Quantcast
Channel: ProPublica
Viewing all 7863 articles
Browse latest View live

Dark Money and the 2012 Election: We Need Your Help!

$
0
0

When historians dissect the 2012 elections, they will almost certainly look beyond the daily ebb and flow of momentum to a larger truth: This was the year outside spending exploded.

The election will cost a record $6 billion, with super PACs and other outside groups spending more than $1 billion — up 260 percent from 2008. Dark money groups have spent at least $302.5 million this year, a figure that doesn’t account for activity not reported to the Federal Elections Commission. In some races, we found, dark money represented the majority of spending on behalf of both candidates.

As our reporting has shown, these dark money groups avoid disclosing their donors by saying they are “social welfare” nonprofits under IRS rules, then spend vast sums on political activity (read: how nonprofits spend millions on elections and call it social welfare).

One of the few ways to detail dark-money spending is to comb through thousands upon thousands of political ad contracts at local television stations, a process made only slightly more feasible this summer by a rule requiring stations in the top 50 television markets to put them online. The ruling came after months of resistance from the National Association of Broadcasters, who complained that the process would be too costly and onerous.

If it has been onerous for television stations to post them online, it has been more so for the people who have helped manually annotate those files through ProPublica’s Free the Files project. That’s because the Federal Communications Commission declined to require stations to post the information in a uniform format, leaving voters to parse through a jumble of PDF files. Nevertheless, hundreds of volunteers have done exactly that since the project launched five weeks ago.

It has been our most ambitious — and most successful — crowdsourcing effort ever, with 870 people helping to “free” $590 million from 10,400 ad contracts (and counting) over the last six weeks, using our document review tool to tell us exactly who bought ads and how much they spent in swing markets.

Why have so many people volunteered their time and energy to this project?

Ryan Thornburg, a journalism professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, rallied his students to review documents to demonstrate how journalistic data is assembled in a digital age and how “arguments against releasing this data in machine-readable format don't hold water and, ultimately, are futile AND unpopular.”

Joy Piazza, Ph.D., reviewed more than 70 political ad files “because I believe in the ideals of democracy and I am concerned about the ways those ideals are diminished through political campaign spending policies and the companion ways those monies dominate conversations, perceptions, informed decision-making, and civil society.”

Free the Files localizes national political spending, giving voters the ability to see how outside groups are effecting elections where they live. Free the Files also allows voters to finally see dark money nonprofits in action, as we have in Ohioand Florida, instead of in the months (or years) it may take them to report their spendingto the Internal Revenue Service.

As of this writing, our volunteers have freed about 30 percent of the political ad files in 33 swing markets. This election day, we’ve vowed to free all the files in Las Vegas, which has seen more political ads air than any other market in the country. And tomorrow, we’ll continue our effort until we have a detailed accounting of dark money’s role in the 2012 election.

We thank the hundreds of volunteers who’ve made Free the Files their mission with us, and hope you’ll help us continue to fight the good fight. 


Welcome to Election Day: Seven Things That Could Go Wrong (or Already Have)

$
0
0

Update: We've compiled reports that offer a look at how Election Day has gone thus far

Nov. 6: This post has been corrected.

Get ready. Here are all the things that could go wrong (or already have) as Americans head to the polls.

1. Confusion over voter-ID laws spurred by ongoing ads, litigation and misinformation

Despite a state judge's Oct. 2 ruling that Pennsylvania voters are not required to show photo ID this election, the state is continuing with a $5 million ad campaign to broadcast the future requirement: "Show It," the ad slogan reads, with the words, "if you have it," in fine print. (Here's our guide on everything you need to know about voter ID laws.)

A spokesman for the secretary of state told the Washington Post these ads remain "faithful" to the judge's ruling, which held that elections officials could still ask voters for identification, just not require it.

In addition, the state's largest utility company, Peco, sent a courtesy newsletter out to 1.3 million customers in seven counties informing them they'd need valid photo ID to vote — though by that time the judge had already ruled they don't have to.

In Missouri, the Republican candidate for secretary of state is running on a platform favoring a new voter ID law. Because the state doesn't currently have a photo ID requirement — since the courts struck it down — the outgoing secretary of state has said the campaign focus on photo ID is potentially confusing for voters.

In Tennessee, where a voter ID law went into effect this year, state officials were instructing some counties not to honor photo library cards as an acceptable form of voter ID. The city of Memphis sued, and just last week, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued the final word: It affirmed a lower court's ruling that voters can cast regular ballots using free library cards.

2. Disruptions caused by Hurricane Sandy — not just in the Northeast

The destruction caused by the storm is expected to disrupt voting somewhat in solidly Democratic New York and New Jersey, but there are indications it is also causing complications for absentee voting in at least one presidential swing state.

Priya Sanghvi, a 28-year-old filmmaker from Arlington County, Va., requested an absentee ballot on time but didn't get mail at her apartment in downtown New York City all last week. Some mail arrived on Saturday and Monday, but the absentee ballot wasn't there.

When Sanghvi called the Arlington County registrar, who confirmed that her ballot had been sent out, and Virginia's Board of Elections, officials told her their hands were tied: The deadline for returning mailed absentee ballots was 7 p.m. on Election Day.

"I'm at a loss," Sanghvi told ProPublica. "I would literally have to get to Virginia to vote, which I'm not going to be able to do."

It's not clear how widespread absentee voting problems related to disruptions in postal service may be.

"We don't keep statistics on the possible number of ballots that could be delayed due to Hurricane Sandy," U.S. Postal Service spokesperson Darleen Reid told ProPublica in an email. "There is no way to determine this at this time."

Arlington County Registrar Linda Lindberg told ProPublica her office had gotten "a few" calls from people whose absentee voting had been disrupted by the storm, including a voter sent to New York as part of the relief effort.

3. Frustration over shortened early voting in Florida has led to lawsuits

In Florida, the Republican-controlled legislature shortened the early voting time frame this year from 14 to eight days — excluding the Sunday before Election Day. The tighter window has resulted in long lines, frustration and litigation. (As we've also noted, Florida also has among the most confusing ballots in the country— and it's really long.)

The Florida Democratic Party filed a federal lawsuit Sunday to compel the state to extend early voting hours — or to at least allow voters in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties to cast absentee ballots in person on Monday.

Long wait times prompted the League of Women Voters and the Florida Democratic Party last week to call for Florida Gov. Rick Scott to extend early voting hours in the state. Gov. Scott has refused that request.

4. Newly drawn districts may cause some voters to head to the wrong precinct

In South Carolina, according to the Spartanburg Herald Journal, up to "tens of thousands voters statewide" may have been issued absentee ballots that don't correspond to their correct district. If a voter turns in an incorrect absentee ballot, he can't vote again using a correct ballot, according to state elections officials.

Voters in other states may also face confusionfueled by redistricting.

5. Provisional ballots could be crucial — and take a really long time to count

In swing states such as Virginia and Ohio, provisional ballots could be the deciding factor — in 2008, more provisional ballots were cast in Ohio than in any other state besides California.

If a voter in Ohio applies for an absentee ballot, disregards it and shows up to vote on Election Day, the voter can only cast a provisional ballot, which won't be counted until 11 days after Nov. 6. More on this can be found here.

In addition, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has ordered county elections boards to reject provisional ballots where a voter doesn't correctly list their ID information. (Ohio law states election officials are supposed to be the ones ensuring the correct information.) Voter advocacy groups have protested the order. A federal judge is expected to rule on the motion by Nov. 17, the first day provisional ballots will be counted in Ohio.

In Virginia, which has an ID law, many voters may be handed such provisional ballots if they can't initially provide an acceptable form of ID.

6. Voter suppression via deceptive mailers, intimidating phone calls

Registered voters in Florida, Virginia and Indiana have received calls from phony elections officials encouraging them to "vote by phone." The complaints have been reported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Voters in at least 23 Florida counties also received letters on "official-looking election office letterhead" questioning their citizenship and voter eligibility. The mailers, which have also apparently targeted both Republicans and Democrats, have sparked an FBI investigation.

One liberal organization recorded a Republican state party member instructing volunteer poll monitors in New Mexico to demand that voters produce ID and to prevent voters from requesting interpreters.

Some pamphlets in Maricopa County, Ariz., incorrectly listed Election Day as Nov. 8 on the Spanish language side of the ballot, even though the correct Nov. 6 date was printed on the English language side.

7. A tie in the Electoral College

If President Obama and Romney each receive the same number of electoral votes, the House decides the presidency and the Senate the vice-presidency.

In the event of an Electoral College tie, the New York Times reports, "strategists envision an intense postelection campaign of state-by-state recounts, lawsuits, qualification challenges, efforts to flip electors, horse trading and pressure on members of Congress," resulting in "a highly volatile 11-week obstacle course to Inauguration Day."

And of course, there doesn't need to be a tie for there to be recount chaos.

ProPublica's Justin Elliott contributed reporting to this story.

Correction (11/6): An earlier version of this piece incorrectly stated that Virginia had a photo ID law. Virginia voters do have to show ID, but not all the acceptable forms are photo IDs.

Obama’s Microtargeting ‘Nuclear Codes’

$
0
0

Time magazine's Michael Scherer talked with a group of Obama campaign advisers this past weekend, and provided an inside look at some of the data and targeting tactics behind the president's re-election. The article touches on many different aspects of the campaign's data operation, from television advertising to campaign insiders' wagers about which email subject lines would be most successful.

Among the insights: The campaign made a special effort to win back voters who had taken themselves off of the campaign's email list.

"People who had unsubscribed from the 2008 campaign email lists were top targets, among the easiest to pull back into the fold with some personal attention," Scherer reported.

The campaign's enormous demographic databases also helped determine the ideal Hollywood celebrities to host a series of dinners with Obama — a key part of the campaign's fundraising efforts. When the campaign offered donors a chance to win dinner with film star George Clooney and the president, the contest raised "millions of dollars." The people most likely to respond and donate, the campaign discovered, were "West Coast females ages 40 to 49."

So the campaign looked for another celebrity on the East Coast who would appeal to that same demographic of women. A campaign adviser told Scherer that there were plenty of options. But the East Coast equivalent of George Clooney that they chose was Sarah Jessica Parker.

According to ProPublica's analysis, the campaign's microtargeting may not have ended there. As we reported in June, the Obama campaign's emails advertising dinner with Sarah Jessica Parker actually came in several variations.

Some members of Obama's email list received invitations focused on the Sex and the City star herself. Others received an email highlighting the fact that Vogue editor Anna Wintour would be present at the dinner. A third group were told that pop singer Mariah Carey would be giving a private concert afterwards. It's not clear whether the campaign was using these other celebrities to attract the same demographic group of women 40 to 49, or whether they were trying to appeal to slightly different audiences.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns have declined to speak about almost any aspect of their targeting tactics until now. We'll be continuing to look at how campaigns used voter data this cycle, and how targeting will affect elections from now on.

The Outlook for “Obamacare” in Two Maps

$
0
0

It wasn’t just President Barack Obama who won Tuesday. His signature health care plan did as well. But while the Affordable Care Act remains alive, less clear is how its various mandates will proceed and who will participate.

To a large extent, the success of the health overhaul lies in how many of the nation’s uninsured get coverage. And that is largely in the hands of the states, which have been all over the map in their willingness to cooperate.

We mean that literally. The maps here show the lack of consensus on two key parts of the act: Creating insurance exchanges and expanding Medicaid.

Here’s why each map matters.

Map 1: Where Will We Buy Insurance?

State insurance exchanges

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, current as of Sept. 27, 2012.

 

The health care act requires all Americans who aren’t already insured to buy coverage. But where? That’s where insurance exchanges come in.

States have to decide whether to set up these online marketplaces, where individuals can choose among different insurance plans. Setting up an exchange allows states to customize the offerings to the needs of their residents.

States can also partner with the federal government on exchanges. But if they elect not to, the federal government will take over with its one-size-fits all exchange. States are supposed to decide which course to take by Nov. 16.

Along the West coast, legislatures have already voted to set up exchanges. Other states, including Texas, Maine and Alaska, have decided to punt.

But many states in the Midwest and South haven’t committed either way. Some governors, such as New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie, have held off setting up a state insurance exchange until after the election.

A health care consultant group predicted yesterday that 20 states will elect to operate exchanges.

Map 2: Will States Cover More Poor People?

Medicaid Expansion

Source: The Advisory Board Company

Obamacare hopes to expand coverage to 30 million of the country’s 48 million uninsured residents. A big part of that would come though Medicaid.

States must also decide whether to expand Medicaid to all residents under 133 percent of the federal poverty line (about $14,893 for an individual and $30,657 for a family of four).  Medicaid currently covers poor children, pregnant women, seniors and some disabled adults. The federal government will pay the full cost for the expanded coverage for three years, and then gradually reduce its contribution to 90 percent over the next three years.

As passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act required states to expand Medicaid or risk losing all federal matching funds for the program. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that it was coercive to force states to expand their program just to keep money they were already getting.

Now, states that don’t opt in will keep their current funding, but residents who might have qualified under an expansion will likely remain uninsured. There isn't a deadline for the expansion, but the federal government says states will receive less federal help if they decide to expand later, according to The New York Times.

As with exchanges, the states are divided.

So far, a handful – including California, Washington and Illinois – have already embraced the expansion. Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana have opted out.

(The states marked with scales participated in litigation against the Act that culminated in June’s U.S. Supreme Court decision.)

Too Murky to Map  

Not everything is left to states. Other issues remain murky about the law, perhaps because the deadlines are further in the future.

The requirement for individuals to either buy insurance or pay a fee to the IRS begins Jan. 14, 2014. But the federal government has not made clear how vigorously it plans to pursue those who don’t comply.

Here’s a flow chart showing who has to pay and who doesn’t.

Also unclear is the impact on employers, who will be required to provide health insurance to full-time workers beginning in 2014. Some, according to The Wall Street Journal, are responding by moving employees to part-time positions.

Finally, the Act's opponents in Congress and on the grassroots level will likely do what they can to delay or dilute these requirements, which are among its most unpopular.

If you’re interested in comparing the politics further, here’s a link to the final presidential election results by state.

Help Us Investigate Patient Safety
Have you or a loved one been harmed in a medical facility? Share your story with us.
Are you a provider? Tell us your observations about patient harm.

Read the Documents Treasury Has Been Keeping Secret

$
0
0

In 2010 and 2011, ProPublica submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for documents showing how the government supervised its flagship foreclosure prevention effort, the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP. More than two years after our first request, Treasury still hasn’t provided all the material we asked for. Here is an index of the documents the department has provided. We will update this list if we receive additional material.

 

2010 Certifications that Servicers were Following HAMP Rules

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. - certification

Aurora Loan Services - certification

Bank of America, N.A. - certification

Bank of America – BAC/Countrywide subsidiary - certification

Bank of America – Home Loan Services subsidiary - certification

CitiMortgage - certification

GMAC Mortgage – cover letter

GMAC Mortgage - certification

Green Tree - certification

HomEq – cover letter

HomEq - certification

JPMorgan Chase - certification

JPMorgan Chase – EMC subsidiary - certification

Litton - certification

Nationstar - certification

Ocwen - certification

OneWest/IndyMac – cover letter

OneWest/IndyMac – certification

PNC – cover letter

PNC - certification

Saxon - certification

Select Portfolio Servicing – cover letter

Select Portfolio Servicing – certification

US Bank – cover letter

US Bank – certification

Wells Fargo - certification

 

Responses by Servicers to HAMP Audits

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.

Bank of America

CitiMortgage

GMAC Mortgage

JPMorgan Chase

Litton

Ocwen

Saxon

Wells Fargo

Secret Documents Show Weak Oversight of Key Foreclosure Program

$
0
0

The Obama administration launched its main program to prevent foreclosures in the spring of 2009 with $50 billion and abundant promises. What the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, lacked — and wouldn’t have for years — was effective oversight of the big banks that were crucial to the program’s success.

Documents obtained by ProPublica shed new light on this failing in 2009 and 2010, when the foreclosure crisis was at its peak and six million American homeowners were in danger of losing their homes. HAMP required mortgage servicers to offer loan modifications to eligible homeowners so that their monthly payments would be lower. The servicers — the largest of which were owned by the banks that had fueled the crisis in the first place — were in charge of reviewing homeowner applications, but the government set the rules and was supposed to supervise their work.

But the documents show that the government did not complete a major audit of the two largest banks in the program, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, until over a year after the program launched.

Such audits were rare at the other large mortgage servicers throughout 2009 and 2010, according to the documents. During these years, when the government provided little oversight and administered no sanctions, servicers reviewed 2.7 million modification applications and denied two-thirds of them. Meanwhile, homeowners regularly complained they had been mistreated by servicers in the program.

The documents also show how the Treasury Department coddled servicers that weren’t complying with the program’s rules. Once a year, servicers are required to certify that they are complying with the program’s rules. But servicers define for themselves what it means to comply. A company that admits violating the rules is allowed to merely submit a cover letter with their certification stating the exceptions and how it would fix the problems.

For instance, on September 28, 2010, PNC Mortgage submitted its certification. Along with that certification, it disclosed five “instances of noncompliance” or “gaps,” as it called them, along with its plans to address the issues (“steps”).

 

Like all of the documents ProPublica received, PNC’s letters are heavily redacted, so the nature of their “gaps” and “steps” remains secret.

The Treasury defended the oversight of HAMP. “The robust nature of our compliance program, together with the steps we have taken to strengthen protections for homeowners under the program, are critical reasons why homeowners who enter HAMP today show a strong likelihood of long-term success to avoid foreclosure,” said a Treasury spokeswoman.

Prying loose the documents

The documents were hard to obtain. They came as a result of two Freedom of Information Act requests by ProPublica. Initially, the Treasury Department, which administers HAMP, refused to release any documents at all. It was only after ProPublica appealed the denial that Treasury agreed to release some documents, although with large portions blacked out.

One of our requests has dragged on for more than two years, and even after all that time, the department continues to withhold certain documents, though it says it intends to turn over more. (See here for a full index of the documents we’ve obtained so far. If we receive more, we will add them to our collection when we receive them.)

In some cases, the Treasury even withheld the documents of servicers who never objected to their release. When ProPublica informed the Treasury that certain servicers had said they had no objection to releasing the documents, the Treasury finally turned them over.

“It seems like they’re trying to prevent the information from getting out,” said Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, a coalition of media groups. FOIA protects business trade secrets from being divulged, but Blum doubts whether that exception is being fairly applied in this case. The documents mainly concern how servicers were breaking HAMP’s rules, he noted, and “a screw-up is not a trade secret.”

A Treasury Department spokeswoman said HAMP has brought “an unprecedented level of transparency” to the mortgage servicing industry and servicers are“subject to an unprecedented level of compliance oversight.”

That’s damning by faint praise, say consumer advocates. “The reason that the level of transparency and accountability is ‘unprecedented’ is because no one has ever held servicers to account. Just because you have something where before there was nothing, that doesn’t mean that something works or is effective,” said Diane Thompson of the National Consumer Law Center.

Audits slow and rare

By now, HAMP’s disappointing performance is well known. The program was launched with President Obama’s promise to help three to four million homeowners avoid foreclosure. Three and a half years later, the program is only approaching 1.1 million modifications. It’s spent just $4 billion of its original $50 billion budget.

A recent study found a big reason for the program’s failure was that, despite all its rules, it didn’t change the behavior of the biggest banks. The banks did a poor job of modifying loans before HAMP was launched and weren't much better after.

To oversee the program, the Treasury awarded Freddie Mac a $209 million contract to be the program’s watchdog. Freddie Mac formed a group, called Making Home Affordable – Compliance, or MHA-C for short, but it got off to an inauspicious start. In August 2009, Treasury rejected its first reviews of servicers as inadequate because they were “inconsistent and incomplete” and its staff was “unqualified.”

The Treasury has refused to turn over MHA-C’s audit reports — with one exception. The servicer GMAC Mortgage expressly consented to the release of the documents. Those audits, we reported last year, revealed that the servicer had seriously mishandled many loan modifications. MHA-C’s audits themselves contained numerous errors, calling into question the competence of the reviews.

The Treasury didn’t dispute the fact that no major audits of the biggest banks were completed until well after HAMP’s launch. But the spokeswoman said “it is important to note that Treasury began unprecedented reviews of servicer compliance with program directives within the first months of program implementation.” Those earlier “compliance activities” included“on-site reviews” and “sampling of homeowner loan file reviews,” she said.

But the GMAC audits show how cursory those earlier reviews could be. In December 2009, MHA-C reviewed a sample of files, but when it reported its findings to GMAC, it told the servicer that the report was “being provided for informative purposes only, and no response is required from you at this time.” GMAC itself was not the subject of a major audit until July 2010. It was never penalized.

In the new batch of documents, the government has kept secret the audits themselves. But ProPublica has obtained the servicers’ written responses to the audits (see here for an index of the documents). The Treasury scrubbed or withheld almost all of the responses’ substantive content. Even so, they reveal some basic facts.

The watchdog was very slow to conduct major audits of the biggest servicers. MHA-C’s first major audit of Bank of America, the largest servicer in the program, wasn’t completed until July of 2010, more than a year after HAMP launched. The first major audit of Wells Fargo was completed in August of 2010.

By July of 2010, Wells and Bank of America had already denied about 430,000 homeowners a HAMP modification.

Even for big banks that received an audit sooner, oversight was infrequent, the documents show. JPMorgan Chase, the other mortgage servicing titan, received a major audit within HAMP’s first year, but through all of 2009 and 2010, it only responded to two major audits. CitiMortgage, the fourth largest servicer, only received three major audits in that time period.

When Treasury did conduct a major audit of one of the big banks, it often reviewed files that were many months old. A Wells Fargo audit delivered in March of 2011, for example, covered a“review period” of “May/June 2010.”

Once the audits were finished and delivered to the servicers, there was another delay: servicers had a month to respond with “action plans with implementation dates” to address the problems.

A Bank of America audit in late November of 2010 was based on information that was six months old. One month later, Bank of America replied: “In the Report, you requested that Bank of America management respond to the observations, and if we agree, provide a detailed remediation plan, and if we disagree, provide a detailed explanation and evidence to support our position." A page of redacted text follows, so the substance of the bank’s response remains secret.

Bank of America spokesman Rick Simon declined to discuss the communications: “As part of the MHA compliance reporting, servicers may provide information and statements that are of a proprietary and confidential nature, with the full expectation that the Department of Treasury and its agents will treat it appropriately.”

Banks evaluate themselves

In September 2010, the robo-signing scandal hit. A number of the nation’s biggest banks announced they were halting foreclosures to investigate whether they had submitted false filings to courts. The revelations drew immediate attention to mortgage servicers’ failings and eventually led to action by bank regulators and state and federal law enforcement.

Yet the same month that the scandal erupted, mortgage servicers submitted their first annual certification to the Treasury Department that they were complying with HAMP’s rules.

The certifications were toothless. In fact, following a fox-guarding-the-henhouse model, servicers could certify that they were complying even when they were not.

It was up to the servicer to decide whether it was in“material compliance,” according to the certification form. What rose to the level of being a material problem? A Treasury directive gave guidance that is so vague it borders on no guidance at all: “This evaluation of materiality may or may not be quantifiable in monetary terms and should include, but is not limited to, consideration of the nature and frequency of noncompliance as well as qualitative considerations, including the impact on Program goals and objectives.”

If the servicer found that it was, by its own definition, noncompliant, it was required to list the problems and its “action plan” in a separate “cover letter” to be sent with the certification filing. But that was it. There was no penalty.

The Treasury continues to withhold many of the cover letters from ProPublica. Among the documents the Treasury is still keeping secret are the letters for the four largest servicers in the program (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, and Citibank), although the Treasury has produced their certifications.

Still, the documents that ProPublica has received show that several servicers claimed they had no problems to report.

“None to the best of our knowledge,” wrote a GMAC Mortgage executive.

There are reasons to question that statement. Two months earlier,a MHA-C audit had found a number of problems at the servicer, including that it had miscalculated homeowner income in more than 80 percent of audited cases. And that same month, September 2010, GMAC had kicked off the robo-signing scandal by halting its foreclosures across the country.

GMAC spokeswoman Susan Fitzpatrick said the company has “rigorous internal and external controls in place that maintain consistent compliance with HAMP guidelines” and that the servicer was materially compliant with HAMP’s rules when it filed the certification. “The foreclosure issues identified in September 2010 are not related to servicer compliance with HAMP guidelines.”

The Treasury said the certifications were “only one part of a more comprehensive process” that included its audits. “While Treasury uses these certifications as part of the compliance process, certainly we do not rely solely on servicers to self-identify and report their weaknesses,” said the department’s spokeswoman. Servicers were allowed to define materiality for themselves in the certifications because, she said, a “‘one size fits all’ approach would not have been practical.”

“All instances of non-compliance are tracked and pursued to ensure that servicers have and are executing against remediation plans, and that any potentially-affected homeowners are identified and re-evaluated if applicable,” she said.

Penalties were late and fleeting

It was only in the wake of the robo-signing scandal that Treasury decided to take punitive action against servicers breaking HAMP’s rules. In June 2011, it withheld the program’s subsidies to the three largest servicers in the program. HAMP provides incentive payments to servicers, as well as borrowers and investors, to encourage modifications. The servicer subsidies would stop until the banks showed “substantial improvement,” Treasury said.

Wells Fargo soon received a passing grade, but the Treasury continued to withhold subsidies from Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase until the payments were restored as part of the February 2012, $25 billion national mortgage settlement between federal agencies, 49 states, and the five largest servicers. Together, the servicing subsidiaries of Chase and Bank of America have received about $509 million in subsidies through the program.

When asked for comment about HAMP’s limited oversight, the three largest servicers in the program all pointed to Treasury’s recent assessments of how servicers comply with the program’s rules. Those assessments show the banks requiring only“moderate improvement.”

 

Meet the 10 People Leading ProPublica’s Free the Files Effort

$
0
0

The task was steep. Nearly six weeks ago, ProPublica issued a call for volunteers willing to help us extract key data locked inside thousands of political ad contracts filed at television stations in top 50 markets.

The files contain details about political ad purchases in swing markets that were unavailable before the Federal Communications Commission ordered the stations to begin posting the documents online. But the data was unstructured and logged in PDF files of varying formats and quality. Sometimes it was filed sideways or upside down.

Adding to the challenge, for every document reviewed, more arrived daily as the election wore on and new ads were purchased.

By the end of Election Day, our crowd managed to log more than $650 million in ad buys in swing markets — a number that continues to grow. All told, 880 people helped review at least one file. But 10 people led the pack, collectively reviewing nearly 30,000 documents (half of all those reviewed) and playing a critical role in making Free the Files the most successful crowdsourcing effort ProPublica has ever attempted.

We asked our top volunteers to tell us why they offered so much of their time. Their answers are heartening and worth celebrating as we offer our thanks to everyone who has helped make Free the Files a success. All of you take a bow.

And while we set a record with our Election Day Challenge (freeing nearly 1,000 files, the most freed in a single day since we started) we have thousands more to go. The story of campaign spending in the 2012 election is far from over.

Free the Files Top 10 Volunteers

No. 1 Kory Bajus, Sheboygan, Wis.
1,1846 files reviewed, 6,341 files freed

On joining Free the Files: Living in Wisconsin during the various recall efforts, I've been inundated with political ads.  I started to wonder how much this was costing the campaigns and when I saw Free the Files, I figured this would be one way to find out.

The takeaway: The amount of money spent on ads is insane.  Some ad buys could allow cities to hire two or three or more teachers!  And if the majority of people felt the way I did towards political ads -- that I wanted to throw my TV out the window if one more played -- it seems like a gigantic waste of money.  So much better things could come out of it that concretely affect people's lives.

No. 2 Katie Foran-McHale, Milwaukee, Wis.
6,075 files reviewed, 3,235 files freed
Election Day Challenge Winner, 916 files reviewed

On joining Free the Files: I recently graduated from the University of Wisconsin's journalism school and had a lot of spare time while job hunting. I found out about Free the Files through a former work colleague and thought it was a great way to integrate my education with my passion to contribute to uncovering the truth behind some capacity of election spending.   

The takeaway: When I first started, I was surprised at the number of ads/contributions for Obama. And at the very beginning, I was taken aback by ad buys in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

No. 3 Sarita Nemerow Eisenstark, Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
3,629 files reviewed, 1,441 files freed

On joining Free the Files:  I'd like more transparency in politics and in government. I love crowdsourcing. I'm happy to work on a worthwhile project when and where I like, at whatever speed I want -- and adding to a team effort with like-minded volunteers.

The takeaway:  Amazed at the volume of money flowing. To see just a $$ figure on a chart or in an article doesn't have the impact of turning page after page after page, many with hundreds of thousand of dollars flying out. Wondering if they could/should standardize the contract forms, the nomenclature, etc. The dollars and cents are all 100 percent precise, but the naming conventions, titles, etc. are pretty loosey-goosey.

No. 4 Lily Korte, Canton, Ohio
3,269 files reviewed, 1,073 files freed

On joining Free the Files:  My mom works in radio and was always talking about ad buys and the like, and I worked for a public opinion polling company for a while, so I just wanted to get a closer look at the finer details of campaign spending to see where exactly all this money was going.

The takeaway:  There is a ton of money involved, and post-election the status quo seems to have actually shifted very little, so there really is no reason for the massive amounts of advertising spending to continue. You can pump hundreds of millions of dollars into saturating the airwaves with messages, but all it accomplishes is angering and annoying people.

No. 5 Harry Stobaugh, 1,603 files reviewed, 702 files freed

We haven't heard back from Harry, yet. 

No. 6 Joel Sage, Greenbelt, Md.
1,512 files reviewed, 864 files freed

On joining Free the Files: My wife and I had our first child in June, and I've been staying home with him full-time these first few months.  While this has been incredibly rewarding, I was frustrated that I could not be more involved in this year's election -- at least I was before Free the Files started up.  It was the perfect way to contribute my free minutes between feedings and diaper changes to a cause I believe in.

The takeaway:  I've read extensively about campaign finance over the past few years (including Lawrence Lessig's ”Republic, Lost”), but there's nothing like going through actual records, one at a time.  Billions of dollars is not particularly comprehensible, but seeing $100,000 order after $100,000 order, station after station, city after city, crystallizes the absurdity and outrage of campaign finance.  Similarly, seeing the same political consultancies again and again, race after race, highlights just how much the current system enriches a very small group of well-connected insiders.  It was very eye-opening, even for someone who "knew.”

No. 7 JD Mathews, Albuquerque, N.M.
1,400 files reviewed, 888 files freed

On joining Free the Files: I'm usually working on political campaigns but this year I was sick of partisan politics so I decided to forgo working on any campaigns this cycle. Still being a political junkie I needed some way to get my fix. I found the Free the Files opportunity and thought it was perfect. Government transparency is one of my top issues and what could be more perfect than making the outrageous amounts of money being spent on campaigns more open to the public. When I started Free the Files, I never planned on doing over 1,000 files but it was important so I kept going.

The takeaway: Free the Files has solidified my belief that money needs to be limited and more transparent in campaigns; public financing would help alleviate the need for so much fundraising. Also, there needs to be a nationwide standard for TV station reporting forms. There was so much unnecessary confusion because of some of the forms used that were unclear: different names for the contract number, different names for campaigns and candidates, awful scan quality. The FCC needs to go further than what they required this year.

No. 8 Tonya Ricucci, Maryland
1,392 files reviewed, 614 files freed

No. 9 Will Ross, Omaha, Neb.
1,135 files reviewed, 717 files freed

On joining Free the Files:  I don't like secrets.

The takeaway:  American Crossroads wasted a buttload of money.


 

No. 10 Karen Yang, Englewood, N.J.
877 files reviewed, 610 files freed

On joining Free the Files:  I'm all for transparency in politics -- especially when it comes to political funding.

The takeaway:  It's all much worse than I thought!!

Join our effort to unlock ad spending in the 2012 election by logging in to Free the Files.
 

New York’s Ongoing Blackout: Hospitals in Lower Manhattan

$
0
0

Long after power is restored from Sandy, the effect of another more-precarious outage is still taking shape: Some of the largest hospitals in lower Manhattan remain shuttered. Other hospitals are scrambling to fill the gap, and concern is rising that the patchwork system can't last for long.

NYU Langone Medical Center and Bellevue Hospital, the flagship of the city's public hospital system, were forced to evacuate due to loss of electricity and damage from Sandy. The Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center evacuated patients before the storm and has not reopened.

There is no firm timetable on the hospitals' return. A spokesman for the city agency that runs Bellevue said that the hospital will likely be out for at least several weeks. NYU's outpatient clinics have reopened but the hospital itself remains closed.

"This is not a tenable situation," said Bellevue's director of emergency medicine, Dr. Lewis Goldfrank, who holds a similar title at NYU. "There's just too many people. You can't dump this level of patients out on the open market."

Bellevue's emergency room treated more than 100,000 patients last year, and its physicians and outpatient clinics handled more than a half million patient visits, according to state Department of Health data. It is also a large provider of psychiatric services and a hub for treating patients in police custody.

Beyond the huge daily patient load it handles, Bellevue is also a key piece of the city's crisis response system as the only high-level trauma center near the lower section of Manhattan. Trauma centers handle the most serious cases, including victims of gunshots, stabbings, auto accidents, falls and terrorist attacks.

Now, the nearest Level One trauma centers for residents of lower Manhattan aren't all that close: New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center is on the Upper East Side at East 68th Street and St. Luke's/Roosevelt Hospital is on the Upper West Side.

Officials say there's no reason to think that, for now, trauma victims in lower Manhattan will be any worse off than those in other parts of the city. The response speed is still acceptable, they say. And if a trauma victim is in an immediately life-threatening situation, such as a traumatic cardiac arrest, ambulances bring them to the closest hospital, regardless of whether it's a trauma center.

But the fear is that there won't be enough surge capacity at other hospitals if there is a major disaster, or that overworked staff at other hospitals will grow fatigued under the load and patient care could suffer.

"All systems can work at above capacity for some time without significant detriment," wrote Dr. Ronald Simon, director of trauma at Bellevue, in an email to ProPublica.

"But, with time, people will tire, over-worked systems will fail, and patients will suffer," wrote Simon, who is also chairman of the state health department's regional trauma advisory committee. "No question in my mind that the current status of care in Manhattan is not sustainable for any length of time."

The longer Bellevue and the others are closed, the more worrisome it becomes.

It "leaves a whole blank spot in the lower part of Manhattan," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, an associate of the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Below is a map of Level One trauma centers in New York City. Click on an icon for more information.

open

closed

Source: New York Department of Health

Adalja studied the 2010 closure of downtown Manhattan's St. Vincent's Hospital when doctors feared that the system wouldn't be able to absorb the patients. Four hospitals—Bellevue, NYU, Beth Israel and New York Downtown Hospital—stepped in and expanded their services.

Two of those four are now out of service.

Bellevue's staff has been shifted to other public hospitals and clinics, which are coordinating to minimize the impact, said Goldfrank, the hospital's emergency medicine director. Goldfrank said he is particularly concerned about what will happen to patients with chronic conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes, who depend on regular care to keep them out of the hospital.

Beth Israel Medical Center, located in lower Manhattan at 1st Avenue and 16th Street, has seen its ambulance traffic increase by 70 percent since before the storm. It currently receives about 135 patients a day by ambulance, compared to an average of 84 before the storm, said Dr. Gregg Husk, chairman of emergency medicine there.

"For us, this is Guinness Book of Records territory," Husk said, noting that his ER had its highest-ever days in terms of overall volume, ambulance volume and admissions from the ER to the hospital.

The hospital has increased its staffing so wait times have not been effected, Husk said.

Other hospitals around the city have stepped in. Mount Sinai Hospital on the Upper East Side accepted patients evacuated from NYU and Bellevue last week. Wayne E. Keathley, the hospital's president, said the hospital is prepared to do even more. "We're very much now in the moment-by-moment planning phase."

Ian Michaels, a spokesman for New York's Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs the city's public hospitals including Bellevue, said the agency is still trying to figure out how quickly the hospital can get back online. "The assessment is ongoing," he said late Tuesday. "We'll know more soon."

Michaels disputed a report on the New York Times website Tuesday that said Bellevue was in lock-down mode "because of possible structural damage from the storm."

"We don't suspect that there are any structural issues," Michaels said.

In addition to Bellevue, Coney Island Hospital in Brooklyn was also evacuated and is not back in service. That leaves nine functioning public acute-care hospitals, Michaels said, "operating very near capacity. There are very few beds available within the HHC system right now."

A spokesman for the New York State Department of Health, Bill Schwarz, said in an e-mail that "the handling of trauma calls in Lower Manhattan has run smoothly."

"Patients are being transported to appropriate facilities based on their medical needs and services required," Schwarz wrote. "Response times for life-threatening emergencies in Manhattan are meeting FDNY Bureau of EMS goals. Turnaround times at Emergency Departments at Manhattan hospitals have remained steady, with no noticeable increases as a result of the storm impact."

An FDNY spokesman said response times for ambulances to get to patients in life-threatening situations "have been under our targeted goal of 7 minutes since the storm. No delays have been reported."

For the moment, doctors said, trauma calls have been way down since the storm.

"With the hurricane and with the bad weather, a lot of people are staying off the streets," said Simon, Bellevue's trauma director. "It's not uncommon after natural disasters for trauma in the immediate wake of it to go down."

Simon said he believes the existing trauma centers can probably pick up the added load and have "surge capacity" in the event of another disaster or a mass-casualty event. "If something did happen, all of the hospitals would still be able to take the additional patients that that would provide. Would they all have to travel a little farther? Yes. Would that mean anything as far as life and limb is concerned? Probably not."

Jennifer LaFleur contributed to this report.


Check ‘Em Out: Donations to Dark Money Group Revealed

$
0
0

Last week, when a Montana district judge ordered the release of its bank records, Western Tradition Partnership became the first modern dark money group to have all of its donors made public.

The records showed that the contributors to the controversial group — which has resisted attempts by Montana regulators to get it to register as a political committee and report its donors — included wealthy individuals, corporations and other nonprofits.

All told, the documents reflected that WTP collected almost $1.1 million between March 2008 and December 2010, some of which was used to try to sway state and local elections in Montana and Colorado.

Today, after redacting addresses, phone numbers and account numbers, ProPublica and Frontline are putting allsixbatchesofchecksto the group online.

Based on other documents, some of which were found in a Colorado meth house in late 2010, WTP has faced allegations that it illegally "coordinated" with political candidates, helping to shape their campaigns.

It's unclear what, if anything, WTP's donors knew of its operations — or if the candidates themselves knew what the group was doing behind the scenes.

The bank records show the biggest individual donor to WTP was Norman Asbjornson, a Montana native who gave $50,000 to WTP in August 2008 and whose heating and cooling company in Tulsa, Okla., gave $20,000 in October 2010. In an interview Monday, Asbjornson said he gave money to WTP in part because the group was working to elect state representatives who embodied Montanan values.

"They gave me a list of representatives that reflected their views," he said. "They didn't say how they were supporting (them)."

ProPublica has reported on how some social welfare nonprofits, or dark money groups, have exploited gaps in regulation between election authorities and the Internal Revenue Service to pour tens of millions of dollars from secret donors into political campaigns.

Although small compared to some dark-money organizations, WTP has won national attention for filing a lawsuit that led the U.S. Supreme Court to apply its Citizens United ruling to states.

The unusually abundant cache of documents available on the group shows it used its veil of secrecy to recruit donors: A PowerPoint script for potential donors provided to Montana regulators by one of the group's former contractors said people and corporations could donate as much as they wanted anonymously and then "sit back on election night" and see what a difference they made.

Under the tax code, social welfare nonprofits are allowed to engage in politics but cannot have this as their primary purpose. When WTP asked the IRS to recognize its tax-exempt status, it said, under penalty of perjury, that it wouldn't spend money on politics, yet it was already doing so. As ProPublica has documented, dozens of other social welfare groups have used similar tactics in gaining IRS approval.

Christian LeFer, a strategist for the group in the 2008 and 2010 Montana elections, has denied that the group broke campaign-finance rules, saying he worked "scrupulously" to avoid the possibility of coordination. WTP officials also have said the group does not campaign for particular candidates; instead, they say it educates voters on where candidates stand on certain issues.

WTP, now known as American Tradition Partnership and based out of a post-office box in Washington, D.C., remains locked in an ongoing dispute with Montana campaign-finance regulators, who in October 2010 said the group should disclose its donors. WTP's lawsuit in that case is scheduled to be heard in March.

In an interview Tuesday, the state's outgoing governor, Democrat Brian Schweitzer, opined that WTP was a "criminal enterprise."

"Think about this—you've got folks who won't say who they are, won't say where they live, run out of a post office box," Schweitzer said. "Who are these people? They're clearly violating Montana laws."

In the 2012 election, much of American Tradition Partnership's focus in Montana was on the race to replace Schweitzer, who couldn't run again because of term limits. It funded attacks on Democrat Steve Bullock, the state's attorney general, sending out two fake newspapers to Montana residents in the final weeks of the race portraying him as soft on child predators.

The Associated Press declared Bullock the winner Wednesday, saying he had eked out a narrow victory over Republican Rich Hill.

As the election unfolded, LeFer and Donny Ferguson, who now runs American Tradition Partnership, posted on Facebook, taking aim at recent coverage of the group.

LeFer posted a message to Ferguson on Facebook on Tuesday night. "‘Sitting back on Election NIght (sic) watching what a difference I've made' – Just paraphrasing from a stolen PowerPoint presentation I'm reading," LeFer wrote about 8 p.m. Montana time.

Ferguson, whose Facebook page is public, then clicked that he "liked" LeFer's comment.

Although Ferguson did not reply to requests for comment, his Facebook page showed that on election night he was in Texas celebrating the return of conservative Steve Stockman to Congress, after 16 years out of office. Ferguson, Stockman's campaign manager, proclaimed, "We're baaaaaaaaaaack" on his Facebook page and said he autographed a campaign bag next to the signature of Gov. Rick Perry.

Ferguson didn't mention Bullock, but an earlier post made it clear how Ferguson felt about Frontline's documentary on WTP, which aired Oct. 30 on PBS.

"I don't think PBS understands who just just (sic) committed a felony against," Ferguson wrote on Facebook the day after the broadcast. "I'm not one of these pearl-clutching marshmallow Republican squishes who doesn't like blood. I go Scottish Texan on people. Calm, cool, collected headhunting. I collect ears and skulls. And most importantly I follow the law and rain helllfire (sic) on those who don't. The name ‘Donald Ferguson' translated is (sic) itself is practically a Scottish declaration of war."

How Much Did Independent Groups Spend Per Vote?

$
0
0

Although an unprecedented amount was spent by outside groups in an effort to influence the 2012 campaign, the candidates with the most super PAC funding were defeated Tuesday. Here’s a look at how much outside groups spent per vote in a few of the notable races.

Exec Who Allegedly Enabled Fraud Runs Chase’s Effort to Compensate Foreclosure Victims

$
0
0

An executive who the Justice Department says facilitated a scheme to defraud Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is now spearheading JPMorgan Chase's role in the government's program to compensate victims of the big banks' abusive foreclosure practices.

The executive, Rebecca Mairone, worked at Countrywide and Bank of America from 2006 until earlier this year, when she left for JPMorgan Chase, according to her LinkedIn profile.

In a lawsuit filed last month in federal court in New York, Justice Department attorneys allege that Countrywide, which was bought by Bank of America in 2008, perpetrated a two-year scam to foist shoddy home loans on Fannie and Freddie. Neither Mairone nor any other individuals are named as defendants in the civil suit, and no criminal charges have been filed against her or anyone else in connection with the alleged misconduct. But Mairone is one of two bank officials cited in the suit as having repeatedly ignored warnings about the "Hustle," as the alleged scheme was called inside the company, and she prohibited employees from circulating some of those warnings outside their division.

Mairone was chief operating officer of the Countrywide lending division that allegedly carried out the "Hustle." She took the helm of JPMorgan Chase's involvement in the Independent Foreclosure Review this summer, according to a former Chase employee.

The review, overseen by federal banking regulators, requires the nation's biggest banks to compensate victims for harm they inflicted on borrowers. Victims can receive up to $125,000 in cash or, in some cases, get their homes back. But the review has already been marred by evidence that the banks themselves play a major role in identifying the victims of their own abuses, raising the question of whether the review is compromised by a central conflict of interest.

Mairone's role raises additional questions about the Independent Foreclosure Review.

The review "never seemed designed to place first the interests of those who were supposed to be helped — victimized homeowners," said Neil Barofsky, the former federal prosecutor who served as the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as the bank bailout.

"Finding out that the person running it for JPMorgan Chase is a person whose conduct in the run-up to financial crisis was allegedly so egregious that she somehow managed to be one of the only people actually named in a case brought by the Department of Justice goes beyond irony," he continued. "It speaks volumes to the banks' true intent and lack of concern for homeowners when addressing the harm that they caused during the foreclosure crisis."

In response to ProPublica's questions about Mairone's role in the foreclosure review and the suit's allegations, Chase issued a brief statement confirming that Mairone is a managing director who is "working on the Independent Foreclosure Review process." The statement added, "It would not be appropriate for us to discuss another firm's litigation."

Chase declined to make Mairone available for comment, and she did not return a message left at her home number.

The Suit's Allegations

Countrywide was the industry leader in subprime loans, which are typically given to borrowers with a troubled credit history. In 2007, the subprime market began to collapse as more and more of those borrowers defaulted on their loans. Countrywide grew desperate to find ways to keep profiting from issuing mortgages.

Fannie and Freddie guarantee home loans, relieving banks of the risk that borrowers will default. So in 2007, the government's suit alleges, Countrywide began the Hustle to pass a huge number of risky loans, many with phony incomes attributed to the borrowers, on to Fannie and Freddie.

At that time, the two mortgage giants were restricting their underwriting guidelines, making it harder for lenders like Countrywide to find borrowers who qualified for Fannie and Freddie backed loans.

The suit alleges that Countrywide deliberately gutted its system for detecting unqualified borrowers, leading to a flood of flawed and outright fraudulent loans backed by Fannie and Freddie.

The new modus operandi was called the "High Speed Swim Lane"; its motto was "Loans Move Forward, Never Backward," according to the suit. The company allegedly paid bonuses to its employees based on the number of loans they pushed through, not on whether the loans were sound. According to the suit, the new system created a torrent of loans that often featured inflated borrower incomes, accelerated by employees who had every incentive to fabricate numbers to get the loans into the "High Speed Swim Lane."

The suit says a number of employees within Countrywide raised alarms about the Hustle before it launched, but that Mairone and the division's president "ignored" those warnings.

Once the new system was up and running, one concerned executive had underwriters run checks on the loans. Mairone allowed the checks, but said they should be run in parallel to the loan funding process so, according to the suit, they didn't "'slow the swim lane down.'"

The tests found a "staggering rate of defects," the suit says, but Mairone did not "alter or abandon the Hustle model." Instead, the suit alleges, she "prohibited" underwriters from circulating the results outside of the lending division. "As warnings about the Hustle went unheeded," the complaint alleges, "Countrywide knowingly churned out loans with escalating levels of fraud and other serious material defects and sold them to" Fannie and Freddie.

The Hustle continued "through 2009," the Justice Department alleges, well after Bank of America acquired Countrywide. The scheme led to more than $1 billion in losses at Fannie and Freddie as borrowers defaulted, according to the suit.

The government took over Fannie and Freddie in 2008, and since then taxpayers have pumped in $187.5 billion to keep them afloat.

The federal suit was first brought under seal as a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act by a former Countrywide and Bank of America executive, Edward O'Donnell, who says he tried to stop the Hustle. A qui tam suit allows a private citizen to sue on behalf of the government and receive a portion of the settlement or judgment if the suit is successful. The Justice Department joined O'Donnell's suit in October in Southern District of New York, filing its own complaint and trumpeting it in a press release.

A Bank of America spokesman disputed allegations in the suit that it had refused to repurchase the faulty "Hustle" loans from Fannie Mae after they defaulted in large numbers. "Bank of America has stepped up and acted responsibly to resolve legacy mortgage matters," said spokesman Lawrence Grayson. "At some point, Bank of America can't be expected to compensate every entity that claims losses that actually were caused by the economic downturn."

A Career Spans the Crisis

Mairone's career has spanned the entire life cycle of the foreclosure crisis.

After working for Countrywide and Bank of America's lending divisions, Mairone moved to the bank's servicing division in 2009. There, at the height of the crisis, she was in charge of deciding how to deal with homeowners who could not pay their mortgages and wanted to modify the terms of their loans.

It didn't go well. The big banks all signed up for the government's main foreclosure prevention program and agreed to provide modifications for qualified borrowers. But as we've reported over the years (we even interviewed Mairone herself in early 2011), the biggest banks often botched loan modifications and regularly subjected customers to errors and abuses, some resulting in mistaken foreclosures. The big banks in general did a poor job, but analyses have shown that Bank of America performed the worst of all. Homeowners had less of a chance of getting a modification from Bank of America than any other major mortgage servicer, studies show.

Such failings eventually led to government efforts to compensate homeowners for the banks' errors and abuses. The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency launched the Independent Foreclosure Review in late 2011. About 4.4 million homeowners are eligible for the review, and those who are determined to have been harmed can receive up to $125,000 in cash compensation.

Regulators required each of the banks to hire an outside consultant to independently conduct the review, but as ProPublica has reported, there is abundant evidence that the banks themselves are playing a large role. The program has also been marked by low participation by borrowers and a lack of transparency.

Regulators have said the banks are only playing a supporting role in the review, and that the consultants are entirely responsible for deciding how borrowers are compensated.

Mairone's current employment at Chase was first reported by The Street, an online news service that covers finance, but the story did not say Mairone was working on the bank's Independent Foreclosure Review. She oversees hundreds of Chase employees who gather documents for the reviews, according to the former Chase employee. Chase declined to say how many employees Mairone oversees or detail her job responsibilities.

Chase's main regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, said its policy is not to comment on specific individuals or ongoing litigation. "The OCC and the Federal Reserve are monitoring the conduct of the Independent Foreclosure Review to ensure reviews are conducted fairly and thoroughly," said spokesman Bryan Hubbard.

Jonathan Gandal, a spokesman for Deloitte, the consultant Chase hired for the review, said, "We are conducting an independent review of the files and it is our review and analysis alone that will drive our recommendations. Beyond that, we are not at liberty to discuss matters pertaining to our services."

Yes, Companies Are Harvesting – and Selling – Your Facebook Profile

$
0
0

Yesterday, we got a rare look at how information on your public social media profiles—including Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn—is being harvested and resold by large consumer data companies.

Responding to a congressional query, nine data companies provided answers to a detailed set of questions about what kinds of information they collect about individual Americans, and where they get that data. 

Their responses, released Thursday, show that some companies record — and then resell — your screen names, web site addresses, interests, hometown and professional history, and how many friends or followers you have.

Some companies also collect and analyze information about users’ “tweets, posts, comments, likes, shares, and recommendations,” according to Epsilon, a consumer data company.  

While many of these details were already available on the data companies’ websites, the lawmakers used the letters as a chance to raise awareness about an industry that they said has largely “operated in the shadows.”

“Posting to Facebook should not also mean putting personal information into the hands of data reapers seeking to profit from details of consumers’ personal lives,” Massachusetts Rep. Edward J. Markey told ProPublica in an e-mailed statement.

“Users of social media want to share with friends, not enable the sale of their personal information to data miners.”

Companies that collect social network information said they only take what is publicly available, and that they follow the rules laid down by each social networking site.

Acxiom, one of the nation’s largest consumer data companies, said in its letter to lawmakers that it collects information about which social media sites individual people use, and “whether they are a heavy or a light user.”

The letter also says Acxiom tracks whether individuals “engage in social media activities such as signing onto fan pages or posting or viewing YouTube videos.”

The company said that it does not collect information about individual postings or lists of friends.

Data companies of course, do not stop with the information on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Intelius, which offers everything from a reverse phone number look up to an employee screening service, said it also collects information from Blogspot, Wordpress, MySpace, and YouTube.

This information includes individual email addresses and screen names, web site addresses, interests, and professional history, Intelius said. It offers a “Social Network Search” on its website that allows you to enter someone’s name and see a record of social media URLs for that person.

Epsilon, a consumer data company that works with catalog and retail companies, said that it may use information about social media users’ “names, ages, genders, hometown locations, languages, and a numbers of social connections (e.g., friends or followers).”

It also works with information about “user interactions,” like what people tweet, post, share, recommend, or “like.”

But Epsilon said it does not connect this social media information with any other consumer information in its databases. Other companies, including Acxiom, include social media profile data as part of detailed profiles on individual consumers. 

Instead, Epsilon said, it uses information from social media sites to “provide companies with analytics insights” and “help them better understand and interact with their customers.”

Both Epsilon and Acxiom said they obtain information from third parties that specialize in collecting social network data.

Experian, the credit reporting company, said that its marketing services operation “does not collect data from social networks for the purpose of sharing such data with other entities.” It did not say whether or not it uses social network data collected by other companies. (Experian said the data used for its marketing services is “completely separate” from the data used for your individual credit report.)

Markey, the co-chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, and a group of other members of congress sent questions to nine companies this July, in response to a New York Times profile of Acxiom, one of America’s largest consumer data companies.

“The data brokers’ responses offer only a glimpse of the practices of an industry that has operated in the shadows for years,” the lawmakers said in a joint statement yesterday on Markey’s web site. “Many questions about how these data brokers operate have been left unanswered.”

“We continue to collaborate with the U.S. government and federal agencies to help broaden the understanding of our business practices and the enormous value that the industry creates for individuals and businesses alike. As such, we advocate for a conversation that balances privacy considerations as well as the benefits of the appropriate use of data,” Acxiom CEO Scott Howe said in an e-mailed statement.

“While we provided a thorough response to the Caucus’ request, we honored all client, partner and vendor confidentiality agreements. We remain focused on our mission to strengthen connections between people, businesses and their partners.”

In California, Democrats’ Redistricting Strategy Paid Off

$
0
0

Last year we wrote about how Democrats used front groups, disingenuous testimony, and other aggressive tactics to manipulate California’s independent redistricting commission. The effort was meant to create safe seats for the Democratic Party and in particular for incumbents.

“Every member of the Northern California Democratic Caucus has a ticket back to DC,” said one enthusiastic memo written as the process was winding down. 

So how did congressional Democrats do in California after redistricting shook everything up? Quite well.  

Of 34 Democratic incumbents, only three lost their races, all three to other Democrats. Overall, Democrats in California gained four seats. (One race is close and may result in a recount.)

There are, of course, many variables at work in any election (enthusiasm for the party’s presidential candidate, turnout, gaffes, hair shininess). And in some cases, the new districts did result in harder campaigning and higher spending. But the Democrats’ performance in California appears to be a powerful illustration of how redistricting can help incumbents.

Consider the case of Jerry McNerney, who just won a healthy victory in the 9th Congressional district, a northern California seat just south of Sacramento.

Nobody thought it would be that way. McNerney, running in conservative country, beat his Republican opponent in 2010 by just 3,000 votes. The Washington Post deemed him an almost certain victim of redistricting. It would be hard to draw a winnable district for him in the area, and it would be hard for anyone to justify the continuation of his octopus-shaped gerrymander before the citizen commission.

Yet, as our earlier reporting showed, McNerney was part of a coordinated effort by the California Democratic Congressional Delegation to lock in a redrawing of Northern California districts that all-but-guaranteed a safe seat for every incumbent who wanted one.

A purportedly Republican-friendly shell group encouraged Republicans in the region to push the commission for a district that was actually against their party’s best interests. The group was connected to Paul Mitchell, a Democratic political consultant, and helped McNerney get a liberal pocket – in Contra Costa County – into the district. (Both McNerney and Mitchell did not respond to requests for comment.)

It worked. The commission drew the desired map, McNerney relocated to his custom-drawn new district, and the election results tell the rest: McNerney won his new district by eight percentage points, and won the liberal Contra Costa pocket by 18 points. In the rest of the district, he squeezed by with just a few thousand votes.

Much of the attention on the elections in California had been focused on another race, between two titans in the state’s Democratic delegation, Reps. Howard Berman and Brad Sherman. The fact that they were competing in the same district was portrayed as a sign that in the topsy-turvy world of redistricting, incumbents could not guarantee re-election via custom-tailored district.

Media outlets proclaimed a battle royale between the two savvy politicians. But while the race did yield its moments (like a video of the two candidates in a near-scuffle on stage), it may never have been that close, in part thanks to redistricting.

Campaign finance records from April, May and July 2011– all months the redistricting commission was active -- show that Sherman employed the same Democratic consultant, Paul Mitchell, who helped engineer McNerney’s redistricting success. With an assist from redistricting maps submitted to the commission by another Mitchell client, the final district encompassed 60 percent of Sherman’s old district and only 16 percent of Berman’s.

In a statement to ProPublica last year, Berman said: “I just chose not to do what many on both sides of the aisle did: try to sway the commission to do something that was good for one member,”

While many have assumed that redistricting forced the congressmen to run against each other, Sherman appears to have had another option. There was another nearby district that many within the party thought would be perfect for Sherman. Indeed there were calls within the party for him to move there. That would have allowed both Berman and Sherman a good chance at reelection. It also could have kept a competitive seat from going Republican simply for lack of a quality Democratic candidate.

But why would Sherman move when he could have a district even more suited to him?

In the end it was not even close. Sherman won with 60.5 percent of the vote compared to Berman’s 39.5 percent.

Sherman’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

Lost to History: Missing War Records Complicate Benefit Claims by Iraq, Afghanistan Veterans

$
0
0

Coming Monday: A father's quest for records about his son's death in Iraq.

For more on the story behind the story, read How This Story Came About.

A strange thing happened when Christopher DeLara filed for disability benefits after his tour in Iraq: The U.S. Army said it had no records showing he had ever been overseas.

DeLara had searing memories of his combat experiences. A friend bled to death before his eyes. He saw an insurgent shoot his commander in the head. And, most hauntingly, he recalled firing at an Iraqi boy who had attacked his convoy.

The Army said it could find no field records documenting any of these incidents.

Over the last decade, millions of military field records from Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost or destroyed, making it difficult for some soldiers to prove their combat experiences and obtain medical benefits or other veteran awards and services. Our reporting found a few reasons behind the problem:

System failure: In a string of critical reports, historians said Army units were losing their own history by failing to keep adequate field records. The U.S. military began relying on computer records during the Gulf War, introducing major gaps in recordkeeping as the old-style paper system fell apart. The Army then introduced a centralized system for collecting electronic field reports, but units have failed to submit records there.

Security concerns: Some military commanders ordered units to purge computer hard drives before redeploying to the United States, destroying any classified field records they contained.

Leadership: Disagreements among military officials have also led to lack of coordination in record-keeping. “The Army would say it’s Centcom’s responsibility... Centcom would say it’s an Army responsibility,” said one Archivist. Recordkeeping took a backseat to wartime demands: “Something just had to fall off the plate, there was so much going on,” a former Centcom records manager said.

» Are you a veteran who can't obtain your military field records? Tell us your story.

 

DeLara appealed, fighting for five years before a judge accepted the testimony of an officer in his unit. By then he had divorced, was briefly homeless and had sought solace in drugs and alcohol.

DeLara's case is part of a much larger problem that has plagued the U.S. military since the 1990 Gulf War: a failure to create and maintain the types of field records that have documented American conflicts since the Revolutionary War.

A joint investigation by ProPublica and The Seattle Times has found that the recordkeeping breakdown was especially acute in the early years of the Iraq war, when insurgents deployed improvised bombs with devastating effects on U.S. soldiers. The military has also lost or destroyed records from Afghanistan, according to officials and previously undisclosed documents.

The loss of field records — after-action write-ups, intelligence reports and other day-to-day accounts from the war zones — has far-reaching implications. It has complicated efforts by soldiers like DeLara to claim benefits. And it makes it harder for military strategists to learn the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the nation's most protracted wars.

Military officers and historians say field records provide the granular details that, when woven together, tell larger stories hidden from participants in the day-to-day confusion of combat.

The Army says it has taken steps to improve handling of records — including better training and more emphasis from top commanders. But officials familiar with the problem said the missing material may never be retrieved.

"I can't even start to describe the dimensions of the problem," said Conrad C. Crane, director of the U.S. Army's Military History Institute. "I fear we're never really going to know clearly what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have the records."

The Army, with its dominant presence in both theaters, has the biggest deficiencies. But the U.S. Central Command in Iraq (Centcom), which had overall authority, also lost records, according to reports and other documents obtained by ProPublica under the Freedom of Information Act.

In Baghdad, Centcom and the Army disagreed about which was responsible for keeping records. There was confusion about whether classified field records could be transported back to the units' headquarters in the United States. As a result, some units were instructed to erase computer hard drives when they rotated home, destroying the records that had been stored on them.

Through 2008, dozens of Army units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan either had no field records or lacked sufficient reports for a unit history, according to Army summaries obtained by ProPublica. DeLara's outfit, the 1st Cavalry Division, was among the units lacking adequate records during his 2004 to 2005 deployment.

Recordkeeping was so poor in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2007 that "very few Operation ENDURING FREEDOM records were saved anywhere, either for historians' use, or for the services' documentary needs for unit heritage, or for the increasing challenge with documenting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)," according to an Army report from 2009.

Entire brigades deployed from 2003 to 2008 could not produce any field records, documents from the U.S. Army Center of Military History show.

The Pentagon was put on notice as early as 2005 that Army units weren't turning in records for storage to a central computer system created after a similar recordkeeping debacle in the 1990-91 Gulf War.

In that war, a lack of field records forced the Army to spend years and millions of dollars to recreate the location of troops who may have been exposed to toxic plumes that were among the suspected causes of Gulf War Syndrome.

At the outset of the Iraq war, military commanders tried to avoid repeating that mistake, ordering units to preserve all historical records.

But the Army botched the job. Despite new guidelines issued in 2008 to safeguard records, some units still purged them. The next summer, the Washington National Guard's 81st Brigade Combat Team in Iraq was ordered to erase hard drives before leaving them for replacement troops to use, said a Guard spokesman, Capt. Keith Kosik.

Historians had complained about lax recordkeeping for years with little result.

"We were just on our knees begging for the Army to do something about it," said Dr. Reina Pennington, an assistant professor at Norwich University in Vermont who chaired the Army's Historical Advisory Committee. "It's the kind of thing that everyone nods about and agrees it's a problem but doesn't do anything about."

Critical reports from Pennington's committee went up to three different secretaries of the Army, including John McHugh, the current secretary. McHugh's office did not respond to interview requests. His predecessor, Peter Geren, said he was never told about the extent of the problem.

"I'm disappointed I didn't know about it," Geren said.

In an initial response to questions from ProPublica and the Times, the Army did not acknowledge that any field reports had been lost or destroyed. In a subsequent email, Maj. Christopher Kasker, an Army spokesman, said, "The matter of records management is of great concern to the Army; it is an issue we have acknowledged and are working to correct and improve."

Missing field records aren't necessarily an obstacle for benefit claims. The Department of Veterans Affairs also looks for medical and personnel records, which can be enough. The VA has also relaxed rules for proving post-traumatic stress to reduce the need for the detailed documentation of field reports.

But even the VA concedes that unit records are helpful. And assembling a disability case from witness statements can take much more time, said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the retired Army vice chief of staff who worked to combat suicides and improve treatment of soldiers with PTSD and brain injuries.

"You would always love to have that operational record available to document an explosion, but there are other ways," Chiarelli said. "You can provide witness statements from others who were in that explosion. But it's going to be more difficult."

After reviewing findings of the ProPublica-Times investigation, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to report on efforts to find and collect field records.

"Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are unable to document the location and functions of their military units could face the same type of problems experienced by Cold War veterans exposed to radiation, Vietnam era veterans exposed to herbicides and Gulf War veterans exposed to various environmental hazards," Murray said in a statement.

Former Secretary of the Army Peter Geren told ProPublica that he was never told about the extent of the problem of missing war records. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)Already, thousands of veterans have reported respiratory problems and other health effects after exposure to toxic fumes from huge burn pits that were commonly used to dispose of garbage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

DeLara remains embittered about the five years he spent waiting for his disability claim. In an interview at his home in Tennessee, he pointed to Army discharge papers showing he'd received the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, awarded for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Next to that were blank spaces where his deployment dates should have been.

"If they'd had the records in the first place, and all the after-action reports," DeLara said, "this never would have stretched on as long as it did."

A Desperate Search for Records

The Army is required to produce records of its actions in war. Today, most units keep them on computers, and a 4,000-soldier brigade can churn out impressive volumes — roughly 500 gigabytes in a yearlong tour, or the digital equivalent of 445 books, each 200 pages long.

Field records include reports about fighting, casualties, intelligence activities, prisoners, battle damage and more, complete with pictures and maps. They do not include personnel or medical records, which are kept separately, or "sigact" reports — short daily dispatches on significant activities, some of which were provided to news organizations by WikiLeaks in 2010.

By mid-2007, amid alarms from historians that combat units weren't turning in records after their deployments, the Army launched an effort to inventory and collect what it could find.

Army historians were dispatched on a base-by-base search worldwide. A summary of their findings shows that at least 15 brigades serving in the Iraq war at various times from 2003 to 2008 had no records on hand. The same was true for at least five brigades deployed to Afghanistan.

Records were so scarce at another 62 units that served in Iraq and 10 in Afghanistan that they were written up as "some records, but not enough to write an adequate Army history." This group included most of the units deployed during the first four years of the Afghanistan war.

The outreach effort by the Army was highly unusual. "We were sending people to where they were being demobilized," said Robert J. Dalessandro, executive director at the Army's Center of Military History. "We even said ... 'Look we'll come to you' — that's how desperate we got."

As word of missing records circulated, the Joint Chiefs of Staff became worried enough to order a top-level delegation of records managers from each service branch to Baghdad in April 2010 for an inspection that included recordkeeping by U.S. Central Command.

Centcom coordinated action among service branches in the theater. Among other things, Centcom's records included Pentagon orders, joint-service actions, fratricide investigations and intelligence reviews, with some records from Army units occasionally captured in the mix.

After five days, the team concluded that the "volume, location, size and format of USF-1 records was unknown," referring to the acronym for combined Iraq forces. The team's report to the chiefs cited "large gaps in records collections ... the failure to capture significant operational and historical" materials and a "poorly managed" effort to preserve records that were on hand.

In a separate, more detailed memo, two of the team's members from the National Archives and Records Administration went further.

"With the exception of the Army Corps of Engineers, none of the offices visited have responsibly managed their records," they wrote. "Staff reported knowledge of only the recently created and filed records and knew little of the records created prior to their deployments, including email. ... It is unclear the extent to which records exist prior to 2006."

Part of the problem was disagreement and lack of coordination about who was responsible for certain records, including investigations into casualties and accidents, according to Michael Carlson, one of the two archivists.

"The Army would say it's Centcom's responsibility to capture after-action reports because it's a Centcom-led operation. Centcom would say it's an Army responsibility because they created their own records," Carlson said in an interview. "So there's finger-pointing ... and thus records are lost."

Nearly a year after the U.S. pullout from Iraq, Centcom said it still is trying to index 47 terabytes of records for storage, or some 54 million pages of documents. It's not clear if those include anything recovered after a 2008 computer crash the Baghdad team termed "catastrophic."

Lt. Col. Donald Walker, an Air Force officer who took over as Centcom records manager in 2009, acknowledged that there was confusion about responsibility and confirmed that that some Centcom records may have been lost. In part, he blamed computer problems and the competing demands of wartime.

"Something just had to fall off the plate, there was so much going on," said Walker, who worked out of Centcom's Tampa, Fla., headquarters but was among the Baghdad inspectors.

Rather than risk classified information falling into the wrong hands, some commanders appeared to buck the orders to preserve records. One Army presentation states that in 2005, V Corps, which oversaw all Army units then in Iraq, ordered units to wipe hard drives clean or physically destroy them before redeploying to the States.

"They did not maintain the electronic files. They just purged the servers," according to the Military History Institute's Crane, who said he heard similar accounts from more than a dozen veteran officers in classes at the Army War College.

The orders directing Washington National Guard's 81st Brigade to erase hard drives before leaving Iraq came "from on high," according to unit spokesman Kosik, who said he confirmed the erasures with a senior Guard officer with first-hand knowledge. He said the orders came from outside the Washington Guard.

"There was a lot of confidential information, and they were not allowed to take it out of theater," said Kosik. "All that was wiped clean before they came home. ... It was part of their 'to-do' list before leaving country."

Steven A. Raho III, the Army's top records manager, said in an interview that he couldn't estimate what, if any, records might be missing. But Raho said his agency wasn't responsible for collecting records, only for storing them in the Army's central records system when individual units handed them over.

Units are not required to do so, he emphasized. "All's I know is we have some and units have some," Raho said.

As a test, ProPublica filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for a month's worth of field records from four units deployed in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. The requests went to Raho's Records Management and Declassification Agency, which forwarded them to each unit.

One brigade — the 2nd Combat Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division — did not respond, but FOIA officers from the three others said they searched and could find no responsive records.

"I don't know where any Iraq operational records are," said Daniel C. Smith, a privacy act officer at Fort Carson, Colo., who handled the request for the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division. "I've never been able to find out where they went."

At Fort Riley, Kan., FOIA officer Tuanna Jeffery looked for records from the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division. "Prior to and upon the inactivation of the unit on March 15, 2008, that unit had turned in absolutely no records," she responded.

In a follow-up email, Jeffery said the entire 1st Armored Division did not turn in any field records through 2008.

'They Couldn't Find It'

Army veteran Christopher DeLara spent five years waiting for his disability claim to be approved. The VA said it couldn’t find Army records to corroborate his combat experiences. (Shawn Poynter for ProPublica)Chris DeLara is not the type of soldier to wear his heart on his sleeve, but the 1st Cavalry Division's shoulder patch is tattooed on his right forearm in a swirling piece of body art. Beneath it are the words: "Baghdad, Iraq."

DeLara, 38, grew up in Albany, N.Y., never dreaming he might someday fight a war. Now, his tour in 2004 and 2005 haunts his every day. Since winning his appeal in March 2011, he is classified as fully disabled by post-traumatic stress and cannot work. He was awarded a stipend of about $30,000 a year and has moved near Knoxville, Tenn., where he recently bought a modest house.

Getting to a stable point wasn't easy.

DeLara was an administrative specialist, essentially a personnel clerk. But he was repeatedly pulled out of his scrivener's life for missions as a roof gunner on convoys. It was a time of insurgency and exploding factional violence in Baghdad.

"They told us, 'This may be your job, but guess what? You're going to be doing everything,'" he said. "We had many hats. You go to combat, your job is secondary. Combat is first."

DeLara did not want to discuss his combat experiences, but they are described in part by a judge in the Board of Veterans' Appeals ruling that approved his PTSD claim.

In the years after his deployment, DeLara told psychiatrists and others who treated him at various times that two of his friends were killed in an insurgent attack on his convoy, and that he was unable to stop one of them from bleeding to death from a ruptured artery.

He said that one his commanders was shot in the head in front of him by insurgents, and reported that he had killed an Iraqi youth who had tried to attack his convoy after it was stopped because of a roadside bomb, according to the judge's summary.

After his return in 2005, DeLara was diagnosed with PTSD or its symptoms several times, according to VA exam records cited by the appeals judge. He drank and used drugs even though he'd abstained from them in the Army. In 2006, he overdosed on prescription drugs.

DeLara said he lived for a time in a shelter for troubled vets. He and his wife eventually divorced, but he credits her for helping him fight for his claim when he might have given up.

They first applied for a PTSD benefit in 2006, DeLara said. A denial came the next year because his separation document, called a DD-214, did not list any dates of overseas deployment, he said.

"They couldn't find it. Well my ex-wife, she being as persistent as she is, we started pulling all the stuff" to send to the VA, he said. DeLara dug out the movement order sending his unit to Iraq and the brigade roster with his name on it. He added descriptions of his combat experiences. "Basically what it was, I needed to provide proof," he said.

But he was denied again, this time because the VA said his symptoms were of bipolar disorder, not PTSD. DeLara said he appealed but got a letter saying there was insufficient evidence that he'd experienced combat stress. The VA told him that it had "no records, none whatsoever" of his time in combat, DeLara said.

"We basically put the whole packet together from scratch again," DeLara said. This time, he tracked down his former company commander, who was incensed about the VA denials and provided a letter confirming an incident in which DeLara came under enemy fire. Still, two years went by before DeLara received word that his appeal was set for a hearing in January 2011.

Although the judge found in his favor, the ruling notes that, in June 2008, the center responsible for locating his records "made a formal finding of a lack of information to corroborate a stressor for service connection for PTSD." The center even looked a second time but still came up empty-handed.

DeLara said he still can't believe it. "I had dates and everything" in the supporting material he and his ex-wife sent to the VA, he said. "The simple fact is that nobody filled out after-action reports," DeLara said. "There was no record of it."

Asked how often a search for unit records turns up empty, officials at the VA said they didn't know — the agency doesn't track that statistic. A VA spokesperson said missing field records are not a major factor delaying veterans' claims, however. And some veterans' advocates agree.

"As long as an officer or a buddy who witnessed the event is willing to sign a notarized statement, that's good," said John Waterbrook, who advises vets on disability issues in Walla Walla, Wash.

In 2009, as DeLara was refiling his case, veterans' groups complained to Congress that soldiers serving as clerks or mechanics unfairly faced a higher burden of proof for PTSD than those with an obvious combat role, even though they faced the same dangers in wars with no front lines.

The VA relaxed its rules the next year, so that a vet's account of combat stress is proof enough if a VA medical examiner agrees. But while the change helps, it hasn't sped up claims or made field records less valuable, said Richard Dumancas, the American Legion's deputy director of claims.

Field records can come into play for other injuries. Take the case of Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lorenzo Campbell, a 53-year-old soldier with the Washington Guard who filed a disability claim resulting from a 2004 injury in Iraq.

During a rocket attack, Campbell banged his knee on a concrete bumper after jumping out of a Humvee to find cover. He saw a doctor, but there was no record in his medical files. His knee gradually deteriorated, and he now wears a brace and is unable to run.

Campbell said he tried to get records of the rocket attack from the state Guard but was told they were classified and left on computers in Iraq. He said he offered a letter from another soldier testifying to the incident and swore out a statement himself, but it didn't suffice.

"I tried to keep fighting it," he said. "They kept writing me saying they need more information, they need more information."

Campbell said his disability claim took four years to be approved — a delay that could have been shortened had the records been available. "If you have no records," he said, "you can be fighting for five or six years and still not prevail."

Tradition Eroded, Warnings Brushed Aside

Military recordkeeping has been the cornerstone of the nation's war history for centuries. From the founding of the republic through the Vietnam War, recordkeeping was a disciplined part of military life, one that ensured that detailed accounts of the fighting were available to historians and veterans alike.

The records can hold untold stories that can surface decades after a conflict.

The massacre of civilians by U.S. forces at No Gun Ri, South Korea, in July 1950 came to full national attention only in 1999, nearly 50 years after the fact. Journalists at The Associated Press, working in part with military field records, uncovered the extent of the tragedy. Later, other reporters used the records to show that one purported witness wasn't really present.

By the Gulf War, however, what had been a long tradition of keeping accurate, comprehensive field records had begun to erode. Old-style paper recordkeeping was giving way to computers. And Army clerks had been reduced in number, leaving officers to take care of records work.

According to the Army's "Commander's Guide to Operational Records and Data Collection," published in 2009, the problem became evident months after the end of Desert Storm, when vets began reporting fatigue, skin disease, weight loss and other unexplained health conditions.

"When the Army began investigating this rash of symptoms, its first thought was to try and establish a pattern of those affected: What units were they in? Where were they located? What operations were they engaged in?" the guide says. "The answers provided by investigators were: 'We don't know. We didn't keep our records.'"

When Secretary of the Army John McHugh arrived in 2009, he received a report saying that the recordkeeping system was broken and pleading for resources to fix it. In an email, the Army said that it is 'working to correct and improve' records management. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)Afterward, the Army created Raho's records agency and a central records system. As the war on terror began, however, inspections and penalties for recordkeeping at the command level had largely fallen by the wayside, according to Army documents and interviews with officers who helped search for Gulf War records.

Robert Wright, a retired Army historian, said training broke down. "They fight as they train, and they never were trained," he said.

On March 28, 2003, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ordered retention of all records in the Iraq war. Military records, he wrote, "are of enduring significance for U.S. and world history and have been indispensable for rendering complete, accurate and objective accountings of the government's activities to the American people."

But in the combat zones, there were other priorities.

Kelly Howard served as operations officer to Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who was in charge of the Iraq war from 2004 to 2007. Her primary job was archiving Casey's papers, a task that had been ignored until her arrival in 2006. Casey stored them in a foot locker, among other places.

"The reason so many things got lost ... is because so many people at higher levels weren't requiring it," Howard said, referring to systematic recordkeeping. "You do what your boss wants you to do. It's not that anyone said, 'No, I don't care about that.' It's just so many other things were important."

Alarms mounted at about the same time as DeLara finished his Baghdad tour.

In 2005, the Army's Historical Advisory Committee learned that Raho's agency had not "received any records from units deployed in Afghanistan & Iraq."

This came as a shock. Members of the group include a mix of civilian historians and officials from the Army War College and Center of Military History.

"So we go through the whole meeting," said Richard Davis, senior historian at the National Museum of the U.S. Army. "So I ask the records manager point blank. I said, 'How many records have been retired from overseas by U.S. Army units?' And the answer was zero.

"By late October the records management people here in Washington had received not a single document from Afghanistan or Iraq," Davis said. "At that point all the historians looked at each other and said 'Holy shit! '"

Minutes from the committee's 2006 meeting quote Raho as saying, "Our problems are that the training for Army personnel is incomplete, the responses are uneven, and the records themselves are either incomplete or nonexistent."

Another member suggested writing a book. "As an institutional history, I think it's a great idea," responded historian Pennington, then the committee's chairwoman. "'Losing History': It's a topic that merits visibility and study."

The committee included regular warnings about a broken recordkeeping system in its annual reports to the secretary of the Army.

The 2006 report to Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Raho had described "major problems" in records collection, including "the lack of centralized control of data collection, the destruction of records without evaluation, and inadequate communications between Army units and records collection personnel."

Raho, the report said, "observed that 17 to 23 percent of all Iraq/Afghanistan War veterans will suffer from various forms of PTSD. ... Without strong and immediate action to remedy present shortcomings, the Army's ability to substantiate veteran disability claims will be degraded seriously, with potentially highly troublesome and expensive consequences."

In its 2008 report, the committee said: "Units are losing their own history. This will create a snowball effect, resulting in problems with awards and heritage activities in the future."

Pennington signed the report, adding a personal comment: "After six years of service on DAHAC, and now as its chair, I am frankly discouraged by the frequency with which DAHAC has expressed some of the same concerns, and how little progress has been made on some issues."

Then-Secretary Geren's office responded with a thank-you letter under his signature. But Geren said in an interview that he was not personally informed about missing records, despite his March 31, 2009, letter. "I'm confident it was not brought to my attention."

When McHugh, the current secretary, arrived in 2009, he received a committee report reiterating that the system was broken and pleading for resources to fix it. "This has been requested every year since 1997," the report said.

"It's probably the most serious problem historians have ever had," Pennington said in an interview. "I honestly don't know how we're going to be writing records-based history in 20 to 30 years." Typically, field records remain classified for two to three decades after a war, then are transferred to the National Archives.

Although committee members felt unheard, wheels had slowly begun moving in the Army. In 2007, Raho's agency and the Center of Military History launched the outreach project that discovered the historians were right: Scores of units did not have the records they should.

Because Raho did not have enough staff, the Center of Military History provided detachments for the search. For more than two years they collected field reports, turning up about 5.5 terabytes' worth.

Some additional records have dribbled in since: Dalessandro, the center's director, said one brigade of the 1st Armored Division handed over field records from its 2007 Iraq deployment. It's possible that more might be found from other units, but historians say the chances fade with each year.

Burn Pits: The New Agent Orange?

The demand for the field records isn't likely to abate as members of Congress ratchet up pressure to investigate exposure to burn pits.

Veterans' groups say the long-term health impacts could be similar to those of herbicides in Vietnam. Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine, ranking Democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health, said missing field records "could have consequences for veterans for years to come."

In September, the House passed the Open Burn Pit Registry Act to track veterans with symptoms and find out where they were exposed and for how long. A similar measure is pending in the Senate. The VA currently runs registries for Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome, and last year the Institute of Medicine said more research is needed.

Some veterans' advocates say field records could provide critical.

"It's going to be very hard to connect individuals without the field records," said Dan Sullivan, director of the Sgt. Thomas Sullivan Center, a nonprofit named after his brother, an Iraq vet who died from mysterious health complications.

"It would strike me that they are very important."

Are you a veteran who can't obtain your military field records? Tell us your story


Versions of this story will be published by The Seattle Times and Stars and Stripes.

 Peter Sleeth is a veteran investigative reporter who covered the Iraq war for The Oregonian and helped the paper win a Pulitzer Prize in 2007 for breaking news. Now freelancing, his most recent piece for the Oregon Historical Quarterly is a profile of progressive-era activist Tom Burns.

 Hal Bernton has been a staff reporter for The Seattle Times since 2000. He has covered military and veterans affairs, reporting from Iraq in 2003 and from Afghanistan in 2009 and this fall. Among other things, Bernton has reported on veterans' health issues, post-traumatic stress and, recently, improvised explosive devices.

ProPublica's Marshall Allen contributed to this story.

Buyer of Wild Horses Under Investigation by State, Feds

$
0
0

This story was co-published with the Colorado Springs Gazette.

A southern Colorado man under investigation for his handling of protected wild horses has admitted to state regulators that he shipped animals out of Colorado in violation of brand inspection laws, officials said.

Officials with the Colorado Department of Agriculture's Brand Inspection Division have turned the case involving Tom Davis over to the district attorney in Alamosa for prosecution.

"The brand laws are some of the oldest laws in the state. They are there to prevent livestock theft and we take them very seriously," Brand Commissioner Chris Whitney said.

Davis, 64, a livestock hauler and proponent of the horse meat industry who lives in La Jara, 15 miles southwest of Alamosa, has purchased more than 1,700 wild horses from the federal Bureau of Land Management since 2008 — roughly 70 percent of all horses sold by the agency.

Davis signed agreements with the BLM, which is charged with managing and protecting wild horses, promising not to sell any to slaughter.

As detailed in an investigation published by ProPublica in September, Davis has brand inspections documents for 765 horses, which say he shipped these animals to Texas towns near the Mexican border.

There is no information about disposition of the other horses he purchased from the BLM. In an interview this spring, Davis said he found the horses good homes, but declined to provide records showing what happened to them. Reached by phone at his home this week, he said again that he has lived up to his sale contracts with the BLM.

Animal welfare advocates fear the mustangs purchased by Davis were exported to Mexican slaughter plants.

An estimated 37,000 wild horses, descended from escaped Spanish steeds and Indian ponies, as well as ranch strays, roam public lands in the West, where they have been protected by law for decades. Selling them for slaughter is illegal.

The ProPublica account caught the attention of the Colorado Department of Agriculture, which requires all livestock in Colorado to be inspected by the state when shipped over state lines to prevent livestock theft.

Whitney interviewed Davis at his house Nov. 6 and said Davis was "very candid" in acknowledging that he had illegally shipped horses out of the state without the required inspections. Whitney declined to give details of the conversation, but said it was enough for him to recommend prosecution.

"Sometimes we issue a ticket, but this is a serious violation," said Whitney.

Davis acknowledged he had spoken to Whitney, but said he was not aware he could face prosecution.

The brand office is turning over the case to Colorado's 12th Judicial District Attorney, David Mahoney, Whitney said.

If convicted, penalties range from a small fine to prison time, depending on whether the violations, which records suggest span years and many truckloads of horses, are charged as one infraction or hundreds.

"That is up to the prosecuting attorney," Whitney said.

The district attorney could not be reached for comment.

Davis is also the subject of a federal investigation. The probe was opened in June by the BLM's law enforcement division, but is now being handled by the U.S. Department of Interior Office of Inspector General, according to Interior spokesman Blake Androff. Often the inspector general takes over cases in which there is a potential conflict or involvement by the agency.

"By law and in practice, the IG's office is independent from the Office of the Secretary," Androff said.

The inspector general's office did not respond to questions about the subject and scope of its inquiry.

Wild horse advocates welcomed the news of the potential prosecution, but said any investigation would be incomplete until it includes the actions of the Bureau of Land Management and its parent agency, the Department of Interior.

"Let's get real. There is no way the BLM could think someone was buying that many unadoptable horses for anything but slaughter," said Laura Leigh, director of the Nevada-based advocacy group Wild Horse Education. "The people who sold those horses are just as culpable. This is a breach of public trust and there needs to be some accountability."

A BLM helicopter rounds up horses in the Stone Cabin Valley of Nevada in the winter of 2012. (Dave Philipps)To keep the wild horse population on the range at target levels, the BLM rounds up thousands of horses each year and encourages the public to adopt them. Most horses, however, are not adopted and instead go into a government-funded system of feedlots and pastures that hold more than 47,000 animals — 10,000 more than are in the wild.

The system is at capacity and accounts for most of the BLM's wild horse budget.

BLM spokesman Tom Gorey described the agency as being "in a real bind."

Emails among BLM staff obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show the BLM turned to Davis as a way to get horses out of government care. BLM employees would contact Davis, encouraging him to buy dozens of mustangs at a time, sight unseen.

Davis was vague in communications with the agency about his plans for the hundreds of untamed horses, according to BLM documents, saying he was going to use them as movie extras or sell them to graze on oil fields.

Davis is a vocal proponent of the horse slaughter industry and has tried to open his own plant.

"Hell, some of the finest meat you will ever eat is a fat yearling colt," he said in an interview in May. "What is wrong with taking all those BLM horses they got all fat and shiny and setting up a kill plant?"

The BLM did not attempt to verify his claims about where the horses went. When concerns were raised by horse advocates, the sale program director who approved Davis' purchases assured them that the buyer in question had a long relationship with the BLM and was "above reproach," according to an email Sandra Longley, one of the advocates who had misgivings about Davis, sent to other advocates.

In the past, the BLM has arrested wild horse buyers for attempting to ship horses to Texas to sell for slaughter.

In 2011, the agency arrested two Utah men, Robert Capson and Dennis Kunz, with a truckload of 64 wild horses bound for Texas, where, according to a federal indictment, they planned to sell the animals to an exporter for slaughter. The two were charged with wire fraud and making false statements, both felonies. Capson pleaded guilty this summer. Kunz is awaiting trial.

The North Carolina-based American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign is calling for a congressional oversight hearing on the BLM's management of the wild horse program.

"We are pleased the state of Colorado is acting immediately to hold Davis accountable," said Suzanne Roy, the group's director. "But what about the BLM? They need to be held accountable too."


A Son Lost in Iraq, but Where Is the Casualty Report?

$
0
0

WELLSVILLE, Kan. — The day after Jim Butler learned his son had died in Iraq in 2003, a U.S. Army casualty officer showed up at the family's small ranch to explain what happened.

Your son was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in the city of As Samawah, the officer said. But he had no other details to offer, nothing about how the fighting came about or what Sgt. Jacob Butler was doing when he was killed. For the grieving father, it wasn't enough. The question of how Jake died gripped him in the days after, in part because he'd made an unusual promise before his son left: If you are killed, I will go and stand where you fell.

So Butler made a simple request to the Army — for Jake's casualty report. Rules require one when soldiers are killed in a war zone. Unit commanders are supposed to create and maintain them, along with numerous other field records.

"They said, 'We'll have to see,'" Butler recalled, "because one should have been made."

Nine years later, Butler is still waiting for a report he may never get. As an investigation by ProPublica and The Seattle Times revealed, the Army has lost or failed to keep that document and many other field records from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 1st Armored Division — Jacob Butler's unit — is among those lacking many of its records. Documents and interviews show that dozens of units are in similar shape, and that U.S. Central Command in Iraq also lost records related to joint-service operations in the theater.

History is cheated when front-line records are lost. And without them, veterans can face delays securing benefits for combat-related disabilities.

But missing records can have another after effect — creating uncertainty and confusion as survivors struggle with the heartbreak of loss.

Family members of soldiers who die in war are entitled to casualty reports if they request them. That fact did not help Jim Butler. He pressed the Army repeatedly in the months after Jake's death for his casualty report, but got a series of conflicting and perplexing responses instead.

"I felt hurt because I felt they should be truthful," Butler said of the Army. "Is that too much to ask?

"If it turned out Jake was killed by friendly fire, it would hurt, but I could handle it," he said. "If he died by suicide, it would hurt, but I could handle it."

The truth turned out to be far different, but Butler had to dig out the story himself. And he never saw the most complete official account of Jake's death until a reporter provided it.

Ambushed From Three Sides

A fellow soldier salutes the memorial made in honor of Sgt. Jacob Butler a few days after he was killed in Iraq. (Alvaro Canovas/Paris Match)In photographs, Sgt. Jacob Butler was, like his father, slight in build. The 24-year-old infantry scout had the look of a determined, sincere and perhaps slightly unnerved soldier new to war. At his heaviest, his father said, he couldn't tip the scales at 130 pounds.

Jake was the middle of five sons the Butlers raised, an outgoing, aggressive boy who had a kind streak, his father said.

"He'd basically give you the shirt off his back. He'd help everybody, but if you screwed him around, your better watch out. He thought everybody should be fair to each other," Jim Butler said.

Shortly after high school, Jake told his father he wanted to join the Army "to make a difference in the world. And he wanted to travel and see what life outside a small town was like."

The world Butler found himself in the morning of April 1, 2003, couldn't have been further from his Kansas home. The sky broke clear after the sand storms of recent days abated. The only green came from palms along the Euphrates River, a break from the mud brown houses and roads coated by sand that drifted like talcum powder in the slightest breeze.

About 11 a.m., Butler and eight members of his unit, known as the 1/41, stared warily through the groves as they drove three unarmored Humvees west on a road parallel to the river. Sgt. Butler commanded one Humvee, sitting shotgun. A gunner sat suspended in a webbed sling, his torso above the roof.

Their goal, according to the squad's leader, was to check on a series of bridges in the heart of the enemy-held city of As Samawah. Commanders needed to know if the bridges were strong enough to support tanks, supply trucks and Bradley fighting vehicles for a pending assault on the city.

As the squad approached the city center on the river's south side, empty shell casings crunched beneath their tires. Sgt. Alex Velasco, in command, expected no trouble despite the fact that a ferocious, four-hour firefight had occurred on the same spot only the day before.

That encounter ended with the U.S. soldiers pulling back, carrying eight wounded. The bridges were left to the Iraqis, who had suffered some 40 casualties.

"Our plan of action was to sneak in and sneak out and not get into an altercation," Velasco recalled in an interview for this account.

The Humvees pulled up to the first bridge in a standard "T" formation — two parked forward and the third to the rear in the middle. Velasco's vehicle had pulled past the bridge while Butler's formed the cross at the bridgehead and the third Humvee sat behind. All was quiet as the soldiers prepared to get out.

In an instant, a rocket-propelled grenade raced across the river from the north bank, exploding on the front of Velasco's Humvee and blasting the driver into the open road. Shrapnel hit Velasco in the face as the boom deafened him.

Rifle fire spurted from both sides of the river while Iraqis poured out of a trench behind the Humvees and others fired from a nearby rooftop on the same side of the Euphrates. Butler's roof gunner took at least two bullets in his legs, and the radio crackled with reports to the others: "I'm hit, I'm hit, I'm hit!"

Velasco's Humvee burst into flames. Because it was loaded with claymore mines and several pounds of plastic explosives, Velasco, his wounded driver and roof gunner fled.

In the following confused minutes, Butler commanded the remaining soldiers. He told his driver to back around and give cover to the wounded men about 50 yards upstream, all the while firing his M4 carbine out the passenger window. The roof gunners shot at as many as 30 enemy combatants¸ Velasco said.

Two of the wounded soldiers were thrown on the hoods and top of the Humvees, while Velasco squeezed into a back seat. They raced back the way they came, through the palm trees up the river road.

The ambush had come from three sides. A Kiowa helicopter from the 82nd Airborne Division soon appeared above, launched a missile into Velasco's burning Humvee to destroy it, then flew off to the south.

Butler was slumped against the passenger door, Velasco said. According to his fellow soldiers, Jim Butler said, the last sentence Jake spoke was that of an infantryman in combat: "Get them and get the (expletive) out of here."

'To See What He Had Seen'

Jim and Cindy Butler look into their living room, where they display photographs, tributes and medals awarded to their son Jake. (Steve Hebert for ProPublica)Just before 11 on the night of a new moon, Jim Butler heard car doors shut and steps on the porch. His wife Cindy was sound asleep. Butler rose from the couch as two U.S. Army officers knocked on the sliding glass door.

"I said, 'Is he hurt real bad? Or is he dead?'" Butler recalled. "They just held their heads down."

When his son had come to him with news of his enlistment, they had a talk, Butler said. He had missed Vietnam — he was too young — but he remembered how hard it had been on the returning soldiers.

"I told him I believe in freedom, honor and peace, and not just for us, but for everybody in the world," Butler said. "And I told him, 'I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope it doesn't come out like Vietnam.'"

Born in Shawnee, Kan., Jim Butler was a jack-of-all-trades who worked as a carpenter, mechanic and most any job he could find to supplement income from raising a few beef cattle. Wiry, with salt-and-pepper hair combed straight back, he often punctuated points in conversation by stabbing his hand through the air, a cigarette between his fingers.

Butler made his promise one day when Jake stood in the gravel driveway, along with one of his brothers. He did it because he felt helpless, he said. This was the last thing he could do for his boy, now leaving on a man's journey.

"I went there to see what he had seen, smell the air that he had smelled, say a prayer for him and kind of get a peace of mind in my heart to what he had gone through that day," Butler said.

"I made the promise. I'd hoped I would never have to do it, but if I did I would do it at any cost."

Butler said he continued asking for a casualty report in the days after Jake died. At various times, he said, he was told the Army did not have to file one in time of war or that the search for a report was continuing.

A similar pattern played out when Butler asked if he could see his son's body: He was told at one time it was not viewable, because of wounds, and at another time that it was partially viewable. When Jake’s body did arrive, he insisted.

"I told them, 'You going to open this casket?' 'No, no, sir, we can't do that.' I said, 'Bull.' I said, 'When he was alive he had a contract with you. He’s dead, he belongs to me. So open the casket.'

"And we did. So, it was just Cindy and I, but Cindy was able to grab his hand one last time, you know, and it meant a lot to her."

Still, frustration set in, and it focused Butler's grief.

That May, he visited Fort Riley, Kan., where his son's unit was based. This time, Butler said, he was told he would never see a casualty report because the Army was "having problems."

As summer arrived, the family heard nothing more about any record of Jake's death. But in August, the 1/41 came home from Iraq. Twenty-eight members of Jake's platoon traveled to the farm to pay respects to the Butlers.

"Each one I talked to individually," Jim Butler said. On the porch of the farmhouse, they drank beer, told Butler about the ambush and his son's heroism and, finally, about a different cause of death: Jake had been shot twice, in the stomach and head; he had not been killed by a grenade.

Butler then demanded to see an autopsy report. In September it arrived. The pictures of Jake's body were hard to look at, and the report was technical. But it listed yet another cause of death: A single gunshot to the head.

The differing explanations only spurred him to find out more. "Maybe I'm sick, or maybe I'm crazy," Butler recalled thinking.

A month later, Butler decided he would make good on his promise.

At age 47, he had never before been on a commercial jet. But Butler flew economy class to Kuwait City in October 2003, unannounced and uninvited, straight into a war zone. After some initial wrangling with the Army, and with the help of a sympathetic colonel, a squad of volunteers flew him by helicopter to As Samawah.

Butler walked to the spot where Jake was shot, aided by pictures taken by Velasco and other members of the 1/41. As Iraqis stood around them in clumps, he produced a compact-disc player and cued Jake's favorite tune, "Imagine" by John Lennon.

When the piano notes finally faded in the afternoon heat, Butler ejected the disc, flung it into the Euphrates and left for home.

A Posthumous Medal

Jim and Cindy Butler visit the grave of their son Jake on the ninth anniversary of his death in Iraq. (Steve Hebert for ProPublica)Jake Butler was the first soldier from Kansas to die in the war.

To verify this account of his death from Velasco and others, ProPublica sought Army records. Despite multiple oral requests and four Freedom of Information Act filings, neither the Army nor Central Command in Iraq produced field records or a casualty report from the time his unit was in Iraq.

It now appears that no records from Butler's battalion, or even his division, exist for the invasion, based on a search for field records by Army history detachments. And according to a spokeswoman for Fort Riley, the 1st Armored Division turned in no records from Iraq before being moved in 2008 to Fort Bliss, Texas.

In September 2003, the Butlers were told that Jake had been posthumously awarded a Silver Star, the third-highest award for valor in combat. The family received it from an Army colonel during Wellsville Days in their hometown, where Jim and Cindy had been named grand marshals by the town.

The citation that accompanied the award contains the most detailed official information available about how Jake died. Yet, Jim Butler said the Army never provided it, and that he hadn't seen it until ProPublica obtained a copy this year and showed it to him.

"Due to his actions, the scout mission was successful and resulted in a successful assault two days later across the very bridge that he died to gather information on," the citation reads. "Sgt. Butler gave the ultimate sacrifice by giving his life for his country, but far greater than that, he died showing the greatest love a soldier can show, by laying his life down for his friends."

Velasco said he believes Butler died instantly. No one realized it at the time, but a bullet had hit him in front of his right ear as the Humvees fled.

Nine years later, Jim Butler has taken on a new task — writing a book to tell his son's story. He drives his son's pickup, emblazoned with Jake's photo in the rear window in front of a U.S. flag. Every year on April 1, he and his wife visit the grave at the Wellsville town cemetery.

He is satisfied with what he knows about Jake's last minutes. Butler just wants to move on.

"I got a pretty good picture now," he said. "No thanks to the Army."

Steve Hebert contributed to this story.


 Peter Sleeth is a veteran investigative reporter who covered the Iraq war for The Oregonian and helped the paper win a Pulitzer Prize in 2007 for breaking news. Now freelancing, his most recent piece for the Oregon Historical Quarterly is a profile of progressive-era activist Tom Burns.

Lost to History: Missing War Records Complicate Benefit Claims by Iraq, Afghanistan Veterans

$
0
0

A strange thing happened when Christopher DeLara filed for disability benefits after his tour in Iraq: The U.S. Army said it had no records showing he had ever been overseas.

DeLara had searing memories of his combat experiences. A friend bled to death before his eyes. He saw an insurgent shoot his commander in the head. And, most hauntingly, he recalled firing at an Iraqi boy who had attacked his convoy.

The Army said it could find no field records documenting any of these incidents.

Part Two:A Son Lost in Iraq, but Where Is the Casualty Report?

For more on the story behind the story, read How This Story Came About.

PubNotes

Over the last decade, millions of military field records from Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost or destroyed, making it difficult for some soldiers to prove their combat experiences and obtain medical benefits or other veteran awards and services. Our reporting found a few reasons behind the problem:

System failure: In a string of critical reports, historians said Army units were losing their own history by failing to keep adequate field records. The U.S. military began relying on computer records during the Gulf War, introducing major gaps in recordkeeping as the old-style paper system fell apart. The Army then introduced a centralized system for collecting electronic field reports, but units have failed to submit records there.

Security concerns: Some military commanders ordered units to purge computer hard drives before redeploying to the United States, destroying any classified field records they contained.

Leadership: Disagreements among military officials have also led to lack of coordination in record-keeping. “The Army would say it’s Centcom’s responsibility... Centcom would say it’s an Army responsibility,” said one Archivist. Recordkeeping took a backseat to wartime demands: “Something just had to fall off the plate, there was so much going on,” a former Centcom records manager said.

» Are you a veteran who can't obtain your military field records? Tell us your story.

DeLara appealed, fighting for five years before a judge accepted the testimony of an officer in his unit. By then he had divorced, was briefly homeless and had sought solace in drugs and alcohol.

DeLara's case is part of a much larger problem that has plagued the U.S. military since the 1990 Gulf War: a failure to create and maintain the types of field records that have documented American conflicts since the Revolutionary War.

A joint investigation by ProPublica and The Seattle Times has found that the recordkeeping breakdown was especially acute in the early years of the Iraq war, when insurgents deployed improvised bombs with devastating effects on U.S. soldiers. The military has also lost or destroyed records from Afghanistan, according to officials and previously undisclosed documents.

The loss of field records — after-action write-ups, intelligence reports and other day-to-day accounts from the war zones — has far-reaching implications. It has complicated efforts by soldiers like DeLara to claim benefits. And it makes it harder for military strategists to learn the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, two of the nation's most protracted wars.

Military officers and historians say field records provide the granular details that, when woven together, tell larger stories hidden from participants in the day-to-day confusion of combat.

The Army says it has taken steps to improve handling of records — including better training and more emphasis from top commanders. But officials familiar with the problem said the missing material may never be retrieved.

"I can't even start to describe the dimensions of the problem," said Conrad C. Crane, director of the U.S. Army's Military History Institute. "I fear we're never really going to know clearly what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan because we don't have the records."

The Army, with its dominant presence in both theaters, has the biggest deficiencies. But the U.S. Central Command in Iraq (Centcom), which had overall authority, also lost records, according to reports and other documents obtained by ProPublica under the Freedom of Information Act.

In Baghdad, Centcom and the Army disagreed about which was responsible for keeping records. There was confusion about whether classified field records could be transported back to the units' headquarters in the United States. As a result, some units were instructed to erase computer hard drives when they rotated home, destroying the records that had been stored on them.

Through 2008, dozens of Army units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan either had no field records or lacked sufficient reports for a unit history, according to Army summaries obtained by ProPublica. DeLara's outfit, the 1st Cavalry Division, was among the units lacking adequate records during his 2004 to 2005 deployment.

Recordkeeping was so poor in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2007 that "very few Operation ENDURING FREEDOM records were saved anywhere, either for historians' use, or for the services' documentary needs for unit heritage, or for the increasing challenge with documenting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)," according to an Army report from 2009.

Entire brigades deployed from 2003 to 2008 could not produce any field records, documents from the U.S. Army Center of Military History show.

The Pentagon was put on notice as early as 2005 that Army units weren't turning in records for storage to a central computer system created after a similar recordkeeping debacle in the 1990-91 Gulf War.

In that war, a lack of field records forced the Army to spend years and millions of dollars to reconstruct the locations of troops who may have been exposed to toxic plumes that were among the suspected causes of Gulf War Syndrome.

At the outset of the Iraq war, military commanders tried to avoid repeating that mistake, ordering units to preserve all historical records.

But the Army botched the job. Despite new guidelines issued in 2008 to safeguard records, some units still purged them. The next summer, the Washington National Guard's 81st Brigade Combat Team in Iraq was ordered to erase hard drives before leaving them for replacement troops to use, said a Guard spokesman, Capt. Keith Kosik.

Historians had complained about lax recordkeeping for years with little result.

"We were just on our knees begging for the Army to do something about it," said Dr. Reina Pennington, a Professor at Norwich University in Vermont who chaired the Army's Historical Advisory Committee. "It's the kind of thing that everyone nods about and agrees it's a problem but doesn't do anything about."

Critical reports from Pennington's committee went up to three different secretaries of the Army, including John McHugh, the current secretary. McHugh's office did not respond to interview requests. His predecessor, Peter Geren, said he was never told about the extent of the problem.

"I'm disappointed I didn't know about it," Geren said.

In an initial response to questions from ProPublica and the Times, the Army did not acknowledge that any field reports had been lost or destroyed. In a subsequent email, Maj. Christopher Kasker, an Army spokesman, said, "The matter of records management is of great concern to the Army; it is an issue we have acknowledged and are working to correct and improve."

Missing field records aren't necessarily an obstacle for benefit claims. The Department of Veterans Affairs also looks for medical and personnel records, which can be enough. The VA has also relaxed rules for proving post-traumatic stress to reduce the need for the detailed documentation of field reports.

But even the VA concedes that unit records are helpful. And assembling a disability case from witness statements can take much more time, said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the retired Army vice chief of staff who worked to combat suicides and improve treatment of soldiers with PTSD and brain injuries.

"You would always love to have that operational record available to document an explosion, but there are other ways," Chiarelli said. "You can provide witness statements from others who were in that explosion. But it's going to be more difficult."

After reviewing findings of the ProPublica-Times investigation, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to report on efforts to find and collect field records.

"Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are unable to document the location and functions of their military units could face the same type of problems experienced by Cold War veterans exposed to radiation, Vietnam era veterans exposed to herbicides and Gulf War veterans exposed to various environmental hazards," Murray said in a statement.

Former Secretary of the Army Peter Geren told ProPublica that he was never told about the extent of the problem of missing war records. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Former Secretary of the Army Peter Geren told ProPublica that he was never told about the extent of the problem of missing war records. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Already, thousands of veterans have reported respiratory problems and other health effects after exposure to toxic fumes from huge burn pits that were commonly used to dispose of garbage in Iraq and Afghanistan.

DeLara remains embittered about the five years he spent waiting for his disability claim. In an interview at his home in Tennessee, he pointed to Army discharge papers showing he'd received the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, awarded for service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Next to that were blank spaces where his deployment dates should have been.

"If they'd had the records in the first place, and all the after-action reports," DeLara said, "this never would have stretched on as long as it did."

A Desperate Search for Records

The Army is required to produce records of its actions in war. Today, most units keep them on computers, and a 4,000-soldier brigade can churn out impressive volumes — roughly 500 gigabytes in a yearlong tour, or the digital equivalent of 445 books, each 200 pages long.

Field records include reports about fighting, casualties, intelligence activities, prisoners, battle damage and more, complete with pictures and maps. They do not include personnel or medical records, which are kept separately, or "sigact" reports — short daily dispatches on significant activities, some of which were provided to news organizations by WikiLeaks in 2010.

By mid-2007, amid alarms from historians that combat units weren't turning in records after their deployments, the Army launched an effort to collect and inventory what it could find.

Army historians were dispatched on a base-by-base search worldwide. A summary of their findings shows that at least 15 brigades serving in the Iraq war at various times from 2003 to 2008 had no records on hand. The same was true for at least five brigades deployed to Afghanistan.

Records were so scarce for another 62 units that served in Iraq and 10 in Afghanistan that they were written up as "some records, but not enough to write an adequate Army history." This group included most of the units deployed during the first four years of the Afghanistan war.

The outreach effort by the Army was highly unusual. "We were sending people to where they were being demobilized," said Robert J. Dalessandro, executive director at the Army's Center of Military History. "We even said ... 'Look we'll come to you' — that's how desperate we got."

As word of missing records circulated, the Joint Chiefs of Staff became worried enough to order a top-level delegation of records managers from each service branch to Baghdad in April 2010 for an inspection that included recordkeeping by U.S. Central Command.

Centcom coordinated action among service branches in the theater. Among other things, Centcom's records included Pentagon orders, joint-service actions, fratricide investigations and intelligence reviews, with some records from Army units occasionally captured in the mix.

After five days, the team concluded that the "volume, location, size and format of USF-1 records was unknown," referring to the acronym for combined Iraq forces. The team's report to the chiefs cited "large gaps in records collections ... the failure to capture significant operational and historical" materials and a "poorly managed" effort to preserve records that were on hand.

In a separate, more detailed memo, two of the team's members from the National Archives and Records Administration went further.

"With the exception of the Army Corps of Engineers, none of the offices visited have responsibly managed their records," they wrote. "Staff reported knowledge of only the recently created and filed records and knew little of the records created prior to their deployments, including email. ... It is unclear the extent to which records exist prior to 2006."

Part of the problem was disagreement and lack of coordination about who was responsible for certain records, including investigations into casualties and accidents, according to Michael Carlson, one of the two archivists.

"The Army would say it's Centcom's responsibility to capture after-action reports because it's a Centcom-led operation. Centcom would say it's an Army responsibility because they created their own records," Carlson said in an interview. "So there's finger-pointing ... and thus records are lost."

Nearly a year after the U.S. pullout from Iraq, Centcom said it still is trying to index 47 terabytes of records for storage, or some 54 million pages of documents. It's not clear if those include anything recovered after a 2008 computer crash the Baghdad team termed "catastrophic."

Lt. Col. Donald Walker, an Air Force officer who took over as Centcom records manager in 2009, acknowledged that there was confusion about responsibility and confirmed that that some Centcom records may have been lost. In part, he blamed computer problems and the competing demands of wartime.

"Something just had to fall off the plate, there was so much going on," said Walker, who worked out of Centcom's Tampa, Fla., headquarters but was among the Baghdad inspectors.

Rather than risk letting classified information fall into the wrong hands, some commanders appeared to buck the orders to preserve records. One Army presentation asserts that in 2005, V Corps, which oversaw all Army units then in Iraq, ordered units to wipe hard drives clean or physically destroy them before redeploying to the States.

"They did not maintain the electronic files. They just purged the servers," according to the Military History Institute's Crane, who said he heard similar accounts from more than a dozen veteran officers in classes at the Army War College.

The orders directing Washington National Guard's 81st Brigade to erase hard drives before leaving Iraq came "from on high," according to unit spokesman Kosik, who said he confirmed the erasures with a senior Guard officer with first-hand knowledge. He said the orders came from outside the Washington Guard.

"There was a lot of confidential information, and they were not allowed to take it out of theater," said Kosik. "All that was wiped clean before they came home. ... It was part of their 'to-do' list before leaving country."

Steven A. Raho III, the Army's top records manager, said in an interview that he couldn't estimate what, if any, records might be missing. But Raho said his agency wasn't responsible for collecting records, only for storing them in the Army's central records system when individual units handed them over.

Units are not required to do so, he emphasized. "All's I know is we have some and units have some," Raho said.

As a test, ProPublica filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for a month's worth of field records from four units deployed in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. The requests went to Raho's Records Management and Declassification Agency, which forwarded them to each unit.

One brigade — the 2nd Combat Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division — did not respond, but FOIA officers from the three others said they searched and could find no responsive records.

"I don't know where any Iraq operational records are," said Daniel C. Smith, a privacy act officer at Fort Carson, Colo., who handled the request for the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division. "I've never been able to find out where they went."

At Fort Riley, Kan., FOIA officer Tuanna Jeffery looked for records from the 1st Battalion, 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division. "Prior to and upon the inactivation of the unit on March 15, 2008, that unit had turned in absolutely no records," she responded.

In a follow-up email, Jeffery said the entire 1st Armored Division did not turn in any field records through 2008.

'They Couldn't Find It'

Army veteran Christopher DeLara spent five years waiting for his disability claim to be approved. The VA said it couldn’t find Army records to corroborate his combat experiences. (Shawn Poynter for ProPublica)

Army veteran Christopher DeLara spent five years waiting for his disability claim to be approved. The VA said it couldn’t find Army records to corroborate his combat experiences. (Shawn Poynter for ProPublica)

Chris DeLara is not the type of soldier to wear his heart on his sleeve, but the 1st Cavalry Division's shoulder patch is tattooed on his right forearm in a swirling piece of body art. Beneath it are the words: "Baghdad, Iraq."

DeLara, 38, grew up in Albany, N.Y., never dreaming he might someday fight a war. Now, his tour in 2004 and 2005 haunts his every day. Since winning his appeal in March 2011, he is classified as fully disabled by post-traumatic stress and cannot work. He was awarded a stipend of about $30,000 a year and has moved near Knoxville, Tenn., where he recently bought a modest house.

Getting to a stable point wasn't easy.

DeLara was an administrative specialist, essentially a personnel clerk. But he was repeatedly pulled out of his scrivener's life for missions as a roof gunner on convoys. It was a time of insurgency and exploding factional violence in Baghdad.

"They told us, 'This may be your job, but guess what? You're going to be doing everything,'" he said. "We had many hats. You go to combat, your job is secondary. Combat is first."

DeLara did not want to discuss his combat experiences, but they are described in part by a judge in the Board of Veterans' Appeals ruling that approved his PTSD claim.

In the years after his deployment, DeLara told psychiatrists and others who treated him at various times that two of his friends were killed in an insurgent attack on his convoy, and that he was unable to stop one of them from bleeding to death from a ruptured artery.

He said that one his commanders was shot in the head in front of him by insurgents, and reported that he had killed an Iraqi youth who had tried to attack his convoy after it was stopped because of a roadside bomb, according to the judge's summary.

After his return in 2005, DeLara was diagnosed several times with PTSD or its symptoms, according to VA exam records cited by the appeals judge. He drank and used drugs even though he'd abstained from them in the Army. In 2006, he overdosed on prescription drugs.

DeLara said he lived for a time in a shelter for troubled vets. He and his wife eventually divorced, but he credits her for helping him fight for his claim when he might have given up.

They first applied for a PTSD benefit in 2006, DeLara said. A denial came the next year because his separation document, called a DD-214, did not list any dates of overseas deployment, he said.

"They couldn't find it. Well my ex-wife, she being as persistent as she is, we started pulling all the stuff" to send to the VA, he said. DeLara dug out the movement order sending his unit to Iraq and the brigade roster with his name on it. He added descriptions of his combat experiences. "Basically what it was, I needed to provide proof," he said.

But he was denied again, this time because the VA said his symptoms were of bipolar disorder, not PTSD. DeLara said he appealed but got a letter saying there was insufficient evidence that he'd experienced combat stress. The VA told him that it had "no records, none whatsoever" of his time in combat, DeLara said.

"We basically put the whole packet together from scratch again," DeLara said. This time, he tracked down his former company commander, who was incensed about the VA denials and provided a letter confirming an incident in which DeLara came under enemy fire. Still, two years went by before DeLara received word that his appeal was set for a hearing in January 2011.

Although the judge found in his favor, the ruling notes that, in June 2008, the center responsible for locating his records "made a formal finding of a lack of information to corroborate a stressor for service connection for PTSD." The center even looked a second time but still came up empty-handed.

DeLara said he still can't believe it. "I had dates and everything" in the supporting material he and his ex-wife sent to the VA, he said. "The simple fact is that nobody filled out after-action reports," DeLara said. "There was no record of it."

Asked how often a search for unit records comes up empty, officials at the VA said they didn't know — the agency doesn't track that statistic. A VA spokesperson said missing field records are not a major factor delaying veterans' claims, however. And some veterans' advocates agree.

"As long as an officer or a buddy who witnessed the event is willing to sign a notarized statement, that's good," said John Waterbrook, who advises vets on disability issues in Walla Walla, Wash.

In 2009, as DeLara was refiling his case, veterans' groups complained to Congress that soldiers serving as clerks or mechanics unfairly faced a higher burden of proof for PTSD than those with an obvious combat role, even though they faced the same dangers in wars with no front lines.

The VA relaxed its rules the next year, so that a vet's account of combat stress is proof enough if a VA medical examiner agrees. But while the change helps, it hasn't sped up claims or made field records less valuable, said Richard Dumancas, the American Legion's deputy director of claims.

Field records can come into play for other injuries. Take the case of Chief Warrant Officer 3 Lorenzo Campbell, a 53-year-old soldier with the Washington Guard who filed a disability claim resulting from a 2004 injury in Iraq.

During a rocket attack, Campbell banged his knee on a concrete bumper after jumping out of a Humvee to find cover. He saw a doctor, but there was no record in his medical files. His knee gradually deteriorated, and he now wears a brace and is unable to run.

Campbell said he tried to get records of the rocket attack from the state Guard but was told they were classified and left on computers in Iraq. He said he offered a letter from another soldier testifying to the incident and swore out a statement himself, but it didn't suffice.

"I tried to keep fighting it," he said. "They kept writing me saying they need more information, they need more information."

Campbell said his disability claim took four years to be approved — a delay that could have been shortened had the records been available. "If you have no records," he said, "you can be fighting for five or six years and still not prevail."

Tradition Eroded, Warnings Brushed Aside

Military recordkeeping has been the cornerstone of the nation's war history for centuries. From the founding of the republic through the Vietnam War, recordkeeping was a disciplined part of military life, one that ensured that detailed accounts of the fighting were available to historians and veterans alike.

The records can hold untold stories that can surface decades after a conflict.

The massacre of civilians by U.S. forces at No Gun Ri, South Korea, in July 1950 came to full national attention only in 1999, nearly 50 years after the fact. Journalists at The Associated Press, working in part with military field records, uncovered the extent of the tragedy. Later, other reporters used the records to show that one purported witness wasn't really present.

By the Gulf War, however, what had been a long tradition of keeping accurate, comprehensive field records had begun to erode. Old-style paper recordkeeping was giving way to computers. And Army clerks had been reduced in number, leaving officers to take care of records work.

According to the Army's "Commander's Guide to Operational Records and Data Collection," published in 2009, the problem became evident months after the end of Desert Storm, when vets began reporting fatigue, skin disease, weight loss and other unexplained health conditions.

"When the Army began investigating this rash of symptoms, its first thought was to try and establish a pattern of those affected: What units were they in? Where were they located? What operations were they engaged in?" the guide says. "The answers provided by investigators were: 'We don't know. We didn't keep our records.'"

When Secretary of the Army John McHugh arrived in 2009, he received a report saying that the recordkeeping system was broken and pleading for resources to fix it. In an email, the Army said that it is 'working to correct and improve' records management. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

When Secretary of the Army John McHugh arrived in 2009, he received a report saying that the recordkeeping system was broken and pleading for resources to fix it. In an email, the Army said that it is 'working to correct and improve' records management. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Afterward, the Army created Raho's records agency and a central records system. As the war on terror began, however, inspections and penalties for recordkeeping at the command level had largely fallen by the wayside, according to Army documents and interviews with officers who helped search for Gulf War records.

Robert Wright, a retired Army historian, said training broke down. "They fight as they train, and they never were trained," he said.

On March 28, 2003, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ordered retention of all records in the Iraq war. Military records, he wrote, "are of enduring significance for U.S. and world history and have been indispensable for rendering complete, accurate and objective accountings of the government's activities to the American people."

But in the combat zones, there were other priorities.

Kelly Howard served as operations officer to Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who was in charge of the Iraq war from 2004 to 2007. Her primary job was archiving Casey's papers, a task that had been ignored until her arrival in 2006. Casey stored them in a foot locker, among other places.

"The reason so many things got lost ... is because so many people at higher levels weren't requiring it," Howard said, referring to systematic recordkeeping. "You do what your boss wants you to do. It's not that anyone said, 'No, I don't care about that.' It's just so many other things were important."

Alarms mounted at about the same time as DeLara finished his Baghdad tour.

In 2005, the Army's Historical Advisory Committee learned that Raho's agency had not "received any records from units deployed in Afghanistan & Iraq."

This came as a shock. Members of the group include a mix of civilian historians and officials from the Army War College and Center of Military History.

"So we go through the whole meeting," said Richard Davis, senior historian at the National Museum of the U.S. Army. "So I ask the records manager point blank. I said, 'How many records have been retired from overseas by U.S. Army units?' And the answer was zero.

"By late October the records management people here in Washington had received not a single document from Afghanistan or Iraq," Davis said. "At that point all the historians looked at each other and said 'Holy shit! '"

Minutes from the committee's 2006 meeting quote Raho as saying, "Our problems are that the training for Army personnel is incomplete, the responses are uneven, and the records themselves are either incomplete or nonexistent."

Another member suggested writing a book. "As an institutional history, I think it's a great idea," responded historian Pennington, then the committee's chairwoman. "'Losing History': It's a topic that merits visibility and study."

The committee included regular warnings about a broken recordkeeping system in its annual reports to the secretary of the Army.

The 2006 report to Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Raho had described "major problems" in records collection, including "the lack of centralized control of data collection, the destruction of records without evaluation, and inadequate communications between Army units and records collection personnel."

Raho, the report said, "observed that 17 to 23 percent of all Iraq/Afghanistan War veterans will suffer from various forms of PTSD. ... Without strong and immediate action to remedy present shortcomings, the Army's ability to substantiate veteran disability claims will be degraded seriously, with potentially highly troublesome and expensive consequences."

In its 2008 report, the committee said: "Units are losing their own history. This will create a snowball effect, resulting in problems with awards and heritage activities in the future."

Pennington signed the report, adding a personal comment: "After six years of service on DAHAC, and now as its chair, I am frankly discouraged by the frequency with which DAHAC has expressed some of the same concerns, and how little progress has been made on some issues."

Then-Secretary Geren's office responded with a thank-you letter under his signature. But Geren said in an interview that he was not personally informed about missing records, despite his March 31, 2009, letter. "I'm confident it was not brought to my attention."

When McHugh, the current secretary, arrived in 2009, he received a committee report reiterating that the system was broken and pleading for resources to fix it. "This has been requested every year since 1997," the report said.

"It's probably the most serious problem historians have ever had," Pennington said in an interview. "I honestly don't know how we're going to be writing records-based history in 20 to 30 years." Typically, field records remain classified for two to three decades after a war, then are transferred to the National Archives.

Although committee members felt unheard, wheels had slowly begun moving in the Army. In 2007, Raho's agency and the Center of Military History launched the outreach project that discovered the historians were right: Scores of units did not have the records they should.

Because Raho did not have enough staff, the Center of Military History provided detachments for the search. For more than two years they collected field reports, turning up about 5.5 terabytes' worth.

Some additional records have dribbled in since: Dalessandro, the center's director, said one brigade of the 1st Armored Division handed over field records from its 2007 Iraq deployment. It's possible that more might be found from other units, but historians say the chances fade with each year.

Burn Pits: The New Agent Orange?

The demand for the field records isn't likely to abate as members of Congress ratchet up pressure to investigate exposure to burn pits.

Veterans' groups say the long-term health impacts could be similar to those of herbicides in Vietnam. Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine, ranking Democrat on the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health, said missing field records "could have consequences for veterans for years to come."

In September, the House passed the Open Burn Pit Registry Act to track veterans with symptoms and find out where they were exposed and for how long. A similar measure is pending in the Senate. The VA currently runs registries for Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome, and last year the Institute of Medicine said more research is needed.

Some veterans' advocates say field records could provide critical.

"It's going to be very hard to connect individuals without the field records," said Dan Sullivan, director of the Sgt. Thomas Sullivan Center, a nonprofit named after his brother, an Iraq vet who died from mysterious health complications.

"It would strike me that they are very important."

Are you a veteran who can't obtain your military field records? Tell us your story


Versions of this story will be published by The Seattle Times and Stars and Stripes.

 Peter Sleeth is a veteran investigative reporter who covered the Iraq war for The Oregonian and helped the paper win a Pulitzer Prize in 2007 for breaking news. Now freelancing, his most recent piece for the Oregon Historical Quarterly is a profile of progressive-era activist Tom Burns.

 Hal Bernton has been a staff reporter for The Seattle Times since 2000. He has covered military and veterans affairs, reporting from Iraq in 2003 and from Afghanistan in 2009 and this fall. Among other things, Bernton has reported on veterans' health issues, post-traumatic stress and, recently, improvised explosive devices.

ProPublica's Marshall Allen, Liz Day and Kirsten Berg contributed to this story.

Outside Groups Dominated Las Vegas Airwaves in 2012 Campaign

$
0
0

Dark money groups that don’t have to disclose their donors spent hundreds of millions in this election cycle. And now we’ve got a better idea of the extent of their spending in one crucial swing state advertising market.

As the final hours of the campaign ticked away, we challenged ProPublica readers to help us “free the files” in Las Vegas, which aired more political ads this election cycle than any other market in the country. The results indicate a leading conservative dark-money group and its affiliated super PAC spent more than $9 million on television advertising in Las Vegas during the election— one in every five ad dollars spent in the market.

The two groups — Crossroads GPS, a “social-welfare nonprofit” started by Karl Rove in 2010, and American Crossroads, a super PAC that is closely aligned with it — bought far more ads than other independent groups in Las Vegas. Together, they spent nearly as much as President Obama and Mitt Romney’s campaigns combined. 

The statistics come from a ProPublica analysis of more than 800 ad contracts from the Las Vegas market obtained as part of our Free the Files project. While not comprehensive, the data includes most of the contracts for political ads broadcast on Las Vegas’s ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX affiliates in the last months of the campaign. The Vegas ad buys, which encompass spending on everything from the presidential campaigns down to House of Representatives races and even the Clark County District Court election, totaled more than $47 million.

While it was known that Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads were spending big in the election — they were expected to fork out at least $300 million in total — the Free the Files data on Las Vegas sheds light on the extent to which the two groups were able to dominate the air wars in key battleground advertising markets.

All told, six groups that do not disclose their donors —American Action Network, American Future Fund, Americans for Prosperity, the Center for Individual Freedom, Crossroads GPS and the Republican Jewish Coalition— accounted for at least 21 percent of the spending we tracked in Las Vegas. All of them support conservative candidates. Crossroads GPS alone spent more than $6 million. (A liberal dark money group, Patriot Majority USA, also bought airtime, but many of the ad contracts failed to distinguish its ad buys from those of Patriot Majority PAC, a super PAC that is affiliated with the group, making it hard to track the groups’ spending.)

Five super PACs accounted for another 13 percent of the spending. They included Restore Our Future, the Romney-supporting super PAC; Priorities USA Action, which supported Obama; House Majority PAC and Senate Majority PAC, which supported Democratic candidates for Congress; and American Crossroads.

Whether all the spending swayed the races in Nevada is an open question. Both liberal and conservative groups spent heavily, and the election results were mixed: Obama won Nevada with 52 percent of the vote, but Dean Heller, a Republican, came out on top in the Senate race. Joe Heck, a Republican, snagged one of the state’s two competitive House seats, but Steven Horsford, a Democrat, took the other.

The $47 million spent in Las Vegas represents a tiny fraction of the estimated $6 billion spent in races around the country this election cycle. But it’s a detailed look at the epicenter of ad buys this election. KSNV, the city’s NBC affiliate, broadcasted more political ads than any other station in the country, according to Kantar Media; KTNV, the ABC affiliate, broadcasted the fifth most.

Several factors combined to make Vegas the country’s political-advertising capital, said Elizabeth Wilner, who works in Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. Nevada is one of an ever-smaller slate of battleground states, and Las Vegas is by far its biggest market.

Airtime is also relatively cheap in Vegas; campaigns can buy more ads for the same amount of money than they could in Denver or Miami.

But the Free the Files data also underscores the central role played by groups that didn’t exist in the last presidential election, including Crossroads GPS and American Crossroads. Lisa Howfield, KSNV’s general manager, said her station’s political advertising revenue was up 242 percent compared with 2008.

Everything We Know (So Far) About Obama’s Big Data Tactics

$
0
0

For the past nine months, we’ve been following how political campaigns use data about voters to target them in different ways. During the election, the Obama campaign, which had assembled a cutting-edge team of data scientists, developers, and digital advertising experts, refused to say anything about how it was targeting voters.

Now, members of the campaign are starting to open up about what their team actually did with all that data. Based on our own interviews with campaign officials, as well as reporting elsewhere, here’s an overview of some of the campaign’s key strategies, from connecting Facebook data to the national list of registered voters, to measuring how “persuadable” individual swing state voters might be.

Here’s what the nerds did.

What data did they use—and were they tracking you across the web?

It’s still not clear.

Chief Innovation and Integration Officer Michael Slaby and other campaign officials said again that they relied less on consumer data, and more on public voting records and the responses that voters provided directly to campaign canvassers. They would not comment on exactly what data the campaign collected about individual people.

Officials within the campaign said media reports had overemphasized the importance of online web cookie data to track voters across the web.

Slaby said the campaign primarily used web cookies to serve ads to people who had visited the campaign site — a tactic called “retargeting,” which Mitt Romney’s campaign also used.

The campaign also told us web cookies were useful for helping them analyze whether volunteers were actually reading the online training materials the campaign had prepared for them. (They didn’t track this on a volunteer-by-volunteer basis.)

The backbone of the campaign’s effort was a database on registered voters compiled by the Democratic National Committee. It was updated weekly with new public records from state level election officials, one official said.

The campaign then added its own voter data to the mix. Officials wouldn’t say exactly what information they added.

How important was the data the campaign could access through its Facebook app about volunteers and their friends?

Observers noted that in the last days of the campaign, Obama supporters who used the campaign’s Facebook app received emails with the names and profile photos of friends in swing states. The e-mails urged supporters to contact their friends and encourage them to vote.

It wasn’t clear how well the effort went or what the response was. Some people had been encouraged to ask their Republican friends to vote. A Romney official who had signed up for the campaign’s e-mail list was told to contact his Facebook friend Eric Cantor, the Republican House Majority Leader.

What we now know is that the campaign did in fact try to match Facebook profile to people’s voting records. So if you got a message encouraging you to contact a friend in Ohio, the campaign may have targeted that friend based on their public voting record and other information the campaign had.

But the matching process was far from perfect, in part because the information the campaign could access about volunteers’ friends was limited.

Were privacy concerns about the campaign’s data collection justified?

We’ve reported on some of the concerns about the amount of data the campaign has amassed on individual voters.

Were those concerns at all justified? It’s hard to say right now, since we still don’t know where the campaign drew the line about what data they would and would not use.

Obama officials did dismiss the idea that the campaign cared about voters’ porn habits.

The analytics team estimated how “persuadable” voters are. What does that mean?

It all came down to four numbers.

The Obama campaign had a list of every registered voter in the battleground states. The job of the campaign’s much-heralded data scientists was to use the information they had amassed to determine which voters the campaign should target— and what each voter needed to hear.

They needed to go a little deeper than targeting “waitress moms.”

“White suburban women? They’re not all the same. The Latino community is very diverse with very different interests,” Dan Wagner, the campaign’s chief analytics officer, told The Los Angeles Times. “What the data permits you to do is figure out that diversity.”

What Obama’s data scientists produced was a set of four individual estimates for each swing state voter’s behavior. These four numbers were included in the campaign’s voter database, and each score, typically on a scale of 1 to 100, predicted a different element of how that voter was likely to behave.

Two of the numbers calculated voters’ likelihood of supporting Obama, and of actually showing up to the polls. These estimates had been used in 2008. But the analysts also used data about individual voters to make new, more complicated predictions.

If a voter supported Obama, but didn’t vote regularly, how likely was he or she to respond to the campaign’s reminders to get to the polls?

The final estimate was the one that had proved most elusive to earlier campaigns—and that may be most influential in the future. If voters were not strong Obama supporters, how likely was it that a conversation about a particular issue — like Obamacare or the Buffett rule—could persuade them to change their minds?

Slaby said that there was early evidence that the campaign’s estimate of how “persuadable” voters would be on certain issues had actually worked.

“This is very much a competitive advantage for us,” he said.

Wagner began working on persuasion targeting during the 2010 campaign, Slaby said — giving the campaign a long time to perfect their estimates.

Did everyone on the campaign have access to these scores?

No.

Campaign volunteers were not given access to these individual scores, one official said. “Oh, my neighbor Lucy is a 67 and her husband is a 72—we would probably consider that a distraction.”

Do other political campaigns also assign me a set of numerical scores?

Yes.

The use of microtargeting scores — a tactic from the commercial world — is a standard part of campaign data efforts, and one that has been well documented before.

In his book exploring the rise of experimentally focused campaigns, Sasha Issenberg compares microtargeting scores to credit scores for the political world.

In 2008, the Obama campaign ranked voters’ likely support of the senator from Illinois using a 1 to 100 scale. This year, The Guardian reported, Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group backed by the Koch brothers, ranked some swing state voters on a scale from 0 to 1, with 0 being “so leftwing and pro-government” that they are “not worth bothering with,” and 1 being “already so in favour of tax and spending cuts that to talk to them would be preaching to the converted.”

What’s different about what Obama’s data scientists did?

Obama campaign’s persuadability score tried to capture not just a voter’s current opinion, but how that individual opinion was likely to change after interactions with the campaign. Most importantly, Obama’s analysts did not assume that voters who said they were “undecided” were necessarily persuadable—a mistake campaigns have made in the past, according to targeting experts.

“Undecided is just a big lump,” said Daniel Kreiss, who wrote a book on the evolution of Democratic “networked” politics from Howard Dean through the 2008 Obama campaign.

Voters who call themselves “undecided” might actually be strong partisans who are unwilling to share their views—or simply people who are disengaged.

“Someone who is undecided and potentially not very persuadable, you might spend all the time in the world talking to that person, and their mind doesn’t change. They stay undecided,” Slaby said.

To pinpoint voters who might actually change their minds, the Obama campaign conducted randomized experiments, Slaby said. Voters received phone calls in which they were asked to rate their support for the president, and then engaged in a conversation about different policy issues. At the end of the conversation, they were asked to rate their support for the president again. Using the results of these experiments, combined with detailed demographic information about individual voters, the campaign was able to pinpoint both what kinds of voters had been persuaded to support the president, and which issues had persuaded them.

Avi Feller, a graduate student in statistics at Harvard who has worked on this kind of modeling, compared it to medical research.

“The statistics of drug trials are very similar to the statistics of experiments in campaigns,” he said. “I have some cancer drug, and I know it works well on some people—for whom is the cancer drug more or less effective?”

“Campaigns have always been about trying to persuade people. What’s new here is we’ve spent the time and energy to go through this randomization process,” Slaby said.

Issenberg reported that Democratic strategists have been experimenting with persuasion targeting since 2010, and that the Analyst Institute, an organization devoted to improving Democratic campaign tactics through experimentation, had played a key role in its development.

Slaby said the Obama campaign’s persuasion strategy built on these efforts, but at greater scale.

Aaron Strauss, the targeting director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement that the DCCC was also running a persuasion targeting program this year using randomized experiments as part of its work on congressional races.

What were the persuasion scores good for—and how well did they work?

The persuasion scores allowed the campaign to focus its outreach efforts—and their volunteer phone calls—on voters who might actually change their minds as the result. It also guided them in what policy messages individual voters should hear.

Slaby said the campaign had some initial data suggesting that the persuasion score had been effective—but that the campaign was still working on an in-depth analysis of which of its individual tactics actually worked.

But a successful“persuasion” phone call may not change a voter’s mind forever—just like a single drug dose will not be effective forever.

One official with knowledge of the campaign’s data operation said that the campaign’s experiments also tested how long the “persuasion” effect lasted after the initial phone conversation—and found that it was only about three weeks.

“There is no generic conclusion to draw from this experimentation that persuasion via phone only lasts a certain amount of time,” Slaby said. “Any durability effects we saw were specific to this electorate and this race.”

Mapping Segregation in Westchester

$
0
0

It is one of the most common arguments used to justify federal inaction in pushing communities that get government housing dollars to become more racially diverse: Class, not race, determines where people live, the argument goes. African Americans and Latinos are poorer than white Americans, and therefore, cannot afford to live in whiter, wealthier areas.

ProPublica evaluated race and income data for Westchester County – the affluent New York City suburb under a federal desegregation order– to determine whether income alone accounts for the high degree of racial segregation experienced by African Americans there.

In one half of the split map, we show the current distribution of African Americans in Westchester. In the other, we show the expected distribution of African Americans if black households lived in areas with white households of the same income.

The differences are striking. If income were the only determinant, and black residents settled wherever they could afford, Westchester would look dramatically different. Areas such as Yonkers and Mount Vernon where African Americans are heavily concentrated would be a lot less black. More affluent places such as Eastchester, Scarsdale and Bronxville, now overwhelmingly white, would be significantly more diverse -- even if the county did not build a single unit of affordable housing.

Some of Westchester’s living patterns likely reflect preferences among African Americans to live among other African Americans, but scholars warn against overestimating the effect of choice.

“When African Americans and Latinos end up living in segregated communities, those communities are poorer, and have worse schools and higher crime rates. They are really paying a price for that segregation,” said John Logan, a Brown University sociologist and segregation expert. Black segregation isn’t “because they prefer to live with their own people, just as whites do. I think it is because they have limited choice in the housing market.”

Viewing all 7863 articles
Browse latest View live