a Better Bubble™

ProPublica

The Girl Scouts’ Latest Business Project: Hailing 5G Cellphone Technology

2 years 4 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.

Beyond developing their camping skills, participating in a food drive to aid the hungry and donating pajamas for seniors, Girl Scouts across America this year were offered a new way to earn a special uniform patch: learning about the wonders of 5G cellphone technology and, in some cases, promoting it.

The opportunity came courtesy of Ericsson, the Swedish telecommunications giant, which sponsored the “Ericsson Limited Edition 5G & IoT” (Internet of Things) patch program. The program, still available on at least one Girl Scout website, targets all age levels, from Daisies (kindergarten-age Scouts) to Ambassadors (those in high school), with an array of activities intended to “introduce Girl Scouts to 5G and the Internet of Things.”

These include watching “Explaining 5G to Kids,” a five-minute video featuring Mats, a bearded Ericsson employee, as he chats with Siofra, Freya and two other squirming but charming children, who speak English with what sound like hints of Swedish accents. Mats explains that 5G is a “new technology for the mobile phone. So everything will be much better.” He explains that the technology could allow the kids’ toys to connect. “Wouldn’t that be cool?” he asks. “This is what Ericsson is doing,” Mats explains. “This is what 5G can do.”

Other recommended activities sound more like do-it-yourself advertising. High school-age members on one Girl Scout site are encouraged to “Find a cell tower and make a video explaining how 5G would change the world for you. Share the video you made with a friend or fellow Girl Scout. Or, with an adult’s permission, post your video on social media and tag @gsheartofnj, @ericsson, #girlscoutstalk5G.”

And Scouts of all ages are invited to “discuss with your troop or an adult how mmWave spectrum is safe and does not cause harm to our health.”

The Ericsson “Limited Edition 5G & IoT” patch offered by Girl Scouts Heart of New Jersey (Image courtesy of GSHNJ and Ericsson)

Some health experts, who are concerned that wireless radiation poses a health risk to children, criticize the Ericsson program as an improper and inaccurate form of industry marketing. “Anytime corporations advertise directly to children, I’m very suspicious,” Dr. Jerome Paulson, a pediatrician and emeritus professor in George Washington University’s department of environmental and occupational health, told ProPublica. “It would be like Exxon Mobil sponsoring a patch on climate change.” Paulson previously chaired the Council on Environmental Health at the American Academy of Pediatrics, which has criticized the Federal Communications Commission’s wireless-radiation standards for failing to protect children.

The Environmental Health Trust, an activist nonprofit which first spotted the Ericsson program, recently sent a letter of protest to the Girl Scouts’ national office, saying the patch materials “misleadingly state that 5G networks and cellphones are safe,” and urging their removal from all Girl Scout websites. The ten signers included “former Girl Scouts and parents of Scouts,” the chair of the obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences department at Yale’s medical school, the former president of Microsoft Canada and a Swedish scientist who has conducted influential epidemiological studies on cellphone radiation.

In an emailed statement, Vidya Krishnan, global chief learning officer for Ericsson, who sits on the Girl Scouts National Board, defended the program: “The Ericsson Girl Scouts 5G patch has the sole purpose of educating our next generation about the latest wireless technologies that are shaping their lives and their future. Educational awareness is the only intention and impact.” (In October, the Girl Scouts of Northeast Texas honored Krishnan as a “Woman of Distinction” at its annual fundraising luncheon, where a “presenting sponsorship” went for $100,000 and individual tickets sold for $300.)

The Girl Scouts, of course, are hardly strangers to the world of commerce. They have long been renowned for their annual cookie sales — the Scouts call it “the largest girl-led entrepreneurial program in the world” — which raise about $800 million annually for local activities. Girls are eligible for special “Cookie Business” badges by honing their sales pitches and tapping into market research.

And the Girl Scouts have offered other patches sponsored by corporations. Among them: Fidelity Investments, which sponsors a “girls’ guide to managing money.” One Texas chapter offered a patch for “Fluor Engineering Month.”

The Ericsson 5G patch was first made available in March 2021 through the website of the Northeast Texas council of the Girl Scouts. Ericsson’s U.S. headquarters is in Plano, Texas, and the company, which boasts of being “the leading provider of 5G network equipment in the U.S.,” has been involved with the area’s Girl Scouts program for several years. Ericsson has focused on promoting interest in science, technology, engineering and math careers, known as STEM, where girls are historically underrepresented. (The company’s Facebook page includes photos of hardhat-wearing Girl Scouts on a 2018 field trip to an Ericsson training center with mock cell towers and transmitters.) A second Ericsson executive serves on the local Girl Scouts board, and, according to public disclosures, Ericsson has donated more than $100,000 annually to the northeast Texas council for the past three years.

Ashley Crowe, chief program officer for the Girl Scouts of Northeast Texas, said 697 Girl Scouts have obtained the Ericsson 5G patch. Crowe praised Ericsson’s support for the Girl Scouts, saying, “I for one would never feel exploited by Ericsson,” but she added that she was unaware of health concerns about children’s exposure to cellphone radiation. “I had never even heard about that,” she said. “This has not been brought to our attention at all.”

After ProPublica’s inquiries about the matter, the patch program was removed from the Texas council’s website. (A spokesperson for the council asserted that “the patch program was removed from our site at the beginning of October,” explaining that “the Ericsson 5G IoT patch program was funded by Ericsson as a one-year optional program for local Girl Scouts and concluded September 30, 2022.” However, a ProPublica reporter saw the patch on the Texas site as late as Nov. 21.) It remains available on the website of a New Jersey Girls Scouts council.

A spokesperson for Girl Scouts Heart of New Jersey submitted a statement on behalf of its CEO, Natasha Hemmings, asserting that “the safety and well-being of our Girl Scouts is and always has been our top priority.” The statement continued: “In line with our mission, we partner with numerous organizations and corporations, including Ericsson, to expand access to education and to empower girls to become leaders of tomorrow.”

The national office for Girl Scouts of the USA did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Scientific concern about whether cellphone radiation poses a human health hazard, including increased risk of cancer, fertility issues or other problems, has been rising in recent years. (ProPublica recently explored this issue in detail.) The research includes a massive U.S. government study that in 2018 found “clear evidence” that cellphone radiation caused cancer in lab animals. Some researchers have also warned of special risk to children, citing studies showing that their developing brains absorb more radiation because of their thinner, smaller skulls. The American Academy of Pediatrics has echoed this concern, urging the FCC to revise its exposure standards, saying they don’t adequately protect children.

More than 20 foreign governments have adopted protective measures or recommended precautions regarding wireless radiation, with many of them focused on limiting exposure to children. The European Environment Agency offers similar guidance, noting: “There is sufficient evidence of risk to advise people, especially children, not to place the handset against their heads.”

The wireless industry and U.S. regulators, including the FCC and Food and Drug Administration, deny that there is any proven health risk for anyone. They dispute that the technology poses any special hazard to children and don’t advocate any precautions. The FCC’s “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns” page, for example, notes that “some parties” recommend safety measures, “even though no scientific evidence currently establishes a definitive link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.” It then states, in bold: “The FCC does not endorse the need for these practices.”

by Peter Elkind

For Black Families in Phoenix, Child Welfare Investigations Are a Constant Threat

2 years 4 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.

PHOENIX — In 2015, Nydea Richards decided to move her family to the nation’s fastest-growing metropolitan area, in search of lower crime and better weather than in her hometown of Milwaukee. She was pregnant at the time.

Before arriving here, Richards, like most Americans, never thought of child protective services as having a major presence in people’s lives, unless they’ve committed some sort of clear-cut child abuse. As a Black mother, she was more concerned about her kids encountering the police someday.

But within months, she found herself being investigated by the Arizona Department of Child Safety — based on the initial result of a drug test administered to her newborn daughter at the hospital, according to DCS case records she shared with ProPublica and NBC News.

Watch the NBC News Report

It is not hospital policy to test for drugs after all births, but staff told her that she and her child were being screened because she was from out of town, she said. Richards, who tested negative for substances herself, believes the reason was the color of her skin.

DCS then prohibited her from being alone with her baby for five days while a caseworker interrogated her about her marital status, whether she received food stamps and how she usually handles stress, the records show. The investigator also inspected her other six children’s bodies and questioned them for hours about their chores, their meals, their mom’s employment and more.

Then, the department learned that there had been a false positive on the test and deemed the case unfounded, according to the records.

“They never explained or apologized,” Richards said.

Just months later, Richards, a case manager for a behavioral health care company, was investigated again, when she sought medical care after her daughter fell off a couch. That allegation of child maltreatment, too, was unfounded, according to a DCS spokesperson.

Nydea Richards with three of her children in Phoenix

The department declined to comment further on the two cases.

Richards now feels intense dread when any of her children have even a minor injury or come down sick, fearing that DCS will show up again if she takes them to the doctor.

And in the years since her own experiences with Arizona’s child welfare system, she said, two of her family members in Phoenix, as well as a neighbor and a client at her job, have also endured these investigations of their parenting. All of them are Black.

From 2015 to 2019, the last full year of federal child welfare statistics available before the pandemic, DCS investigated the family lives of 1 of every 3 Black children in Maricopa County, the state’s most populous county and home to Phoenix, according to an analysis by ProPublica and NBC News of data obtained from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Last year, a study published by the National Academy of Sciences used similar data to project that by the time Black children in Maricopa County turn 18, there’s a 63% chance that they will see their parents investigated by child services, the highest rate of any of the 20 largest counties in the nation.

Put another way, more Black children in metro Phoenix will go through a child maltreatment investigation than won’t.

That’s significantly more likely than a Black teen being stopped by the police — an issue that has gained far more attention in recent years — according to multiple studies and interviews with criminal justice data experts.

Note: Figures are based on the risk of each event occurring before a child turns 18, according to estimates from a study by researchers at Rutgers and Duke universities. (Graphic by Lucas Waldron/ProPublica)

Over the past year, ProPublica and NBC News have interviewed more than 30 Black parents across the Phoenix region who’ve faced a child welfare case, as well as several of their children and an additional nine teenagers who experienced DCS investigations.

Some of the parents were working single dads or moms, like Richards, many of them living in the historically Black neighborhood of South Phoenix. Some were middle-class couples in the cactus-lined gated communities that dot suburbs like Mesa and Glendale. Some were adoptive parents, or extended family members caring for a child.

Almost all described a system so omnipresent among Black families that it has created a kind of communitywide dread: of that next knock on the door, of that next warrantless search of their home. And many expressed disbelief that it was so easy for the state government to enter their family realm and potentially remove their kids from them.

Black families and their advocates said DCS’ ubiquity does not just take the form of unnecessary investigations in which racial bias may have played a role, as Richards believed happened in her case. It’s also a product, in some cases, of public policy choices in Arizona that take a punitive rather than preventative approach toward Black parents, many of whom are struggling under the legacy of racism, a lack of inherited wealth and a slashed social safety net.

The state — the last in the nation to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a holiday, in 1992 — spends a majority of its welfare budget on DCS investigations rather than on direct assistance to families in need, as ProPublica reported last year.

A residential development in South Phoenix, a historically Black neighborhood in the city. Many Black families first moved to the area as a result of redlining and racial covenants that blocked them from renting or owning property elsewhere.

These priorities are borne out in the data.

Only 2% of children in Maricopa County whose families were accused of child maltreatment from 2015 to 2019 were ultimately determined or suspected by caseworkers to be victims of any form of physical or sexual abuse following an investigation, one of the lowest rates among large counties in the U.S.

But 15% allegedly experienced neglect, a term encompassing parenting problems typically associated with poverty, including a lack of decent housing, child care, food, clothing, medical care or mental health treatment. The category also includes alcohol and drug use, which numerous studies have found are more policed but no more common among Black or low-income people than other groups.

Roughly 20% of Black people in Maricopa County are living below the poverty line, compared to about 13% of all county residents, though having money should not be thought of as a requirement for good parenting, family advocates said.

In an interview, the director of DCS, Mike Faust, said the data used for this article is based on a stretch of time, 2015 through 2019, that began with a caseload crisis for the department. Over that period, he said, the agency made sweeping changes, including improving its intake and risk assessment tools in order to reduce subjective decision-making and unnecessary investigations.

“We’ve gone from what I think most people would describe as the worst-performing child protection agency in the country to one that — I don’t know if you’ll ever have a high-performer child protection agency, given the nature of the work we do — but it’s drastically different,” said Faust, who is white and has led the agency since 2019.

Yet the most recent available federal data through September 2020 shows that while it is true that DCS has reduced the overall number of families it looks into statewide, the decline did not improve — and in fact worsened — the racial disparity.

Although 7,400 fewer white children were the subject of investigations completed from the 2016 to 2020 fiscal years, the number of Black kids whose parents were investigated dropped by less than 100. (Some children did not have a race identified.)

“It didn’t have an immediate impact on just African American children,” Faust acknowledged. “The commitment that I make is to continue to stay engaged as an organization. And trust me, these are some challenging conversations to be in. It’s been difficult. But you’ve got to keep coming back to the table regardless of, at times, that people share that raw emotion.”

Faust, a conservative Republican with a private-sector background, may be out of a job by next spring. The election last month of Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, as Arizona governor likely means that DCS will have a new leader and possibly a new approach to racial disproportionality in the coming years.

In a statement, Joe Wolf, a spokesperson for Hobbs’ transition, pointed out that her career has included stints working with homeless youth and helping to run one of the largest domestic violence shelters in the country, giving her perspective on what affects Arizona’s most vulnerable. Wolf also said that as the governor-elect prepares to take office, her team is developing plans to improve the way the state provides social services, including “addressing the racial disparities that have plagued the system for so long.”

Still, Black community leaders in Phoenix continue to have concerns, saying that it has been challenging to effectively advocate for reforms across both Republican and Democratic administrations.

For one thing, the metro area’s Black community — just 7% of its population — is sparse and spread out compared to that of similarly large U.S. cities. That makes it hard to organize around this common experience to make DCS a pressing political issue and hold its officials accountable.

Richards’ daughter at the family’s apartment

What’s more, sharing that you were investigated by child services remains more stigmatizing in many families than saying you’ve been stopped by the police.

As a result, some local leaders said it took them a while to realize just how pervasive DCS’ presence is.

Janelle Wood, founder and president/CEO of Phoenix’s Black Mothers Forum, said that when she started her community organization in 2016, she thought its members would mainly be focused on police violence and the criminalization of Black youth, which they have been to an extent. “But what kept coming up at meetings was DCS,” she said, noting that the confidentiality of the gatherings allowed for these conversations. “The most heart-wrenching stories — so many mothers had them.”

Kenneth Smith, principal of a Phoenix alternative high school and a community organizer who works with the local chapter of the NAACP and a group of nonprofits in the city, said he doesn’t usually talk about this issue openly due to the stigma, even though he knows of several people who’ve had DCS cases.

The statistics identified by ProPublica and NBC News, he said, are “like turning on the lights, and all of us are now standing in the room together saying, ‘What? You too?’”

“It Becomes a Generational Curse”

This year, ProPublica and NBC News have been investigating child welfare in the U.S.

What reporters have found is that child protective services agencies investigate the home lives of roughly 3.5 million American children each year, opening refrigerators and closets and searching kids’ bodies in almost every case. Yet they determine there was physical or sexual abuse in only about 5% of these investigations.

And while Phoenix is an outlier, the racial disproportionality of this system is a national problem.

In Maricopa County, Black children experienced child welfare investigations at one of the highest rates among large counties nationally, and nearly three times the rate of their white peers, from 2015 to 2019.

But throughout the country, investigations were more pervasive among Black families. And in many smaller counties, the rates were even higher than in the Phoenix area.

Note: Figures are the number of children investigated as a percentage of population from 2015 to 2019, for all U.S. counties with at least 5,000 children of each race. (Graphic by Lucas Waldron/ProPublica. Data Source: National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect.)

Matthew Stewart, the son of the longtime senior pastor of Phoenix’s most prominent Black church, First Institutional Baptist, joined DCS as a case manager in 2009. He did so in part because he had an interest in social justice and youth mentorship from his upbringing.

But in 2018, Stewart, by then a training supervisor, came across an internal agency spreadsheet showing a large racial disparity in Arizona’s foster care population, which mainly consists of children removed from their families following investigations. He hadn’t fully absorbed the problem until then.

He was flooded with shame.

Stewart quit two years later, after deciding he couldn’t achieve meaningful change from within the department. He has since founded a community organization, Our Sister Our Brother, which advocates helping families rather than separating them.

Generational poverty and the resulting trauma within families have been “centuries in the making,” he said. Are parents supposed to believe that after DCS takes custody of their children, “these things will be solved?”

“I simply don’t think DCS is the agency to do this,” he said.

One of the parents whom Stewart has partnered with is Tyra Smith, of nearby Mesa, who now works for his growing group as a parent advocate.

Tyra Smith with three of her sons at their apartment complex in suburban Mesa, Arizona

In 2020, Smith left her four sons (triplets who were 7 as well as a 4-year-old) in her apartment for roughly 20 minutes, according to a case report. She said she was going for a walk to calm down after a heated argument by phone with her sister, who then called the police on her.

While she was away, a police officer arrived and called DCS because she wasn’t there. Responding to her alleged lack of supervision and her growing anger about the ensuing encounter, the department removed all of her boys that night, agency records show.

As often happens in the child protection system, this temporary removal led to a broader DCS inquiry into Smith’s mental health history, her troubled relationship with her ex, her marijuana use (which is legal in Arizona) and the tidiness of her home, records show. Based on these concerns, the department kept custody of the boys for a year and a half before returning them.

Smith said that when she was growing up, her own mother underwent such an investigation, and that several of her friends from school, all Black, have since endured one as new parents.

Now, she worries about her sons getting arrested or shot when they are older; when that happens to Black men, she pointed out, the news reports often say, “Oh, their childhood, they were ‘in the system.’”

“It becomes a generational curse,” Smith said.

ProPublica and NBC News presented DCS spokesperson Darren DaRonco with the names and anecdotes of the families described in this article, and he checked with agency leadership and case records and said that all of them were indeed investigated and that there was nothing inaccurate in their recounting of events. Arizona law, he noted, would allow him to clarify or correct anything that is factually wrong.

In interviews, Katherine Guffey, executive consultant to DCS’ director, pointed to additional steps that their team has taken to address the disproportionality issue, especially since the racial justice movement following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020.

Smith kisses her son in their living room.

The department, said Guffey, who is white, has been incorporating the feedback of Black employees who formed a disparity committee, including Stewart before he left, helping them to write a charter and create an action plan. Staff have also taken part in a workshop on the systemic causes of racial inequity, as well as an empathy training developed by Arizona State University professors.

Earlier this year, DCS helped convene a confidential two-hour focus group of a dozen Black people to hear how the department’s frequent involvement with families has affected them. The child welfare consulting firm Casey Family Programs has been brought in to hold continuing discussions.

And the agency plans to start a Cultural Brokers program to ensure that a trusted community member of the same race is present upon parents’ contact with caseworkers.

Critics say that while these are positive moves, no proposals have been made that would rein in the fundamental power of this agency, which has a billion-dollar budget, to remove children from their loved ones.

As Stewart put it, “We have a culture that says Black families need to be watched and if we don’t agree with the things that are going on with them, we are the saviors of these children and are charged with punishing their parents.”

Until that fundamental outlook of the child welfare system changes, he said, some of the well-intended steps being taken may amount to just restating or even perpetuating the problem.

Is This Just Arizona?

Arizona was a Confederate territory, whose early leaders had business ties to and a sense of common cause with the slave states of the Deep South. Its first major wave of Black residents were largely recruited to the Phoenix area from Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma starting in the 1910s and ’20s, to work in cotton camps.

These families were soon forced to live in South Phoenix via redlining and racial covenants, which blocked them from renting or owning property anywhere else.

Yet despite the injustice of residential segregation, said Rod Grimes, a scholar of Arizona Black history, it did create a sense of Black density in a town that still had few Black people. Once families were able to move, many heading to the suburbs, he said, some of that strength in numbers fell away.

Today, Black residents of metro Phoenix are geographically and therefore politically diffuse. Without either the powerful voting blocs that exist in some parts of the South or the sense of protection of living in a majority-Black urban neighborhood elsewhere, they are more likely to be surrounded by white neighbors, teachers and health care workers whom they fear could call DCS on them, many said in interviews. They are also less likely to have the legislative representation that could conduct oversight of the department or fight for better social services to help prevent child welfare cases.

Smith’s son rides a bike at their apartment complex.

Even after the November election, Arizona has just two Black state legislators out of 90 — the same number as in 1950.

The result, said Clottee Hammons, an Arizona history expert and the creative director of Emancipation Arts, is a business-oriented white leadership class whom she and other Black Arizonans feel cannot relate to what it is like to raise a Black child, let alone on a low income.

Due to this experiential gap in the halls of power, critics say, the state Legislature rarely addresses concerns specific to Black families, instead focusing on topics of interest to many white voters, like school choice and border security.

Nor have lawmakers created a well-funded, easily accessible statewide system that parents living in poverty (as well as mandated reporters of child neglect, like teachers) can call to get help. Many other states have invested heavily in such services, but in Arizona the main option is to call DCS, which comes with the possibility of family separation attached.

In a statement, DaRonco, the department spokesperson, said of the parents and community members making this criticism, “We share their desire to reduce DCS presence in their homes by creating access to community-based supports that get them what they need without the stress of a DCS encounter.”

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

Once DCS is involved, the emphasis is on child safety and possibly child removal rather than addressing problems at their root, as reflected in the agency’s funding structure. In fiscal year 2022, the department spent roughly $90 million on group homes and other congregate facilities for foster youth, $99 million on foster care and $278 million on adoptions, compared to just $15 million on prevention efforts and $29 million on in-home services for families themselves.

DaRonco noted that top-line decisions about how DCS spends its funding are made by the Legislature, not the department. He added that the budget includes additional subsidies for parenting programs and substance use treatment, which can lead to family reunification.

Much of the foster care and adoption money comes from the federal government in the form of annual incentives.

“I’m just telling you, people in the community feel like their babies are being sold and trafficked — that’s how easy it feels, and how profitable,” said Roy Dawson, executive director of the nonprofit Arizona Center for African American Resources and a leading Phoenix advocate for racial equity in the child welfare system.

Dawson also said that all the well-meaning foster care nonprofits in Arizona, which exist in part because there is so much funding available for foster care in the state, help perpetuate the system’s vast size and reach.

It’s unclear whether the election of Hobbs as governor will translate into a realignment of budget priorities at DCS, let alone a shift in the anti-poverty agenda at the Legislature, where Republicans continue to hold a majority.

Many families and experts were also skeptical about the possibility of change because of the agency’s long history of claiming to address its problems with race without making much progress.

In 1995, the Arizona Republic published a story about child protective services with the sub-headline, “Blacks are overrepresented in Arizona’s system, study says.” The article went on to say, “Officials haven’t been able to find out why Arizona’s figures are 2.5 times the national average” and that “the state has formed a task force to examine why Blacks are having difficulty.”

In 2008, Arizona reported to the federal government that it was developing an “Eliminating Racial Disproportionality and Disparity” strategy for its child welfare system, which would include technical assistance to evaluate Maricopa County’s data on race as well as a focus group and a training video.

And in a 2014 DCS report, the agency said it was partnering with local churches as part of a racial “Gap Closing Collaborative.”

“I can say with certainty that many DCS and previous CPS administrations have seen this information and been aware of it,” Guffey acknowledged, referring to the former name of the department.

Dana Burns, right, walks with Tierra, whom Burns has raised as her daughter, at a park near their home in Phoenix.

Dana Burns, a mom, musician and founder of the child welfare advocacy organization A Permanent Voice Foundation in South Phoenix, said that DCS’ pervasiveness in the community feels of a piece with a larger anti-Black attitude that she and other parents face in this state, from officials and neighbors alike.

“It’s Arizona,” she said. “It’s an attitude that we were never supposed to be here.”

A White Idea of Family

For many of the Black families who spoke with ProPublica and NBC News, their first interaction with DCS was when an unfamiliar caseworker arrived at their door.

Department data show that its frontline staff are most often white and disproportionately in their 20s, which reflects national trends. Many said in interviews that this was their first or second job out of college, and a large proportion do not have children themselves. Turnover at the agency has also been notoriously high, further lowering the average experience level.

As a result, the typical scenario is a white person with little or no parenting experience entering a Black home and having minimal time, by the nature of the job, to make a judgment as to whether what is going on there is dangerous for kids.

“It felt like we were on display, like they had a white glove on checking everything. And I had to smile and say good morning,” said Tressie King, who lives with her husband Jamel and their 13-year-old adoptive son in the suburb of Chandler. (King was accused of briefly leaving her child, who is autistic, unattended in her car while she ran in to a store, an allegation that case documents show was ruled unfounded but only after several inspections of their home.)

“It felt like they were checking me out, not my child,” she said. “I said if I am being made to feel ashamed, how is that good for the kid?”

Tressie King, right, plays a matching card game with her husband, Jamel, and their adoptive son at the family’s home in Chandler, Arizona.

Many Black parents also said that if they get combative, precisely because the most precious thing in their life may be about to be taken from them, their anger is too often interpreted as a potential threat.

Sarah Encarnacion, a DCS child safety specialist from 2019 to 2021, said her goal was always to keep families together and for them to feel she was a trusted presence. But she acknowledged that as “a small, petite white woman,” she was “responsible for preparing and educating myself on how to enter this home where I’m such a foreign entity.”

DaRonco, the spokesperson, said that DCS has several initiatives to “change the power dynamic” between its staff and the families they work with. These include holding “team decision making” meetings near the beginning of an investigation, so that parents — and any friends, neighbors, teachers, clergy or others they want with them in the room — can have more of a say in the process.

There are also differences in cultural attitudes toward corporal punishment, which is more common on average in Black families. Many Black parents and children interviewed for this article distinguished between what they called a whooping and abuse, with some parents saying they would rather spank a child, which is legal in Arizona, than risk the child getting out of line and experiencing something far worse at the hands of a police officer.

“Nine times out of 10, parents raise their kids how their parents raised them,” said Richards, the Phoenix mother accused at the hospital, who has since become an advocate around the child welfare issue. “If the state is not agreeing with that way of raising kids, the solution is just to take the children every time? Every generation?”

Richards and many others said DCS’ prevalence can eventually cause insidious damage to relationships between Black parents and their children, who sometimes threaten to call DCS on each other when they’re in normal family disputes.

“That’s messed up,” she said, but the agency has become “so much a part of our lives that it’s a real thing to say.”

In part because of her struggles with the child welfare system, Richards said that she and her family are planning to relocate again, likely leaving Arizona next year.

Stephan Muhammad, a chef who lives in a suburban development in South Phoenix, agrees that no matter what DCS is now doing to address racial disproportionality, its harms linger in Black families like his.

Stephan Muhammad watches his daughters at their home in Phoenix, Arizona.

Muhammad had his children taken from him by the department twice; they were placed in foster care, including group homes where they say they experienced repeated violence, for about two years in each case. The first time was based on a neglect allegation that he left his four youngest at home while he picked up his oldest daughter at kindergarten just across a nearby park. The second was for spanking his son, who was nearly 9 at the time, for getting in trouble at school — which the agency said was child abuse, according to Muhammad, his family members and reporting by the Arizona Republic.

In both cases, a judge ultimately returned them home.

“I missed years of my childhood,” said one of his daughters, Sierra, 12, who was separated from her siblings while in state custody. “If I could talk to the head of DCS, I would say don’t take my father from me ever again.”

In an interview at Muhammad’s house, in front of a wall-sized calendar on which one of his children had written in the square of his birthday, “aka Big Head Day,” he said that he obviously has been overjoyed to have them all back. Still, he said he feels a trepidation that thousands of Black parents across Phoenix must be coping with every day: Is he in fact a bad parent?

“It’s impossible not to internalize,” he said. “It’s an attack on who you are as a parent in every way.”

Mollie Simon contributed research. Asia Fields contributed reporting

by Eli Hager and Agnel Philip, ProPublica, and Hannah Rappleye, NBC News, photography by Stephanie Mei-Ling, special to ProPublica and NBC News

How We Analyzed Child Welfare Investigations

2 years 4 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.

A yearlong investigation by ProPublica and NBC News has explored inequities across the U.S. child welfare system, looking at mandatory reporting requirements, frequency of investigations and more.

By some estimates, the likelihood of Black youths experiencing an investigation by a child protective services agency is far higher than their likelihood of being stopped by police.

And in Maricopa County, a study from last year estimated that 63% of Black children will experience an investigation before they turn 18, the highest rate among the 20 largest counties in the country.

That study was based on an analysis of child protective services cases in two databases obtained from the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect: the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, which provides information on child maltreatment reports and investigations, and the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, which provides information on removals of children from home, terminations of parental rights and adoptions.

We obtained both datasets to broaden the scope of the study’s county-level analysis and dive deeper into why families were being investigated. NDACAN and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau work together to make this data available to researchers. They do not endorse the independent findings of researchers, and bear no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.

Our analysis confirmed that Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located, had one the highest rates of investigation for Black children among the nation’s largest counties. The rate there was nearly three times as high as the county’s rate for white children.

The analysis, which took more than a year to complete and included counties of all sizes, also found that Maricopa County isn’t much of an outlier nationwide, as dozens of counties had similar or higher rates of investigations for Black children.

How We Analyzed the Databases

The NCANDS database required steps to clean and deduplicate before we could make comparisons across counties and states.

For our analysis of investigations, we merged the separate fiscal year files for the NCANDS database between 2015 and 2020 and deduplicated according to the unique child IDs provided in the dataset. For race and ethnicity information, we took the information from the most recent report for each child ID for which the race and ethnicity was known. Then we filtered this list to the first investigation by county for each child that occurred between the calendar years 2015 and 2019, the latest full year of available data, based on the date the investigation started.

We grouped this list by county and counted the number of entries by race. For this count, we excluded children for which multiple races were indicated to match data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. For our count of white children, we included only the entries in which the ethnicity was marked as “non-Hispanic.” The final rate calculation took the number of children investigated by race over the five-year time period and divided it by the under-18 population from the 2015-2019 ACS survey.

For Maricopa County, we found that 38% of Black children had their families investigated by a child welfare agency during the period analyzed, the sixth-highest rate among the 20 largest counties in the country. Due to changes in the underlying population over the five-year period, such as births, deaths and moving in and out of the county, our rate figures should not be interpreted as the likelihood that a child living there would be involved in an investigation. Rates could not be calculated for many smaller counties because the data archive masks what county an investigation took place in if that county has less than 1,000 entries in a fiscal year.

We used a similar deduplication method to analyze the types of allegations in each case and whether they were substantiated, but instead of limiting it to the first investigation for each child, we looked at all investigations that started between 2015 and 2019. Using this list, we counted how many children were either confirmed or suspected of being victims of maltreatment and how many of those cases were for allegations of physical or sexual abuse.

Differences Between Our Analysis and Other Methods

While our analysis used the same dataset as the study that found 63% of Black children will experience a CPS investigation during their childhoods, there are some important differences in how we analyzed the data.

The biggest difference is that the study used the number of children who experienced their first CPS investigation ever during a five-year period (2014 to 2018) to estimate the likelihood that a child would experience an investigation before they turn 18. To ensure that the estimate was as accurate as possible, the researchers used statistical methods to impute what the races would likely be for children whose races were marked as unknown. Furthermore, the study included cases for children with multiple races.

Because we chose not to impute the missing race values or include cases involving children with multiple races, our counts of investigations by race could be lower than the true number.

Mike Hixenbaugh and Hannah Rappleye, of NBC News, and Lucas Waldron, of ProPublica, contributed reporting.

by Agnel Philip and Eli Hager, ProPublica, and Suzy Khimm, NBC News

The Cienfuegos Affair: Inside the Case that Upended America’s Drug War

2 years 4 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 not subject to ProPublica's Creative Commons license until Jan. 7, 2023.

Leer en español.

The Arrest

When the Cienfuegos family landed at Los Angeles International Airport on Oct. 15, 2020, they looked excited and maybe a bit relieved. With the pandemic still ravaging Mexico, they had come to vacation in Southern California. Arranging such a visit wasn’t a problem, even on short notice: The patriarch, retired Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, had made powerful American friends during his six years as Mexico’s defense minister. When he needed a favor — like visas for his wife, daughters and granddaughters — he could still call someone at the Pentagon or the CIA.

But as the family approached the passport line, an immigration officer waved them to one side. A trim, middle-aged man — dressed, like the general, in a blue blazer and jeans — stepped forward and introduced himself in Spanish as a special agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Could he speak with the general privately? he asked.

The two men crowded into a small office with several other law-enforcement officers. “There is a warrant for your arrest, sir,” the agent said. “This is a copy of the indictment against you.”

Cienfuegos wore a face mask with a clear plastic shield over it, but there was no hiding his confusion and anger. There must be some mistake, he insisted. “Do you know who I am?”

The agents did. For years, U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence agencies had been watching Cienfuegos as he rose through the Mexican army to become defense minister in 2012. Since late 2015, the DEA had been investigating what it believed were Cienfuegos’ corrupt dealings with a second-tier drug gang based in the small Pacific Coast state Nayarit. In 2019, he had been secretly indicted on drug-conspiracy charges by a federal grand jury in Brooklyn.

“I have worked with your CIA,” Cienfuegos protested. “I have been honored by your Department of Defense!”

“I understand,” the DEA agent said. “But you have still been charged.”

In the tumultuous days before the 2020 election — with COVID-19 cases surging, President Donald Trump barnstorming and Senate Republicans rushing to confirm a Supreme Court justice — the jailing of a retired Mexican general didn’t make the front pages, even in Los Angeles. It did make headlines in Mexico City. But President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico, who had long promised to vanquish the country’s deeply rooted corruption, seemed to take the news in stride. “It is a very regrettable fact that a former defense secretary should be arrested on charges of having ties to drug trafficking,” he said the next morning. “We must continue to insist — and hopefully this helps us understand — that the main problem of Mexico is corruption.”

U.S. law-enforcement agencies had gone after Mexican officials before. There was the first drug czar, Jesús Gutiérrez Rebollo, hailed in Washington for his “unquestioned integrity” before he was convicted in Mexico of taking a trafficker’s bribes. Or the smuggler-friendly Gov. Mario Villanueva Madrid, known as the Crooked One, who charged $500,000 for drug shipments through his state on the Yucatán Peninsula. In 2019, the DEA arrested a once-powerful former security minister, Genaro García Luna, who worked closely with the agency for years.

Cienfuegos, though, was the most consequential Mexican official ever charged in a U.S. court. Nearly two years into his retirement, he remained unusually influential, having groomed a generation of army leaders. His rise also tracked the Mexican military’s transformation from a largely apolitical force with a limited role in national life into the essential institution it would become under López Obrador. Beginning in the 1990s, with strong U.S. support, the armed forces moved to the front lines of the drug fight. Under the current government, they have expanded their control over federal law enforcement while assuming a raft of other, previously civilian responsibilities.

So when the high command voiced its outrage over Cienfuegos’ arrest, the president was quick to take up his cause. Military leaders complained privately to López Obrador that the Americans had conducted a secret and possibly illegal investigation inside Mexico, besmirching the entire armed forces. López Obrador’s tone shifted abruptly. “In other administrations, they came into Mexico like this was their home,” he said of the DEA. “They even operated here. That’s not happening anymore.”

For more than a decade, the United States and Mexico resolved such tensions within the framework of the Mérida Initiative, a landmark 2007 agreement to combat the criminal violence then convulsing Mexico. The plan has funneled more than $3.5 billion in U.S. aid to Mexico, helping the military and the police take on criminal gangs while working toward ambitious long-term reforms of the justice system. But López Obrador had always been skeptical of the partnership. An old-school nationalist, he saw the DEA as a symbol of gringo arrogance. What the Mérida deal brought Mexico, he argued, was more weapons, and those weapons brought more violence.

Yet even with tensions rising sharply, U.S. prosecutors and agents were stunned by what happened next. Barely two weeks after Cienfuegos’ arrest, Attorney General William P. Barr told the Mexican foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, that he would drop the charges and send the general home. Barr later suggested that Cienfuegos wasn’t such an important target and that Mexican officials promised to investigate his case themselves. Barr was acting to protect “the United States’ relationship with Mexico and cooperative law-enforcement efforts” related to “narcotics trafficking and public corruption,” the chief prosecutor in the case said.

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

In fact, the episode led to a near-collapse of law-enforcement cooperation between the two countries. Emboldened by what Mexicans saw as the DEA’s humiliation, López Obrador accused the agency of “fabricating” its charges against the general. At the president’s behest, the Legislature imposed crippling new restrictions on U.S. agents’ ability to operate in Mexico. A Mexican police drug unit that worked with U.S. officials on sensitive cases was disbanded. For months, Mexico refused even to grant visas to dozens of DEA agents assigned there.

Last year, López Obrador’s government declared the Mérida partnership dead. In its place, the two governments put forward a new “bicentennial framework” that emphasized reducing violence and cracking down on the flow of illegal U.S. guns into Mexico. But joint law-enforcement operations — considered critical to building bilateral trust and strengthening Mexican policing — were barely mentioned. “The success of this agreement will not be measured by how many drug lords we put in jail and how many press conferences we hold,” Ebrard said at a news conference.

With Cienfuegos’ arrest, the investigators believed that they had finally exposed the high-level corruption that has long sustained organized crime in Mexico. Instead, they say, the episode is likely to define the limits of U.S. security policy in Mexico for years to come. “If we had to pay a price in Mexico to finally prosecute someone like Cienfuegos, we were all willing to pay it because it would have made a difference,” one veteran DEA agent said. “But instead, we paid the price and got nothing.”

As a strategy to stanch the flow of illicit narcotics into the United States, the drug war in Mexico has always been a lost cause. After billions of dollars spent fortifying the southern border, the two governments still interdict only a fraction of the drugs shipped to the United States. Mexican traffickers have grown into a preeminent force in the global drug trade, dominating U.S. markets for cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and synthetic opioids. The flood of fentanyl from Mexico is fueling what is now the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history. Drug overdoses killed some 107,000 people last year, more than double the number who died in 2015.

Still, the more significant challenge for the United States is arguably the national-security threat posed by Mexico’s ever-more-powerful criminal organizations. According to U.S. intelligence estimates, the gangs’ annual illicit revenue has risen sharply, from perhaps $2 billion in the mid-1990s to tens of billions today. Mexican criminals have also diversified aggressively, moving from traditional sidelines like migrant smuggling and kidnapping to illegal logging and oil theft. Systematic extortion has become a fact of life for everyone from businessmen to avocado farmers.

In recent months, criminal gangs have temporarily paralyzed several Mexican cities with explosions of insurgent-like violence. The murder rate, which dipped slightly during the pandemic, has rebounded to historically high levels — more than double what it was at the outset of the Mérida deal. Thousands of impoverished Mexicans continue to be terrorized and displaced by gangs, which operate with near impunity across large swaths of the country. As in Central America, the violence appears to have contributed to new waves of emigration to the United States.

Before López Obrador came to power in late 2018, he campaigned for years on promises to reduce the violence and return the armed forces to their barracks. His fuzzy slogan — “Abrazos, no balazos,” or “Hugs, not bullets” — called for social programs that would address the roots of criminality. But those programs have made little impact on the violence. Mexican law enforcement, while more militarized, is less effective — especially in the investigation of crimes. López Obrador’s new, army-run National Guard, with nearly three times the size of the disbanded federal police, arrested only 8,258 criminal suspects last year — just 38% of the 21,702 that the police detained in 2018.

The Biden administration has mostly tried to look the other way. Mexico’s control over the flow of undocumented migrants, which began as a humiliating concession to tariff threats by President Trump, has given López Obrador as much leverage in the bilateral relationship as any Mexican leader has had in decades. With a modest movement of the troops guarding Mexico’s southern and northern borders, he can release enough migrants to set off a political crisis in Washington. Such is the deference to Mexican sensitivities that DEA officials were at one point warned not to use the phrase “Mexican cartels” in public statements.

Fifteen years after the two countries declared a hopeful end to the conflict that marked their fight against the drug trade, the Cienfuegos saga has laid bare the fragility and failures of their partnership. Yet the fuller story of the Cienfuegos case — the long investigation leading up to the general’s arrest, as well as its aftermath — has remained largely secret. In the terse explanations that U.S. officials offered after Cienfuegos’ arrest, they described the prosecution as an offshoot of a routine case against Mexican traffickers. That was narrowly true. But it was also part of an ambitious effort by agents and prosecutors who resolved to pursue the corruption they saw as critical to the traffickers’ power. This account is based on interviews with dozens of current and former officials. It also draws on thousands of pages of court files, government documents and contemporaneous notes taken by officials involved. Some sources would speak only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case; others spoke about it publicly for the first time.

The Investigation

As agents led General Cienfuegos off to jail, one detective from Las Vegas took particular satisfaction in the moment. The detective, Timothy Beck, drove the investigation from its first days, when he knew little about Mexico, spoke no Spanish and could not imagine where the case might lead. It had taken so many twists and turns that by the time Cienfuegos booked his tickets for Los Angeles, Beck had been assigned to other work. But his DEA boss had little choice but to send him to Los Angeles. If the general decided to talk, the agency needed someone who knew the right questions to ask.

Timothy Beck (Saeed Rahbaran, special to ProPublica)

Beck never worked too hard to fit in on a DEA squad that was heavy with straight-laced Mormons. He eventually gave up the mutton-chop sideburns he grew while fronting a local alt-rock band but kept the spiky black haircut and zombie tattoo. Supervisors generally tolerated Beck’s idiosyncrasies because he delivered. After nearly a decade on the drug unit of the Las Vegas police force, Beck earned a spot on a federal task force that brought state and local narcotics enforcement together with DEA agents to hunt down the biggest traffickers they could find. In Las Vegas, that meant Mexicans.

By the early 2000s, the city had become a distribution hub for drugs going in every direction — Portland and Chicago, North Carolina and New York. Mexican traffickers had always come to Vegas to party and gamble and see the fights. As they muscled aside Colombian gangs and other wholesalers to take control of U.S. drug distribution, they recognized Las Vegas as the sort of place — busy and well connected, with a large community of law-abiding Latino immigrants — where they could operate without drawing much attention.

As in many other American cities, the DEA’s prime targets were distributors working with the Sinaloa Cartel, then the dominant drug organization in western Mexico. While Sinaloa was a more functional alliance than others, it wasn’t much of a cartel; its leaders used violence to impose cooperation whenever necessary. The best-known among them, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, known as El Chapo, became a major target of U.S. investigators in 2001, when he escaped from one of Mexico’s maximum-security prisons the day after Mexican inmates became eligible for extradition.

When Beck joined the DEA-led task force in late 2009, Guzmán was expanding his network of smuggling tunnels beneath the U.S. border and shipping liquid methamphetamine in soda bottles. A street informant of Beck’s in Las Vegas pointed him to a meth distributor with good Mexican connections. Beck’s squad began wiretapping their way from one drug trafficker’s phone to the next, eventually reaching traffickers tied to some of Guzmán’s most-hated rivals, the Beltrán Leyva brothers.

The four brothers were key figures in the Sinaloa federation until a bitter split with Guzmán in 2008. The war that followed scattered bodies all over Mexico. Sinaloa was bigger and stronger, but the brothers were resourceful, enlisting the Zetas, an especially ruthless criminal gang that included Mexican Army veterans, in their fight. The Beltrán Leyva Organization, or BLO in the inevitable DEA shorthand, also did its best to outbribe its former partners.

Over time, the Sinaloans wore the BLO down. After the 2014 arrest of Héctor Beltrán, the last brother to lead the organization, it was unclear what might remain of the gang. The Las Vegas agents found an answer in the cellphone calls they were intercepting: a group that called itself “the H’s,” after Héctor Beltrán, who was known as El H, or “the H.” In the pseudomilitary style of the Zetas, Beltrán assigned numerical handles to his subordinates. The leader of the gang, Juan Francisco Patrón Sánchez, was called H-2.

H-2 was a volatile, moon-faced man scarcely known outside the regional underworld. Growing up on the outskirts of Mazatlán, the Sinaloa beach city, he became a sicario, or hit man, for the Mazatlecos, a local gang closely allied with the Beltráns, and later emerged as a lieutenant to Héctor Beltrán. After the capo’s arrest, H-2 and his men “were like orphans,” a former Mexican official told me. H-2 gathered his forces in Nayarit, a state wedged among the narco strongholds of Sinaloa, Durango and Jalisco. He procured opium gum from Nayarit’s eastern highlands and used BLO connections to ship heroin and other drugs into the United States. As far as Beck and his team could tell, the H’s seemed to have no trouble with the Nayarit authorities.

The task force acted cautiously on what it learned. The agents seized one big drug shipment but held back on actions that might jeopardize their surveillance. They sensed that they were onto an unusually good case. The H’s were moving a lot of drugs and killing a lot of people. They were also careless in their communications. Even their “dirty calls” — those in which they discussed criminal activities — were rarely hard to decipher.

Beck and his DEA supervisor, Scott Cahill, presented their case to the U.S. attorney’s office for Nevada, but the prosecutors there weren’t interested. The agents’ targets were far away, and the lawyers thought federal judges might balk at authorizing wiretaps that originated in a state court. The Justice Department’s Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section also passed on the case.

Cahill urged his team to keep pushing. Then, in the summer of 2015, the agents got another chance to shop their case: The DEA’s Special Operations Division invited them to a closed-door gathering of federal agents and prosecutors in San Diego. The meeting was focused on Guzmán and Sinaloa, but Beck and the intelligence analyst on his squad made a brief presentation about their little-known gang from Nayarit. As soon as they finished, a tall, broad-shouldered man hurried up to them. Cahill thought he looked like a college kid. He introduced himself as Michael Robotti, an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, the high-profile judicial district based in Downtown Brooklyn.

Robotti was in his early 30s and had already distinguished himself among the hard-charging young prosecutors of the Eastern District. He was smart, organized and a glutton for long hours. Colleagues affectionately nicknamed him the Robot, but they saw him as more than just a grind. After joining the international narcotics unit in early 2015, he was assigned a stack of Sinaloa files, including Guzmán’s. But after Guzmán was recaptured by an elite team of Mexican marines, President Enrique Peña Nieto insisted that the trafficker would be prosecuted in Mexico. Robotti needed other work.

“Who’s doing your case?” he asked Cahill and Beck. “I want it.”

Investigators would soon begin to see Nayarit as a microcosm of the narcostate that U.S. security officials had long feared Mexico could become. Its telegenic young governor, Roberto Sandoval Castañeda, came to power in 2011 as a standard-bearer of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI. The party, which dominated Mexican politics until 2000, still held Nayarit in a tight grip. Sandoval’s campaign promised a return to the stability of the past and an end to the violence that had turned the sleepy state capital, Tepic, into one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

Nayarit was then awash in the bloodshed of the Sinaloa-BLO war. The mangled bodies of combatants, cops and innocent bystanders turned up on street corners and hung from highway overpasses. Sandoval made contact with the Beltrán brothers, before securing the PRI nomination, one of the governor’s former aides would later tell investigators. They had had a presence in the state for years, but Sandoval, who was then Tepic’s mayor, offered to let them operate freely if they helped finance his campaign. They just had to keep their violence to a minimum.

As governor, Sandoval entrusted Nayarit’s pacification to his acting attorney general, Edgar Veytia. A dual citizen of Mexico and the United States, Veytia grew up between San Diego and Tijuana, before moving to Tepic to study law. Whether he completed his degree is disputed, but he soon married into a family that was prominent in local PRI politics. With help from his new father-in-law, he began to build a small fortune as a bus operator.

Short and stocky with a walrus mustache, Veytia had none of the governor’s cowboy charisma. But he quickly figured out how politics in Nayarit was played. During Sandoval’s mayoral race, Veytia lent him buses and cash; when Sandoval won, Veytia reaped a graft-rich post as Tepic’s transportation director. Later, he served briefly as the state police chief.

Once Sandoval took over as governor, he anointed the BLO as Nayarit’s authorized criminal organization. The state police, which he controlled, went after drug dealers and gunmen linked to the Sinaloa Cartel but left the Beltrán forces alone. If a BLO gang member was arrested, he could say he was “of the people” — the password — and walk free. After the Beltráns’ demise, H-2 took over the arrangement.

The violence soon began to ebb. Veytia gained enough attention as a supposed crime fighter to dream of one day running for governor himself. He sometimes had to remind H-2 to refrain from killing or kidnapping ordinary civilians. But Veytia could also take advantage of those transgressions, arranging with H-2 to “rescue” the kidnapping victims, and then bask in the publicity. Sympathetic news outlets (which he paid off) called him the Iron Prosecutor.

Besides his government phone and personal cellphone, Veytia carried two unregistered “burner” phones — one that he used to text H-2 and another for the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, or CJNG, a powerful drug mafia that brokered a similar deal in southern Nayarit. In Veytia’s communications with H-2, he went by the code name Diablo, or Devil. In the press, he portrayed himself as a cheerleader for Mexico’s transition to a modern, adversarial justice system under the Mérida plan. “We have been preparing this road for four years,” Veytia said, “and that is going to involve fighting crime at all levels.”

As comfortable as Veytia and Sandoval had made things for the H’s in Nayarit, H-2 also wanted protection outside the state. He knew how the system worked: The H’s could pay off one police or military force only to find that another was working against them on behalf of rivals. The federal police routinely used information from one set of traffickers against another. The military and the police spied on each other. The Mexican army spied on the DEA, and corrupt Mexican officials betrayed sensitive U.S. information to the traffickers who paid them. If the H’s wanted to expand, they would need allies at the national level — people who could warn them about what might be coming.

The Godfather

(Francesco Francavilla for The New York Times)

To investigate the H’s from 2,500 miles away, Robotti and the task force set up a “wire room” in Tucson, Arizona, where the FBI was investigating another BLO affiliate. Spanish-language interpreters worked around the clock to decode the traffickers’ communications. Beck and other agents took turns flying to Tucson to supervise the agents, poring over the text messages and sending daily updates on the traffickers’ activities back to Las Vegas and Brooklyn.

A disproportionate number of Mexico’s best-known traffickers, including Guzmán and the Beltrán brothers, grew up among the drug-farming campesinos of the western Sierra Madre. Their communications technology tended to be less than state of the art, and they had a special devotion to BlackBerry phones and the BlackBerry messaging app, Canadian products that they believed were beyond the reach of American surveillance. For a time that was true, but BlackBerry’s parent company, responding to U.S. requests, eventually moved one of its servers to Texas. American investigators were then able to tap into the company’s Mexico traffic with a U.S. court order. To propagate the legend of the BlackBerry’s impenetrability, the DEA also sent drug informants back to their gangs. By the time traffickers realized their mistake, some had surrendered years of incriminating information.

The H’s were especially careless. H-2 and his henchmen texted like teenagers, allowing the task-force officers to monitor their activities almost in real time. The conversations were usually coded — sometimes carefully, but often just filtered through inside jokes, atrocious spelling and doper slang. They especially liked to use photographs: a pointed gun that might signal a planned job, or an image from a map to show where a trafficker might be headed. Deciphering their messages was hardly cryptography.

On Dec. 9, 2015, Beck and other agents were sitting at their cubicles in the DEA’s warehouselike offices in downtown Las Vegas when they saw a long exchange of messages between H-2 and one of his top lieutenants, Daniel Silva Gárate, a flashy, 38-year-old trafficker known as H-9. The agents knew that H-2 had sent Silva to Mexico City to meet a contact and that the meeting seemed important: H-9 was updating his boss with every move he made.

“We’re heading off,” H-9 wrote. “To see the godfather.”

The trafficker sent his boss a screenshot of a message he received from someone he referred to as “Zepeda.” It advised H-9 not to be startled by the fleet of unmarked SUVs that was headed his way. “I’m going to send 5 trucks, or 3 and keep 2 for myself,” Zepeda wrote. “They will be black with tinted windows.” Moments later, H-9 reported that he was in a convoy of vehicles roaring through the Mexican capital with a motorcycle escort. “They’re going like crazy,” he texted.

When the ride ended, H-9 found himself inside what he called “the ministry of defense,” surrounded by men with shaved heads wearing berets. “The godfather is a different deal,” he wrote. “He is the second president.”

The lieutenant described meeting an older, light-skinned officer and then being driven to a home in an upper-class neighborhood. As he and the officer sat down to dinner, H-9 continued texting. “Hey, this is the man who appears ... on tv,” he wrote. “And he tells me ... ‘You haven’t seen me.’ There is no problem. But we should erase from our memories that I am eating with him.”

That was understood, H-2 answered. They would dump their phones right after the meeting. “Tell him he will never have any problems from me,” he wrote.

H-9 passed along what appeared to be a promise from the officer “that they will never take you out with marines or the military and starting tomorrow not with the PFP” — the Federal Preventive Police.

The meeting seemed to go splendidly. H-9 texted that he met a man named Virgilio Daniel Méndez Bazán, whom he described as “the No. 2 of the godfather.” General Méndez Bazán had been under secretary of defense and worked closely with Cienfuegos for years. (Méndez Bazán has denied ever having dealt with traffickers.)

The agents presumed that H-9 had been chosen for the mission because he was more sophisticated and presentable than other H-2 lieutenants. Still, he was notably ignorant of who led Mexico’s defense establishment. “Godfather gave me the name of Salbador Sinfuego Sepeda,” he wrote, seemingly misspelling Cienfuegos’ name. “Something like that.”

H-9 began to relay messages from the godfather directly: “He says he wants you to make money, that money is power. You should say where you want to work.”

H-2 answered that he had designs on his hometown, Mazatlán, and other aspirations as well: “That God willing I dream of becoming big, but I also want to change the history of the mafia so that they are not going around looking to kill me,” he wrote. “I want to do everything in the best way so they will love me.”

In Las Vegas, Beck and other agents began searching the internet for the names on the transcripts. It didn’t take long for them to surmise that their Nayarit traffickers were negotiating with Mexico’s defense minister. The investigators were already confident they had an exceptional case against the H’s; now they were seeing evidence that the traffickers might be soliciting protection from some of the country’s most powerful officials. “You had a cartel member, who didn’t know he was being intercepted, saying on the wire, ‘This is who I’m meeting with,’” Robotti recalled.

Why Mexico’s powerful defense minister might be working with some midlevel traffickers wasn’t clear. Behind the scenes, officials said, Cienfuegos had been supportive of a secret CIA program that trained an elite Mexican army unit to disrupt trafficking operations. But the Americans also saw Cienfuegos as a reluctant ally in the drug fight — an ardent nationalist who was openly hostile to the DEA. According to several current and former officials, U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence files also indicated that Cienfuegos was suspected of protecting drug gangs while he commanded military regions that overlapped with traffickers’ strongholds. One of those regions included Nayarit.

In messages to H-9, the person he called “Zepeda” — the general’s second surname — appeared to allude to a previous relationship with the Beltrán brothers. Over the following months, he asked the H’s for money with shameless frequency, explaining that he needed to share it with like-minded collaborators in the government, including at least two civilian cabinet members whose names or nicknames appeared in various messages.

A month after H-9’s visit to Mexico City, the task-force agents saw new evidence that seemed to confirm who the godfather might be. On Jan. 8, 2016, the news broke that Guzmán — after a second dramatic escape from one of Mexico’s high-security prisons the year before — had been recaptured. Once again, it was U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence agencies that tracked him to a Sinaloa safe house, though the public heroes of the operation were Mexican marines from a special-operations unit that worked closely with the Americans.

That night, as the H’s texted giddily with one another about the Sinaloa dogs getting their due, H-9’s BlackBerry pinged with a message from Mexico City. The godfather wanted money again. Hours later, one of H-2’s brothers, Jesús Ricardo Patrón Sánchez, or H-3, texted H-2 a screenshot of a televised news conference about the capture of Guzmán. In his message, H-3 identified a man in the photograph as the H’s “padrino,” or godfather.

From his cubicle at task-force offices, Beck saw the messages as they came in. Sifting through Mexican television stations online, the agents found a news clip that matched H-3’s screenshot. The video showed General Cienfuegos and other ministers announcing Guzmán’s capture to an audience of foreign diplomats. Elated by the news, Cienfuegos and the other officials embrace as the crowd breaks into applause.

“That has got to be our guy,” Beck said.

Beck and his colleagues watched as the Nayarit gang’s war with the Sinaloa Cartel intensified in the wake of Guzmán’s capture. The battle was over turf, but it was also personal. H-2 was by all accounts obsessed with reconquering Mazatlán, a onetime BLO bastion. The drive-bys, torture and street-gang skirmishes turned the Vegas task force “line sheets” into a ticker tape of the gang’s murderous ways, illustrated with cellphone photographs. At one point, its sicarios sent a picture of dismembered limbs formed into the letter H.

The intercepts suggested that H-2 was also growing paranoid. The task force had identified multiple cells around the United States that were distributing the gang’s drugs. H-2 knew the growing network made him vulnerable, and he worried especially about his chief wholesaler in Southern California, a 31-year-old trafficker known as Paisa. The task force did in fact hope to flip Paisa, whose name was Cristian Aranda González. But when they sent a DEA squad to arrest him in Los Angeles, Aranda escaped back to Nayarit.

H-2 had another reason to suspect a sapo, or toad — slang for an informer. His lieutenant H-9 was receiving disturbing messages about a U.S. investigation of the H’s from their godfather in Mexico City. “They don’t have an extradition order yet, but it’s headed that way,” “Zepeda” texted on Aug. 8, 2016. H-2 “should be very careful,” he said. “They have protected witnesses [and] these people are pointing the finger at him. ...”

The task-force agents were stunned. If they still could not prove conclusively that “Zepeda” was Cienfuegos, they now had evidence that the gang’s guardian was leaking information known to only a very small number of American officials. How even the Mexican defense minister could have learned details of the case was a mystery. Before they could untangle it, though, the agents had to scramble to respond to information coming over the wire indicating that the H’s were threatening to kill Aranda. They found a phone number for him and asked a Spanish-speaking agent to call right away. A man answered. “This is the DEA,” the agent said. “We want you to know there is going to be an attempt on your life.” If Aranda received the warning, he apparently ignored it. He was murdered days later.

(Francesco Francavilla for The New York Times)

The agents were monitoring the wires again on Feb. 9, 2017, when an elite team of Mexican marines descended on Tepic. The operation produced some of the more memorable images of the country’s drug war: Videos taken from the shaky cellphone cameras of frightened neighbors show a U.S.-supplied Blackhawk helicopter gunship hovering in the night sky. Its spotlight beams down into the walled courtyard of an upscale home. Suddenly, the Blackhawk opens up with its miniguns, the bursts lit up by tracers. Gunmen fire back but are decimated.

In a statement, the Mexican navy said that “federal forces” pursued the criminals to their safe house and “repelled aggression” when they attacked. Juan Francisco Patrón Sánchez, H-2, was killed along with seven others, the navy reported. Daniel Silva Gárate, H-9, died in a separate shootout the next day, although the man driving him in a compact Nissan sedan somehow managed to escape. At a stilted news conference, Sandoval — flanked by Veytia and military officials — cast the operation as a victory for justice. “In Nayarit,” he said, “there is room only for the rule of law, respect for the law and peace.”

The story of the H’s might have ended there. The gang splintered. The Jalisco New Generation Cartel moved in almost instantly, recruiting an old sicario for the H’s to help run the territory.

But weeks after the deaths of H-2 and H-9, the case suddenly came back to life. While crossing the border to visit his family in San Diego, Veytia was arrested by federal agents. The task force had been intercepting his phones for almost a year, and the FBI had been investigating him even longer. The Eastern District and the Justice Department’s drug section indicted him in early March on drug-conspiracy charges. Facing the possibility of decades in prison, Veytia told his lawyers he wanted to cut a deal. Prosecutors and agents scrambled to San Diego; the Justice Department’s narcotics chief, Arthur Wyatt, flew out from Washington himself.

Veytia did not disappoint. On Governor Sandoval’s orders, he told the investigators, he drew most of the state’s law-enforcement apparatus into a far-reaching partnership with the H’s. “The purpose of the agreement was for the drug traffickers to do what they needed to do but to leave the civilians alone,” a summary of his first debriefing states.

Veytia admitted that he even tortured rival traffickers on the gang’s behalf. He and his police commanders generally used tasers for such interrogations. But just as Mexican traffickers took cues from Al Qaeda and ISIS, terrorizing civilians and beheading their enemies on video, Veytia and his commanders seemed to take a page from the CIA. Sometimes, with criminal suspects they considered important, they waterboarded them, he said.

Veytia claimed that he didn’t do it for the money, but he made lots of it. The H’s paid him between 1.5 million and 2 million pesos a month (upward of $100,000, depending on the exchange rate). He kicked most of the money down to police commanders, judges and others, he said, but kept a portion for himself. He also took cuts of the bribes paid to the prison warden and from the drugs, vehicles and other property that the state police seized from criminal suspects and then sold off — usually to other criminals. In addition to his regular bribes from the H’s and the Jalisco cartel, Veytia received gratuities of cash, cars and jewelry from various traffickers. Each year, his state police commanders also chipped in to buy him an expensive watch.

Even some of the agents with long experience in Mexico were struck to see the curtain pulled back. Veytia gave a full accounting of his illicit gains. They included 28 buses he owned outright (he was still paying off five others), three bus stations, four tow trucks and a parking lot. He owned an office building in Tepic, a lucrative notary business and a cattle ranch. His other properties included five homes in Nayarit, two houses and three apartments in San Diego and a home in Guadalajara. There were bank and trust accounts, a stash of gold bars and a dozen Rolex watches. He kept $40,000 in cash hidden under his bed.

Sandoval had grown even richer. The governor now spent his free time on sprawling ranches, riding purebred stallions, and was also accused of taking funds from an aid program for poor farmers. He had other homes as well, and millions of dollars stashed around Mexico — more than enough to forgo the bribes he was taking from the H’s.

As the violence escalated, Sandoval told Veytia the H’s were more trouble than they were worth. It was time to move on. “They were out of control,” Veytia later told me. “We had to solve that problem.”

More shocking to the prosecutors and agents than the details of Nayarit’s corruption was the story Veytia told them about the government’s takedown of the H’s. The Americans knew the operation had been carried out by the marines’ special-operations unit. For years, the unit had worked more closely with U.S. drug fighters than any other Mexican force. Its commander, Adm. Marco Antonio Ortega Siu, kept a deliberately low profile in Mexico. But the admiral, a tough, white-haired former helicopter pilot, was a legend among U.S. law-enforcement officials, who credited him with hunting down Guzmán (twice), dismantling the Zetas and destroying the BLO.

It was Ortega Siu who set up and oversaw the assault on the H’s, Veytia told investigators. It was well known that the Mexican marines had a long-running blood feud with the BLO. After the marines killed the gang’s leader, Arturo Beltrán, in 2009, their first major action with the DEA, the gang retaliated by murdering relatives of a marine who died in the operation. But Ortega Siu seemed concerned with more than revenge, Veytia said in his debriefing.

Veytia told investigators that Ortega Siu said the H’s were paying high-level army officers for protection. The H’s had told Veytia the same thing many times. Ortega Siu did not say who those officers were, but he made it clear that the relationship was a problem, Veytia said.

With Veytia’s help, Ortega Siu’s marines planned their operation for several months. Assigned to work with Veytia was a navy captain who went by the call sign Tigrillo, meaning Ocelot or Little Tiger. They traced H-2’s movements, cased the gang’s safe houses and assembled a fleet of pickup trucks and cars collected by the state authorities. Finally, Veytia called the drug boss and set up a meeting. Early in the evening of Feb. 9, H-2 hopped into the prosecutor’s car, leaving his bodyguards behind.

Veytia drove to a home in Tepic where they had met before. As H-2 walked inside, Tigrillo’s marines set upon him, dragging him upstairs. Over the next hour, Veytia waited downstairs as the marines tortured and interrogated the trafficker. “Veytia heard H-2 crying,” the notes from one debriefing say. When the marines brought H-2 downstairs, he was bleeding but able to walk.

The marines bundled H-2 into the back of a pickup truck and drove him to a block near the gang’s walled safe house, where a larger marine force was already deployed. After the sicarios were wiped out, Veytia told investigators, Tigrillo’s marines pushed H-2 out of the pickup, handed him a gun and told him to run. Veytia could not see the trafficker as he hobbled away. But he heard distinctly what H-2 shouted back at the marines: “¡Soy gente de Cienfuegos!” he cried. “I am one of Cienfuegos’s people!” The marines shot him dead.

The next trafficker on Tigrillo’s list was H-9, Veytia said. He was spotted the next day and captured along with another of H-2’s lieutenants. Veytia and the marines began driving H-9 around Nayarit in a burgundy Nissan sedan, pressing him to point out safe houses where they might find the gang’s gunmen or weapons. After a while, H-9 got angry. He was going to contact his padrino, he warned. His godfather would “fix the situation.” Veytia told Tigrillo of the threat. Shortly after, he heard gunfire. H-9 lay crumpled on the ground, killed by the marines.

Veytia told the investigators that Ortega Siu had monitored the operation and that he believed Ortega Siu had given Tigrillo the order to execute H-2. “The admiral told Veytia that H-2 should die because he had too much information on the governor and some people in the army,” the notes from one debriefing state.

In the interview room, prosecutors and agents glanced at one another uncomfortably. Veytia was accusing the DEA’s most-trusted Mexican partner of ordering the torture and execution of a trafficker who was the subject of a major U.S. investigation — possibly to cover up for corrupt officials at high levels of the Mexican army. “Everyone recognized what it meant,” one person involved in the case said.

Veytia’s debriefings continued for more than 100 hours over 10 sessions. (ProPublica and The Times obtained copies of many of the summaries of these sessions.) His accusations reverberated through the Justice Department. Though his statements were closely held, DEA officials got wind of them and pushed back vehemently. Ortega Siu and his marines had made extraordinary sacrifices in the drug fight, they said; in a government riddled with corruption, they had been almost uniquely trustworthy. “On the one side you had the admiral and Mexican navy, who had been heroic in their service and proven honest and reliable over many years,” said Paul Craine, who was then the DEA chief in Mexico City. “On the other, you had Veytia, who had used the entire state apparatus of Nayarit to corruptly support a murderous drug trafficker.” (Ortega Siu, who is now retired, could not be reached for comment. A spokesperson for the Mexican navy declined to answer questions about the marines’ actions in Nayarit, saying that such operations needed to remain confidential for reasons of national security.)

In the months after the H’s were wiped out, the task-force agents and prosecutors pieced together their own picture of the events — which closely tracked Veytia’s version of what happened. Based on their intercepts and other information, former officials said, the agents confirmed that H-2 had planned to meet Veytia when he was seized. Then the trafficker’s phones went dark. Some of his lieutenants, including H-9, quickly concluded that Veytia had betrayed their boss and set up the gunmen at the safe house.

The Mexican navy’s account of H-9’s killing was even more at odds with the evidence that U.S. investigators gathered. From intercepts and informants, the agents learned that the day after the helicopter assault, the state police had indeed located H-9 at a hotel in Tepic, along with the gang’s chief sicario. But the message traffic and other information largely backed up Veytia’s claim that he let the gunman go free and delivered H-9 to the marines.

The Nayarit authorities apparently invited local news photographers in Tepic to record the scene of H-9’s body slumped over the seat of a shot-up red Nissan Sentra. That image alone was hard to fathom. The trafficker — who referred to himself as the Tank Man for his love of armored SUVs — had to flee in a cheap sedan? To the agents in Las Vegas, almost everything about the crime scene looked crudely staged. “It looked like your standard lay-out-the-bodies setup,” Cahill, the task-force supervisor, recalled. “It was farcical.”

The acting chief in the Justice Department’s criminal division, Kenneth A. Blanco, was concerned enough about the matter to fly to Mexico City in the fall of 2017. In a meeting with the Mexican attorney general, Alberto Elías Beltrán, officials said, Blanco laid out what the Americans had heard and asked the Mexicans to investigate the actions of Ortega Siu and his marines. Until they could clear the marine team of wrongdoing, Blanco told officials of both countries, U.S. agencies would not be able to collaborate with them again. “We were not going to be working with a unit that engaged in extrajudicial killing,” a State Department official said.

American officials generally found good reasons not to prosecute cases of high-level drug corruption in Mexico. The allegations they heard were often dated. Corroboration was almost always difficult to come by, in part because Mexican property and financial records were easy to obscure. Washington officials were also reluctant to go after suspect officials whose prosecution might destabilize the multilayered U.S. relationship with Mexico. The drug problem mattered, but it often mattered less than other things, like Mexico’s allegiance during the Cold War or the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Robotti had just begun to consider how such issues might figure in a potential case against Cienfuegos when he was assigned to work full-time on the prosecution of Guzmán. It was a plum assignment but an all-consuming one. In preparing to try Guzmán, the prosecutors identified roughly 100 prospective witnesses, interviewing dozens of them, including high-level traffickers extradited under the Mérida accord. It was a huge task, but one that yielded a remarkable new chapter in the government’s secret history of the Mexican drug trade.

As the trial finally got underway in Brooklyn in November 2018, the Justice Department tried to block some witness testimony about official corruption, arguing that it would deflect attention from the defendant’s crimes. But some breathtaking evidence was admitted. One trafficker told of delivering two suitcases, each stuffed with at least $3 million, to a former security minister, García Luna. Another drug lieutenant said his boss told of paying a $100 million bribe to former President Peña Nieto. Both former officials denied the allegations, and the scandal soon blew over in Mexico. But within days of the traffickers’ testimony, the Eastern District drug prosecutors received a message from their boss, Richard Donoghue: They needed to start making cases against the corrupt Mexican officials working with the drug gangs. “Rich was very gung-ho about it,” one of his former aides said.

In Mexico City, the DEA chief, Matthew Donahue, had a similar thought. Donahue had been skeptical of López Obrador even before he took office. Then the new president shut down the DEA’s relationship with the Mexican marines, sidelined a federal police team that worked with U.S. agencies on drug cases and slowed the pace of extraditions. The army generals running López Obrador’s new National Guard declined a series of offers of training from the U.S. Embassy, making it clear that the old security relationship was over.

If his agents could no longer hunt big traffickers in Mexico or hope to have them extradited, Donahue thought, they would need a new strategy. He and his deputy began recruiting a small team of experienced agents from Mexico and the United States. They started making target lists — ministers, governors, former police commanders — and soon they had 35 names. They eventually settled on about 20 they considered especially promising. Donahue asked the DEA chief in New York where they might take their prospective cases for prosecution. He suggested Brooklyn.

Making the Case

Michael Robotti (Hilary Swift, special to ProPublica)

In February 2019, Guzmán was convicted of drug trafficking and murder, and he was later sentenced to life in prison. Robotti turned to the next big Mexican target: Cienfuegos. He and the other prosecutors on the case knew it would be challenging. Two years had passed since the marines wiped out the H’s. But despite the trove of messages between H-9 and “Zepeda,” they still needed to prove definitively that the gang’s protector was Cienfuegos himself. Strong witnesses had always been hard to come by; now the best candidates were dead. Mexico had just arrested H-2’s brother, Jesús Ricardo Patrón Sánchez, or H-3, but whether he might be extradited was anyone’s guess.

Veytia had given the investigators some important leads, revealing the gang’s connections with another army general and a PRI politician in Sinaloa. But Veytia’s information about Cienfuegos came almost entirely from H-2. While the prosecutors believed it would be admissible in court, officials said, it was still secondhand testimony. There was also the substantial problem of the prosecutors’ fight with the DEA over Veytia’s credibility.

The Mexican investigation of Veytia’s allegations against Ortega Siu went nowhere, several officials said. The DEA sent agents from Mexico to Washington to review intercepts in the H’s case but continued to argue that Veytia’s account was suspect. “There was some degree of corroboration that something bad had happened in that operation,” a former justice official who tried to reconcile conflicting accounts told me. “The question was whether there was corroboration of what Veytia was saying about Siu.”

In Brooklyn, two prosecutors working with Robotti on the Cienfuegos case prepared a lengthy memorandum based on the evidence gathered by the Las Vegas task force. The memo argued that there was extensive support for many of Veytia’s key assertions, including his planned meeting with H-2, the trafficker’s subsequent capture and the capture of H-9 the next day. Although there was a long-standing rivalry between the Eastern District and the Justice Department’s narcotics section, Justice Department officials agreed with the Brooklyn prosecutors. “Everything we had on this corroborated Veytia,” one official said.

In August 2018, the new chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division, Brian Benczkowski, met with top Justice Department, DEA and FBI officials to discuss the matter. He decided he needed more information. U.S. diplomats followed up repeatedly with the Mexican attorney general’s office but were put off each time, officials said. “We went back to them a few times and said: ‘What are you doing? This is a problem,’” one former embassy official said. Two of Benczkowksi’s deputies returned to Mexico and met again with the attorney general, but nothing they heard suggested that the Mexicans ever really investigated the marines’ action. Benczkowski decided it wasn’t up to him to “tell DEA who they could or couldn’t work with,” a former Justice Department official said.

Justice Department officials eventually decided that the DEA’s attack on Veytia’s credibility would have to be disclosed to defense lawyers in any trial in which he might testify. “Once the DEA concluded that Veytia was not to be believed, we were stuck,” one official said. “Our conclusion was that Veytia was done as a potential witness.”

Robotti and his colleagues faced other obstacles as well. U.S. investigators could search databases for investments or assets that Cienfuegos or his close relatives might have in the United States or Europe, but they could not readily examine Mexican property archives, which were mostly in paper files in Mexico. Any records they wanted to use in court would have to be requested under a bilateral legal treaty. Prosecutors asked for such information on Guzmán right after his extradition. They were still waiting for Mexico’s response.

Nonetheless, the politics of the case were looking more hopeful. As Robotti and his colleagues worked to lay out the prosecution’s case against Cienfuegos in the spring of 2019, Eastern District prosecutors were invited to brief the new attorney general, William P. Barr, on a Mexico case. Donoghue, the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, was a political conservative in a generally liberal office and was already emerging as a Barr favorite. The meeting included one of Donoghue’s former deputies, Seth DuCharme, who had just moved to Washington to serve as a counselor to Barr. “It felt like we were all very much on the same team,” one participant recalled.

In Barr’s first stint at the Justice Department, he dealt with the case of Enrique Camarena, a DEA agent murdered in Mexico in 1985. Decades later, the episode remained a touchstone for the agency, a symbol of Mexican injustice and corruption. Barr especially wanted to know what could be done about Rafael Caro Quintero, a fugitive trafficker who was convicted years earlier of organizing Camarena’s kidnapping and murder. After being freed from a Mexican prison on a technicality in 2013, Caro Quintero was believed to have returned to the drug business. U.S. agencies had no trouble locating him in Mexico, but their efforts to have him recaptured failed again and again. “Barr was obsessed with RCQ,” one participant said, referring to Caro Quintero.

According to one lawyer’s contemporaneous notes, Donoghue spoke again with Barr that July about “the secretary of defense.” They now had new witnesses who could describe the operations of the H’s and testify about the gang’s relationship with Cienfuegos and decided to put the case before a grand jury, calling Beck in from Las Vegas to help present it.

DEA investigations that may get the agency in trouble are governed by detailed rules. When agents want to launder money to gain criminals’ trust or investigate high-level foreign officials, they are generally required to submit their plans to a Sensitive Activity Review Committee, or SARC. The panels typically include DEA and Justice Department lawyers, along with representatives of other agencies. They sometimes take foreign-policy concerns into account, but mostly they focus on keeping agents from doing anything improper. The Cienfuegos investigation was just the kind of case that typically prompts a SARC review. But neither the DEA chief in Las Vegas nor his superiors in Los Angeles ordered one, officials said. The agents and prosecutors felt that they had good reason to keep their case quiet; it was a leak by “Zepeda” to the traffickers that helped get Cristián Aranda González killed in 2016.

Even the DEA chief in Mexico, Donahue, only learned of Cienfuegos’ indictment by a New York grand jury on Aug. 15, 2019, the day after it happened. Donahue and other U.S. Embassy officials were still trying to grasp the details when their new ambassador, Christopher Landau, landed in Mexico City the following day. Before he could unpack, Landau was ushered into a meeting on the embassy’s fifth floor. The indictment was a huge step, his new aides warned; the general’s arrest could seriously damage the relationship between the two countries. A lawyer who specialized in appellate litigation, Landau had left his $3 million-a-year law partnership to follow in the footsteps of his late father, a career diplomat who served in several Latin American posts. Although he had not practiced criminal law, Landau’s first request was to see the evidence. His next thought was to insist that Cienfuegos not be arrested if he happened to travel to the United States — at least not until they could review the case.

Landau and some of his aides soon gathered for the first of several secure video conferences with DEA officials and the Brooklyn prosecutors. Early on, the DEA chief in Los Angeles acknowledged that a SARC review should have been done and promised to start one immediately. But in Brooklyn, Donoghue pushed back against the idea that his prosecutors might have overreached. If the judge would allow Landau to review the sealed evidence, the ambassador would see for himself.

As DEA officials began putting together the SARC review, the prosecutors returned to court for Veytia’s sentencing. Despite his extensive cooperation, Justice Department officials finally deferred to the DEA and its defense of Ortega Siu, officials said. They considered trying to use Veytia as a witness against Sandoval but decided against it. (Sandoval was arrested in Mexico on corruption charges two years later.) In the absence of the standard letter from prosecutors attesting to his substantial assistance, Veytia was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment — more than some notorious Mexican traffickers. “We were essentially choosing sides as a government, and we supported Ortega Siu,” one former Justice Department official said.

The Unraveling

(Francesco Francavilla for The New York Times)

As the Cienfuegos case moved slowly ahead, it became increasingly apparent that President López Obrador’s crusade against corruption was falling short of his campaign promises. Although the government made a flurry of accusations against former officials, many of them political enemies of the president, almost none were successfully prosecuted. Government actions against the traffickers also fell sharply. One of the few notable operations was an attempt, in October 2019, to capture Ovidio Guzmán López, the 29-year-old son of El Chapo. With the Mexican marines sidelined, former officials told me, U.S. Homeland Security agents turned to the CIA station in Mexico and a secretive Mexican army unit that the agency had trained and equipped for counterdrug operations.

U.S. intelligence officers tracked Guzmán López to an upscale home in the Sinaloa capital, Culiacán, and the Mexican team managed to lure him outside. But the Mexicans had failed to obtain the necessary warrant for his arrest, officials said, forcing them to wait with Guzmán López at the house. As they did, dozens of Sinaloa gangsters rallied to their young boss, laying siege to the city in a live-television event. After they threatened a group of military families, the army freed Guzmán López on the president’s orders. Lawyers for the Guzmán family thanked him publicly for his consideration.

If President Trump had not been particularly focused on the Mexican drug fight until then, the Culiacán debacle got his attention. A few weeks later, Mexican gunmen killed nine Americans — three mothers and six children — from a fundamentalist Mormon community in the northern state Sonora. Trump exploded, tweeting, “This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth.”

Not long after, Barr was on a plane to Mexico City and found officials there outraged by what they viewed as a threat of U.S. military action. The attorney general presented himself as a sympathetic intermediary: He would try to calm Trump down, he said, but he needed help from the Mexicans. Barr wanted to quicken the pace of extraditions of Mexican traffickers, do more to disrupt their finances and intensify efforts with the Mexican navy to interdict drug shipments at sea. Barr also emphasized Washington’s great desire to see Rafael Caro Quintero back in prison.

Before his trip, Barr was briefed on the Eastern District’s sealed indictment of General Cienfuegos, according to two former officials familiar with the discussions. “We explained to him that it was a U.S. case, that none of it had been done in Mexico,” one official involved in the briefings said. “We also talked to him about the magnitude of the case. We thought that it could change how things operated in Mexico.” Through a spokesman, Barr declined to comment on the briefing or other aspects of his involvement in the Cienfuegos case.

Two days after Barr’s trip, on Dec. 9, the DEA arrested Genaro García Luna, the former security minister, outside a luxury apartment in Dallas. García Luna’s indictment was unsealed in Brooklyn the next day. The charges related to claims that he took millions of dollars in bribes to protect the illegal operations of the Sinaloa Cartel. Donoghue said there would be more indictments to come.

On Feb. 25, 2020, officials said, the embassy finally approved the SARC. The ambassador had been considering the matter for months. He asked prosecutors whether they were certain Cienfuegos had been dealing with the H’s directly. They told him that they could not be sure, but that there was strong circumstantial evidence that Cienfuegos and some of his close aides had been. Landau also wanted to know why investigators hadn’t found solid evidence of Cienfuegos’ supposed riches. The prosecutors said that such wealth was easy to hide in Mexico but that agents would most likely be able to investigate more fully if the general were ever arrested and his case became public.

Despite his qualms, Landau did not consult with other foreign-policy officials about the potential consequences of a Cienfuegos arrest. He told me that grand-jury secrecy prevented him from discussing the issue, and despite possible national-security exceptions to these rules, Justice Department officials did not raise it with their counterparts, either. As a result, the State Department and the Pentagon remained almost entirely unaware, officials said, that Mexico’s former defense minister could be arrested the moment he set foot in the United States.

Some of Landau’s concerns were assuaged by Mexico’s reaction to the arrest of García Luna. López Obrador seemed almost to celebrate the prosecution of a high-profile figure close to his hated rival, former President Felipe Calderón. Diplomats thought the arrest also made it less likely that Cienfuegos, if he had been in league with traffickers, would dare to visit the United States.

Then, on Oct. 14, an alarm went off at the Las Vegas office of the DEA task force. General Cienfuegos was booked on a Delta flight the next day from Mexico City to Los Angeles, apparently the start of a family vacation.

Days after Cienfuegos’ arrest, Mexico’s foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, summoned Ambassador Landau to his office high above the ancient center of Mexico City. Ebrard had earned a reputation for pragmatism in working with Trump officials on immigration and trade. He was also well known for being unflappable, which made his fury with Landau all the more striking.

“I had never seen Marcelo so up in arms,” Landau told me. “We had been through some tricky negotiations — the beginning of the pandemic, the ‘Return to Mexico’ policy — but I’d never seen anything like this. They took it much worse than we had expected.”

Ebrard might have been turning off the charm for effect. Mexican officials had made similar threats in the pre-Mérida days, and they had rarely been taken at face value. But this time, Ebrard informed Landau, the DEA’s presence in Mexico was “decidedly at risk.”

“I told the ambassador that the arrest had destroyed any basis of trust, any basis of cooperation,” Ebrard told me. “They acted deceitfully and with absolutely no consideration for the weight of Mexico. I asked him, ‘Would you act that way with France or some other ally?’” The ambassador seemed “very shaken” by the meeting, another U.S. official said. Back at his office, Landau called Barr on a secure line. Ebrard was furious, he said. The military was in an uproar. “This is a very big deal to them,” he said. Barr’s push to improve counterdrug cooperation was in jeopardy. Even though Landau had agreed to Cienfuegos’ arrest and approved the SARC review, now he harbored doubts about the strength of the evidence against the general. He told Barr he wasn’t sure if the prosecution was worth the potential cost.

Barr said he would speak with Ebrard directly. First, though, his aides hurriedly arranged a conference call. Seth DuCharme, who had returned to the Eastern District as the interim U.S. attorney after working as one of Barr’s counselors, offered a powerful defense of the prosecutors’ case. DuCharme, Robotti and others emphasized that the case had grown stronger since it was first filed, with new witnesses and other evidence that backed up the story told in the task-force intercepts of the Nayarit gang and its godfather.

“Is it worth it?” Barr asked at one point, according to one official’s notes of the meeting. Barr did not raise the possibility that he might drop the case. Nor did he ask the prosecutors and other officials on the call what they thought might happen if the U.S. government retreated from its public promises to hold corrupt Mexican officials accountable.

According to current and former Justice Department officials, Barr later asked one of his aides for an evaluation of the evidence against Cienfuegos. That assessment, they said, echoed the critique that some DEA and narcotics section officials had made about the Eastern District’s case since it was first summarized in the initial SARC document: To prosecute a suspect as powerful and high-profile as Cienfuegos, those officials argued, the government needed strong proof of his culpability. “It’s not that they didn’t have any evidence,” one official familiar with the case said. “But the best evidence they had were messages between two dead people.”

Barr spoke with Ebrard the following Monday, Oct. 26. He apologized that “the arrest had not gone through the normal process, and that neither I nor the head of the D.E.A. was aware of it beforehand,” he wrote in his memoir. Others said that was misleading. The Eastern District and DEA had briefed the attorney general about the case at least three times since 2018, former officials said. The prosecutors also sent an alert about the general’s planned arrest to Barr’s office and others in the department leadership, officials said. Timothy Shea, the DEA administrator, happened to be in Los Angeles on the day Cienfuegos was arrested there, and officials said he was informed about it in advance by the DEA agent in charge, whose agents helped make the arrest. (Shea declined to comment.)

Ebrard told Barr he wanted to see the evidence against Cienfuegos. On Barr’s orders, Robotti and other Eastern District prosecutors hurriedly assembled a file of more than 700 pages of intercepts. They had no illusions that the information would remain secret, and they did not make any mention of the new witnesses they had found, who, officials said, included at least two traffickers who told of face-to-face meetings with Cienfuegos. In a cover letter, Shea emphasized that Cienfuegos “was never a direct investigative target of the Drug Enforcement Administration.” As the intercepts showed, he said, Cienfuegos’ name had surfaced during a routine narcotics investigation.

Ebrard read the dossier over the weekend. Before he had a chance to pick apart the evidence in his next conversation with Barr, the attorney general told him he was ready to drop the case. “I made it clear that I was willing to return Cienfuegos and was taking care of the formalities necessary to do that,” Barr wrote in his memoir. “Personally, I felt that Cienfuegos’s case was not worth scuttling any prospects of broader cooperation with the Mexicans.”

According to two officials briefed on the call, Barr asked the Mexicans not to publicly disparage the DEA’s evidence against Cienfuegos and expressed his hope for the capture of Rafael Caro Quintero. But he did not receive any formal agreement on either point. “He didn’t nail down any commitment from the Mexican side,” one official said. “There were no real conditions imposed on the return.”

In Mexico City, López Obrador began to talk about the case with newfound equanimity. He was prepared to wait to resolve the situation until after the U.S. elections in November, he told reporters. But he also issued a warning: The Mexican government was still going to reconsider its counterdrug cooperation with the United States and reassess how U.S. agents were allowed to operate in Mexico.

The Eastern District prosecutors learned of Barr’s decision days after the Mexicans. They were blindsided, Robotti and others said, but were told the decision was not open to discussion. The move was announced publicly on Nov. 17 in a joint statement by Barr and his Mexican counterpart, Alejandro Gertz Manero. The Justice Department was seeking the dismissal of its charges against Cienfuegos “so that he may be investigated and, if appropriate, charged, under Mexican law,” the statement said. “Our two countries remain committed to cooperation on this matter, as well as all our bilateral law-enforcement cooperation.”

The federal judge in the case, Carol Bagley Amon, ordered DuCharme to appear in court and explain the attorney general’s extraordinary reversal. Because of the pandemic, the towering federal courthouse in Downtown Brooklyn was almost empty. There were no spectators; Robotti and other prosecutors listened over the telephone. An attorney for Cienfuegos, flush with excitement, sat at the defense table. Cienfuegos, now wearing a dark suit, sat beside him, beaming behind his mask.

DuCharme told the court that the Justice Department had no doubts about the strength of the evidence against the general, but that its “broader interests” in preserving cooperation in the drug fight had been deemed more important than his prosecution. DuCharme told me later that he was disappointed by Barr’s decision but not altogether surprised. “That was my experience with Barr,” he said. “He just jumped on hand grenades and pulled the pin — if it wasn’t out already.”

Judge Amon seemed skeptical. “The old adage ‘a bird in the hand’ comes to mind,” she said in her ruling. But, she noted, she had little authority to override the decision. She also underscored the Justice Department’s assurance to her “that the Mexican prosecuting authorities sincerely wish to pursue an investigation and possible prosecution of this defendant.”

The Mexican government announced the conclusions of its investigation of Cienfuegos in January 2021, just days before Trump left office. It was evident that the Mexican authorities had barely gone through the motions. Mexican investigators said they found no evidence that the general did anything wrong. They released a lengthy file of investigative documents, which were heavily redacted. It appeared that they had not even questioned key aides to Cienfuegos. Nor had they bothered to interview H-2’s jailed brother, H-3, or sought out any of dozens of other potential witnesses.

On López Obrador’s instructions, a senior Mexican official told me, Mexican prosecutors made public the confidential file of DEA intercepts that Robotti and his colleagues compiled. U.S. officials were furious. In remarks that might at another time have prompted a diplomatic confrontation, López Obrador said the U.S. authorities should investigate the DEA agents who tried to frame an innocent, respected military leader. He later called the charges “garbage, garbage.”

(Cienfuegos could not be reached for comment, but in a statement, his lawyer said: “General Cienfuegos never should have been charged. And no dismissed indictment or newspaper story will ever change that. The fact is, General Cienfuegos remains as American jurisprudence presumes him: innocent.”)

Joint operations against drug traffickers came to a standstill. U.S. agents reported being followed by what appeared to be Mexican army surveillance teams. In the new bicentennial framework for security cooperation put in place after Mexico’s unilateral abandonment of the Mérida pact, joint operations against organized-crime groups were scarcely mentioned.

The Biden administration had other priorities. “The agenda consists of immigration, immigration and immigration,” one senior Mexican official told me. That suited López Obrador fine. His challenge to U.S. law-enforcement goals was met with silence in Washington.

What neither government has acknowledged publicly is that Mexico’s national security — and that of the United States — may be more seriously at risk than ever from organized crime. The Mexican government has backed away from confronting gangs without reducing their power or violence. The loss of trust between the two governments has undercut already troubled efforts to reform the Mexican justice system. Many Mexican analysts saw Cienfuegos’ exoneration as an especially powerful message of impunity to the military just as it was taking even greater control of law enforcement.

(Francesco Francavilla for The New York Times)

General Cienfuegos did not wait long to retake his place among the Mexican elite. On March 21, when López Obrador inaugurated the new Felipe Ángeles International Airport, which army forces helped build outside Mexico City, Cienfuegos arrived in a starched dress uniform, his chest stacked with ribbons, and sat prominently among other senior generals. Earlier, he joined officers at a national journalism awards ceremony, where he bantered with a group of reporters. “Now I’m just in the custody of my wife,” he said.

Soon after Cienfuegos’ repatriation, Beck was moved off the DEA task force for good. He returned to the Las Vegas police, after being called into a DEA internal investigation, where he was questioned about problems with the Cienfuegos case. “It was mind-boggling to us,” Robotti said. “Beck took a street case and built it into something very important. If the politics had gone a different way, he would have been a hero.”

Robotti left the U.S. attorney’s office to join a New York law firm. He had personal reasons for the move but acknowledged that the Cienfuegos case left a bitter taste. “We let a guy we think is guilty go free,” he said. “We have spent all this money and effort down there, but if, at the end of the day, we’re not willing to try to tackle the corruption problem, what’s the point?”

The Eastern District is pressing ahead with the case against García Luna, who is scheduled for trial in January. But the broader effort that agents and prosecutors imagined — to take on Mexican drug corruption wherever it might reach — now seems impossibly remote. Biden officials insist that they are still trying to tackle the drug problem. But if they want to get anything done with the Mexican government, they say, they need to avoid confrontation.

A few months into the Biden administration, some of the Eastern District prosecutors proposed reindicting Cienfuegos on new charges. They had pulled together some important new evidence: They now had at least three traffickers who claimed they had met directly with Cienfuegos, at different times and in different parts of Mexico, to discuss his protection of their drug operations. They had other witnesses who could illuminate the general’s reputed dealings with the H’s. But Justice Department officials rejected the idea of a new grand jury.

In July of this year, López Obrador visited President Biden at the White House, and a few days later, officials of both countries found a familiar way to deflate the tensions that had been rising, as fentanyl deaths in the United States continued to climb. In Mexico City, the authorities announced they had finally caught the fugitive Rafael Caro Quintero. They were guarded about the details of the operation, insisting that the Americans had not been involved.

It turned out that Caro Quintero had been captured in something that resembled a joint operation, U.S. officials said. The Americans shared intelligence with the Mexican marines, who had begun operating again in a limited way. The triumphant capture squad was made up of commandos who served in the U.S.-trained special-operations unit — the same one that took down the H’s.

Doris Burke contributed research.

by Tim Golden

Dropping the Charges Against General Cienfuegos Was William Barr’s Call

2 years 4 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.

Leer en español.

On Oct. 15, 2020, federal prosecutors took the remarkable step of arresting former Mexican Defense Minister Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda on charges that he conspired to protect drug traffickers. Even in retirement, Cienfuegos was the most important Mexican official ever charged in a U.S. court. A month later, however, the Justice Department took the even more extraordinary step of dropping the charges.

The U.S. attorney general, William P. Barr, said his chief goal in sending Cienfuegos home was to preserve Mexico’s collaboration with the United States in fighting the drug trade. But the general’s arrest and its aftermath had the opposite effect — all but shutting down counterdrug cooperation between the two countries. Less than two months after his return, Mexican prosecutors exonerated Cienfuegos after a cursory investigation, underscoring the impunity with which the military has operated in the drug fight. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador then began attacking the Drug Enforcement Administration for “fabricating” its charges against Cienfuegos.

Last year, Mexico abandoned the Mérida Initiative, the 2007 landmark agreement by which the United States provided Mexico with more than $3.5 billion in aid and training to fight organized crime. The new pact that replaced Mérida is very much on López Obrador’s terms. Joint operations against big traffickers have been almost an afterthought. Meanwhile, fentanyl from Mexico is fueling the deadliest drug epidemic in U.S. history.

U.S. investigators believed that with Cienfuegos’ arrest they had finally confronted the high-level corruption that has long sustained organized crime in Mexico. Instead, they now say, the episode is likely to define the limits of U.S. security policy in Mexico for years to come.

The Cienfuegos case emerged from a routine DEA investigation in Las Vegas and a code word: “godfather.”

The agent who drove the investigation was a Las Vegas police detective named Timothy Beck. He spoke almost no Spanish and had never worked in Mexico. But he and other agents built a powerful case against the leaders of a violent drug gang, called “the H’s,” who were based in the small Pacific Coast state of Nayarit.

Using court-authorized wiretaps in the United States, the Las Vegas task force collected years of the gang’s communications. The U.S. agents followed its leader, Juan Francisco Patrón Sánchez, known as H-2, as he worked closely with corrupt officials in Nayarit. The agents watched as H-2 and his lieutenants then sought protection from higher-level officials in Mexico City — one of whom they called their “godfather.” The agents later concluded that the official was Cienfuegos.

(Cienfuegos could not be reached for comment, but in a statement, his lawyer said: “General Cienfuegos never should have been charged. And no dismissed indictment or newspaper story will ever change that. The fact is, General Cienfuegos remains as American jurisprudence presumes him: innocent.”)

A key source in the investigation set off a firestorm within the U.S. government.

In early 2017, H-2 and his lieutenant were killed along with a dozen of their gunmen by a special-operations team of Mexican marines. That unit, led by Adm. Marco Antonio Ortega Siu, had worked closely with the DEA and other U.S. agencies for years. But U.S. officials had no warning that the marine team was going after the H’s.

(Ortega Siu, who is now retired, could not be reached for comment. A spokesperson for the Mexican navy declined to answer questions about the marines’ actions in Nayarit, saying that such operations needed to remain confidential for reasons of national security.)

Not long after the H’s were killed, Nayarit’s acting attorney general, Edgar Veytia, was arrested crossing into the United States. He told investigators a shocking story about what he said really happened in the marines’ raid.

Senior Justice Department officials turned confidentially to the Mexican attorney general’s office to investigate the matter. However U.S. officials said the Mexicans appeared to do nothing. The DEA aggressively sought to discredit Veytia, whom they saw as jeopardizing their most important partners in Mexico. However, Justice Department officials said that many of his claims appeared to be true.

The Cienfuegos indictment was part of a broader U.S. effort to take on high-level drug corruption in Mexico.

Behind the general’s indictment in the Eastern District of New York was a new, joint push by DEA agents and prosecutors to take on the high-level corruption that U.S. officials believe has long sustained Mexico’s drug trade. The prosecutors were reacting in large part to embarrassing testimony in the 2018 trial of Mexican drug boss Joaquín Guzmán Loera, known as El Chapo, from witnesses who said he paid huge bribes to top Mexican officials with whom the United States had worked closely.

For their part, DEA officials in Mexico were frustrated with constraints imposed on them by the new López Obrador government. After connecting with the Eastern District prosecutors, a team of experienced agents began to dig into the evidence they had on government figures who had protected drug gangs. The effort, which has not been previously reported, eventually identified more than 20 targets for prosecution among current and former Mexican officials.

Returning Cienfuegos to Mexico was William Barr’s call.

After Cienfuegos’ arrest, Mexico’s foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, complained angrily to U.S. officials that they had betrayed Mexico’s trust. Ebrard warned that counterdrug cooperation and even the DEA’s presence in Mexico could be at stake. According to several officials, Barr decided on his own to drop the most significant Mexican corruption case that U.S. prosecutors had ever brought.

The attorney general later said he hadn’t been properly informed about Cienfuegos’ arrest, but current and former Justice Department officials disputed that assertion. They said Barr was briefed at least three times before the general’s arrest. Barr did have doubts about the strength of the evidence against Cienfuegos, department officials said. But he gave the Eastern District prosecutors little opportunity to defend their case, which officials said included some new witnesses who could testify about the gang’s relationship with Cienfuegos and other traffickers who said they met with the general directly. (Through a spokesman, Barr declined to comment on his involvement in the Cienfuegos case.)

Barr did not consult President Donald Trump or senior staff from other national security agencies about his decision, officials said. Nor did he set any conditions for the general’s return, U.S. and Mexican officials said. Instead, Barr emphasized Washington’s interest in a fugitive Mexican drug trafficker, Rafael Caro Quintero, who had been convicted of murdering a DEA agent in 1985. Caro Quintero was arrested earlier this year. Barr also asked the Mexican government to protect confidential evidence that U.S. officials shared in the Cienfuegos case. Instead, López Obrador released the information publicly and later dismissed it as “garbage.”

by Tim Golden

Child Welfare Experts Say New Mexico Can’t Put Kids in Homeless Shelters Just Because It Lacks Other Beds

2 years 4 months ago

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

A team of experts monitoring child welfare reform in New Mexico has found that foster kids have been placed in homeless shelters and other inappropriate settings, corroborating an investigation by Searchlight New Mexico and ProPublica that showed struggling teens have languished for weeks or months in shelters without the mental health services they need.

These teens often have complex, trauma-related mental health problems that cannot be addressed in shelters, Searchlight and ProPublica found. In some cases, teens were moved from psychiatric hospitals directly to shelters.

Across the state from 2019 through 2021, someone at a shelter that accepts foster teens called 911 nearly once a day to report runaways, suicide attempts and other emergencies, according to dispatch records.

In years past, the state Department of Children, Youth and Families often sent foster children with serious mental health needs to residential treatment centers. But the majority of residential treatment beds in New Mexico have been eliminated amid state investigations and lawsuits alleging physical and sexual abuse.

Instead, New Mexico promised to build a “statewide, community-based mental health system that all children and families will be able to access.” That system has yet to be built. And the state doesn’t have enough foster homes to meet the need.

So caseworkers turn to youth homeless shelters, also known as children’s crisis shelters, which are licensed to temporarily house kids. Those facilities don’t provide psychiatric care, and the state has agreed to use them as foster placements only in “extraordinary circumstances” — essentially, when needed to protect the child.

Shelter staff, attorneys and child advocates say shelter stays are much too common, with kids sometimes staying for weeks or months and moving from one facility to another. There’s a name for the frequent turnover: “the shelter shuffle.”

The team of experts found evidence of that practice. In a single month, December 2021, CYFD placed foster kids in shelters 30 times, the team found. None of those placements met the state’s standards, they wrote. Forty percent occurred right after another shelter stay.

Not only did CYFD inappropriately place youth in shelters, the report found, it also housed foster kids in caseworkers’ offices, a practice the department had agreed to end by December 2020.

Prior to the report’s release, officials at CYFD had told legislators that the number of kids in congregate care, a category that includes shelters and residential treatment centers, had fallen 61% since 2018. Shelter managers attributed much of that drop to the pandemic, when shelters had to freeze admissions if a resident tested positive for COVID-19. Nearly 3,000 kids entered the foster system in 2021.

Still, the monitors found that the share of children placed in an office, hotel or out-of-state facility had doubled between 2019 and 2021, from 2% to 4% of the state’s foster youth.

One of those kids was Isaiah Stewart, a 14-year-old who had been placed in three shelters as of this summer. In a July interview, he said he spent his days at CYFD’s main Albuquerque office while he waited for a bed in a shelter.

“I see a lot of kids who have stayed there too long because they have nowhere else to go,” Isaiah said. “Eventually they just get fed up. Any kid would, to be honest.” Kids often run away from shelters after losing hope, he said.

“I’m just trying to get placed with a family that will care for me,” he said. In September, CYFD placed Isaiah with a foster family, according to his attorney.

The team of monitors was appointed as part of a settlement between CYFD, the state Human Services Department, and a group of 14 foster children who sued the state. That lawsuit, filed in 2018, claimed the state was “locking New Mexico’s foster children into a vicious cycle of declining physical, mental and behavioral health.”

The state settled the suit in 2020 and agreed to wide-ranging reforms, including putting an end to inappropriate placements in shelters and other congregate care settings.

As of December 2021, the report said, the state hadn’t met any of the 34 key goals laid out in the settlement.

In interviews, state officials have touted progress in reducing shelter placements and said they’ve opened more sites to support families and keep kids out of inpatient facilities. And they have created plans to recruit foster families, the report noted.

“We are continuing to push hard to make every change needed to ensure that every New Mexico child in the CYFD system receives the very best care possible,” CYFD Secretary Barbara Vigil said in an emailed statement. “While we have more work ahead, I am certain we are on the right path.”

Interviews this year with foster youth showed that many of the problems described in the report have not been resolved. Calls to 911 from shelters continued into this year. Data from one shelter showed CYFD placed kids there 30 times from January to June, with many staying two weeks or longer. (A senior staffer at the shelter shared the data, which didn’t include any identifying information about residents, on the condition that the shelter not be identified, out of fear of retaliation by CYFD.)

In June, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit entered into a formal dispute resolution process to get the state to comply with the settlement. The state agreed to take specific steps to move toward compliance.

“It’s still not fixed,” said Bette Fleishman, the attorney for the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. If the report were based on the situation as it stands today, she said, “we’d still have a lot of those same issues.”

by Ed Williams, Searchlight New Mexico

Do Blocked Railroad Crossings Endanger Your Community? Tell Us More.

2 years 4 months ago

In communities across America, trains come to a stop at railroad crossings, sometimes blocking traffic for hours. The federal government has amassed tens of thousands of reports of such incidents in the past year alone from nearly every state.

This is more than an inconvenience: Our reporters have heard from emergency medical workers and patients about trains blocking crossings in ways that have kept ambulances and those in need of assistance from hospitals, and members of fire and police departments have told us about delayed responses to calls. We have witnessed people climbing through or over the cars of stationary trains, including students trying to get to school.

We’d like to understand how these safety issues are experienced by as many communities as possible. Insights from EMS, firefighters, police, parents, educators and others will help us tell the most impactful stories possible.

We appreciate you sharing your story and we take your privacy seriously. We are gathering these stories for the purposes of our reporting and will contact you if we wish to publish any part of your story.

by Ruth Baron, Topher Sanders and Dan Schwartz

Workers Across America Break Their Silence on Decades of Asbestos Exposure

2 years 4 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 was co-published with NPR.

Do you have experience working with hazardous chemicals like asbestos? Tell us about it.

Update, Dec. 8, 2022: This story was updated to include a statement provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration after the story was published.

When LaTunja Caster started working at the Olin Corp. chemical plant outside of McIntosh, Alabama, she had no idea that asbestos was used in the production process. But when she became a union safety representative around 2007, she started to pay attention. In certain parts of the plant, “you would see it all the time,” she said. “You definitely breathed it in.”

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

Six other people who worked in the plant, some with experiences as recent as this year, echoed her recollections about exposure to the potent mineral that has long been known to cause deadly cancers like mesothelioma and a chronic lung condition called asbestosis that can make it difficult to breathe.

Though designated asbestos workers were given protective gear and had special training, electricians, millwrights and general maintenance staff got no comparable protection even though they, too, were exposed, they told ProPublica. The same was true of some contract workers.

Carrie Jenkins, a longtime contract janitor, said she scraped dry asbestos off the locker room floor and threw away workers’ protective suits, which were sometimes caked with the substance. She said she was offered no protective gear herself, and worked around asbestos even when she was pregnant. “They never told us how dangerous it was,” she said.

Andy Lang, a contract pipe fitter, worked in the asbestos-ridden part of the plant without protective gear on and off from the late 1990s to 2019, he said. Asbestos would go “flying” and land everywhere; anyone who spent time there would have breathed it in, he said, including him. “Ain’t no doubt in my mind,” he told ProPublica. Though he has not experienced lung problems, his sister did. A plant employee who worked a variety of jobs, Bertha Reed spent time in areas where workers handled asbestos, Lang said, retiring as a lab analyst.

She was diagnosed with lung cancer and died in 2017 at 64. An avid hunter and fisherwoman who loved to travel and shop, she left behind a husband, two children and several grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Reed never smoked cigarettes, her brother said. He blames the chemicals she was exposed to at the plant. “There was nothing safe about it,” he said.

For decades, workers were largely silent about the dangers they faced in asbestos-dependent chlorine plants like the one near McIntosh. But in the weeks since ProPublica revealed unsafe practices at a plant in Niagara Falls, New York, people who worked at other chlorine plants across the United States have voiced concerns about the way asbestos was handled at their facilities. One former engineer at a plant outside Las Vegas said the substance was difficult to control. Former lab analysts at a Texas plant said colleagues there raised issues about potential exposures with safety managers in 2018.

The Olin plant in McIntosh, Alabama

The workers are speaking up as the country’s two main chlorine producers, Olin and OxyChem, battle to continue using asbestos at their plants, despite proposed bans on the substance put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency and members of Congress. Their accounts undermine the companies’ long-standing contention that the substance is used safely and that workers are seldom exposed.

Olin did not return calls or emails from ProPublica. While CEO Scott Sutton told shareholders that the McIntosh plant recently stopped using asbestos, two of its other plants still use it, federal records show. OxyChem, which runs five asbestos-reliant plants, told ProPublica that it prioritizes worker safety and that its facilities are “operated under high standards and strict regulatory controls.” It did not respond to specific concerns that former workers raised about its plants.

But Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat from Oregon, said it was “deeply troubling that workers from multiple chlor-alkali facilities are now coming forward with stories of dangerous exposure to asbestos at their workplaces.”

Said U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat: “It’s more clear than ever [that] we can’t just trust industry to self-regulate itself with something as dangerous as asbestos. While it breaks my heart to hear of more workers in more plants that lack adequate safety precautions, it adds momentum to our mission to ban all forms of asbestos.”

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was once used widely in construction and industrial operations. In recent years, dozens of countries have deemed the mineral so dangerous that they’ve banned its use entirely. The United States doesn’t allow asbestos mining, but it has no prohibition on importing asbestos. Olin and OxyChem are among the few companies that buy it from other countries and use it in domestic plants.

The material is a key part of the production process in the nation’s oldest chlorine plants; it serves as a protective coating on large metal screens that sit inside tanks of corrosive chemicals. When a screen needs to be re-coated, workers pressure-wash the old asbestos off, then dip the screen into an asbestos slurry. They bake the new asbestos onto the screen before returning it to service.

In interviews, more than two dozen people who worked at asbestos-dependent plants across the country described the process as dirty and outdated. (Both Olin and OxyChem have newer plants that make chlorine without asbestos, but the companies have resisted updating all of their facilities, saying the upgrades are cost prohibitive and would not significantly improve worker health.)

Carrie Jenkins says she was asked to scrape dry asbestos off the locker room floor when she worked at the plant as a contract janitor.

Olin opened its plant near McIntosh, a small town about 40 miles north of Mobile, in the 1950s. The ground there is rich in salt, a key ingredient in chlorine manufacturing. The plant’s early production process involved mercury, a toxic metal that went on to contaminate the groundwater, EPA records show. It started using asbestos in 1978.

The plant has a complicated relationship with the residents of McIntosh, many of whom are Black or Native American and whose families have lived there for generations. At least three times in the past three years, the plant has released chlorine into the atmosphere, government records show. Scores of residents are now suing Olin, alleging in court documents that the plant failed to warn them about the leaks and they suffered as a result. The company denies those claims, and the case is ongoing.

Still, Olin is a major employer in McIntosh and supports the local schools and community improvement association. The corporation’s name and logo loom large around town, adorning even the local walking trail. Many residents are reluctant to criticize the company publicly.

Inside the plant, workers struggled to keep the asbestos contained, according to the seven people who worked there. They were told they could stay safe by keeping the material wet, preventing it from becoming airborne. But that was an impossible task, several of them told ProPublica.

A slight breeze would cause the asbestos to dry, said Chris Murphy, a former union president who worked in the maintenance department from 2009 until 2020. It wasn’t unusual to find it settled on machines and caked onto the beams overhead, he said. “Any areas that didn’t stay wet,” he said, “you’d find it.”

Asbestos was just one of many hazards at the plant; more immediately concerning was a possible explosion or hazardous gas leak. Still, the plant’s safety managers discussed it regularly and scrubbed the asbestos area in preparation for regulator inspections, said Caster, the former union safety representative who worked at the plant until 2020.

For years, plant officials knew when to expect the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In 2001, the plant won admission into OSHA’s Star Program, which exempts facilities that commit to high safety standards from random, unannounced inspections. Instead, OSHA makes re-evaluation visits every three to five years. The McIntosh plant withdrew from the program in 2015, several months after a chlorine release sent an employee to the hospital and OSHA fined the company $8,500, government records show.

In a statement provided after this story was published, OSHA said it had inspected the plant seven times after its withdrawal from the program, mostly on account of chlorine exposures, and that its records did not indicate any problems with asbestos hazards. “Although the procedures for on-site evaluations are designed to reveal possible safety and health management failures, OSHA cannot rule out breaches in health and safety management when we’re not onsite,” an agency spokesperson said.

First image: Andy Lang, a former contract pipe fitter at the plant near McIntosh. Second image: Lang’s sister Bertha Reed, who also worked at the plant, died in 2017 after battling lung cancer.

At OxyChem’s chlorine plant outside of Corpus Christi, Texas, workers in the lab started asking questions of their own in 2018, multiple former employees told ProPublica. Among their other duties, the lab workers analyzed asbestos samples delivered to them by workers who handled the material. The lab employees feared the asbestos workers were inadvertently carrying the substance into the lab on their boots and protective suits, which they often wore around their waists. People in the lab also worried that, once dry, tiny fibers from the samples could escape into the air. The lab employees did not have protective breathing devices known as respirators.

When one of them raised concerns, the plant’s safety managers sampled the air quality and deemed it safe, the former employees said. But the results did little to convince some employees that there was no exposure risk.

Teresa Hunt was in charge of the asbestos training program and air-quality sampling at OxyChem’s plant in Tacoma, Washington, from the 1990s until 2001 — just before it stopped making chlorine in 2002. (From 1997 to 2002, the facility was owned by Pioneer Companies, news clips show.) The plant tried to control the asbestos with special fans, Hunt said, but they weren’t enough. “Most people of course they were exposed to it,” she said. “The stuff was all around us.”

The plant offered top-of-the-line respirators to workers, Hunt said, but few employees took the threat of asbestos exposure seriously. “As a teacher, I had trouble getting them to listen to me,” she said, echoing the reality that the other threats at the plant felt more imminent.

Hunt said she has not seen a high incidence of cancers among former plant workers, many of whom are still in close contact. Lately, though, she has been trying to get her insurance to cover a lung X-ray to look for signs of asbestos-related damage. “My God, I worry about it,” she said.

Controlling the asbestos was also a challenge at Olin’s plant in Henderson, Nevada, said Dawn Henry, the plant’s engineer from 2004 through 2010. Although the asbestos workers at the facility outside Las Vegas wore personal protective equipment during the most dangerous tasks and supervisors tried to enforce the safety standards, “you can only do so much,” she said. “It is a messy job.”

In the desert heat, Henry said, it was impossible to expect all the asbestos would stay wet. “It wasn’t like it was in a clean room,” she added. “It was in a room that was open to the atmosphere. The building was adjacent to the offices where the engineers worked. It was a one-minute walk away. The garage door was always open.”

Olin, which acquired the Henderson plant from Pioneer in 2007, announced plans to stop making chlorine there in 2016. The facility now produces bleach and hydrochloric acid, according to the company’s website.

Large pipes snaking through McIntosh bring chemicals to the Olin plant.

The accounts from workers stand in sharp contrast to what Olin and OxyChem have put on the record about worker safety in their plants. For decades, they’ve said their workers are rarely exposed to asbestos. The argument has been key to their success in beating back previous bans proposed by the EPA and Congress.

“Everyone makes the argument that this is a problem of the past, we do things better now,” said Columbia University historian David Rosner, who researches the harm done by industrial pollution. “This has been the historical argument, the legal argument and the way of putting off the inevitable, which is the need to ban this stuff.”

The EPA recently used the companies’ own exposure-monitoring data to help determine that workers at chlorine plants — including those who don’t handle asbestos — were at an unreasonable risk of being hurt by it, using the finding as the basis for the agency’s latest proposed ban. And in October, ProPublica examined the conditions at the OxyChem plant in Niagara Falls. Former workers there said asbestos stuck to the ceiling and walls, contaminated their break room and drifted out of open doors and windows before the plant closed late last year.

After the story was published in collaboration with NPR, other former employees at the Niagara Falls plant said they, too, had been exposed to asbestos. Ronald Hulsizer Sr. repaired pumps and instruments in the building where the material was handled. There was asbestos dust everywhere, he said, adding that it sometimes blew into an adjacent building.

John Mountain said he worked around asbestos until he retired from the Niagara Falls plant in 2013. He now has trouble breathing, he said. His doctors have told him his lungs are seriously damaged. Mountain used to smoke cigarettes; people who work around asbestos and smoke face a much higher risk of asbestos-related disease than those who don’t. But he didn’t know that when he was a young man. In fact, his bosses told him the opposite, he said. “They used to tell us if you smoked, the asbestos didn’t bother us as bad,” he said.

Mountain said he was recently back at the plant, doing contract work to help decommission it. There’s still a lot of asbestos on the site, he told ProPublica. “They have to get rid of all of the cells,” he said, referencing the large tanks where chlorine was made. “You can see [asbestos] on the outside of them.”

In the month and a half since ProPublica’s reporting was published, some advocates have called on the EPA to expedite its latest proposed ban, which will likely take several months to be finalized. Others have rallied behind an effort to pass a law banning asbestos, which would be more difficult for opponents to overturn in court than an EPA rule. Five House members have signed on to co-sponsor the bill in recent weeks.

It is unlikely that the bill will be considered during the current lame-duck session before the new Congress begins in January. But advocates plan to keep the pressure on, said Linda Reinstein, co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Her group recently sent a letter to the EPA that cited ProPublica’s work and urged the agency to dig deeper into the companies’ ongoing use of asbestos.

“The brave workers who shared their stories prove yet again that there is no safe or controlled use of asbestos,” she told ProPublica. “The scourge of asbestos death and disease will be with us for decades to come unless Congress acts now to ban this chemical once and for all.”

A residential street runs parallel to the fence outside the Olin plant in McIntosh.

Do You Work With These Hazardous Chemicals? Tell Us About It.

by Kathleen McGrory and Neil Bedi, photography by Rich-Joseph Facun, special to ProPublica

Governments Call for Reforms to Centuries-Old Honorary Consul System

2 years 4 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.

Authorities in four countries are pressing to correct breakdowns in a troubled system of global diplomacy that has elevated and protected accused terrorist financiers, violent criminals, sanctioned oligarchs and aides to some of the world’s most corrupt regimes.

The “Shadow Diplomats” investigation, published last month by ProPublica, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and more than 50 international media organizations, chronicled widespread exploitation by honorary consuls and the failure of governments to provide oversight.

Thousands of the volunteer diplomats are in place worldwide, working from their home countries to represent the interests of the foreign nations that appoint them. In exchange, under international treaty, consuls receive a coveted series of legal protections and privileges, which can include diplomatic credentials, special license plates and the ability to move consular bags across borders without inspection.

The investigation found at least 500 current and former consuls who have been accused of crimes or embroiled in controversy — the majority while they held their posts. That includes scores of consuls who reportedly tried to use their status to advance illicit activity or evade law enforcement. Others have spread pro-Kremlin sentiment around the world, supporting Russian President Vladimir Putin amid his most controversial military and political campaigns, including the invasion of Ukraine.

In recent weeks, government officials acknowledged not knowing the number of consuls they had appointed or whether any had been convicted of serious offenses either within their own borders or overseas.

In Finland, the protocol chief at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said he was unaware that some consuls had been convicted of tax fraud, bribery and environmental crimes. The ministry is planning to conduct a review this month.

“These crimes … must now be investigated in more detail,” Mika Koskinen told local journalists.

The ministry is also updating its internal review of consul candidates. “Finland does not accept corruption,” said Pekka Puustinen, the ministry’s undersecretary for internal and external services.

In Brazil, authorities have opened an investigation into crimes allegedly committed by honorary consuls following a request by Deputy Prosecutor General Lucas Furtado.

“It is clear that there may be damage — albeit indirect — to public coffers,” Furtado noted in response to media reports about troubled diplomats.

A top official in Paraguay said the government is planning to review its diplomatic laws and regulations. “This will allow us to give transparency to the functions performed by honorary consuls,” Foreign Minister Julio Cesar Arriola said.

And in Germany, politicians from across the political spectrum are calling for change, citing national security concerns.

“It would therefore be necessary to reform the system, which invites abuse,” said German Parliament member Roderich Kiesewetter. “Regular training, security clearance must also be enforced.”

Sebastian Fiedler, another member of Parliament, said, “A security check … for all honorary consuls accredited for Germany is the least that can be done.”

Germany and Austria have already dismissed an honorary consul in Brazil who had been criticized by a judge in 2015 for misusing her consular status in a controversial land deal. The consul and her family denied wrongdoing.

In Switzerland, the honorary consul for Mongolia announced his resignation in October, one day after reporters asked government officials about his prior conviction for tax evasion. The consul declined to respond to a request for comment.

The threat of shadow diplomacy has also alarmed experts in the United States. ProPublica and ICIJ identified nine current and former honorary consuls who have been linked to terrorist groups by law enforcement and governments.

Most were tied to Hezbollah, the political party, social services provider and militant group in Lebanon designated by the United States and other countries as a terrorist organization.

“This is not just a question of making sure that honorary consuls are not using connections for personal gain,” said Matthew Levitt, a Hezbollah expert and former deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Treasury Department. “This is a serious security and public safety issue related to extremist activity.”

Suzanne Hayden, a former federal prosecutor focused on national and international security, said honorary consuls have used diplomatic cover to cross borders without scrutiny and to obtain illicit contraband.

“It’s the one guaranteed area where the rule of law doesn’t matter — the law has no teeth,” Hayden said. “There is not even an opportunity to test the law because all you have to do is say, ‘I have diplomatic immunity,’ and when confronted, the local cops simply put their hands up and walk away. It’s just the perfect scenario for crime.”

Reporting was contributed by Mabel Rehnfeldt, of ABC Color, Guilherme Amado of Metropoles, Bernhard Odehnal, of Tamedia, Johanna Mattinen, of YLE, and Frederik Obermaier and Jorg Diehl, of Der Spiegel.

by Debbie Cenziper, ProPublica, and Will Fitzgibbon, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

How to Research Your Hospice (and Avoid Hospice Fraud)

2 years 4 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.

Half of all Americans die in hospice. To qualify for the government benefit, two doctors must certify a patient as terminally ill, with a life expectancy of six months or less. When done right, hospice offers Medicare beneficiaries an intimate, holistic and vital service — one that allows them to experience as little pain as possible and to spend meaningful time with loved ones.

But a ProPublica investigation of the hospice industry, in partnership with The New Yorker, found that the current design of the program enables some profit-seeking providers to exploit seniors with few consequences. Most hospice care takes place out of sight, behind closed doors. Because pinpointing what constitutes a “good death” is nearly as difficult as determining what makes a good life, families do not always realize when hospice is failing them.

Since 1995, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General has published warnings and reports outlining the misuse of the hospice benefit. Last year, it listed hospice fraud as the government’s top area for criminal recoveries, after the pharmaceutical and home health sectors. “It’s an open secret that hospice is one of the poster children for fraud and abuse in Medicare,” said David Grabowski, a health policy professor at Harvard who serves on MedPac, the federal advisory panel on Medicare spending.

Some hospices boost profits by signing people up regardless of whether they are dying. Marketers present the program as free home health care or steal personal information to enroll “phantom patients.” Others target assisted living facilities and nursing home residents whose life expectancy exceeds six months.

This guide can help you research your hospice provider and spot common signs of hospice fraud. It is adapted from the Senior Medicare Patrol National Resource Center, a grantee of the Administration for Community Living at HHS, that assists Medicare beneficiaries, families and their caregivers to prevent, detect and report health care fraud, errors and abuse.

Do I qualify for hospice services?
  • Did your doctor determine that you are terminally ill?
  • Did your doctor determine that you have less than six months to live if your illness runs its normal course?
  • Are you ready to focus on comfort and quality of life rather than on curing your illness?
  • Do you have Medicare Part A or are you in a Medicare Advantage plan?

If the answer to all of the above questions is yes, then you are eligible for the Medicare government benefit. You can be indefinitely recertified for hospice care beyond a six-month prognosis, and if you choose to seek curative care, you may revoke your certification.

What should I expect when I enter hospice care?
  • Hospice care is palliative, rather than curative.
  • Your hospice will develop an individualized written plan of care for you, which will reflect your and your family’s goals. Depending on your illness or condition, the care plan may include some or all of these services: nursing care, hospice aide and homemaker services, medical equipment and supplies, prescription drugs for symptom control or pain relief, physical therapy, social work services and grief and loss counseling.
  • Your hospice is required to provide services consistent with the plan.
  • There are four levels of hospice care available to patients, depending on your needs.
    • Routine care: This is the most common level of care and typically happens in the home. It is provided when the patient is generally stable and the patient’s symptoms, like pain or nausea and vomiting, are adequately controlled.
    • Continuous home care: This level of care is for crisis-like and short-term management of out-of-control pain and/or symptoms. The care does not have to be “continuous” to qualify but must total eight hours or more of care within a 24-hour period.
    • General inpatient care: This is for a crisis-like level of care for short-term management of out-of-control pain and/or symptoms and is provided in a facility like a hospital or a skilled nursing home.
    • Respite care: This level of care is intended to provide temporary relief for a caregiver. It is tied to caregiver needs and not patient symptoms. It is usually provided in an inpatient facility for up to five days.

How can I research a hospice provider for myself or my loved one?
  • Learn about the benefit by reading the Medicare Hospice Booklet, which outlines the important services that hospice will provide.
  • Compare providers by looking at quality-of-care metrics and reviews.
    • Hospice Compare, which is found on the Medicare website, reports information on hospices across the nation. You can compare national survey rates of family members’ experiences with hospice care or some indicators of quality, like the percentage of patients checked for pain. (Not all comparative metrics, however, are available for all hospices.)
    • The National Hospice Locator, an interactive map run by Hospice Analytics, allows you to search and sort hospices based on various criteria, including awards, size and for-profit status.
    • Ever Loved, a bereavement services startup, offers access to reviews from families.
  • Check the complaints on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. The government publishes summaries of its investigations of complaints for hospices that have been inspected by a surveyor in the past three years.
  • Ask trusted friends and medical professionals for advice.
  • Interview prospective hospice providers. Some questions you might want to ask your prospective hospice provider include:
    • Does the hospice accept my insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, other)?
    • Are there any services I’m receiving now that the hospice can’t provide?
    • How long has the hospice been serving patients in my community?
    • Is the hospice a nonprofit or for-profit organization?
    • Who owns the hospice and what motivated them to go into the field?
    • In addition to my residence, where does the hospice provide its services? How is respite care provided when my caregiver needs a break?
    • Can you confirm that the hospice will provide a hospital bed and other medical equipment I might need?
    • Are the hospice physicians, registered nurses, social workers and chaplains certified in palliative care?

What are common signs of hospice fraud and abuse?
  • You were enrolled in hospice without your or your family’s permission.
  • You find out someone is falsely certifying or failing to obtain physician certification on plans of care.
  • You were offered gifts or cash to receive hospice services, to refer your friends and family or to encourage you to elect hospice despite not being terminally ill.
  • You see on your Medicare Summary Notice or Explanation of Benefits that you were billed for a higher level of care than was needed or provided or for services not received.
  • You are an assisted living facility and/or nursing home resident who is being targeted for hospice services even though your life expectancy exceeds six months.
  • You come across marketers using high-pressure and unsolicited tactics to peddle hospice services.
  • You were provided less care on the weekends or your care plan was disregarded.

What are some of the harms of hospice fraud?
  • Because people enrolled in hospice forgo curative care, fraud can harm patients who don’t intend to sign up for the service.
  • Unwitting recruits have been denied kidney dialysis, mammograms, coverage for lifesaving medications or a place on the waiting list for a liver transplant.
  • While it’s possible to leave hospice at any time by contacting one’s provider, fraudulent hospices don’t always pick up the phone when their “patients” try to disenroll and it can take weeks to leave the service.
  • For patients who need hospice care, inadequate care by fraudulent providers can leave patients in agonizing pain or with uncontrolled symptoms.

How can I report a problem if something has gone wrong?

If you suspect Medicare fraud, errors or serious patient injuries, here are some of the steps that you might take.

  • Talk to your provider: If you feel comfortable doing so, call your hospice provider to get more information on your or your loved one’s Medicare Summary Notice or Explanation of Benefits.
  • File a complaint: If you’re experiencing quality of care issues, you can file complaints with your state health department and the Beneficiary and Family Centered Care-Quality Improvement Organization.
  • Revoke or change providers: You can research other hospice providers in your area, and you may change your designated hospice provider.
  • Report directly to the OIG Hotline: 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).
  • Ask for help from your Senior Medicare Patrol: If you are not comfortable calling the provider or if you are not satisfied with their response to the potential error or your question, your local SMP can help you:
    • Identify and report fraud schemes and deceptive health care practices, such as illegal marketing or billing for services that were never provided.
    • Refer complaints of potential fraud and abuse to the appropriate entity, who can intervene. For example:
      • HHS’ Office of the Inspector General.
      • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: 800-MEDICARE (800-633-4227).
      • State attorneys general.
      • Local law enforcement.
      • State departments of insurance.
      • State Medicaid Fraud Control Units.
    • Use the SMP Locator to get contact information (or call 877-808-2468).

by Ava Kofman

They Trusted Their Prenatal Test. They Didn’t Know the Industry Is an Unregulated “Wild West.”

2 years 4 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 discusses pregnancy loss and termination.

Amanda wanted to warn someone. In June 2021, her daughter — the one she and her husband had tried for three years to conceive — had died after only 28 hours. With an underdeveloped nose, she had battled for every breath.

Nobody knew why. Later, an autopsy report revealed their daughter had an extra 13th chromosome. The condition is nearly always fatal.

“But didn’t we test for that?” Amanda recalled asking herself. “That was kind of where the lightbulb clicked.”

Through her doctor, Amanda had gotten a popular prenatal screening from a lab company. It had come back “negative.”

For three major conditions, including the one her baby had, the report gave the impression of near certainty. The likelihood that she would be born without them was “greater than 99%.”

As she recovered from a cesarean section, Amanda found herself facing a long maternity leave without a child. She shut the door to the empty nursery and began spending what seemed like endless hours of that hazy summer learning about the test.

It’s a simple blood draw designed to check for an array of genetic anomalies. But Amanda, a science researcher, read academic articles showing there was a higher risk of inaccurate results than she had realized. (She asked to be identified by only her first name to protect her privacy.)

On Reddit, she found other women reporting problems with the tests, too. She thought Labcorp, the company that made her test, would want to know about the screening that failed her. Maybe by alerting them, she could help other families. Maybe it would help her understand what happened.

“I was trying to gain answers,” said Amanda, now 32. She tried calling Labcorp’s customer service line, but she said she was passed along from one person to another. “It was just a circle,” she remembered.

She phoned Labcorp a second time. The call ended when an employee hung up on her.

Amanda was baffled. Why didn’t the company seem interested in her experience? Why, she wondered, wouldn’t it want to collect this data? Why wasn’t there someone who could answer her questions about how often this happens, and why?

If she had taken any number of other common commercial tests — including certain tests for COVID-19 or, say, pregnancy — the company would have been required to inform the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about reports of so-called adverse events.

But the test Amanda had falls into a regulatory void. No federal agency checks to make sure these prenatal screenings work the way they claim before they’re sold to health care providers. The FDA doesn’t ensure that marketing claims are backed up by evidence before screenings reach patients. And companies aren’t required to publicly report instances of when the tests get it wrong — sometimes catastrophically.

The broader lab testing industry and its lobbyists have successfully fought for years to keep it this way, cowing regulators into staying on the sidelines.

Worried about a growing variety of tests escaping scrutiny, the FDA was on the cusp of stepping in six years ago. But then it backed down.

Peter Lurie, then a top agency official, was at the meetings where the FDA tabled its plans. Not pushing harder, he told ProPublica, “remains one of my greatest regrets.”

Key Findings
  • While upwards of half of all pregnant women get noninvasive prenatal screening tests, or NIPTs, the tests are not regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “This is a Wild West scenario,” said one expert.
  • After fierce industry backlash, the FDA retreated on oversight of lab tests, including NIPTs. Not pushing back more, a former agency official said, “remains one of my greatest regrets.”
  • Experts say the screenings were sold before they were appropriately tested. Companies downplay “inconvenient truths” in the research, said one doctor.
  • Marketing materials have sometimes pitched the tests as providing far more certainty than they actually do. The statistical nuances of the test aren’t easy to parse for patients and even some doctors and nurses.
  • While patients have been left confused and sometimes shattered, executives profit. Last year, the compensation package for the head of one lab was over $23 million.

The risk of false positives from prenatal screenings, in particular, has been known for years.

In 2014, the New England Center for Investigative Reporting detailed how some companies gave a misleading impression of the precision of the prenatal screenings. Women often didn’t understand they needed diagnostic testing to confirm the results. Some had gotten abortions based on false positive results, the story said. Earlier this year, The New York Times reported how companies sell optional extra screenings that are “usually wrong” when they predict a disorder.

Despite these stories and calls for reform by patient advocates, the government has done little to improve oversight of prenatal screenings. ProPublica set out to examine the forces that led to this inertia and left patients like Amanda feeling misled. Interviews with more than three dozen women revealed ongoing confusion about the screenings — and anger when their reliability proved to be overblown.

“This is a Wild West scenario where everybody is on their own,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University law professor specializing in bioethics.

The stakes for families are increasing. Upwards of half of all pregnant people now receive one of these prenatal screenings. And with many states banning abortions or limiting them to early in pregnancies, the need for fast, accurate information has become more urgent.

The FDA itself acknowledges the problem. In correspondence with ProPublica, a spokesperson cited an “outdated policy” regarding the lack of vetting of many lab tests that the agency has “spent the better part of the last two decades trying to address.”

The screening industry, meanwhile, continues to expand, proving lucrative for those who lead it. The chief executive of Natera, which claims about 40% of the market share of prenatal screenings, received a $23 million compensation package last year, the highest of any executive at a publicly traded lab company.

Testing companies told ProPublica that, even without the FDA, there is significant oversight. Labs must abide by state regulations, and another federal agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is charged with monitoring quality standards. It does not, however, check whether the tests the labs perform are clinically valid.

Companies also said the screenings offer important guidance to expectant families. Echoing others in the field, Labcorp said in a statement that the screenings, when used properly, “provide vital information about the presence of increased risk, but do not provide a definitive diagnosis.” (It declined to discuss the specifics of Amanda’s experience.)

Natera pointed out that its materials tell patients that “this test does not make a final diagnosis.” It reports results as “high-risk” or “low-risk,” not positive or negative.

Companies have stressed that, ultimately, it’s the responsibility of health care providers, who order the tests, to inform patients about the limits of screenings.

For all that, the statistical nuances of the test aren’t easy to parse for patients and even some doctors and nurses. For example, the test for trisomy 13, which doomed Amanda’s baby, is actually less likely to correctly predict the condition than other tests in the standard bundle of screenings offered to every patient.

When ProPublica asked readers to share their experiences with noninvasive prenatal screening tests, often referred to as NIPTs or NIPS, more than a thousand responded. Many said the tests had given them peace of mind. Some said they had provided an early warning about problems.

But others had more questions than answers. None more so than Amanda.

“What are these tests?” she wondered. “And how did mine end up in the margin of error?”

“They Started Using It on Humans, and Then They Went Back and Said, ‘Was Our Test Accurate?’”

Scientists have long tried to find ways to help parents and doctors understand what’s happening inside the womb. Amniocentesis was first used to reveal genetic anomalies in the late 1960s. But it didn’t become more popular until it began to be paired with ultrasound to precisely guide the procedure.

In the 1980s, doctors started using chorionic villus sampling, or CVS, an analysis of placental tissue that offers a diagnosis earlier in pregnancy. But, like amniocentesis, it is an invasive test that involves some risk to the fetus, though experts say it’s exceptionally low.

A breakthrough came in the late 1990s, when a scientist recognized that free-floating placental DNA could be detected in the mother’s blood. This meant that the fetus’s chromosomes could be examined by collecting a blood sample as soon as nine weeks into pregnancy. This also provides an early opportunity to learn the likely fetal sex — a particularly popular feature.

Champions of the new science celebrated the arrival of a simple technique for patients that was particularly precise, at least for some conditions. Many favored it over other noninvasive options. But the industry that developed around NIPT has been marred by controversy from the beginning.

Dr. Ronald Wapner, director of reproductive genetics at Columbia University, described that time as “very chaotic.”

The tests had not been appropriately evaluated in clinical practice, said Wapner, whose research has sometimes been funded by testing companies. Because of this, he said, the industry “had very incomplete data on how well it worked.”

That didn’t stop the excitement. The chief executive of Sequenom, a biotechnology company that planned to release the first NIPT for Down syndrome, championed the company as the “Google of Molecular Diagnostics.” Its stock price soared.

Then, about two months before an expected launch in 2009, Sequenom killed the plan. The company’s research director, it turned out, had manipulated testing data and made misleading claims about how well the screening worked.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Federal Bureau of Investigation opened investigations. Top executives were fired, and the research director pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Sequenom still managed to commercialize the test in 2011. (Labcorp, which later acquired Sequenom, said it uses a different kind of test.)

Other companies soon debuted their own tests. Still, there was little data on their clinical performance, researchers said.

As Megan Allyse, a bioethicist at the Mayo Clinic, put it, the companies “launched the test, they started using it on humans, and then they went back and said, ‘Was our test accurate?’” She also questioned the lack of attention to the ethics of how tests are presented to patients.

Despite missteps by the industry, the FDA didn’t scrutinize the screenings because they were considered lab-developed tests, which means they are created by the same laboratory that conducts them.

In 1976, Congress revamped oversight over medical devices. Since then, the FDA has effectively exempted such “home-brew” tests from key regulatory requirements. The idea was that when, say, a hospital lab wanted to create a simple test for its own patients, it was spared the time, money and hassle of getting approval from Washington bureaucrats.

Today, lab-developed tests are vastly more numerous and complex. Because they aren’t registered with the federal government, nobody knows how many exist.

The distinction between tests the FDA actively regulates and those they don’t can seem nonsensical. It isn’t based on the complexity of the tests, or how people use them. It’s simply a matter of where the test is made.

The prenatal genetic screening industry took off almost immediately, powered by an army of aggressive sales representatives.

“At the very beginning, obstetricians in practice were being just completely inundated with visits from the sales reps,” said Dr. John Williams, director of reproductive health at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles. The push left many OB-GYNs and patients thinking the screenings were accurate enough to substitute for diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis or CVS.

In some cases, sales tactics escalated into lawbreaking.

Former Sequenom executives who exited during the fraud scandal created a new company that became Progenity, which also offered prenatal screening. Shortly after the company went public in 2020, it finalized a $49 million settlement with federal and state governments, where it admitted to falsifying insurance claims and giving kickbacks to physicians and their staff. According to a legal filing, one sales rep spent $65,658 on meals and alcohol for physicians in one year.

Now called Biora Therapeutics, the company said in a statement it no longer does any laboratory testing, including prenatal screenings.

Industry revenue continues to grow, but some testing companies are still fighting to make a profit, and competition to survive is fierce. “There’s a multibillion-dollar market, and they all want a piece of it,” said a former Progenity sales rep who quit in disgust after five months in 2016.

The rep, who requested anonymity since she continues to work in the field, said she still sees competitors from NIPT companies visiting medical practices “every week, buying breakfast, or dinner, or taking them out for happy hour.”

Over time, companies pointed to new peer-reviewed studies, research the industry itself funded, to earn the confidence of doctors and other stakeholders. They showed that two tests — for Down syndrome and trisomy 18 — often performed better than other screening methods.

This research was valid, said Dr. Mary Norton, a perinatologist and clinical geneticist at UCSF Medical Center’s Prenatal Diagnostic Center. Considered a leading researcher in the field, she authored many of these key industry-funded studies.

But, she said, when research findings were presented publicly, the companies sometimes downplayed “inconvenient truths,” such as the exclusion of inconclusive results from accuracy estimates. Crucial caveats were also glossed over by some companies when they translated research into promotional copy aimed at health care providers and patients. Those materials didn’t always mention the many factors that can limit the performance of the screenings, including high body weight, the rarity of the condition tested and younger maternal age.

Testing companies said they try to help patients understand the screenings through online resources and other materials. Some offer genetic counseling services.

The younger a person is, the lower the test’s positive predictive value — that is, the probability that a positive screening result will turn out to be correct — will be for some conditions. For instance, because Down syndrome is less prevalent in younger people’s pregnancies, a positive screening test is more likely to be a false positive for them.

Kristina was 30 years old in 2016, when her Progenity test came back positive for Down syndrome. She and her husband, who asked not to be fully named to protect their privacy, said they didn’t plan to carry a pregnancy with this condition to term.

But waiting to get an amniocentesis, and then waiting for the results, took five agonizing weeks, she said. It showed her son did not have Down syndrome.

Kristina, who lives in Texas, is still troubled by what she describes as a traumatic experience.

“I researched both late-term abortion providers and cemeteries,” she said. They even picked out a burial place, near their house.

She bought a blue baby blanket she intended to bury the baby’s tiny body in. She still has it. Her son, now 5, sleeps with it every night.

Kristina and the baby blanket she bought to bury her son in. Now five years old, he sleeps with it every night. (Allison V. Smith, special to ProPublica) “I Can’t Believe I Didn’t Say More”

As lab-developed tests became a bigger business, moving well past their home-brew origins, regulators looked for a way to assert oversight. In 2014, after years of study and debate, the time seemed right.

The FDA released plans proposing to regulate the tests, prioritizing those used to make major medical decisions. The agency has pointed to NIPTs as one of 20 concerning tests.

But, over the next two years, a coalition of power players urged the FDA to back off. Professional associations issued statements and hosted webinars devoted to the issue. Some created polished websites featuring sample letters to send to Washington.

Academic medical centers and pathology departments joined the fight, too. Scientists from 23 of them put it bluntly in a letter to the Office of Management and Budget: “FDA regulation of LDTs would be contrary to the public health,” it said, using a common acronym for the tests.

“Critical testing would be unavailable in the ‘lag time’ between development of new tests and FDA authorizing them,” the authors of the letter wrote, “and subsequent improvements on existing tests would slow significantly under the rigid, inflexible, and duplicative FDA regulatory scheme.”

This could delay essential care for patients. What’s more, opponents argued, existing lab reviews by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are sufficiently rigorous. Some have suggested modernizing the CMS review process to improve oversight.

An FDA spokesperson told ProPublica that the agency encountered “continued, negative feedback,” including a 25-page paper written by two legal heavyweights hired by the American Clinical Laboratory Association: Paul Clement, President George W. Bush’s former solicitor general, and Laurence Tribe, law professor at Harvard University.

Clement has reportedly commanded rates of $1,350 per hour. He and Tribe did not respond to ProPublica’s queries about their work.

Their brief argued that the FDA “lacked legal authority” to regulate lab-developed tests because they are properly seen as the practice of medicine: a service, rather than a product.

However, as lawyers representing the American Association of Bioanalysts countered, the FDA would vet tests before they reach the market, not control how doctors use them. The government proposal, they wrote, is “similar to imposing requirements to screen blood or label drugs.”

After the election of President Donald Trump, but before he took office, a handful of FDA officials discussed their battered proposal. It had represented a breakthrough in the decades of excruciating back-and-forth with industry. But now, with an incoming administration bent on deregulation, their efforts seemed futile.

The regulators feared anything they enacted would be undone by Congress — and, under the Congressional Review Act, they might not be able to reissue anything “substantially similar” in the future. So the FDA published a white paper instead, summarizing the issue “for further public discussion.”

After the meeting where officials made this call, Lurie, then the FDA’s associate commissioner, recalled a colleague approaching him: “I can’t believe you didn’t say more.”

“And I was like, ‘Yeah, actually, I can’t believe I didn’t say more either,’” Lurie later told ProPublica. (After leaving the agency, Lurie went on to lead the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy nonprofit, which has pushed the FDA to finally assert oversight over lab-developed tests.)

Nancy Stade, an attorney and senior policy official who left the FDA in 2015, said the agency often moves slowly as it seeks to get buy-in from industry and professional groups. In her work on regulatory policy, she saw it happen with lab-developed tests.

The agency is “always testing the waters,” she said, “and always coming out with something a little bit softer.”

In 2020, the influential American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, representing doctors who handle pregnancies, gave the screening industry another huge boost.

In a bulletin updating their advice on the tests, the two groups described growing research on the performance of some of the standard tests and said people have the right to information about their pregnancies, so the tests should be offered to all patients. Previously, they recommended this only for those facing higher risk of genetic anomalies.

The bulletin said the co-authors had disclosed no conflicts of interest. But two of the four co-authors, including Mary Norton, had disclosed in prior publications that test-makers had provided funding for their research. A company had provided a third co-author with laboratory services needed to run tests, according to that researcher, a connection she also disclosed in past papers.

ACOG, in a statement to ProPublica, said the organization “identified no conflicts because research funding is provided to academic institutions with institutional review boards, not to individual investigators.” Two of the three researchers responded to questions from ProPublica and said they maintained independence over their work.

One test-maker, Illumina, celebrated the ACOG guidance in a tweet, saying it “recognizes the superior performance of #NIPT and the benefit it provides expectant families.” Natera’s share prices doubled in five months. UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest private insurer and long a target of industry lobbying, told ProPublica it changed its stance to cover screenings for all patients, regardless of risk, because of the recommendation.

In a recent shareholder report, Natera stated that prenatal genetic and carrier screenings “represent the significant majority of our revenues,” which totaled $625.5 million in 2021. The company expects more growth to come.

“The NIPT market is still very underpenetrated, compared to the 4 to 5 million pregnancies in the U.S.,” Natera’s chief executive said on a 2021 earnings call, “so there’s a long way to go.”

But even Norton, who co-authored the ACOG recommendation and favors NIPTs for patients 40 and over, has concerns about screenings becoming widespread among those who are younger. In most cases, she prefers other screening methods that catch the nongenetic problems younger moms are more likely to face. Negative results from an NIPT, she said, can be “falsely reassuring.”

In the years after the FDA set aside its regulatory proposal, the agency has assisted members of Congress on a proposed legislative solution. That effort, dubbed the VALID Act, aims to end any debate over the agency’s authority over lab-developed tests. An FDA press officer said the legislation would ensure the prenatal screening tests and others are “accurate and reliable.”

But, as in the past, intense lobbying followed the proposal. The VALID Act was a rider to a funding reauthorization bill, but in September the House and Senate agreed to remove it. Advocates now hope to attach it to proposed end-of-year legislation.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, four months after the New York Times story on the usefulness of some screenings, the FDA took a step toward more public awareness about prenatal genetic screening. It issued its first safety communication on them, noting the potential for false results.

It cautioned patients about making “critical health care decisions based on results from these screening tests alone.”

Cara Tenenbaum, a former FDA policy advisor, was pleased to see the statement. Still, she said, it was long overdue.

“This has been known — known, or should have been known — for 10 years,” she said.

“It Had Me So Messed Up”

Julia at home in Mississippi (Sarah Blesener for ProPublica)

With the demise of Roe v. Wade, restrictive and ever-changing abortion laws can pressure people to act quickly with limited information, heightening the stakes of prenatal screening.

Julia, a mom from Mississippi’s Gulf Coast, knows what it’s like to face harrowing consequences while navigating state-imposed time limits — and doing so with little guidance. Last fall, she was pregnant with her fourth child when, she said, a nurse practitioner suggested prenatal genetic screening.

At 33, Julia had no risk factors. Her previous pregnancies hadn’t been screened with an NIPT. But with three sons and 18 nephews, she and her husband were curious about the baby’s sex. And the screening seemed like it had no downside.

Julia figured it would only be offered if it was reliable, so her nurse practitioner ordered her both the basic bundle of screenings and the extra tests. (The medical practice didn’t respond to interview requests. Julia is a family nickname that’s used here to protect her privacy.)

The screenings showed the baby was a girl — but the extra tests also detected trisomy 16, a condition caused by an extra chromosome that is so rare, the nurse didn’t know what it was, Julia recalled.

The nurse borrowed Julia’s phone, using it to search online and read aloud what she found. Julia was stunned to hear trisomy 16 was incompatible with life.

“I was utterly devastated,” she said. “I made it out of my doctor’s office but completely broke down in the car.”

But ACOG does not recommend the trisomy 16 screening, saying “its accuracy with regard to detection and the false-positive rate is not established.” Julia wasn’t informed of this, she said, and she’s not sure if her health care providers knew it either.

The favorite headband of Julia’s daughter (Sarah Blesener for ProPublica)

The lab report recommended diagnostic testing to confirm the results, but time was short. She had her amniocentesis at 17 weeks. It could take up to four more weeks to receive results.

That would be too late for a legal abortion in Mississippi. So she made an appointment for one in Florida, where the cutoff was 24 weeks. (It’s now 15 weeks in Florida, while Mississippi went from 15 weeks for legal procedures to a ban on nearly all abortions.)

The wait was excruciating. Julia was driving twice a week to New Orleans for specialized care. With work and child care, it was too hard. She quit the teaching job she loved.

One winter night, she felt the fetus move for the first time — ordinarily a milestone, but now, facing a fatal prognosis, she didn’t want to get attached. “It had me so messed up,” she said.

On the way to the amniocentesis, Julia and her husband chose a name. Drawing from a language conjured by J.R.R. Tolkien in the fantasy novels they love, it means “hope.”

More than halfway through her pregnancy, the amnio results arrived. The prenatal screening had given a false positive. The baby would be fine. In May, Julia gave birth to a healthy daughter.

Julia’s screening detected trisomy 16. An amniocentesis later showed this was a false positive. (Provided to ProPublica)

Julia and her husband are upset about the needless anguish brought on by the screening. “They like to have it both ways,” said Julia’s husband. “They say they are 99% accurate, but when there's a false positive, they say, ‘Well, we’re not diagnostic.’”

Believing the prenatal screening was likely accurate, they had seriously considered canceling the amniocentesis, saving their limited funds for an abortion in Florida, hundreds of miles away.

Julia and her daughter (Sarah Blesener for ProPublica)

Their dilemma points to a longtime concern: ending pregnancies based on false positives. The FDA cited it as a risk as far back as 2015. Now, those with positive results are facing an even tighter time crunch. They must consider whether waiting for a definitive test, and possibly traveling to another state for an abortion later in pregnancy, is worth it.

In their promotional material, some companies not only sidestep the variability of the standard tests, they fail to distinguish them from the least reliable ones — those for exceptionally rare conditions. They tout the extra screenings as “premium,” “plus” or “advanced” options.

“Going to greater lengths for the answers that matter most,” says a brochure aimed at health care providers from test-maker Illumina. Elsewhere it states that the “expanded” panel of tests provides “confident results” and “the additional insights you need.”

But the companies themselves know the accuracy of some of their tests has yet to be established in the research. Natera acknowledged in a recent shareholder report that many insurers won’t pay for screenings for missing chromosomal fragments, known as microdeletions, in part because there isn’t enough published data behind them.

The company, responding to ProPublica, stressed the quality of the data over the quantity, saying the research so far has been favorable. “Natera’s microdeletion testing was thoroughly validated with results published in peer-reviewed publications,” it said in a statement.

Natera pointed to a recent study that looked at DiGeorge syndrome, one of several chromosomal anomalies it checks for with its microdeletion screenings. Researchers found the positive predictive value of the test to be 52.6%, meaning that nearly half of positive results are false positives. (For many patients, PPVs for more common conditions can exceed 90%.)

Natera said the performance of the diGeorge syndrome test “is excellent and not considered a low PPV,” due to the condition being extremely rare.

Companies also play up the danger of diagnostic tests like amnio. They “can cause miscarriages,” warns the marketing from Labcorp, which made Amanda’s screening, while its test “does not cause miscarriages.” But medical experts emphasize that diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis, are more accurate and, in fact, carry little risk to the pregnancy.

Labcorp, in a statement, said the company “acknowledges the well-documented risk associated with amniocentesis and CVS in our literature. It is the patient’s prerogative to decide which risks they are willing or unwilling to take.”

Marketing claims also sometimes skate over the nuances in the guidance from the leading professional societies. On a webpage targeting health care providers, for example, a Labcorp chart said groups such as ACOG “endorse and/or recognize” prenatal screenings as an option for all pregnancies. But the chart listed screenings ACOG does not recommend, including trisomy 16.

When asked about it, Labcorp said in a statement that ACOG “endorses NIPS for all pregnancies.” In fact, the guidance is not so sweeping. It says only that the basic bundle of tests should be offered to all, alongside other screening options. It explicitly advises providers to not offer patients the extra tests.

Soon after ProPublica’s query, the Labcorp webpage was updated to remove any mention of the professional societies.

Patients say they often don’t know where to turn for informed and unbiased information. That’s why the r/NIPT Reddit page became such a robust community. Facing difficult news, Julia turned to it for counsel from other prospective parents. Kristina in Texas found the same community. Amanda, too.

“The Margin of Error Is a Human Life”

On a warm and cloudy day this past June, on what would have been their daughter’s first birthday, Amanda and her husband visited her grave. They brought a unicorn balloon and vanilla cake, which they ate nearby on the grass. Her husband read a poem.

To them, their baby had been perfect. She had fingers and toes. A thatch of dark hair. While in intensive care, peering up at her parents, she grabbed for her mother’s hand.

Had her condition been known, they would’ve spared her futile medical interventions, as doctors tried to save her life. Their family priest would have been able to baptize her. As it was, they never got to hold their child while she was alive.

These days, when Amanda and her husband say grace before dinner, they give thanks for the 28 hours of their daughter’s life.

They’re also thinking about making comfort boxes the hospital could give to other parents who lose a child. It might include books on grief. Softer tissues. Something that says, as Amanda puts it, “This is to help you get through.”

Amid their grief, they had a prayer answered: Amanda is pregnant again.

It’s frightening to go through this again. She barely sleeps the night before visiting the doctor. It feels like she never stopped being pregnant. It will feel that way, she said, until she brings a baby home — one who lives past the first two nights.

Amanda planned to get another genetic screening test. At first she couldn’t bear it, wasn’t sure she could trust it. “The margin of error is a human life,” Amanda said.

The 10-week appointment passed. Then the 12-week appointment. After her 13th week, she took the plunge. The test she was given was from Labcorp.

Around this time, more than a year after Amanda had desperately tried to alert the company about what had happened to her and her first baby, she finally heard back. Labcorp’s vice president of genetic counseling and services reached out — after ProPublica contacted the company and shared Amanda’s story.

The executive would only speak to Amanda without a reporter present.

Amanda said that during the call, the executive told her that prenatal genetic tests are evolving, and doctors should be clear about what the screenings can and cannot do. By the end of the conversation, the executive offered Amanda her cell number.

Amanda said she appreciated the call. “I feel better. I feel like I got something.”

The same day, her screening results came back. They were negative.

Have You Had an Experience With Prenatal Genetic Testing? We’d Like to Hear About It — and See the Bill.

by Anna Clark, Adriana Gallardo, Jenny Deam and Mariam Elba

How Title Lending Works

2 years 4 months ago

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

Consumers across the country pledge the titles to their vehicles in order to obtain quick cash through title loans. The title-lending industry, which caters to people who are often written off as credit risks by traditional lending institutions, maintains that it provides a valuable financial service. But many consumer advocates see title lending as predatory: The loans typically carry high costs and terms that make the debt difficult to pay off. If borrowers default, they can lose their car, causing even more harm.

ProPublica spent months reporting on how title lending works as part of a project with The Current, a nonprofit newsroom based in Georgia. We found that, even though Georgia banned high-interest payday loans, it carved out a loophole for title lending that puts borrowers at risk.

What Is a Title Loan?

A title loan allows people to use their vehicle’s title as collateral for a short-term loan, which typically comes with a high interest rate. In a title loan, the borrower and lender sign an agreement under which the lender places a lien on the title of the borrower’s vehicle. If the borrower does not pay back the amount of the loan, along with interest and fees, the vehicle becomes the property of the lender, who can move to repossess and sell the vehicle and even charge the borrower for the cost incurred by the lender to retrieve the car. In two states — Georgia and Alabama — the contract is referred to as a “title pawn” because title lenders operate under pawn shop statutes.

In Georgia, this allows title lenders to charge triple-digit interest rates and exempts them from the usury laws and oversight that govern the state’s other subprime lenders. Title pawn contracts are also not set up like home mortgages, which offer customers a set schedule to pay off their loans. Critics say this practice creates a debt trap — which is profitable for companies and bad for consumers, especially those in communities of color, where a disproportionate number of Georgia’s title pawn stores are found.

How Do Title Loan Contracts Work?

What Is the Interest Rate on a Title Loan?

The maximum interest rate on a title loan varies from state to state.

Alabama allows 300% annual percentage rates, and Texas also allows triple-digit rates. In Georgia, the interest rate can be as much as 187.5% annually, far above the state’s usury caps — no more than 60%, including fees — which are imposed on other types of lenders.

At least 20 states, including Illinois and California, have capped interest rates for title loans at 36% or less per year. With interest rate caps in place, most title lenders have ceased operations in those states.

Some states also require that lenders verify the borrower’s ability to repay before issuing a loan.

It is important when making payments on a title loan to understand the terms of the contract. Some title loans are structured so that the payments only cover interest and fees, meaning that borrowers may not be paying down the loan itself. In addition to the interest rate, you may also be charged a fee for the title loan transaction.

How Long Does It Take to Pay Off a Title Loan Contract?

It takes many borrowers multiple months or even years to pay off the debt. A 2019 survey by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that, of consumers who had taken out a title loan in the previous six months, 83% were still paying it off.

In Georgia, while title pawn contracts are structured to last for only 30 days, they can be renewed indefinitely.

Some states have limits on how many times a title loan can be renewed or require that the principal be paid down as a condition of renewal. But Georgia lacks such limitations.

Take the case of Robert Ball, a Savannah, Georgia, resident who got a title pawn for $9,518 in 2017. He made his monthly payments on time for two years — paying more than $25,000 — but that money only covered the interest. Meanwhile, his principal hadn’t budged.

Ball got his title pawn from TitleMax, the nation’s largest title lender, which relies on contracts being renewed as a key source of revenue.

In 2009, the then-president of TitleMax’s parent company, TMX Finance, wrote in an affidavit that, “The average thirty (30) day loan is typically renewed approximately eight (8) times, providing significant additional interest payments.”

How Title Lending Is Regulated in Three States

In Georgia, title lenders operate under pawnshop statutes that permit triple-digit interest rates and allow pawn contracts to be renewed indefinitely — rules far less restrictive than laws in most other states.

(Graphic by Anna Donlan. Source: Georgia Pawnbroker Act, Nevada Revised Statutes, Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois Administrative Code)

What Happens If I Can’t Pay Off My Title Loan?

You should review the specific terms of your title loan agreement to understand what may happen.

Generally, if you can’t pay off a title loan, the lender has the right to repossess and sell your vehicle. In Georgia, the lenders can keep the full amount your vehicle sells for, even if it exceeds the amount you owed.

Other states have different rules. In some states, the lender may be able to pursue you for any remaining balance if the sale amount is less than what you owed. The lender may also be obligated to return the surplus of the sale if it is more than what is owed on your loan.

In Georgia, title pawn agreements are “non-recourse,” which means the lender can’t pursue you personally for anything besides the right to take your vehicle. The state attorney general’s office accused a TitleMax rival, Tennessee-based First American Title Lending of Georgia, of threatening customers with criminal arrest warrants. First American settled with the state and paid a fine, but admitted no wrongdoing.

What Are the Problems With Title Loans?

The high interest rates on title loans make them extremely difficult to pay off. Lorena Saedi, a Georgia bankruptcy lawyer and managing partner of Saedi Law Group in Atlanta, often sees clients who are struggling with debt from a title loan and estimates that about a third of her bankruptcy cases include title lenders.

If your title loan is renewed multiple times, you often end up paying more in interest than what you have received in principal. Even after paying exorbitant rates month after month, you can still lose your vehicle if you can’t pay off both the interest and the principal on your loan. Additionally, you cannot sell your vehicle until your title loan is paid off, unless a buyer is willing to pay off the loan, because of the lien that the title lender holds.

Are There Alternatives to Title Loans?

Instead of a high-interest loan, a federal agency called the National Credit Union Administration suggests options such as contacting your state or local government to ask about emergency assistance programs, talking to creditors about negotiating for more time on bills, or asking for an advance from your employer. For members of credit unions, the agency also suggests researching a form of borrowing called payday alternative loans, which have lower fees.

The Consumer Protection Division of the Georgia Attorney General’s Office similarly recommends that Georgians in need of emergency finance consider multiple alternatives, such as asking a relative for money or approaching a credit union, before turning to subprime financial products like title pawns.

How Can I Get Out of a Title Loan Contract?

Other than paying off the debt, there are few ways to get out of a title loan contract. Some companies offer title loan buyouts, in which a lender pays off your original loan in exchange for a new loan. But while this may help you change the interest rate you owe, it does not wipe out the original debt — it simply replaces the old debt with a new one.

Filing for bankruptcy may help in some states, but not everywhere. Because of a 2017 federal appeals court decision, debts owed to title lenders operating under pawn shop statutes don’t have to be wrapped into a court-approved settlement like debts to other creditors. Instead, title lenders have to be paid back first and at the original terms of the contract.

Consumers who feel taken advantage of by title lenders in Georgia have a narrow avenue for pursuing their complaints.

At the state level, the website for the Consumer Protection Division offers straightforward guidance: If customers think their title lender violated the law, they “should notify the local criminal authorities for the city or county in which the title pawn company is doing business.” However, outside of metro Atlanta, few law enforcement bodies in Georgia’s 159 counties have robust white-collar or financial crime departments or an investigator who specializes in such crimes.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the federal agency created to protect consumers from financial organizations in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, launched an investigation into TMX Finance in part due to consumer complaints amassed by Georgia Watch, the state’s most prominent consumer advocacy group. The company denied any wrongdoing, but the agency ruled in 2016 that the company had deceived customers in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee by masking the true cost of title loans. This did not affect individual loans, however, and the company’s $9 million fine was not paid out as restitution for borrowers, instead going into an agency-controlled fund.

For our November story, TMX Finance did not respond to repeated requests for comment on a detailed list of questions about the company’s operations.

by Margaret Coker, The Current, and Mollie Simon and Joel Jacobs, ProPublica

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

2 years 4 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.

2 years 4 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

2 years 4 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

2 years 4 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

2 years 4 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

2 years 4 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

2 years 4 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

2 years 4 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