in 2008, facing the possibility of a repayment, AseraCare asked some of its executive directors to “get double digit admits” and to “have the kind of day that will go down in the record books.” A follow-up email, just an hour later, urged staff to “go around the barriers and make this happen now, your families need you.”

Former AseraCare employee Marsha Farmer (Edmund Fountain for ProPublica)

That summer, Boling pushed Farmer to lobby oncologists to turn over their “last breath” patients: those with only weeks or days to live. At the time, Farmer’s 59-year-old mother was dying of metastatic colon cancer. Although Farmer knew that the service might do those last-breath people good, it enraged her that her hospice was chasing them cynically, to balance its books. The pressure was so relentless that sometimes she felt like choking someone, but she had two small children and couldn’t quit. Her husband, who had been a co-worker at AseraCare, had already done so. Earlier that year, after fights with Boling and other supervisors about quotas, he had left for a lower-paying job at Verizon.

Farmer’s confidante at work, Dawn Richardson, shared her frustration. A gifted nurse who was, as Farmer put it, “as country as a turnip,” Richardson hated admitting people who weren’t appropriate or dumping patients who were. She was a single mom, though, and needed a paycheck. One evening in early 2009, the two happened upon another way out.

The local news was reporting that two nurses at SouthernCare, a prominent Alabama-based competitor, had accused the company of stealing taxpayer dollars by enrolling ineligible patients in hospice. SouthernCare, which admitted no wrongdoing, settled with the Justice Department for nearly $25 million, and the nurses, as whistle-blowers, had received a share of the sum — $4.9 million, to be exact. Farmer and Richardson had long felt uneasy about what AseraCare asked them to do. Now, they realized, what they were doing might be illegal. They decided to call James Barger, a lawyer who had represented one of the SouthernCare nurses. That March, he helped Farmer and Richardson file a whistleblower complaint against AseraCare and Golden Living in the Northern District of Alabama, accusing the company of Medicare fraud. The case would go on to become the most consequential lawsuit the hospice industry had ever faced.

The philosophy of hospice was imported to the United States in the 1960s by Dame Cicely Saunders, an English doctor and social worker who’d grown appalled by the “wretched habits of big, busy hospitals where everyone tiptoes past the bed and the dying soon learn to pretend to be asleep.” Her counterpractice, which she refined at a Catholic clinic for the poor in East London, was to treat a dying patient’s “total pain” — his physical suffering, spiritual needs and existential disquiet. In a pilot program, Saunders prescribed terminally ill patients cocktails of morphine, cocaine and alcohol — whiskey, gin or brandy, depending on which they preferred. Early results were striking. Before-and-after photos of cancer patients showed formerly anguished figures knitting scarves and raising toasts.

Saunders’ vision went mainstream in 1969, when the Swiss-born psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross published her groundbreaking study, “On Death and Dying.” The subjects in her account were living their final days in a Chicago hospital, and some of them described how lonely and harsh it felt to be in an intensive-care unit, separated from family. Many Americans came away from the book convinced that end-of-life care in hospitals was inhumane. Kübler-Ross and Saunders, like their contemporaries in the women’s-health and deinstitutionalization movements, pushed for greater patient autonomy — in this case, for people to have more control over how they would exit the world. The first American hospice opened in Connecticut in 1974. By 1981, hundreds more hospices had started, and, soon after, President Ronald Reagan recognized the potential federal savings — many people undergo unnecessary, expensive hospitalizations just before they die — and authorized Medicare to cover the cost.

Forty years on, half of all Americans die in hospice care. Most of these deaths take place at home. When done right, the program allows people to experience as little pain as possible and to spend meaningful time with their loved ones. Nurses stop by to manage symptoms. Aides assist with bathing, medications and housekeeping. Social workers help families over bureaucratic hurdles. Clergy offer what comfort they can, and bereavement counselors provide support in the aftermath. This year, I spoke about hospice with more than 150 patients, families, hospice employees, regulators, attorneys, fraud investigators and end-of-life researchers, and all of them praised its vital mission. But many were concerned about how easy money and a lack of regulation had given rise to an industry rife with exploitation. In the decades since Saunders and her followers spread her radical concept across the country, hospice has evolved from a constellation of charities, mostly reliant on volunteers, into a $22 billion juggernaut funded almost entirely by taxpayers.

For-profit providers made up 30% of the field at the start of this century. Today, they represent more than 70%, and between 2011 and 2019, research shows, the number of hospices owned by private-equity firms tripled. The aggregate Medicare margins of for-profit providers are three times that of their nonprofit counterparts. Under the daily-payment structure, a small hospice that bills for just 20 patients at the basic rate can take in more than a million dollars a year. A large hospice billing for thousands of patients can take in hundreds of millions. Those federal payments are distributed in what is essentially an honor system. Although the government occasionally requests more information from billers, it generally trusts that providers will submit accurate claims for payment — a model that critics deride as “pay and chase.”

Jean Stone, who worked for years as a program-integrity senior specialist at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said that hospice was a particularly thorny sector to police for three reasons: “No one wants to be seen as limiting an important service”; it’s difficult to retrospectively judge a patient’s eligibility; and “no one wants to talk about the end of life.” Although a quarter of all people in hospice enter it only in their final five days, most of the Medicare spending on hospice is for patients whose stays exceed six months. In 2018, the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that inappropriate billing by hospice providers had cost taxpayers “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Stone and others I spoke to believe the figure to be far higher.

Some hospice firms bribe physicians to bring them new patients by offering all-expenses-paid trips to Las Vegas nightclubs, complete with bottle service and private security details. (The former mayor of Rio Bravo, Texas, who was also a doctor, received outright kickbacks.) Other audacious for-profit players enlist family and friends to act as make-believe clients, lure addicts with the promise of free painkillers, dupe people into the program by claiming that it’s free home health care or steal personal information to enroll “phantom patients.” A 29-year-old pregnant woman learned that she’d been enrolled in Revelation Hospice, in the Mississippi Delta (which at one time discharged 93% of its patients alive), only when she visited her doctor for a blood test. In Frisco, Texas, according to the FBI, a hospice owner tried to evade the Medicare-repayment problem by instructing staff to overdose patients who were staying on the service too long. He texted a nurse about one patient: “He better not make it tomorrow. Or I will blame u.” The owner was sentenced to more than 13 years in prison for fraud, in a plea deal that made no allegations about patient deaths.

A medical background is not required to enter the business. I’ve come across hospices owned by accountants; vacation-rental superhosts; a criminal-defense attorney who represented a hospice employee convicted of fraud and was later investigated for hospice fraud himself; and a man convicted of drug distribution who went on to fraudulently bill Medicare more than $5 million for an end-of-life-care business that involved handling large quantities of narcotics.

Once a hospice is up and running, oversight is scarce. Regulations require surveyors to inspect hospice operations once every three years, even though complaints about quality of care are widespread. A government review of inspection reports from 2012 to 2016 found that the majority of all hospices had serious deficiencies, such as failures to train staff, manage pain and treat bedsores. Still, regulators rarely punish bad actors. Between 2014 and 2017, according to the Government Accountability Office, only 19 of the more than 4,000 U.S. hospices were cut off from Medicare funding.

Because patients who enroll in the service forgo curative care, hospice may harm patients who aren’t actually dying. Sandy Morales, who until recently was a case manager at the California Senior Medicare Patrol hotline, told me about a cancer patient who’d lost access to his chemotherapy treatment after being put in hospice without his knowledge. Other unwitting recruits were denied kidney dialysis, mammograms, coverage for lifesaving medications or a place on the waiting list for a liver transplant. In response to concerns from families, Morales and her community partners recently posted warnings in Spanish and English in senior apartment buildings, libraries and doughnut shops across the state. “Have you suddenly lost access to your doctor?” the notices read. “Can’t get your medications at the pharmacy? Beware! You may have been tricked into signing up for a program that is medically unnecessary for you.”

Some providers capitalize on the fact that most hospice care takes place behind closed doors, and that those who might protest poor treatment are often too sick or stressed to do so. One way of increasing company returns is to ghost the dying. A 2016 study in JAMA Internal Medicine of more than 600,000 patients found that 12% received no visits from hospice workers in the last two days of life. (Patients who died on a Sunday had some of the worst luck.) For-profit hospices have been found to have higher rates of no-shows and substantiated complaints than their nonprofit counterparts, and to disproportionately discharge patients alive when they approach Medicare’s reimbursement limit.

“There are so many ways to do fraud, so why pick this one?” Stone said. This was more or less what Marsha Farmer and Dawn Richardson had been wondering when they filed their complaint against AseraCare in 2009. Now, working undercover, they imagined themselves as part of the solution.

In the absence of guardrails, whistleblowers like Farmer and Richardson have become the government’s primary defense against hospice wrongdoing — an arrangement that James Barger, their lawyer, describes as placing “a ludicrous amount of optimism in a system with a capitalist payee and a socialist payer.” Seven out of 10 of the largest hospices in the U.S. have been sued at least once by former employees under the federal False Claims Act. The law includes a “qui tam” provision — the term derives from a Latin phrase that translates as “he who sues on behalf of the King as well as himself ” — that deputizes private citizens to bring lawsuits that accuse government contractors of fraud and lets them share in any money recovered. Qui-tam complaints, like Farmer and Richardson’s, are initially filed secretly, under seal, to give the Justice Department a chance to investigate a target without exposing the tipster. If the government decides to proceed, it takes over the litigation. In 2021 alone, the government recovered more than $1.6 billion from qui-tam lawsuits, and the total amount awarded to whistleblowers was $237 million.

In the two years after Farmer and Richardson filed their complaint, both slept poorly. But their covert undertaking also felt cathartic — mental indemnification against a job that troubled their consciences. Farmer continued to bring in patients at AseraCare while passing company documents to Barger, including spreadsheets analyzing admissions quotas and a training PowerPoint used by the company’s national medical adviser, Dr. James Avery. A pulmonologist who was fond of citing Seneca, Tolstoy and Primo Levi in his slides, Avery urged nurses to “be a detective” and to “look for clues” if a patient didn’t initially appear to fit a common hospice diagnosis. (Avery said that he never encouraged employees to admit ineligible patients.) He sometimes concluded his lectures with a spin on an idea from Goethe’s “Faust”: “Perpetual striving that has no goal but only progress or increase is a horror.”

Barger was impressed by the records that Farmer collected and even more so by her candor about her involvement in AseraCare’s schemes. She and Richardson reminded him of friends he’d had growing up: smart, always finishing each other’s sentences and not, he said, “trying to be heroes.” Nor, as it turned out, were they the only AseraCare employees raising questions about company ethics. The year before, three nurses in the Milwaukee office had filed a qui-tam complaint outlining similar corporate practices. The False Claims Act has a “first to file” rule, so the Wisconsin nurses could have tried to block Farmer and Richardson from proceeding with their case. Instead, the nurses decided to team up with their Alabama colleagues, even if it meant that they’d each receive a smaller share of the potential recovery. Also joining the crew was Dr. Joseph Micca, a former medical director at an AseraCare hospice in Atlanta. Every hospice is required to hire or contract with a doctor to sign forms certifying a patient’s eligibility for the program, and Micca accused the company of both ineligible enrollments and lapses in patient care. In his deposition, he described one patient who was given morphine against his orders and was kept in hospice care for months after she’d recovered from a heart attack. The woman, who was eventually discharged, lived several more years.

Whistleblower lawyer James Barger (Kate Medley for ProPublica)

Among the most critical pieces of evidence to emerge in the discovery process was an audit that echoed many of the allegations made by the whistleblowers. In 2007 and 2008, AseraCare had hired the Corridor Group, a consulting firm, to visit nine of its agencies across the country, including the Monroeville office that Farmer oversaw. The Corridor auditors observed a “lack of focus” on patient care and “little discussion of eligibility” at regular patient-certification meetings. Clinical staff were undertrained, with a “high potential for care delivery failures,” and appeared reluctant to discharge inappropriate patients out of fear of being fired. Emails showed that the problems raised by the audit were much discussed among AseraCare’s top leadership, including its vice president of clinical operations, Angie Hollis-Sells.

One morning in the spring of 2011, Hollis-Sells strode into the old bank building that housed the Monroeville office, her expression uncommonly stern. Farmer knew at once that her role in the case had been exposed. She was sent home on paid leave, and that evening half a dozen colleagues showed up at her clapboard house in the center of town. Some felt betrayed. Their manager had kept from them a secret that might upend their livelihoods; worse, her accusations seemed to condemn them for work she’d asked them to do. But shortly afterward, when Farmer took a job as the executive director of a new hospice company in Monroeville, Richardson and several other former co-workers joined her.

Less than a year later, the Justice Department, after conducting its own investigation, intervened in the whistleblowers’ complaint, eventually seeking from AseraCare a record $200 million in fines and damages. As Barger informed his clients, the company was likely to settle. Most False Claims Act cases never reach a jury, in part because trials can cost more than fines and carry with them the threat of exclusion from the Medicare program — an outcome tantamount to bankruptcy for many medical providers. In 2014, Farmer traveled to Birmingham for her deposition, imagining that the case would soon end. But, in the first of a series of unexpected events, AseraCare decided to fight.

United States v. AseraCare, which began on Aug. 10, 2015, in a federal courthouse in Birmingham, was one of the most bizarre trials in the history of the False Claims Act. To build its case against AseraCare, the government had identified some 2,100 of the company’s patients who had been in hospice for at least a year between 2007 and 2011. From that pool, a palliative care expert, Dr. Solomon Liao, of the University of California, Irvine, reviewed the records of a random sample of 233 patients. He found that around half of the patients in the sample were ineligible for some or all of the hospice care they’d received. He also concluded that ineligible AseraCare patients who had treatable or reversible issues at the root of their decline were unable to get the care they needed, and that being in hospice “worsened or impeded the opportunity to improve their quality of life.”

Before the trial started, the judge in the case, Karon O. Bowdre, disclosed that she’d had good experiences with hospice. Her mother, who had an ALS diagnosis, had spent a year and a half on the service, and her father-in-law had died in hospice shortly before the trial. Principals in the case disagree about whether she disclosed that the firm handling AseraCare’s defense, Bradley Arant, had just hired her son as a summer associate.

The defense team had petitioned Bowdre to separate the proceedings into two parts: the first phase limited to evidence about the “falsity” of the 123 claims in question, and the second part examining, among other things, the company’s “knowledge of falsity.” The Justice Department objected to this “arbitrary hurdle,” arguing that the purpose of the False Claims Act was to combat intentional fraud, not accidental mistakes. “The fact that AseraCare knowingly carried out a scheme to submit false claims is highly relevant evidence that the claims were, in fact, false,” the government wrote. Nonetheless, in an unprecedented legal move, Bowdre granted AseraCare’s request.

Trial lawyers are expected to squabble over the relevance of the opposing party’s evidence — and, in the private sector, they are compensated handsomely for doing so. But the government lawyers seemed genuinely confused about what the judge would and wouldn’t allow into the courtroom during the trial’s “falsity” phase. In long sidebar discussions, during which jurors languished and white noise was piped in through the speakers, Bowdre berated the prosecution for its efforts to “poison the well” with “all this extraneous stuff that the government wants to stir up to play on the emotions of the jury.” Much of her vexation was directed at Jeffrey Wertkin, one of the Justice Department’s top picks for difficult fraud assignments. A prosecutor in his late 30s, he had a harried, caffeinated air about him and had helped bring about settlements in more than a dozen cases. This was only his second trial, however, and Bowdre was reprimanding him like a schoolboy. “It made me sick to watch her treatment of him,” Henry Frohsin, one of Barger’s partners, recalled. “At some point, I couldn’t watch it, so I just got up and left.”

The judge’s prohibition on “knowledge” during the trial’s first phase constrained testimony in sometimes puzzling ways. Richardson, for instance, could talk about admitting patients, but she couldn’t allude to the pressure she was under to do so. The audit by the Corridor Group that corroborated whistleblower claims was forbidden because it wasn’t directly tied to the specific patients in the government’s sample. Micca, the former medical director from Atlanta, was not allowed to testify for the same reason. Nonetheless, over several days, the government’s witnesses managed to paint a picture of AseraCare’s cavalier attitude toward patient eligibility. Its medical directors were part time, as is common in the industry, and workers testified that they’d presented these doctors with misleading patient records to secure admissions. One said that a director had pre-signed blank admissions forms. “Ask yourself: How could a doctor be exercising their clinical judgment,” Wertkin told the jury at one point, “if he’s signing a blank form?”

When Farmer took the stand, Wertkin asked if she was nervous. “A lot nervous today,” she replied. She thought the jurors might judge her for trolling for wheelchair ramps or other recruitment tactics. She needn’t have worried. Bowdre’s restrictions prevented Farmer from testifying about much of anything. “I felt like the judge did not want to know the truth,” she said. “The whole time that I was on the stand, I kept thinking, Why would you not listen to the story?”

The bulk of phase one was dominated by doctors: Liao, the government’s expert, read selections from thousands of pages of medical files to explain why he’d concluded that patients were ineligible, and AseraCare’s medical experts took the stand and disagreed with most of his conclusions. However, the crux of AseraCare’s defense was that the entire debate about eligibility was essentially moot because, although death is certain, its timing is not. A medical director who signed a hospice certification form would have had no way of anticipating whether a patient’s illness would deviate from the expected trajectory of decline. Even Medicare, the defense team emphasized, has noted that predicting life expectancy is “not an exact science.”

After nearly two months of testimony, the jurors deliberated for nine days on phase one. On Oct. 15, 2015, they found 86% of the patient sample ineligible for some period of hospice care. Elated, Barger rushed out of the courtroom to call Farmer and tell her that the jury had come back overwhelmingly in the government’s favor. The next part of the trial will be icing on the cake, she remembers thinking.

The next part never happened. A few days later, Bowdre made a startling announcement: She had messed up. The instructions that she’d given the jury had been incomplete, she said, and because of this “major reversible error” she was overturning the jury’s findings and granting a request by AseraCare for a new trial. She invited the government to submit evidence other than Liao’s opinion to prove that the claims were false; the government replied that the record presented ample evidence of falsity. Five months later, in March 2016, Bowdre granted summary judgment to AseraCare.

It’s unusual for a judge to overturn a jury’s findings, order a new trial and then declare summary judgment on her own accord, Zack Buck, a legal scholar at the University of Tennessee who studies health care fraud, told me. The case, he said, “just kept getting weirder.” Wertkin, who had expected to return to Washington, D.C., with that rare article — a jury verdict in a False Claims Act case — later said he felt as though the “rug had been ripped out from under me.”

In a widely circulated opinion, Bowdre wrote that clinical disagreement among doctors was not enough on its own to render a claim false. Otherwise, hospice providers would be subject to liability “any time the Government could find a medical expert who disagreed” with their physician, and “the court refuses to go down that road.” The Justice Department appealed Bowdre’s ruling, but many in the hospice industry celebrated the opinion. “There are huge implications,” Buck said. “So much of our system is based on a doctor’s discretion, and if you can’t say the doctor is wrong you’ve really hamstrung the government’s ability to bring these kinds of cases.” In op-eds and on the lecture circuit, defense lawyers for health care companies hailed the beginning of a post-AseraCare era.

Family practitioner Scott Nelson (Edmund Fountain for ProPublica)

That year, Dr. Scott Nelson, a family practitioner in Cleveland, Mississippi, was wrapping up a lucrative tour of duty in the hospice trade. Since 2005, Nelson had referred approximately 763 patients to 25 hospices, 14 of which employed him as the medical director, according to a special agent in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General. Some of Nelson’s patients, however, didn’t know that they were dying and a decade or more later remained stubbornly alive.

In the course of roughly six years, by the doctor’s own account, he received around $400,000 for moonlighting as the medical director at eight of the companies. Meanwhile, those hospice owners, some of whom were related to one another, received a total of more than $15 million from Medicare for the patients he’d certified. In a scheme that the special agent, Mike Loggins, later testified was spreading across the Mississippi Delta “like cancer,” hospices bused in vans of people to Nelson’s clinic. The owner of Word of Deliverance Hospice — one small-town provider that briefly put Nelson on its payroll — bought a $300,000 Rolls-Royce that was later confiscated by the government. Nelson, who was convicted earlier this year of seven counts of health care fraud, told me that he’d fallen victim to greedy hospice entrepreneurs who had done hundreds of “third-grader-level forgeries” of his signature when racking up illegal enrollments, and that he’d assumed other forms he’d signed were truthful. Nelson awaits sentencing and has filed a motion challenging the verdict.

The Mississippi Delta has an acute shortage of primary-care providers — a problem that contributes to the region’s poor health outcomes. When I visited some of the fraud victims in the case, all of whom were Black, they told me that the experience of being duped had deepened their mistrust of a health care system that already seemed out of reach. Some of the patients Nelson had approved for hospice were in their 40s and 50s. One had cognitive disabilities, and another couldn’t read. Marjorie and Jimmie Brown, former high school sweethearts in their 70s, found out that they had been enrolled in Lion Hospice only in 2017, when Loggins knocked on the front door of their yellow brick bungalow. A worker for Lion had tricked the Browns into trading away their right to curative care, and Nelson — whom they’d never heard of, let alone seen — was one of two doctors whose names were on the paperwork.

Losing access to care is hardly the only thing that can go wrong for patients inappropriately assigned to hospice. In May 2016, Lyman Marble found his wife, Patricia, unresponsive and lying face down in their bed. At a hospital near their home in Whitman, Massachusetts, doctors were shocked by the high doses of opiates she’d been prescribed. An addiction specialist later observed that she was ingesting the equivalent of dozens of Percocet pills a day. Only after Lyman told the doctors to “flush her out like Elvis” did her family come to suspect that her health crisis was caused by hospice care itself.

The Marbles, who had been married for more than 50 years, worked together in a variety of jobs, among them operating an outer-space-themed carnival ride. Five years earlier, Patricia had been admitted to a hospice owned by Amedisys, the third-largest provider in the country. The diagnosis was end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

She was 70 years old and had health troubles: She used a wheelchair and supplemental oxygen, and had diabetes, hypertension and a benign tumor that caused her pain. That pain had been treated by a fentanyl patch, but once she was in hospice the medical director, Dr. Peter Roos, prescribed morphine, Vicodin, Ativan and gabapentin, too. Over the next five years, he kept prescribing narcotics, recertifying her for hospice 30 times. (Roos, who said in a deposition that he prescribed morphine to ease Marble’s respiratory distress, did not respond to requests for comment.) Court documents later revealed that cash bonuses were a reward for good enrollment numbers at that branch of Amedisys, and that nurses had resigned after being pressured to admit and recertify patients who they didn’t think were dying.

Patricia Marble and her husband, Lyman (Melissa Lyttle for ProPublica)

While under the care of Amedisys, Patricia sometimes couldn’t remember who or where she was. “I felt like I was dead,” she later said. “It just made me feel like ‘That’s right, I’m in the right place because I’m going to die.’” But after Lyman learned that he could “fire hospice,” as he put it, and Patricia was slowly weaned from narcotics, her memory began to return and her breathing improved. Lyman, who had thought that he might lose his wife at any moment (at one point, Amedisys had asked if he was making funeral arrangements), was stunned by her transformation. Today, more than a decade after first enrolling in hospice, Patricia remains opioid-free and has described her lost years as like being on “the moon or someplace.” For that misadventure, the company billed Medicare almost half a million dollars. Last year, Amedisys settled a suit brought by the Marbles for $7.75 million. The company declined to comment, stating that the settlement was confidential.

Because pinpointing what constitutes a “good death” is nearly as difficult as determining what makes a good life, families may not always realize when hospice is failing them — even when they work in the industry. In November 2014, Carl Evans, a 77-year-old former janitor from Orange County, took a fall and, when hospitalized, was tentatively diagnosed as having end-stage thymus cancer. Soon after, he was discharged to a nursing home and enrolled in a hospice run by Vitas, one of the largest providers of end-of-life care in the United States. Andrea Crawford, one of his daughters, was a hospice nurse and had worked for the company early in her career. When she visited her father in his private room, which had a sofa and a flat-screen TV, he told her that he was being treated “like a king.”

Evans had been living independently, with his longtime girlfriend, before his fall. And, unlike many hospice patients, he remained mobile and gregarious, with a big appetite much noted in his charts. Early in the morning of Nov. 22, in search of a non-institutional meal, he climbed out a window and got on a bus to his girlfriend’s house. (His preferred ride, a lovingly maintained burgundy Trans Am, was unavailable.) A family friend eventually located him, 30 miles away.

On Evans’ return, Dr. Thomas Bui, a medical director at Vitas, placed an urgent order for him to receive phenobarbital, a barbiturate that is sometimes prescribed for agitation and can cause extreme drowsiness. A few days later, Vitas records show, Bui added Keppra, an anti-seizure medication that also has sedative properties, to the mix. Evans had no known history of seizures, and Crawford later suspected that the two drugs had been prescribed to subdue him for the convenience of the staff. After the addition of Keppra, his chart shows, Evans became wobbly on his feet and then so lethargic that he couldn’t get out of bed — though he remained alert enough to be terrified at his sudden decline. Crawford, concerned, attributed the change to the drugs he was taking, as did a Vitas employee, according to medical records. On Dec. 6, Evans died.

A photo of Carl Evans held by his daughter Andrea Crawford (Philip Salata for ProPublica)

The official cause of death was cancer (hospice patients are not typically given autopsies), but Evans’ family filed a suit against Vitas and Bui. The lawsuit was settled, and Vitas denies allegations of wrongdoing. Bui, who said in a deposition that he medicated Evans to soothe his agitation, didn’t respond to requests for comment. The California medical board disciplined him for his handling of the case. He was placed on a three-year probation, during which he was prohibited from practicing alone, and was ordered to take a course on safe prescribing.

Malpractice cases against hospices are rare. As Reza Sobati, an elder-abuse lawyer who represented Evans’ family, told me: “The defense we often get in a nursing home case is that they were going to die anyway from their issues. That’s even harder to overcome with hospice, since a doctor has literally certified it will happen.”

Afterward, as Crawford reviewed medical charts and tried to understand what had happened to her father, she came across some notes that surprised her. When Evans entered hospice, Vitas had certified him for a heightened level of care intended for patients with uncontrolled pain or severe and demanding symptoms, which Evans didn’t have. As a hospice nurse, Crawford knew that such coding allowed Vitas to bill Medicare more — roughly four times more — per day than the rate for a routine patient. (Vitas denies inappropriate billing.)

In 2016, not long after Judge Bowdre dismissed the AseraCare case, someone began to anonymously contact companies that were the subjects of sealed qui-tam complaints. Those sealed complaints named the whistleblowers and the details of their accusations — information that the accused companies could use to get ahead of government investigators and their subpoenas or possibly to intimidate informers into silence. When a general counsel at a tech firm returned the mysterious voicemail, the insider, who called himself Dan, offered to share a complaint that named the company in exchange for a “consulting fee” of $300,000, preferably paid in bitcoin.

The lawyer alerted the FBI and began recording his conversations with Dan, including one arranging the handoff of the documents in Silicon Valley. On the morning of Jan. 31, 2017, Dan texted an FBI agent posing as one of the tech company’s employees the address of a hotel in Cupertino and instructed him to sit in the lobby on “a chair with a newspaper on it” just past “the water station.” Moments after the undercover agent sat down, Dan approached him with a copy of the complaint and was arrested. It turned out that Dan, who the FBI said was disguised in a wig, was the former government prosecutor Jeffrey Wertkin.

By then, Wertkin had left the Department of Justice to become a partner at the elite law firm Akin Gump, a job that paid $450,000 a year. His bio on the company’s website noted that, after leading more than 20 fraud cases, he had “first-hand knowledge of the legal and practical considerations that shape government investigations.” As part of a plot that his former Justice Department colleagues termed “the most serious and egregious example of public corruption by a DOJ attorney in recent memory,” Wertkin had, on his way out the door, taken at least 40 sealed qui-tam complaints belonging to the Civil Fraud Section.

He later ascribed his short-lived criminal spree, which his defense team compared to “a scene out of a B-grade action movie,” to what had occurred in Judge Bowdre’s courtroom. Wertkin’s wife said in a letter to the court that he had returned home from the AseraCare trial a “shell of a man” who drank heavily and spent several days watching movies on his phone in bed. Wertkin, who pleaded guilty in 2017 and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison, wrote in a statement that the government’s reversal of fortune in the case had led him “to question things I never doubted before. Does the system even work?” At his sentencing hearing, a prosecutor argued that the False Claims Act itself was one of Wertkin’s victims. “The False Claims Act is incapable of deterring fraud if the Department of Justice can’t be trusted by whistleblowers,” she said. “We have no way of measuring what chilling impact there might be on whistleblowers based on what the defendant did in compromising their secrecy.”

On Sept. 9, 2019, the False Claims Act took a second hit when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit published a long-anticipated ruling on the AseraCare case. The judges concurred with Bowdre that the government needed more than the testimony of an outside expert to prove a claim was false. However, they vacated Bowdre’s summary judgment, saying that the prosecution should have been able to present all its evidence, including AseraCare’s alleged “knowledge of falsity,” and sent the case back to her courtroom for a retrial. “When the goalpost gets moved in the final seconds of a game,” the judges wrote, “the team with the ball should, at the least, have one more opportunity to punch it into the endzone.”

The government did not appear enthusiastic about trying the AseraCare case for a second time before Bowdre, though. Wertkin had been disbarred and was serving his sentence, and some of his former colleagues had left for the private sector. In February, 2020, 11 years after Farmer and Richardson filed their complaint, the government reached a settlement with AseraCare for a million dollars. As in most such settlements, AseraCare paid the sum, admitted no wrongdoing and was allowed to keep billing Medicare. Jack Selden, a partner at Bradley Arant who worked on the defense team, told the trade journal Law360, “When a case settles for $1 million where the claims have been for over $200 million, I think that speaks for itself.”

From a certain point of view, Wertkin’s attempts to shake down government contractors made manifest the transactional logic that governs the False Claims Act. Even to some of their biggest beneficiaries, these qui-tam settlements have come to resemble a mutual-protection racket: Executives keep their jobs and their companies keep billing Medicare; whistleblowers and their lawyers get a cut; and Justice Department attorneys can cash in on their tough-on-fraud reputations by heading to white-shoe law firms to defend the companies they once prosecuted.

In 2020, not long after AseraCare settled with the government, the company was bought for $235 million by Amedisys, which was facing qui-tam troubles of its own. A nurse from an Amedisys office in South Carolina had filed a lawsuit accusing the corporation of admitting ineligible patients, falsifying paperwork and handing out bonuses to staff to entice new recruits. (Amedisys denies the allegations.) This time, the government has declined to join the nurse’s case.

Earlier this year, when I visited Farmer at her home in Alabama, boxes were piled in the living room. She was preparing for an upcoming move to Missouri, where her husband had taken a job with a nonprofit hospice and home health company. Farmer had remained close with Richardson, who told me: “I have a whole different view of justice in America now. It’s definitely powered by the dollar bill.” But the women no longer talked about the trial. “Nobody really cared,” Farmer said. “The government didn’t care, the judge didn’t care, and all of these people’s money was wasted.” Sitting in a plush reclining chair, Farmer let out a short, sharp cough as she spoke. In December, she had been diagnosed as having an aggressive form of breast cancer, and the chemotherapy had left her vulnerable to lingering infections.

The hospice benefit imposes a dichotomy between caring for the living and caring for the dying, when, in truth, the categories are often indistinguishable. Most older people will face a chronic disability or a disease in the last years of their life and will need extra care to remain safely at home. That help is rarely available, and Americans often end up in a social-welfare purgatory, forced to spend down their savings to become eligible for a government-funded aide or a nursing home bed. “We all think it’s not going to affect us, but if you have a stroke and go bankrupt you’re not just going to go out and shoot yourself in the desert,” Dr. Joanne Lynn, an elder-care advocate and a former medical officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told me. Once you cross over into the kingdom of the sick, she said, it’s easier to see that some problems classified as hospice fraud are really problems of the inadequate long-term-care system in this country.

In the 1970s, Lynn worked at one of the first hospices in the United States. At the time, most of the patients had cancer and died within weeks; the six-month guidance was originally designed around their needs. Today, the majority of hospice patients have chronic illnesses, including heart disease and dementia. And some of them — regardless of whether they have six months or six years to live — depend on hospice for in-home support and holistic services that would otherwise be unavailable. Yet under the current system, as the number of patients with ambiguous prognoses rises, providers (including ethical ones) are under financial pressure to abandon those who don’t die quickly enough. It’s a typically American failure of imagination that people with dire but unpredictable declines are all but left for dead.

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross thought she understood why societies isolate the old and the dying: They remind the rest of us of our own mortality. This aversion might partly explain why decades of warnings about hospice care — including a full quarter century of pointed alerts from the inspector general’s office at the Department of Health and Human Services — have gone largely unheeded. Recently, though, some of the reports were so disturbing (maggots circling feeding tubes, crater-like bedsores) that members of Congress have called for reforms, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is enacting a few. The agency has just begun making available to the public a greater range of data on hospice providers, including the average number of visits that nurses and social workers make in the last days of a person’s life. More significantly, the agency now has the power to impose fines on problem providers, should it choose to use it. (Previously, the agency’s only consequential penalty for bad hospices was to boot them from the Medicare program, an option it seldom exercised.)

Some state lawmakers, too, are asking deeper questions about end-of-life care. This year, in the wake of a Los Angeles Times investigation, California placed a moratorium on new hospices, and state auditors raised alarms about a raft of tiny new hospices, some with fictional patients and medical staff, that were engaged in “a large-scale, targeted effort to defraud Medicare.” In Los Angeles County alone, there are more than a thousand hospices, 99% of them for-profit. By comparison, Florida, which, unlike California, requires new providers to prove a need for their services, has 51 hospices.

But when regulators close a door they sometimes open a window. Licensing data I’ve reviewed suggests that, as scrutiny of end-of-life-care providers intensified in California, the hospice boom traveled eastward. In Clark County, which contains Las Vegas, the number of new hospices has more than doubled in the past two years, and in Harris County, which encompasses Houston, the number has grown almost as quickly. Sheila Clark, the president of the California Hospice and Palliative Care Association, attributed some of the surge in new licenses to a scheme called “churn and burn.”

“Providers open up a hospice and bill, bill, bill,” she said. Once that hospice is audited or reaches the Medicare-reimbursement limit, it shuts down, keeps the money, buys a pristine license that comes with a new Medicare billing number, transfers its patients over and rakes in the dollars again. The directors of two nonprofit hospices in the Southwest told me that they had been accepting patients who were fleeing such new providers. Some patients switched because while they were with the startup hospices they hadn’t seen a nurse in two weeks, and no one was answering the phone.

An office building in Phoenix that is home to dozens of new hospices (Lara Cerri for ProPublica)

On a rainy morning in November, I found myself in a vast, sand-colored commercial plaza on the outskirts of Phoenix. The complex was designed in the style of a Spanish hacienda, with a central courtyard, a stone fountain and a stately bell tower. Maricopa County was another place where the number of hospices had doubled in two years; 33 new ones, licensing data indicated, had appeared at this single address. There was no building directory, but eventually I realized that most of the hospices were clustered together on the basement level. All the hospices listed the same phone number for inspectors to call, and some had taped the same apology to their door: “Sorry we missed you! We’ll be back in 45 mins, if you need immediate assistance pls call us.” Each time I called the listed number, I got an answering machine whose mailbox was full.

When I buzzed the Ring video doorbell of B-116, which housed at least nine hospices, I was told by the man who answered that the manager was currently on the other side of the building. When I walked to the other side and rang B-117, the same man picked up. Sensing my confusion, he said, “I’m just the voice at the door.” His name was Ted Garcia, and he had been hired to monitor the hospices from his laptop at home. I told him that I was searching for a registered nurse named Svetik Harutyunyan, who was listed as the CEO of multiple hospices in the neighborhood, among them Ruby, Sapphire and Garnet, which were within the complex, as well as Platinum, Bright Star and First Light, down the road. I told Garcia that I particularly wanted to ask Harutyunyan about Ruby Hospice, which I’d seen listed for sale in an online ad for a quarter of a million dollars.

The day before, I’d searched for her at a squat building in Los Angeles that had drawn auditors’ attention. That address holds, according to state records, 129 hospices — a tenth of the city’s supply. When I knocked on the door of a hospice that the licensing data had linked to Harutyunyan, a worker told me that no one by that name was involved. Later, when Harutyunyan and I spoke by phone, she acknowledged owning hospices in California and Arizona and said that the arrangement was legal. She had wanted every member of her family to have one, she said.

Garcia told me through the doorbell that, as far as he understood, the hospices he monitored weren’t seeing actual patients; instead, the offices were a kind of “holding pen” to keep the licenses viable with requisite physical addresses until demand could be drummed up. The remote work was dull, he allowed. Apart from inspectors occasionally stopping by and transient people defecating outside the doors at night, my visit was the most action he’d seen in months. As the rain let up and I sat in the deserted courtyard trying to decide which of Harutyunyan’s holdings to visit next, it occurred to me that this world of paper hospices — empty of patients, valued at six figures, watched over by virtual guards — might be the clearest expression of the industry’s untamed frontier that I was going to encounter.

Later that afternoon, Garcia told me that he’d begun to research whether he could open a hospice himself. The market was bigger and more lucrative than he’d realized. People in Montana and Texas and Tennessee, he said, were posting ads online for “turnkey-ready hospices” for as much as half a million dollars. He called an ex-cop he knew to see if he wanted in. “We can turn a profit and split it,” he said.

How We Reported the Story

For this investigation, Ava Kofman drew on medical records; state and federal licenses; inspection and complaint surveys; government watchdog reports; thousands of pages of court documents; and interviews with more than a hundred families, hospice employees, elder care experts, attorneys and government officials.

Doris Burke contributed research.

by Ava Kofman

At Washington State Special Education Schools, Years of Abuse Complaints and Lack of Academics

1 year 11 months ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Seattle Times. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

For years, the complaints languished with Washington state education officials.

A therapist emailed about a teenage boy with severe autism, who had wailed for hours inside a locked room in her school, pleading to be let out. A local education official saw a teacher shove her foot in a student’s face as he lay on the ground and threaten to step on him. A special education director observed uncertified teachers struggling with no curriculum and urged the state to step in to protect “these extremely high-risk students.”

The alarming reports cataloged a failure to serve kids with disabilities at the Northwest School of Innovative Learning, a private school designed to cater to Washington’s most vulnerable students.

Despite the complaints, the state took no action to force changes at Northwest SOIL. Instead, it allowed the school to stay open and tap a pipeline of taxpayer money. In the five school years ending in 2021, Northwest SOIL collected at least $38 million and took in hundreds of public school students.

Northwest SOIL operated for years with few trained teachers, and its staff relied heavily on restraint and isolation. Some of the students made no academic progress and even regressed, as their parents were shut out of information that would be available at any public school.

The lack of state oversight has allowed Northwest SOIL to essentially warehouse kids with complex developmental and behavioral disabilities, according to a Seattle Times and ProPublica review of more than 17,000 pages of documents from 45 school districts, three police departments and the state education department.

“Northwest SOIL is an example of turning back the clock 50 years on kids” to an era when people with disabilities were denied access to education, said Vanessa Tucker, a Pacific Lutheran University professor who serves on the state’s Special Education Advisory Council. “It should not continue.”

A Northwest SOIL teacher threatened to step on a boy with autism, according to a complaint by an Orting School District staffer. The student cried and said, “Please don’t step on me.” (Gabriel Campanario/The Seattle Times)

While most of the roughly 140,000 students in special education in Washington attend classes within their public schools, Northwest SOIL is the biggest player in an obscure but vital corner of the state’s special education system. It’s one of a set of private schools, known as nonpublic agencies, that serve about 500 public school students with the most serious disabilities.

Since the 1980s, states across the country have reduced their reliance on separate schools for special education students and moved to integrate such students with their peers. Washington, which has the nation’s second-highest dropout rate for special education students, has recently made strides by increasing the amount of time students spend in regular classrooms.

But for those with the highest needs, the state has been heading in the opposite direction, sending more students out of traditional public schools.

That led to the state and school districts pouring at least $173 million into outsourcing special education to Northwest SOIL and other schools over the five school years ending in 2021. While a full accounting is not available, state spending on these programs more than doubled during that time.

The state knows little about the more than 60 campuses that serve the students. Some of these private schools have decent reputations, but the state doesn’t track how many kids in private schools successfully return to their community schools — a key goal for many of the programs. It doesn’t know how many are restrained or locked in isolation rooms. Until two years ago, it couldn’t even count how many public school students attended these schools.

Northwest SOIL’s Tacoma campus building, left, on the grounds of a white-domed megachurch (Ken Lambert/The Seattle Times)

Those gaps are the result of a fundamental flaw in Washington’s oversight system, which places responsibility for monitoring the private schools not on the state but on individual school districts. State education officials said districts are expected to spot and correct problems, as they’re the ones contracting with the schools to educate students.

But because more than 40 districts at a time send students to Northwest SOIL’s three campuses, and each district only receives information about its own students, no single school district or agency has a complete picture of what’s going on there.

So serious incidents — one district learned that a Northwest SOIL staffer kicked a fourth-grader, another heard that a teacher dragged a 9-year-old boy with autism by his thigh — might appear to be isolated rather than signs of systemic problems. Pieced together, reports from parents, teachers, visitors and police paint a troubling picture the state has failed to address.

In 2019, a 9-year-old boy with autism told police that his teacher at Northwest SOIL grabbed him by the thigh and dragged him across a classroom because he wouldn’t run laps. (Tacoma Police Department report obtained, annotated by The Seattle Times and ProPublica)

“There is probably a sentiment that those kids are bad kids,” said Carrie Basas, the former director of the Washington State Governor’s Office of the Education Ombuds. “It’s just students that we have already written off, that teachers or school leaders may perceive as threatening, and we just send them somewhere.” She added, “There has to be somebody in charge.”

Even Northwest SOIL’s top administrator in 2021, Donna Green, complained to the school’s owner, Fairfax Hospital, that the company had crossed ethical boundaries. In a resignation letter, Green said she struggled to make changes as the hospital’s parent company, Universal Health Services, a Fortune 500 health care corporation, cut staff hours and skimped on basic resources to increase profits.

The state “needs to be more hands-on to ensure that these kids are getting a proper education and not just feeding a money horse for UHS,” Green said in an interview.

Leaders of Northwest SOIL and Fairfax, the largest private psychiatric facility in Washington, declined to be interviewed for this story. They defended the program in a statement to the Times and ProPublica, saying administrators take seriously the responsibility of addressing students’ complex needs. The school said it has recently purchased a new English and math curriculum, along with computers for teachers and students.

“We are proud of our overall academic and clinical performance and earned reputation for accepting the most difficult referrals in the area,” the school said. UHS said it had no comment beyond the school’s statement.

Chris Reykdal, who heads the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, said in an interview that his office doesn’t have clear investigative authority or enough people to monitor private schools. But he said his staff looked into complaints about Northwest SOIL four years ago, and he stands by the agency’s decision to not crack down on the school.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal at the OSPI building in Olympia, Washington, in 2020 (Ellen M. Banner/The Seattle Times)

“I do think that the response was there,” Reykdal said. “It’s just that people might disagree that we should have done more — which is a fair criticism.”

With no one responsible for scrutinizing the schools, even the most serious warning signs fell through the cracks, with devastating consequences.

“I Am Not OK to Be Here”

Northwest SOIL’s website paints a serene picture, splashed with stock photos of smiling kids. The Tacoma campus advertises hiking trails, pet therapy and 11 separate staff specialties — from speech language pathologists to licensed mental health counselors.

In reality, the building sits in the vast asphalt parking lot of a megachurch. The closest thing to a hiking path is a 200-foot-long walkway that cuts through a patch of greenery between sections of pavement.

Former employees and records from the state and districts describe more of an institution than a school: A staffer wands students with a metal detector as they arrive. Kids bang on the locked doors from inside “quiet rooms,” whose walls are sometimes smeared with feces or blood. At times, children wander the school or aides sleep in chairs.

The Times interviewed 23 former staffers, many of whom described chronic shortages of classroom assistants, inadequate training, a lack of licensed therapists and high-school-educated aides running classes. Amid high turnover, some positions sat vacant for months.

(Lauren Frohne/The Seattle Times and Ramon Dompor/The Seattle Times) (Lauren Frohne/The Seattle Times and Ramon Dompor/The Seattle Times)

"My role was to be the school therapist, but it rarely worked out that way because they were so understaffed,” said Kingsley Simpson, who worked at the Tumwater campus from 2016 until this March. “I covered as an educational assistant or a teacher or at the front desk. I rarely got the opportunity to do therapy."

Northwest SOIL said its hiring practices ensure that “only appropriate and qualified candidates are hired.” It added, “As in many areas of healthcare in Washington (and other states), staffing shortages are a challenge. Nonetheless, we meet appropriate staffing levels that satisfy our student needs.”

Former employees say — and documents back up — that Northwest SOIL staffers were stretched thin managing students and often resorted to restraint or isolation. But the state doesn’t track how often restraints are used.

“They don’t treat you like people; they just grab you,” said Christopher, 16, who attended Northwest SOIL in Tacoma. (Gabriel Campanario/The Seattle Times)

Among the few reports state regulators do require are annual staffing lists. But even then, OSPI doesn’t consistently check them to see if staff are qualified to teach.

Jimmy Fioretti worked at Northwest SOIL for five years. The school repeatedly listed Fioretti as a special education teacher even though he lacked that certification and at times was only approved to be a substitute.

In 2017 and 2019, police investigated after two separate allegations that Fioretti had choked students at Northwest SOIL. Each time, he told the police he never violated school restraint policy. Prosecutors declined to pursue charges, citing insufficient evidence or a law that broadly permits student discipline.

Fioretti — who has been convicted of assault and felony drug possession — was also accused in July 2020 of choking a housemate while living at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation home, according to a police report. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and served five days in jail.

Fioretti did not respond to phone calls or emailed questions.

State law requires nonpublic agencies to “promptly notify” the state and school districts of “any complaints it receives regarding services to students.” But the law doesn’t define what constitutes a complaint. There is no indication that Northwest SOIL notified state education officials of any police investigations.

Scott Raub, OSPI’s administrator for these private schools, said in an interview that abuse allegations would likely count as a complaint, but “just because you notified us, it doesn’t result in anything specific.”

Scott Raub, an OSPI administrator for private special education schools (Ken Lambert/The Seattle Times)

While the law is unclear about who’s responsible for investigating problems, the state has powerful enforcement tools. Officials can force these private schools to comply with specific conditions or prohibit them from accepting public school students if they don't. That could have shut down Northwest SOIL. But the state never took those steps.

One day in late 2020, Fioretti wrapped his arm around a 13-year-old boy’s neck and hauled him across the classroom, as the teenager grasped at Fioretti’s forearm.

A school counselor reported the “chokehold” to Child Protective Services and the police, describing how Fioretti had instigated the confrontation and how the boy couldn’t breathe, his eyes bulging for half a minute until Fioretti released him. Almost immediately, the boy vomited in a trash can. The chokehold was caught on surveillance video reviewed by Tacoma police.

But, once again, neither the state nor the school district would know the severity.

In the more sanitized narrative that Northwest SOIL reported to the boy’s parents and his home district, Tacoma Public Schools, Fioretti wrote that staff “restrained” the student without injury and “attempted to deescalate” the situation, then “escorted him to the hallway.”

Shortly after the incident, the school director sat down at Fioretti’s desk. Fioretti said the boy was “running his lips,” according to an internal company email. Fioretti “then got teary eyed,” the director wrote, “and said, ‘I can’t do this. I love my job and you guys but I am not OK to be here.’”

Nine days later, Northwest SOIL fired him for misconduct.

Northwest SOIL administrators declined to comment on specific allegations of abuse but said “use of restraints and seclusion are always used as a last response when a student is at imminent risk of hurting themselves or others.” The school said any allegation is promptly investigated. “Since even one unintended outcome is one too many, we take the time to determine what lessons can be learned from the regrettable incident,” the statement said.

A review of more than 1,000 pages of restraint reports show that Northwest SOIL regularly sends districts vague summaries of events.

One teenage boy with autism couldn’t tell his parents what happened at Northwest SOIL. He only knows a few words and mostly doesn’t speak. So every day when he returned home, his parents would strip off his clothes and check his body for bruises. They found them often, said his father, who asked that neither he nor his son be named to protect the privacy of his family.

A father described his son’s injuries to Northwest SOIL administrators. (Federal Way School District emails obtained, annotated by The Seattle Times and ProPublica)

One summer afternoon in 2020, Northwest SOIL reported to the boy’s school district and his parents that he was shoving staff. They tried to “redirect” him to his desk, and he “tripped over a chair, falling backwards,” the report says, his arm smashing through a glass window. The boy, then 16, went to the hospital and received three stitches.

His father questioned how his son could fall backward, arm first, into a glass window. The report didn’t say where the window was or how the incident started.

Before the fall, the boy was marked as “safe, responsible & respectable - Holding a Book” at 9:38 a.m. Then he tried to “elope” — or wander away, a common occurrence among children with autism — 11 times, the report says. That was just 10 minutes later.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” his father said.

State Didn’t Intervene

As far back as 2014, Northwest SOIL was already drawing scrutiny from the state’s biggest school district.

Two special education officials from Seattle Public Schools visited the Redmond campus and reported that what they saw left them “literally speechless.” They said kids roamed freely around campus without supervision, and education was virtually nonexistent. They implored the district to withdraw all its students immediately.

Seattle Public Schools staffers visited Northwest SOIL’s Redmond campus and recommended that the district remove all its students immediately. (Seattle Public Schools letter obtained, annotated by The Seattle Times and ProPublica)

Records show the district continued to send students each year but monitored Northwest SOIL more closely. After conditions seemed to improve, the school board voted in 2016 to keep using the school.

Seattle was focused on its own students. But administrators from other districts were also fielding alarming reports about Northwest SOIL.

In October 2017, the head of special education at the Orting School District, Chris Willis, emailed the state about the Tacoma teacher who had threatened to step on a boy. The incident happened in front of an Orting official and parent who were touring the campus, and Willis said he worried problems at the school were “more systemic.” But OSPI had no record of investigating.

Resources for parents navigating nonpublic agencies in Washington

Then, in May 2018, Rochester School District’s special education director visited Northwest SOIL’s Tumwater campus to check on a student and wrote to Glenna Gallo, then OSPI’s assistant superintendent of special education, that “the elementary student did nothing during the time I was in the class and no one interacted with him.”

During one visit, the Rochester director observed the boy opening YouTube on a computer and watching a game of “a man going to different places with a large machine gun shooting at everything in front of him.” When Rochester pulled him out of Northwest SOIL and brought him back into a district school, it found “little to no growth academically in the two years’ time that he was at NW Soil,” the director wrote.

A Rochester School District official reported to the state seeing a student watching a YouTube video of a game involving “a man going to different places with a large machine gun shooting at everything in front of him.” (Gabriel Campanario/The Seattle Times)

A month after Rochester schools’ visits, Cecilia McCormick, a McCleary School District director, reported to OSPI that her district’s student had no special education teacher supervising his instruction. “This is a violation of both federal and state law,” McCormick wrote. The fourth grade boy, who had a history of harming himself, was told by a staffer he’s a “bad boy,” she wrote.

In the summer of 2018, the Tumwater campus was up for its annual review by the state. By that point in the year, OSPI had received at least five serious complaints about Northwest SOIL from district administrators and a parent. Gallo and Raub scheduled a meeting with Northwest SOIL’s leaders.

“We said that this is not acceptable. You have to follow the expectations,” Raub said. “And we got all the assurances that we wanted to hear.”

After the meeting, more complaints poured into Raub’s inbox. The Tumwater School District reported its student did puzzles while his aide — whom the district paid for — slept in the classroom. The school also didn’t provide speech language services for months despite telling the district it had hired a specialist, Tumwater added.

A Tumwater School District official, who visited Northwest SOIL, complained to the state that he saw an aide sleeping while a student “was just doing puzzles.” (Gabriel Campanario/The Seattle Times)

Northwest SOIL didn’t respond to questions about the specific district complaints but said it “strongly refutes claims regarding the intentional billing of services not provided.”

Gallo approved the school’s 2018 annual renewal. She has since left the agency and has been nominated to be the U.S. Department of Education’s assistant secretary for special education.

Gallo did not respond to multiple requests for comment, but in a 2021 interview with The Times she said the state expects school districts to address problems at private schools.

A complaint to state education officials in 2018 describes an elementary school student’s encounter with staff at Northwest SOIL. (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction document obtained, annotated by The Seattle Times and ProPublica)

Raub, who was new to the private schools role in 2018, said he would approach the complaints differently now that he has more experience. He pointed to a 2020 case in which OSPI received abuse allegations at another private school and conducted a detailed review of student restraint and isolation files, school policies and staff qualifications.

But the department continued to be hands-off when presented with concerns about Northwest SOIL, including an April 2021 allegation of emotional and physical abuse against an Everett student by a Northwest SOIL staffer.

Raub instructed the district to investigate and said he would be there for “continued support” if it “uncovers a broader, more systemic issue.” OSPI said the district and family never followed up. Everett said it investigated but “did not conclusively find evidence to report back” to OSPI.

This month, the agency said it was investigating a complaint about Northwest SOIL’s Redmond campus after a parent reported inadequate staffing and their student coming home with injuries — the same sort of allegation that has flowed to the state for years.

Because of the diffuse oversight system, many complaints never made it to OSPI. Less than four months after the Everett allegation, Green, Northwest SOIL’s top administrator across all campuses, detailed a series of complaints in her resignation letter, ranging from a lack of training to cutting assistants’ hours that school districts had already paid for. She also sent it to Tacoma Public Schools.

But with no requirement to forward Green’s letter to OSPI, Tacoma never did so, and neither did Northwest SOIL, leaving the state missing a critical piece of the puzzle.

Other States Have Stricter Standards

In many ways, Washington’s special education funding system has exacerbated oversight problems at private schools like Northwest SOIL.

The state reformed its funding model in 1995, realizing that school districts needed more money to educate students with disabilities. It developed a safety net fund to help districts pay for special education services.

But the program prohibits those funds from being used to train teachers in public schools. And while a 2012 state Supreme Court ruling on school financing, known as the McCleary decision, resulted in the Legislature sending billions of state dollars to public schools, lawmakers sidestepped special education.

With limited options, the districts came to rely on the private schools.

The safety net model “made it easier for districts to say, ‘Let’s place the student at Northwest SOIL,’” said Tucker, the Pacific Lutheran professor.

But, unlike in other states, Washington lawmakers have not adopted key oversight and transparency regulations to protect students and taxpayers.

Northwest SOIL’s Tumwater campus building (Steve Ringman/The Seattle Times)

In Massachusetts, similar private schools are required to report all instances of restraint and isolation directly to the state, allowing central oversight.

This isn’t true in Washington. While the state tracks isolation and restraint incidents in public schools with a goal of reducing their use, it doesn’t at private schools that receive public money.

The only institution with the complete picture is the private school itself, but Northwest SOIL claims it doesn’t have to disclose the restraint and isolation reports because it’s a private company. The Times filed a public records lawsuit against Northwest SOIL’s parent company after the school denied a request for those reports and other records typically available from public schools. The lawsuit is pending.

Without information from either the state or the school, the Times and ProPublica requested copies of restraint and isolation records inside Northwest SOIL from 34 school districts. Only 27 districts provided reports, and many documents were missing.

The Bethel School District, for instance, destroyed a year's worth of reports “in error,” an official said, and had to retrieve paper copies of others from a warehouse. A district that sent dozens of students to Northwest SOIL turned over fewer restraint reports than a district that sent only one.

Raub said the department is working to improve data collection and acknowledged it “would be very useful” to track restraint and isolation.

Washington also doesn’t demand state inspections and has vague staffing obligations. It requires an unspecified number of certified teachers and only one special education teacher per school. A representative from a district has to visit every three years.

In contrast, California requires periodic state inspections, a teacher with special education credentials in every classroom and a specific ratio of students per teacher, typically 14-to-1.

Stricter standards allowed former students and staff in California to build a whistleblower case when similar problems cropped up at Universal Health Services schools there. The company shut down the last of those campuses in 2013 shortly after settling the case, without any admission of wrongdoing.

Reykdal, the Washington state superintendent, said stricter staff qualifications could improve the quality of education and reduce staff turnover at private schools.

“I think it's likely that our Legislature has to say, ‘When it comes to basic ed, we're not going to have different expectations for the private sector than we do for the public sector,’” he said. “And they should up their game on that.”

“It Was Hell”

Christopher, who has autism, talks about attending a Northwest SOIL school while his mother Sarah Snyder listens, in Puyallup, Washington. (Erika Schultz/The Seattle Times)

For parents like Sarah Snyder, the lax oversight of these specialty schools can turn finding the right education environment for their children into a terrifying ordeal.

Snyder knew her son Christopher needed a special school. He has autism and learning disabilities and finds it difficult at times to express his frustrations in words. Occasionally, he breaks furniture, hits his parents or punches walls.

Students like Christopher, now 16, can benefit from specialized care that private schools promise. But his mother said his stay at Northwest SOIL left him traumatized.

From his bedroom in Puyallup, his shelves brimming with Lego models, Christopher recounted his time at Northwest SOIL with extraordinary detail.

“They don’t treat you like people; they just grab you,” said Christopher, curled up on his Star Wars sheets, holding his knees to his chest. He spoke about being shoved into a seclusion room.

A picture drawn by Christopher of the room where he was isolated at Northwest SOIL (Erika Schultz/The Seattle Times)

“It was hell —” Christopher said, glancing at his mom in the bedroom doorway. “Can I say that?” She nodded. “It was hell,” Christopher repeated.

In June 2017, a few days after starting at Northwest SOIL, Christopher came home with a disturbing story. He had watched as a boy was strapped to a chair by a belt around his stomach. Another boy erupted in an outburst, competing for attention.

Scared, Christopher, then 11 years old, wanted to call the police. “I don’t feel safe here,” he thought. “I don’t feel safe here.”

He darted across the classroom toward a phone on a filing cabinet and started to dial. A staff member grabbed his arm and twisted it behind his back, yanking him away from the phone. (The staffer later threatened to break his arm, Christopher said.)

For seven months, Snyder struggled to get information about what her son had reported. She sought help from Christopher’s home district, Bethel School District, and its school board, as well as the local PTA and nonprofit advocates. She even emailed talk show host Dr. Phil.

“I was desperate,” she said. “I was begging, ‘Please, someone, help my family.’”

Christopher plays basketball outside his home. (Erika Schultz/The Seattle Times)

Snyder got Christopher out of the school within a month. But she kept complaining to officials for months after. In one letter to OSPI she wrote that it appeared “no one is responsible” for the actions of private schools like Northwest SOIL. Bethel said it cooperated with the state’s investigation.

The state found that Northwest SOIL had violated state laws, including improperly restraining Christopher and withholding the staffer’s name.

It concluded with a reminder that the state has the power to revoke Northwest SOIL’s status.

Five months later, OSPI approved the school’s renewal without any conditions.

Taylor Blatchford and Manuel Villa of The Seattle Times contributed reporting, and Alex Mierjeski of ProPublica contributed research.

by Mike Reicher and Lulu Ramadan, The Seattle Times

The Military Pledged to Remove Unexploded Bombs From This Island. Native Hawaiians Are Still Waiting.

1 year 11 months ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

For the better part of two years, Liliu Ross had lived in a one-room tin-roofed shack in the rural outer reaches of Hawaii’s Big Island. It had no running water and no electricity. But it provided shelter for Ross as she raised sheep and grew crops on land that her Native Hawaiian ancestors once called home. From the open fields and gentle slopes of her five-acre farm lot, she marveled at the stunning views of nearby Mauna Kea, one of the world’s tallest island mountains. Still, there were challenges to living under such conditions. At night she read by candlelight, and during the day she bathed outside with water she warmed in a pot over a fire.

So, in 2014, Ross secured a loan under a special program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to help Native Hawaiians build or purchase homes on Native lands. An architect created drawings for a two-bedroom, one-bathroom house, complete with energy-efficient appliances and a covered lanai. And she even picked the location for the new home.

Within months, though, her plan collapsed. Ross learned in a phone call from her builder that HUD had imposed a freeze on federal housing funds throughout the region. As it turned out, her property had been part of the Waikoloa Maneuver Area, a 185,000-acre site that was used by the U.S. military for live-fire training in the 1940s. Troops had fired an unknown number of grenades, mortars and other munitions that failed to explode, and many of the potentially deadly weapons remained, hidden beneath years of soil and vegetation buildup. Federal authorities wanted to ensure the land was safe to use.

But the funding freeze had sweeping consequences. Other prospective borrowers on Native lands soon found they could no longer obtain government-insured mortgages, the only type available on such properties. The freeze also meant that local and state governments could not tap the main sources of federal funding to develop affordable housing in the region — a critical need in a state with one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation. The action effectively thwarted a century-old promise by the federal government to return Native Hawaiians to their ancestral lands.

Money would flow again, HUD decided, after the military removed any unexploded ordnance, or UXO, and state regulators vouched for the land’s safety.

Eight years later, though, Ross is still waiting. The now-64-year-old farmer continues to live in the same shack. She is one of hundreds of Native Hawaiians who are unable to secure housing on lands that the government set aside for them in a trust. Many have already waited years — and sometimes decades — for the opportunity to build homes, farms and ranches.

Liliu Ross stands among wood pallets she erected to protect saplings from strong winds that often sweep over her Big Island farm lot. Her home is in the background. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser)

“People are getting old, people are dying,” said Mary Maxine Kahaulelio, a prominent Native Hawaiian activist who lives near the UXO zone. “This is another form of delay for Hawaiians.”

No one can say for sure when relief will arrive. In one area, the state initially projected that the construction of 400-plus homes would be completed by next year. It paved streets, poured sidewalks, erected street lights and installed fire hydrants and road signs. But in 2015 it halted construction amid the federal funding freeze; not a single home has been built. Today, weeds and other vegetation are slowly overtaking the empty lots.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is leading the remediation effort, has been plagued by shoddy work and multiple regulatory disputes, according to an investigation by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and ProPublica. In one case, after state regulators raised concerns, the Corps rebid a contract to assess the UXO risk on the largest Native parcel in the region, prolonging a process that is years behind schedule.

The previously unreported details, laid bare in interviews and hundreds of pages of documents obtained through public records requests, provide further evidence of how government agencies have bungled the timely return of Native Hawaiians to their ancestral lands. The Star-Advertiser and ProPublica reported in 2020 and 2021 how the state was largely bypassing low-income and homeless Hawaiians because of the pricey homes it developed and how the federal government effectively circumvented a reparations law, depriving the program of prime properties suitable for housing. Today, more than 28,000 beneficiaries — the term for people who are at least 50% Hawaiian — are currently waiting for lots statewide, including nearly 6,000 seeking housing on the Big Island.

For its part, Army Corps officials said they are committed to clearing the Native lands as soon as possible. “Keep in mind we’re trying to help,” said Loren Zulick, who until recently served as the Corps’ program manager for Waikoloa, in an interview. But, he added, “our driving factor is to clean up contamination and protect human health and the environment.” In a written response to the news organizations’ findings, the Corps said it is “committed to getting the remediation done right to ensure these areas are safe” and that every acre that goes through the process “is a success toward restoration of lands.”

Hawaii Island firefighters attend a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers briefing about the ongoing remediation work at the former Waikoloa Maneuver Area. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser)

HUD also defended its Waikoloa policy, saying in a statement that it was developed “to ensure the safety of all occupants of HUD housing, including Native Hawaiians.”

Local leaders, however, say the government needs to move faster to fulfill its obligations to Hawaii’s indigenous people.

“It’s just common sense, common courtesy, basic values everyone is taught as children: If you break it, fix it,” said Robin Danner, chair of the Sovereign Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations, the largest beneficiary group in the state. “We have the most powerful military on the planet. It’s just unacceptable that the UXO debacle is still ongoing, truly hurting families, keeping them from using our land.”

A Deadly History

Technicians use state-of-the-art equipment to look for buried munitions in a field next to a Waimea school. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser)

After World War II broke out, the U.S. used large swaths of undeveloped land in the Waikoloa region for so-called live-fire exercises, in which Marines trained in battle-like conditions with artillery shells, rockets, grenades, tank rounds and other arms. It was one of several places in Hawaii that the military used for such training. Officials estimated that about 10% of the munitions failed to detonate during the Waikoloa maneuvers, so before leaving in 1946, the military conducted a cleanup operation. Technicians methodically walked the grounds looking for unexploded arms and debris, which were then destroyed or hauled away.

But over the years, there have been a handful of accidents. In 1954, two ranch workers were killed and three colleagues injured when an old mortar shell exploded near them. The accident prompted another round of cleanup, but that effort failed to catch many remaining munitions too: In 1983, two more people, soldiers involved in a military exercise, were injured when an old shell exploded.

Despite the risks, development marched forward throughout the region. The UXO status of the lands was hazy in those early decades, before the Corps took on a formal role. Many property owners assumed that the prior cleanups made their land safe to develop, and those who were unsure hired UXO experts to guide construction. Coastal resorts, shopping centers, residential subdivisions, parks and other developments gradually popped up.

Among the developers was the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, which manages nearly 12,000 acres within the UXO zone as part of the land trust. It was set up in 1921 by Congress to help a people then headed toward extinction. The state took over management in 1959 as a condition of statehood. Under the program, anyone who is at least 50% Native Hawaiian is entitled to lease land for $1 a year and either build or buy a home on it. Over the years, scores of beneficiaries did so within Waikoloa. Both the state and federal governments, as overseers of the trust, are legally bound to ensure the program’s success.

Government remediation efforts picked up again in the 1990s, after federal legislation resulted in the Army Corps being given responsibility for clearing former defense sites such as Waikoloa. And building continued without controversy until 2014, when a Native Hawaiian beneficiary in Puukapu, the same community where Ross lives, applied for a home loan to renovate his residence, as others had before him. This time, though, the lender rejected his application, largely because an appraiser noted that the property was in a UXO zone.

The loan denial alarmed local HUD officials, whose agency had provided millions of dollars each year to DHHL for lot development and housing assistance, including loans to eligible Hawaiians to purchase or build homes on trust land. Federal officials told the Star-Advertiser and ProPublica that they were previously unaware of the unexploded ordnance issue, which local and state environmental reviews had not adequately addressed. DHHL said it conducted such a review before starting construction on a nearby subdivision in 2012, but that it didn’t uncover any UXO. Nevertheless, once HUD learned of the potential contamination problem in the region, it imposed a freeze on funding and HUD-backed mortgages until safety concerns were addressed.

To comply with the policy, DHHL began putting UXO disclosure provisions in the new land leases it awarded to Native Hawaiian beneficiaries. The designation prevented those leaseholders from obtaining government-insured mortgages until the UXO problem in their specific community was resolved. In fact, some lenders had already stopped lending on Native lands in the Waikoloa area.

Regulators Raise Red Flags

Hundreds of Native Hawaiians looked to the Army Corps to step up its work so the freeze could be lifted. Months, however, turned into years. “My balloon is deflated,” said Leolani Kini, 65, whose plans to build a home on the Big Island are on hold. “It’s heartbreaking for me every day.”

Kini and other Hawaiians were counting on the Army Corps to review two key areas.

One was Puukapu, the mostly rural area where Ross lives and Kini wants to move. It’s the largest trust parcel in the UXO zone and includes nearly 450 lots leased by beneficiaries. The other area was Lalamilo, the location of the unfinished 400-home subdivision.

Given the limitations of technology and other factors, all parties acknowledge, it’s impossible to remove all munitions from the UXO zone. Hawaii’s rugged terrain and high iron levels, for instance, interfere with the digital equipment used to search for buried bombs. Instead, the cleanup goal is to reduce the UXO risk to “negligible.” But over the past several years, state health department documents reveal its regulators have raised significant questions about how the Corps performed its assessments in both areas.

In Puukapu, the department issued a scathing response to an initial Corps report, saying “there appears to be intentional efforts to omit and obscure relevant data.” Regulators also objected to the Corps’ finding in the 2018 report that the UXO risk was acceptable and no further action was needed.

“They basically were saying, ‘Hey, we’re done,’” said Sven Lindstrom, the health department regulator who oversees the Corps’ remediation work. “And we were like, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa. No, we need to talk about this more. You need to allay our concerns that there might still be hundreds of munitions items at this site.’”

The Corps took two years to respond, and after that it had to hire another contractor to help complete the report, which still isn’t finished.

In Lalamilo, regulators questioned the effectiveness of new technology the Corps is using to detect munitions, as well as the reliability of its past sweeps of the area. The skepticism was driven by a series of discoveries by workers in other parts of the UXO zone that the federal agency had previously designated as clear. In 2018, for example, they discovered large fragments on the ground and a foot-long projectile just steps away from a low-income apartment complex. The old shell, which still had the potential to explode, was buried just three inches below the surface.

Weeds overtake the sidewalks at the Lalamilo Housing development in Waimea on July 15, after construction stalled due to concerns about unexploded ordnance. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser)

To allay concerns, the Corps analyzed nine past sweeps of the area that includes Lalamilo. The results, however, were far from reassuring. As it did in Puukapu, the agency backed away from its initial assessment, telling the state it had low confidence in the effectiveness of its prior work. The Corps is now doing a new, more comprehensive sweep of Lalamilo, using state-of-the-art equipment, and is discussing the data with regulators as the work progresses. The technology dispute, however, remains unresolved.

Meanwhile, Native Hawaiian beneficiaries regularly drive by the subdivision site, just off the main road into Waimea. About a dozen told the Star-Advertiser and ProPublica that they often wonder when the project will get back on track. The site’s 2012 groundbreaking sign, which is still standing, touts the name of Gov. Neil Abercrombie. He left office eight years ago.

In response to questions from the news organizations, the Corps acknowledged that the remediation process is time-consuming. But the agency won’t sacrifice quality for speed, according to Lt. Col. Ryan Pevey, who heads the Corps’ Hawaii operations. “At the end of the day, it’s about the safety of the people of Hawaii and the environment,” he said in an interview. The Corps said it is highly confident that the Puukapu assessment, once completed, will allay the state’s concerns and show that hundreds of UXO will not be left in the ground.

The trust lands have been getting special attention in recent years, officials added. “It is a priority for us to try to help the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands with their needs for people who are trying to get loans on their properties,” said Zulick, the former Waikoloa program manager.

The Corps said Lalamilo is currently ranked No. 1 among its Waikoloa priorities and Puukapu is third, designations that direct resources to expedite the UXO work. Just a few years ago Puukapu was No. 22 — a reflection of the fact that the area had not been used as intensively for live-fire training as other sectors, according to the Corps. Some beneficiaries believe no remedy is needed in Puukapu. They say people have worked the land there for decades without incident, and many express frustration that the Corps is taking so long to assess a site they believe is safe.

William J. Aila Jr., who oversees DHHL and the 203,000-acre land trust, reflected on the balance that must be struck to successfully resolve the UXO problem. “Obviously, we would like to see this effort proceed faster, but we understand the Army Corps has a process, and we want them to do a thorough job,” Aila said in a statement.

Native Hawaiians Pay the Price

Native Hawaiians are paying the price for the delays — sometimes, quite literally.

Shirley Gambill-De Rego, a Big Island mortgage manager, recalled the case of a man who, after learning of the UXO delay, paid a private company $25,000 to sweep his mother’s land in Puukapu so he could get a loan to replace her aging home. Given that his mother was elderly, the man concluded that he couldn’t afford to wait for years for the Army Corps to do its job, said Gambill-De Rego, who ultimately helped the family get financing for construction. The new home was completed about seven years ago. The mother has since died.

Others have also had to dip into their own pockets.

Rocky and Kamala Cashman moved to Puukapu with designs for a new home in 2014. The retirees, who were in their 70s at the time, set up shop in a temporary trailer, expecting to live there for a year at most while workers constructed their new prefabricated home. But just before building began, their bank canceled the loan because it was no longer insurable due to the UXO problem. Other lenders subsequently turned them down as well. As a result, the trailer became their home for the next five years.

Kamala Cashman, 81, is thrilled to be in her new Puukapu home after spending five years living in a cramped trailer on the property because she and her husband were unable to obtain financing due to the UXO problem. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser)

The rented camper, which measured 240 square feet, had just enough room for a king-sized bed, a bathroom and a small refrigerator. The couple made meals with a toaster oven, microwave, electric frying pan and rice cooker. While the living situation was cramped, Kamala Cashman said, it was offset, in part, by the natural beauty of their five-acre lot, which featured expansive mountain views. “We made it work,” she said.

The financial cost, though, was significant. On top of renting the trailer, the Cashmans paid to lease two shipping containers to hold their household belongings and a third to store the wood and other materials for their new home. Their total five-year rental tab came to about $60,000.

Then, in 2019, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, an advocacy organization for Hawaii’s indigenous people, stepped in. The group agreed to lend the Cashmans $300,000 through a program designed to assist Hawaiians unable to get more conventional financing. The council approved the loan even though the UXO assessment in Puukapu was still ongoing.

“I knew if we didn’t step in and help, this family would still be in the trailer,” said Kuhio Lewis, the council’s chief executive officer.

The Cashmans moved into their new home in 2020. The three-bedroom, three-and-a-half-bath cedar-and-redwood residence spans about 2,500 square feet of living space — more than 10 times the size of their rented trailer — and features a dome-shaped great room and a wraparound balcony facing Mauna Kea.

“It’s sad that it took five years for us to move into something that should’ve happened in a few months,” said Kamala Cashman, who is now 81.

“That shouldn’t be happening at their age,” added Noe Aiu, Cashman’s daughter.

Rocky Cashman, 81, with his daughter, Noe Aiu, 60, at their Pu'ukapu homestead. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser)

The HUD freeze is impacting Native Hawaiians in other ways too.

Those who have wanted to sell their homes in the region have had to look for all-cash buyers because of the unavailability of financing. And some have been unable to refinance existing mortgages, which prevented the homeowners from taking advantage of record-low interest rates in 2021. Rates have since rebounded to two-decade highs.

The result, advocates say, has been that Native Hawaiians have been deprived of building financial equity during a period in which Hawaii real estate values have soared. If any other group were denied such an opportunity, government officials would “move mountains to turn that faucet back on,” said Rolina Faagai, vice chair of Hawaiian Lending & Investments, a beneficiary-run organization that helps Hawaiians obtain mortgages on trust lands. “Not for our community. Why is that?”

A Plea for Help

Given how long beneficiaries have suffered under the freeze, Native Hawaiians and their advocates are now calling for the Corps and the state’s congressional delegation to expedite remediation.

“They’ve got to prioritize this,” said Lewis, head of the Native Hawaiian advocacy council, citing the state and federal governments’ long-standing legal duty to beneficiaries as overseers of the land trust. “This is a trust obligation to Native Hawaiians, an obligation that is being unfulfilled, unmet.”

The Star-Advertiser and ProPublica reached out to Hawaii’s four members in Congress about the Waikoloa cleanup process. Just two responded: U.S. Sens. Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz.

Hirono did not answer the news organizations’ questions but issued a general statement saying more needs to be done to ensure the governments’ trust obligations are fulfilled.

Schatz was more specific. In written responses, he said he would push for more funding to speed up the cleanup effort to help ensure no one waits longer than needed. “It’s a dangerous job that understandably takes time,” he said of the remediation work. “But for beneficiaries, every delay in the process has a real impact.”

In recent years, Congress has approved additional monies for Waikoloa, according to Schatz, who sits on the Senate’s appropriations committee. A decade ago, the project was getting about $10 million annually. This year, the total hit more than $18 million, a record, Schatz said. Much more, however, is needed. The Corps estimates $375 million will be required to finish the job.

Danner, the beneficiary leader, urged DHHL to help supplement the remediation effort. “If the lots were good enough to issue to our families, then they are good enough for DHHL to spend resources to clear the lands for safety,” she said. But the department, which received a record $600 million from the state this year to boost the Native Hawaiian homesteading program, said the federal government is obligated to pick up the tab and should.

For now, Ross continues to wait. Several years ago, she added a second room to her shack and now has running water and a power generator. But she is losing hope that she’ll ever see an actual house.

“There’s a lack of concern for the Hawaiian people,” she said. “So we’ll just continue to be successful on our trust land.”

Liliu Ross tends to the flock of sheep she raises on her Puukapu farm. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser)
by Rob Perez, Honolulu Star-Advertiser

“I Don’t Know Where I’m Going to Go”: HUD Displaces Even More Residents in This Small City

2 years ago

This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with Lee Enterprises. Sign up for Dispatches to get stories like this one as soon as they are published.

It was the last Friday in October, and barges filled with mounds of glistening coal sat parked in the Ohio River below Lee Esther Logan’s high-rise public housing apartment complex in Cairo, Illinois. Wispy white clouds streaked a baby blue sky. The panoramic waterfront view is one that normally gives Logan peace as she takes it in from the brown recliner on her balcony.

But on the day I visited her, Logan wasn’t at peace. She was anxious.

Two days prior, officials from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had called Logan and about 60 of her fellow public housing residents to a meeting. An engineering assessment has found that the Connell F. Smith Sr. Building may not be structurally sound enough to withstand an earthquake. The federal government plans to raze their home, and they have to move out by early next year, the federal housing officials told them.

The building mostly houses seniors and people with disabilities and is also home to a small number of children and their parents. Officials told the residents they’d get vouchers and moving assistance. But that’s of little comfort to the many residents who want to stay in Cairo.

Lee Esther Logan has lived her whole life in Cairo. (Julia Rendleman for ProPublica)

Since its population peaked at 15,000 residents in the 1920s, Cairo has faced decades of population and economic decline. It’s now one of the poorest cities in Illinois, and its population has dropped to about 1,600. There’s no grocery store or gas station — and most critically for the high-rise residents facing eviction, there’s an extreme shortage of safe rental options. That means that under HUD’s plan, most residents will have to move at least 30 miles away to find available units in other towns’ public housing complexes or private-market rentals.

The decision sent residents reeling. Logan’s close-knit, majority-Black town sits at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, where the borders of Illinois, Kentucky and Missouri meet.

When newcomers visit, they’re often struck by the blight of a hollowed-out city: streets lined with boarded-up homes, vacant buildings and empty lots. The Smith building itself holds a lot of history — not all of it good. Constructed in 1968, it’s named for a former housing authority board member who, the decade before, had affixed a flashing neon arrow to his garage roof; it pointed at the home of an attorney who was working to integrate Cairo’s public schools alongside Thurgood Marshall. In an essay, Langston Hughes described it as a 4-foot “red arrow of bigotry.”

But for residents, a strong sense of community remains. Cairo is known regionally for its historic churches — some of which still gather a spirited crowd on Sundays — ties to American history, music festivals, acclaimed barbecue and standout high school basketball teams over the years. It’s one of the few small towns in southern Illinois to offer a children’s orchestra and ballet lessons.

A public housing high-rise, planned for demolition, sits on the banks of the Ohio River. (Julia Rendleman for ProPublica)

For many of the seniors and people with disabilities who live at the Smith building, the prospect of heading out of town — for some, the only place they’ve ever lived — is daunting.

“A lot of people are scared. I’m scared,” said Logan, 55, a disabled woman who has spent her entire life here. “I don’t want to leave Cairo.” I heard many neighbors echo her concerns as I knocked on doors that afternoon. “I don’t know where I’m gonna go. I’m 83 years old,” said Harry “Mack” McDowell Jr., a retired car salesman who is still grieving the death of his wife in July and who is dreading having to apartment shop and move during the holidays.

Few federal agencies have a mission so squarely aligned with what Cairo needs: to uplift disadvantaged people and places and, as HUD describes it on its website, “to deliver on America’s dreams.”

But HUD has let generations of Cairo residents down time and again. And although HUD could oversee the building of new apartments in the city, it has no plans to do so.

Cairo was once a thriving city. Now, its streets are home to boarded-up buildings and vacant lots. (Julia Rendleman for ProPublica)

Cairo isn’t just another Midwestern river town befallen by hard economic luck.

The storied epicenter of a region colloquially known as “Little Egypt,” Cairo holds a central place in the American story. The town, the most southern point in a northern state, was a key station on the Underground Railroad and a Midwestern staging area for Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s Union armies along the Mississippi artery.

It had been a mostly white city until thousands of formerly enslaved Black Americans fled on steamers headed north along the Mississippi River during the height of the war. The federal government sent them to Cairo and housed them in what were called “contraband camps,” shanty tents set up near the riverbanks where people had little to eat and disease ran rampant.

At the war’s end, the camps disbanded and many people left. But at least 3,000 Black Americans stayed in Cairo and established a vibrant, though largely segregated, community of churches, schools and businesses. By the early 1900s, nearly 40% of the population was Black, and the strongly organized community leveraged its political power to win elected seats in town.

Despite those gains, white supremacists maintained the balance of power and ensured that Cairo’s Black population remained locked out of the best jobs and public schools. Jim Crow-era policies that followed Reconstruction remained firmly rooted in Cairo well after they’d begun to unravel elsewhere.

Housing discrimination was a common thread.

In the 1940s, the town built two large family housing complexes: one for Black families using cheap wood materials at the site of the old “contraband camp” and one for white families built of brick.

In 1972, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission held hearings in the town. Numerous Black citizens testified about being forced to live in the segregated and dilapidated public housing complex; they were terrorized by rodents and white vigilantes who, for months, fired into the apartment complex from the Mississippi levee, shattering windows and streets lights, to intimidate a Black civil rights leader and his followers who lived there. The commission concluded that federal housing officials had known about the town’s defiance of federal fair housing laws for years but done little.

More than 40 years later, I, along with several colleagues from The Southern Illinoisan, documented unsafe conditions in the same buildings cited in the federal report. They had fallen into even worse disrepair. There were severe foundational issues. Homes were overrun with mice and roaches. Doctors expressed alarm at the number of mothers bringing in children with asthma and other breathing problems from mold. The heating system was so poor that many families used their gas ovens to stay warm in the winter. Similar to the commission’s findings, our reporting revealed that HUD had known about problems and done little. In 2016, on the heels of our investigative series, HUD exercised its rarely utilized authority to remove the housing authority based in Cairo from local control and place it into federal receivership.

Images of riverboats hang in a hallway of the high-rise building that HUD plans to demolish. (Julia Rendleman for ProPublica)

A year later, under President Donald Trump and his HUD secretary, Ben Carson, the federal agency announced the closure of two family housing complexes in Cairo, and 10 months after that, two more in nearby Thebes. The buildings were home to about 500 people, and most of them ended up leaving the area to find housing. The community was livid — not at HUD’s decisions to tear down buildings long past their prime but at the fact that HUD would not commit to replacing even a small fraction of what had been lost.

At the time, federal officials promised they would do what they could to maintain the public housing that remained in Cairo, including the high-rise where Logan lives. At least 14 families forced out of the demolished homes moved into the Smith building. And residents were hopeful that President Joe Biden’s administration might take a different approach.

But to residents in Cairo, last month’s announcement is another broken promise in a long line.

“Here we go again,” a frustrated Thomas Simpson, Cairo’s mayor, quipped on his way out the door of the meeting with HUD officials. He’s working with other community leaders to open a co-op grocery store. And he’s hopeful that plans to build a new inland river port in town — a development that Gov. J.B. Pritzker has committed $40 million in state funds toward — will boost the region’s economy.

Cairo’s mayor, Thomas Simpson, would like HUD to come up with a plan to keep residents of the agency’s buildings in Cairo. (Julia Rendleman for ProPublica)

But HUD’s continued gutting of his community makes it hard to stay a step ahead, he said. After more than seven years under HUD control, the local housing authority has not managed to replace a single unit in his town. The mayor believes HUD has overstated the urgent need for people to move. (HUD does not typically assess seismic risk; it ordered an architectural assessment after an agency official noticed cracks in the building in 2021. The study identified problems but did not make any recommendations, and there’s no HUD policy that dictates what is an acceptable seismic risk for a public housing property). He’d like to see the agency slow down and come up with an alternative solution.

One is already on the table.

A developer with extensive affordable housing experience has offered HUD a plan to build a 40-unit housing community in Cairo at the site of one of the previously demolished homes. The roughly $5 million needed for the project already exists in the housing authority’s coffers. And the developer who pitched the solution, Nashville, Tennessee-based U.S. Management Services, is already under contract with HUD to develop a long-term plan for the housing authority and its tenants in Cairo. The owner of the development company told HUD he could complete the Cairo project in six months by shipping in manufactured homes.

But while a HUD official later told me that the project hasn’t been rejected outright, he said that the deal is more complicated than meets the eye. More detailed questions, he said, would have to be directed to HUD’s spokesperson. Christina Wilkes, HUD’s press secretary, did not specifically respond to my questions about the proposed development. In an emailed response, she said the agency is “committed to partnering with the Mayor and community leaders to develop a plan for the future, based upon the Mayor’s vision.”

The mayor, however, said HUD only notified him of its plan to demolish the Smith building a few hours before notifying the residents, even though the agency first noticed problems with the building more than a year ago. He wants the agency to pursue all viable options to keep people in Cairo. And if the agency goes ahead with the plan to move people out of the high-rise, those residents will take their vouchers with them, leaving insufficient funding for the new units.

On the afternoon that HUD broke the news, the residents and other community leaders packed into the meeting room shoulder to shoulder. People spilled into the hallways. A few residents shed tears; others begged HUD officials to come up with another solution. Community leaders admonished the agency for the pain it has caused the town.

Phillip Matthews, a pastor and community activist, stood up, stared the officials down and told them to deliver this message to their superiors in Washington on behalf of the town: “It’s not happening this time.”

“This was not an easy decision,” a defensive HUD official fired back. “If you think it was, you’re sorely mistaken.”

At the meeting, a HUD official promised to share the town residents’ concerns with higher-ups in Washington. But the agency has not backed off of its plans to move people from the building in Cairo, located in Alexander County. “The safety of the HUD assisted residents is our top priority and moving them to safe housing as soon as possible is our focus at this time. If there is any future ACHA housing, it would allow former ACHA residents the first priority to return,” Wilkes, the HUD spokesperson said, referring to the Alexander County Housing Authority that is in receivership.

In the days that followed that tense meeting, residents and community leaders have fought back. The state’s attorney filed a lawsuit challenging that HUD had not followed its own requirements for when a public housing property is slated to be demolished. That resulted in a county judge issuing a temporary restraining order, which has since expired; the case was then transferred to federal court, where it is pending. (HUD has maintained that it hasn’t violated any laws or regulations with its announcement.) Political leaders wrote letters to HUD advocating for the town. And residents say they plan to flood a housing authority board meeting next week, where HUD officials are expected to officially vote on the plan.

Kaneesha Mallory, who lives in the building slated for demolition with her 2-year-old daughter Bre’Chelle, is holding out hope that HUD will have a change of heart. She’s lived in other places but never felt the same sense of belonging.

“This is home. My roots are here in Cairo,” she said. “If you move anywhere else, you won’t find nowhere else like Cairo.”

Kaneesha Mallory and her 2-year-old daughter live in the building slated for demolition. (Julia Rendleman for ProPublica)
by Molly Parker, Lee Enterprises Midwest

Department of Justice Opens Investigation Into Real Estate Tech Company Accused of Collusion with Landlords

2 years ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has opened an investigation into whether rent-setting software made by a Texas-based real estate tech company is facilitating collusion among landlords, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.

The inquiry is being launched as questions have arisen about a 2017 merger between RealPage and its largest pricing competitor. The source told ProPublica some DOJ staff raised concerns about the merger but were overridden by political appointees of former President Donald Trump.

Congressional leaders have pushed for an investigation into RealPage in three letters to the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission, which were sent after a ProPublica report on the software’s use in mid-October.

The letters raised concerns that RealPage’s pricing software could be pushing rents above competitive levels and allowing big landlords to coordinate their pricing in violation of federal antitrust laws.

“We are concerned that the use of this rate setting software essentially amounts to a cartel to artificially inflate rental rates in multifamily residential buildings,” three senators said in a letter in early November. They included Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the Minnesota Democrat who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust and Consumer Rights.

The Capital Forum first reported the existence of the investigation and some details on Tuesday.

RealPage’s software works by collecting information from property managers who are the company’s clients, including what rents they are able to charge tenants. That information is fed into an algorithm that then recommends prices daily for each available apartment.

Though RealPage says the information is aggregated and anonymized, some experts have said using private data from competitors to set rents could run afoul of antitrust laws, allowing property managers to illegally coordinate their pricing.

ProPublica found the software is widely used in some markets: In one downtown Seattle ZIP code, 70% of more than 9,000 apartments were controlled by just 10 property managers — every one of which used RealPage’s pricing software in at least some of its buildings.

RealPage did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The company has said RealPage “uses aggregated market data from a variety of sources in a legally compliant manner.” The company said its software prioritizes a property’s own internal supply and demand dynamics over external factors like competitors’ rents. The company also said its software helps reduce the risk of collusion that would occur if landlords relied on phone surveys of competitors to manually price their units.

The DOJ’s investigation represents the second time the federal law enforcement agency has looked into RealPage’s rent-setting software. In 2017, the DOJ flagged a proposed merger in which RealPage sought to buy its biggest competitor, a company called Rainmaker Group, which made rent-setting software known as LRO, or Lease Rent Options.

RealPage’s then-CEO, Steve Winn, said the $300 million purchase would allow RealPage to double the number of apartments it was pricing, from 1.5 to 3 million units.

After the acquisition was announced in early 2017, the DOJ requested additional information from the companies involved. Federal regulators scrutinize mergers above a certain size — right now, it is transactions valued at $101 million — and typically allow them to proceed after only a preliminary review.

But the government can request more information from companies and even seek to block the merger in court if it believes it could substantially harm competition.

A paralegal specialist who worked on the original DOJ probe into RealPage said it was narrowly focused on the impact on competitors who made software with a similar purpose. The paralegal said she was unaware of any complaints by those companies about the proposed merger.

Merger review guidelines used by both the DOJ and FTC say the agencies “normally evaluate mergers based on their impact on customers,” which include both direct customers and final consumers. But the paralegal said the investigation did not involve talking to tenant advocates or renters.

“The focus of the investigation was ‘talk to competitors, talk to large rental companies,’” said the paralegal, who did not want to be named because she was not authorized to speak about the investigation. “That was the limited focus.”

ProPublica found that in the Seattle ZIP code it examined, some of the 10 largest property managers used RealPage’s original pricing software and others were clients of the competitor it acquired.

Though some career DOJ staff members were concerned about the merger, political appointees leading the agency at the time under Trump chose not to challenge it in court, according to the source with knowledge of the matter.

The investigation fell at a time when the DOJ’s Antitrust Division was preparing to sue to block a proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner, which promised to take up a lot of the division’s resources. “It was a resource constraint issue he was trying to balance,” the source said of Makan Delrahim, the former assistant attorney general charged with overseeing the division at the time. In addition, RealPage did not have the same reach then as it does today, the source said.

Delrahim declined to comment on Tuesday about the first RealPage investigation, saying he was bound by government ethics restrictions from discussing nonpublic aspects of the case and referring questions to the current administration.

He said that given that it had been almost five years, his “memory is fuzzy at best.” But he added that in general, “as evident from my past record, I was not shy about greenlighting cases that I felt were meritorious even if difficult or unprecedented.”

Antitrust prosecutions by the division fell to historic lows under Trump.

The DOJ declined to comment on Tuesday.

Klobuchar’s recent letter to the DOJ mentioned the 2017 merger, saying that such consolidation can make markets “more susceptible” to collusion and encouraging the department to consider looking at RealPage’s past behavior to see if any of it was anticompetitive.

RealPage says its customer base across all its products — which also include other types of software, such as accounting — has exceeded 31,700 clients.

Marketing materials dated 2021 on the company’s website said its so-called revenue management products, formerly called Yieldstar and LRO, are “trusted by over 4 million units.”

ProPublica also detailed how RealPage’s User Group, a forum that includes landlords who adopt the company’s software, has grown to more than 1,000 members, who meet in private at an annual conference and take part in quarterly phone calls. Klobuchar’s letter raised specific questions about the group, saying the senators were “concerned about potential anticompetitive coordination” occurring through it.

In addition to the letters from congressional lawmakers, renters have filed three lawsuits in federal court in Seattle and San Diego since mid-October, alleging RealPage and a slew of large landlords are engaging in anticompetitive behavior through the company’s software.

After the San Diego lawsuit was filed, a RealPage representative said the company “strongly denies the allegations and will vigorously defend against the lawsuit.” It has not responded to requests for comment on the other two lawsuits.

A property manager named in one of the Seattle lawsuits, Campus Advantage, said in a statement that it “strongly disagrees with the unsubstantiated allegations in the lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Campus Advantage is proud of its track record creating successful communities.”

Other property management firms named in the three lawsuits either did not respond to requests for comment or declined to comment. One could not be reached.

by Heather Vogell