Originally published December 18 2005
FEMA will not release survey of hurricane victims
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
A satisfaction survey administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency asked 10,953 of the 316,000 people whose homes were inspected by FEMA how the inspectors performed, but FEMA refuses to release the data to the news media.
The government is refusing to release results of a satisfaction survey of hurricane victims, claiming the data is confidential.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency asked 10,953 of the 316,000 people who received home inspections after hurricanes Charley, Frances, Jeanne and Ivan how well the inspector did his or her job.
But if FEMA has its way, the public will never know how high or low FEMA inspectors rated.
The agency denied The News-Press' Freedom of Information Act request seeking the data.
The denial comes at a time when FEMA is under fire for the way it has handled natural disaster response.
Even before Katrina, FEMA was the subject of criticism for handing out money to people who didn't have damage, hiring unqualified inspectors and asking for refunds from aid recipients.
The information FEMA wouldn't release to The News-Press included survey score summaries, score calculations, results and customer comments.
FEMA's answer to the newspaper's request, a letter signed by acting director of recovery, David Garratt, claimed the data was confidential and that it is used in the decision-making process.
FEMA's response has drawn criticism from public officials who have questioned the agency's actions in the past.
David Greene, executive director of The First Amendment Project, a nonprofit advocacy organization based in Oakland, Calif., was disappointed but not surprised by FEMA's response.
"This is a clear instance of an agency hiding information about itself from others that could be potentially embarrassing," Greene said.
The companies were paid about $150 million for the five-year contract.
The FOIA exemptions FEMA cited --- confidentiality and decision making information --- don't seem appropriate in this case, said First Amendment scholar Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml