List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Issue date August 8, 2011. Electronic distribution August 4.
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
State employees with long histories in the state’s alcohol and drug treatment division in South Dakota were quietly demoted and fired earlier this year, and replaced by stae employees from the mental health side. This happened during the first half of 2011 when South Dakota’s state agencies were reorganized under an executive order from Gov. Dennis Daugaard. This reorganization included abolishing the state’s mental health and drug and alcohol divisions– formerly two separate divisions– but the mental health division was quietly– because of the demotions and firings– taking over. This meant that access to treatment for people with substance abuse disorders was threatened. (In South Dakota, as in many states, mental health officials would like to use the federal block grant for substance abuse, which is much bigger than the one for mental health, for mental health services.)
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
State website used to look for organizational changes, and the movement of employees, as well as information that was not available and that the state did not want disclosed (the virtual abandonment of substance abuse treatment). Internet used to look for links between officials and various private programs (many connections between governor, lieutenant governor, and mental health services). This information gave more weight to the story, as well as giving a backdrop for possible reasons for the changes.
Explain types of human sources used.
2 off the record high level interviews with former and current state employees. On the record interview with Deputy Secretary of DSS. On the record interview with the executive director of the South Dakota Association of Addiction and Prevention Professionals (and local representative of NAADAC, a national organization). On the record interview with long-time director of an addiction treatment program.
Results:
Communication was opened up between the state and substance abuse providers. The lieutenant governor brought a copy of ADAW to a meeting the week after it ran, saying that the situation had to improve. However, in a followup story we ran in October, it was obvious that things did not improve, and we wrote about the fact that secrecy and fear were worse than ever. This time the state refused to speak to us, although we asked for an interview with the same person who said that communication would improve. And this time, some of our sources who did speak on the record in the previous story would not out of fear of retribution.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
NA
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Substance abuse professionals with contracts with the state– virtually all substance abuse professionals in South Dakota– were afraid to speak on the record. However, we had known some of these sources for more than 20 years and were able to talk to them off the record. If you are planning on covering a topic that an agency doesn’t want covered, it is helpful to gain the trust of all sources ahead of time. Because so many of the interviews were off the record I corroborated information with different people. Be tenacious with government sources. Monday morning I called the governor’s press secretary saying I was covering this story; he told me it would take weeks and I would never make my Wednesday deadline, citing his experience as an AP reporter. Getting the interviews with the state officials took negotiation and perseverance.