What do Americans Think of President Trump’s Handling of Puerto Rico’s Slow Recovery? Will These Opinions Affect His Approval Ratings?

Six days into the 2018 hurricane season, President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence visited the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s headquarters for a briefing on the agency’s readiness to respond to future hurricanes. While Trump’s remarks referenced Puerto Rico’s recovery efforts, he did not talk about the numbers of Puerto Rican who died as a consequence of Hurricane Maria.

The President tweeted his thoughts about his FEMA visit:

Thank you to everyone at HQ for today’s briefing on preparations for the upcoming hurricane season. Disaster response and recovery is best achieved when it’s federally supported, state managed, and locally executed – this is the successful model we will continue to build.

Almost nine months after Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico’s infrastructure, how do Americans rate Trump’s response to the island’s humanitarian crisis? The Economist/YouGov Poll of June 3-5, 2018 does provide some clues. But before we look at the figures, it is important to keep in mind two things.

  1. President Trump’s approval ratings have improved dramatically in the last weeks. The RealClearPolitics average estimates that Trump’s enjoys the approval of 42% of Americans. The FiveThirtyEight model, which adjusts the polling data according to different criteria, finds that his approval is at 41%.  To put these numbers in perspective, Trump’s approval rating when he visited Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria stood around 38% in both the RealClearPolitics average and the FiveThirtyEight model.

2. On October 18, 2017, President Trump and Governor Rosselló met in the White House to discuss Puerto Rico’s recovery after Hurricane Maria. After their meeting, they met with the White House press corp and took some questions. As I noted in an earlier post, Trump was asked to rate his administration’s response to the situation in the island, using a 10 point scale. Unsurprisingly, the President graded the federal government’s performance with a 10 out of 10.

Back in October 2017, a majority of Americans did not approve of Trump’s handling of the crisis. Have opinions changed?

chart (58)

The graph shows that Americans today are more critical of his efforts. But it is important to highlight that the number of Americans who disapprove of his response is roughly the same. In other words, if we were to combine the number of people who selected “Disapprove Somewhat” and “Disapprove Strongly”, we would see that 44% of respondents disapproved of Trump’s response in October 2017 and in June 2018.  What is surprising, given that Puerto Rico’s death toll controversy has been widely covered by U.S. media outlets, is the number of Americans who cannot rate the president’s performance, which increased by 8% in the newest survey.

The Economist/YouGov Poll also asked respondents the following question: “How much do you think Donald Trump cares about the needs and problems of people affected by Hurricane Maria?” This question is basically asking respondents to look past policy issues and to judge his moral character and his empathy towards others.

 

chart (61)

The graph clearly shows that respondents question President Trump’s moral sensibilities While the survey does not capture why respondents have become more critical of Trump, one possible reason is his unwillingness to publicly talk about Puerto Rico’s crisis, even when events in the island receive lots of media attention. This makes Trump seem uninterested in the issue, raising questions about his moral character.

Looking at the crosstabs in both surveys, we can see that some of Trump’s toughest critics are those respondents who are either registered Republicans or who said they voted for him in the 2016 presidential election. For example, 71% of those respondents who voted for Trump and completed the survey in October 2017 “strongly approved” of “the way Donald Trump [handled] the response to Hurricane Maria.” Although this figure decreases to 45% in the most current poll, it is worth noting that the number of Trump supporters who disapproved of  his handling of the situation only increased from 5% to 11%. Survey-takers who identify as Republicans also became less supportive of President Trump’s performance. In October, 58% of Republicans “approved strongly” of his response, but it decreased to 39% in the most recent survey.

These findings are also applicable to the other question. In October 2017,  three-fourths of respondents who voted for Trump believed that President Trump cared “a lot” about the  “needs and problems of people affected by Hurricane Maria.” By June, this number declined to 56%. We seem similar drops among registered Republicans.

The only surprising result is the number of Hispanics who believe that he cares “a lot” about Puerto Ricans’ “needs and problems”, which jumped from 15% to 18%. While this is a small bump, which may be statistically insignificant, it is the only category where his ratings did not decline.

 

Will Trump pay a political price for his handling of Puerto Rico’s slow recovery after Hurricane Maria? It seems unlikely. While the Economist/YouGov Poll did include questions on Puerto Rico, major polls conducted by Quinnipiac University,  FoxNews, the NBC and the WSJ did not do so. This suggests that pollsters believe that this issue is not of national significance.

This reality raises an important question: if President George W. Bush’s mishandling of the response to New Orleans affected his legacy, why is President Trump’s standing with the American public not affected by Puerto Rico’s slow recovery? One possible answer is that Americans rate Trump’s other controversies as more important.

But, I think that the problem is more complex. Most Americans think of Puerto Rico as a foreign nation, rather than a U.S. territory. And for those Americans who do not know that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, they will not think of the federal government’s response to Puerto Rico when they judge President Trump’s performance. Yesterday’s post showed that 58% of those who completed the most recent Economist/YouGov Poll either do not think that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens or are not sure of their citizenship status.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

U.S. Television News Networks’ Coverage of Puerto Rico of Harvard-Funded Study on Mortality Rates after Hurricane Maria

On May 29, 2018, the New England Journal of Medicine published an article that estimated that 4,645 Puerto Ricans died because of Hurricane Maria. Although the study’s authors do not claim that 4,645 died because of the hurricane, the media, by in large, reported it this way. As I noted in a previous post, because of their survey’s margin of error, the authors estimate that deaths connected to Hurricane Maria could be as low as 793 and as high as 8,498. Thus, the 4,645 is the median between these two estimates.

The study, which was funded by Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, reopened a long-standing debate on the Government of Puerto Rico’s inability to account for all the deaths associated with Hurricane Maria. The fact that the study’s estimates were higher than the official death count or other estimates shocked many Puerto Ricans.

In social media, people have adopted different avatars that make reference to the 4,645 estimated deaths. Many Puerto Ricans have used Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to share their stories of loved ones who died as a consequence of Hurricane Maria. In what NPR’s Adrian Florido described as an “impromptu memorial” , thousands of pairs of shoes were placed in front of Puerto Rico’s capitol building, symbolizing the number of people who have not been accounted in the government’s official tally, which today stands at 64. During the weekend, many Puerto Ricans visited the building to honor those who lost their lives and to protest the Rosselló administration’s lack of transparency and its mishandling of this controversy.

Even though the Harvard-funded study’s effects on the island’s politics was covered by many U.S. news organizations, some critics find that the issue did not receive the coverage it deserved. For instance, James Downie writing in the Washington Post’s Post Partisan blog noted that the story was not discussed in the Sunday news shows. Similarly, Kate Sullivan and Lis Power of Media Matters showed that the Harvard-funded study received less airtime than Roseanne Barr’s racist tweet, which led ABC to cancel her show.

While the critics are correct, it is important to highlight that many news networks did mobilize their resources to cover the fallout of the Harvard-study in the island. For example, CBS News sent David Begnaud to Puerto Rico, while CNN sent John Sutter and Leyla Santiago and NBC deployed Gabe Gutierrez. These journalists have covered the humanitarian crisis caused by Hurricane Maria, visiting the island several times in the last eight months.

So how much media coverage did Puerto Rico earn in the past two weeks? Which U.S. news network devoted the most airtime to any issue connected to Puerto Rico?

To answer these questions, I used the GDELT Project’s TV Explorer application (version 2.0) to measure how much airtime the major U.S. TV news networks devoted to issues connected to Puerto Rico. The application aggregates data from the Internet Archive’s Television News Archive. My analysis covers the period between May 21, 2018 and June 3, 2018. I decided to explore a period of two weeks to get a rough idea of how much coverage Puerto Rico issues earn in U.S. TV news networks.

The image included with this post is a wordcloud of the top words associated with this coverage. It clearly shows that these words are connected to the fallout of the Harvard-funded study.

The next bar graph compares the overall coverage of news connected to Puerto Rico across the main U.S. news networks.

chart (43)

On average, Univision devoted the most airtime to Puerto Rico in this time period, followed by CNN, MSNC and PBS. Not surprisingly, the story did not earn too much interest from FoxNews.

The next charts help us visualize each news network’s coverage of stories connected to Puerto Rico for the two weeks period. For ease of reading, I have divided these networks into three subgroups. The first subgroup includes CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews, which are the main U.S. cable news networks. The second one looks at the affiliated TV stations news networks that broadcast in English, which include: ABC News, CBS News and NBC News. I also added PBS to this subgroup. The final subgroup represent the country’s main Spanish news networks, Univision and Telemundo.

chart (45)

This line graph clearly shows the impact the Harvard-funded study had on the coverage of news stories connected to Puerto Rico. And while MSNBC devoted more airtime to the story early on, CNN’s coverage increased over time. This may be connected to Anderson Cooper’s interview of Governor Ricardo Rosselló regarding this controversy – an issue a I covered in my last post.

The next line graph shows that PBS devoted the most airtime to the Harvard-funded study among the non-cable news networks. However, its coverage, like MSNBC’s decreased quickly. CBS News, on the other hand, had the most consistent coverage in the days following the publication of the Harvard-funded study.

chart (46)

Surprisingly, ABC’s news coverage was pretty low. Could this be connected to the fallout of Roseanne Barr’s racist tweet or is this part of a trend that could be observed over a longer period of time? This is an interesting question, but for now I will give ABC the benefit of the doubt. After all, Barr’s sitcom aired in ABC.

In terms of the Spanish news networks, it is not clear why Univision dedicated more airtime to the Harvard-funded study than Telemundo. But it is interesting to see that Telemundo’s coverage spiked during the weekend, as Univision’s coverage declined. Could it be that Telemundo was interested in the “impromptu memorial” created by Puerto Ricans in front of the island’s capitol building.

chart (47)In the next days, I will look at how the U.S. print and online media covered news connected to Puerto Rico during this time period. This will help us make sense how much coverage the Harvard-funded study received in the U.S. mainland. For now, it is interesting to see how U.S. TV news networks covered the fallout of the Harvard-funded study on Puerto Rico’s excess mortality following Hurricane Maria.

 

Thoughts on the Harvard University-Funded Study: “Mortality in Puerto Rico After Hurricane Maria”

How many Puerto Ricans died due to Hurricane Maria? This has been one of the most contested issues since the hurricane made landfall on September 20, 2017. In an earlier post, published in November 25, 2017, I explained the roots of this controversy. The post describes the work of Puerto Rico’s Centro de Periodismo Investigativo which’s investigative reports have demonstrated problems with the Rosselló administration’s accounting of hurricane-related deaths, President Donald Trump’s visit to the island, which sparked this controversy, and San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto’s views on the matter, which have been widely covered by the media.

In this post, I want to share some thoughts on the Harvard University-funded study, “Mortality in Puerto Rico After Hurricane Maria” which was conducted by Nishant Kishore, Domingo Marques, Ayesha Mahmud, Mathew Kiang, Imary Rodriguez, Arlan Fuller, Peggy Ebner, Cecilia Sorensen, Fabio Racy, Jay Lernery, Leslie Maas, Jennifer Leaning, Rafael Irizarry, Satchit Balsari and Caroline Buckee, and published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 29, 2018.

But before looking at the study, it is worth recapping some of the developments that have taken place since I published my last post on this issue.

More Twists and Turns

Since my last post on hurricane-related deaths, a few things have taken place that have further politicized this sensitive issue. For example, the New York Times published the findings of its study, which estimated that the death toll could be as high as 1,052 people. Latino USA and the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo partnered to review the available demographic data, arguing that the number was closer to 985.

Intense public pressure forced the Rosselló administration to establish a commission to further study the controversy. But rather than appointing an independent panel, the governor asked Héctor Pesquera, the Secretary of Public Safety, to lead the commission. This was problematic in at least two ways. First, one of Pesequera’s responsibilities was to account for the number of hurricane-related deaths. Second, his repeated dismissal of journalists’ questions regarding the government’s figures created a public relations crisis, which tarnished the Rosselló administration’s credibility in both Puerto Rico and in the U.S. mainland.

For most of January, journalists working for the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo asked the Rosselló administration to share its data on hurricane-related deaths with the public. The New York Times, CNN, Buzzfeed and other news outlets asked for the same information. But Pesquera’s unwillingness to share these data forced the Centro de Periodismo Investigative and CNN to sue the Government of Puerto Rico in the local court system on February 7, 2017.

The next day Governor Rosselló admitted that there were flaws in his administration’s handling of the controversy. For that reason, the Government of Puerto Rico commissioned George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health to conduct a study that could “estimate the excess mortality tied to Hurricane Maria”. According to the Caribbean Business News, the Government of Puerto Rico agreed to pay $305,368 to finance the analysis. In exchange, the research team, led by Carlos Santos-Burgoa, agreed to share its preliminary findings by May 22, 2018 and a submit full report to the Rosselló administration  before July 23, 2018. Due to unforeseen circumstances Santos-Burgoa’s team failed to deliver its preliminary report. After asking the Puerto Rican government officials for an extension, George Washington University’s public relations office announced that its team hopes to submit its findings by the end of the summer.

As noted above, on May 29, 2018 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study estimating that Hurricane Maria claimed the lives of around 4,645 Puerto Ricans. The official government death toll stands at 64. How can we explain this discrepancy, especially given the fact that other studies’ estimates, including Alexis Santos and Jeffrey Howard’s analysis, are much lower?

From 64 to 4,645

The Harvard-funded study did not have access to the Government of Puerto Rico’s records. Indeed, the New York Times reported that the Rosselló administration “refused to provide data to them.”

To estimate the number of death associated with Hurricane Maria, the authors of the study surveyed “a representative stratified random sample 3,299 households, of an estimated 1,135,507 total households, across Puerto Rico.” The authors decided to stratify the population “according to remoteness, defined according to the travel time to nearest city with a population of at least 50,000 persons.” According to the study, 93% of respondents agreed to complete the survey.

The Harvard-funded study estimates that Hurricane Maria claimed the lives of 4,645 individuals. Although this figure is larger than the estimates of past studies cited above, it is important to remember that the analysis covers a longer time period (September 20 – December 31, 2017). And while the 4,645 number has garnered lots of attention it is also critical to keep in mind that the authors are not saying that the hurricane caused this amount of deaths. Because of the survey’s margin of error, the authors estimate that deaths connected to Hurricane Maria could be as low as 793 and as high as 8,498. Thus, the 4,645 is the median between these two estimates.

One of the main benefits of this study is that it helps us understand the main causes of these deaths. For example, the survey asked respondents to estimate the days they lived without clean water, electricity or cell phone coverage. Thus, the authors can show how these variables may have affected mortality rates in the island after Hurricane Maria. Unsurprisingly, the respondents to the survey cite that “interruption of medical care was the primary case of sustained high mortality rates in the months after the hurricane.”  Only 10% of the reported deaths seemed to have been caused directly by Hurricane Maria. These findings corroborate other investigative reports’ conclusions.

While survey research has its weaknesses, my first reading of this study suggest that the authors’ did a good job. The methodology is sound and the fact that the authors’ have publicly shared their data demonstrates their willingness to engage critiques and to let other social scientists use their observations to explore the impact Hurricane Maria had on Puerto Ricans’ lives.

My biggest question is whether the Harvard-funded study took into consideration the spike in the numbers of suicides that have taken place in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. While the researchers’ survey does include suicide as a cause of death, their paper does not address this issue, which has received considerable attention in the last months.

The Study’s Fall Out

To figure out how many people died because of Hurricane Maria, it seems that we will have to wait for the findings of Santos-Burgoa’s team. Given that this group of researchers have complete access to the government’s data, they should be able produce a more precise accounting of the excess deaths following Hurricane Maria. But the fact that the Rosselló administration  has spent over $300,000 on this study and that this team is the only one that has access to the government’s data will raise questions regarding these researchers’ independence and the legitimacy of their findings.

And here lies the dilemma Puerto Rican society faces today. This controversy has further eroded Puerto Ricans’ trust on their government’s capacity to address natural disasters and their elected leaders’ willingness to do the right thing. And while the Harvard-funded program did not consider the Trump administration’s role in this controversy, it is safe to say that many Puerto Ricans’ faith in the federal government has waned as well.

While the Harvard-funded study could have prompted a much needed conversation of what future actions the Puerto Rican government can take to prevent future hurricane-related deaths, it has had the opposite effect. The study has mobilized the island’s political factions and reduced the possibility of a sensible discussion of both the merits and limitations of this study. For example, in Twitter, supporters of Governor Rosselló have dismissed the study’s conclusions. Some have even questioned the independence of the study, arguing that Domingo Marques, one of the authors who teaches in Puerto Rico’s Carlos Albizu University, is a “communist” and an ally of Mayor Cruz.  For her part, Cruz, who has challenged the Rosselló administration’s figures since early October 2017 and is thinking of mounting a run for governor in 2020, has been photographed wearing a baseball cap that reads 4,645. In different interviews, she has  promised to honor the memories of those that died because of the government’s negligence. And while Governor Rosselló has refused to meet with journalists, including CBS News’ David Begnaud, Pesquera has questioned the findings of the Harvard-funded study, claiming that its methodology is unscientific.

What seems lost in this controversy is the experiences of those Puerto Ricans who lost a friend or a family member due to Hurricane Maria. It must be difficult to find closure in this political environment.

And what is even sadder is that this political controversy is overshadowing the fact that many of these deaths could have been prevented. It is important that the Government of Puerto Rico and the U.S. federal government can learn from their mistakes and also hold accountable those officials or healthcare professionals who were negligent and may have not done enough to save these people. This is not only necessary from a policy standpoint. It is a moral imperative.

 

 

 

 

 

Restoring Puerto Rico’s Electric Grid at the Municipal Level: Does the Mayor’s Party Affiliation Matter?

AJ Vicens, a reporter who covers Puerto Rico issues for Mother Jones, noted in a tweet:

Someone I met in San Juan tonight compared electric grid restoration in different parts of town to gerrymandering.

I found this tweet interesting so I replied to Mr. Vicens’s tweet, asking what he thought the person meant by that statement. And he promptly replied:

I think it was implying that power resources are distributed based on political and other factors, not necessarily on need or in an even way.

When I visited the island last week, to visit family and do some research on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) and the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s (PREPA) efforts to restore electricity, I also heard similar opinions. In addition, many people talked about countless alleged cases of corruption in PREPA. Some of these were covered by the local press – a subject that will be explored in a future Congressional hearing.

For now, let’s ignore the bribery allegations. I am interested in the following question: has politics played a role in the efforts to restore electricity to the island’s municipalities? In other words, does political party affiliation or political favoritism determined the USACE’s and PREPA’s efforts? And why do Puerto Ricans feel that this is the case?

Before we answer these questions, it is important to first note that Puerto Rico is divided into 78 municipalities, each with an elected mayor and an elected legislative assembly.

In terms of population, the biggest municipality is San Juan with 347,052 people and the smallest is Culebra with 1,818 people. While the pro-statehood, Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) won all the territory-level  institutions (i.e. the governorship, the legislature and the resident commissioner seat) in the 2016 general election, the pro-Commonwealth Partido Popular Democrático (PPD) won 45 of the municipalities. Over 2 million people live in municipalities controlled by the PPD, while close to 1.4 million live in municipalities controlled by the PNP. 

As of this morning, 179 days since Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico, 92% of the island’s 1,473,000 electricity customers have power, leaving around 120,000 customers without power. As the graph below shows, since 2 January 2018, around 545,000 customers have been reconnected to the electric grid.

chart (5)

Unfortunately, we don’t have these customer level data for the last months of 2017 as PREPA’s computer systems could not calculate how many meters were connected to the grid. But the graph shows that the process to repair the electric system has been very slow and has frustrated many Puerto Ricans.

Another problem with this graph is that it does not actually tell us how many people have electricity at the municipal level. Since mid-January 2018, the USACE has been sharing the number of connected meters by regions. The regions corresponds to PREPA’s division of the islands into the following clusters: Arecibo, Bayamon, Caguas, Carolina, Ponce, Mayaguez and San Juan.

Since mid November 2017, some PPD mayors have questioned whether PREPA and the USACE have spent more time and resources addressing the electricity needs of municipalities controlled by the PNP. While PREPA officials have denied these claims, in mid January 2018, more PPD mayors, frustrated by the slow pace of the recovery, raised the same concerns. While Governor Ricardo Rosselló asked the mayors not to politicize the recovery efforts, his chief of staff, William Villafañe, admitted that the mayors needed access to more information on PREPA’s efforts. Villafañe’s efforts however have not addressed these mayors’ concerns, as many of them noted in a meeting hosted by the governor on 28 February 2018.

Given the island’s politics and Puerto Ricans’ frustrations with the slow recovery process, it is not surprising that many believe that the efforts to repair the island’s electric grid has been shaped by political connections to La Fortaleza – the governor’s residence. But, is this the case?

On 19 January 2018, Puerto Rico’s largest newspaper, El Nuevo Día, as a reaction to PPD mayors’ growing criticisms, published the percentage of meters connected to the electric grid in each municipality. As noted in the table below, 60% of the island’s electric customers had power. The average of customers with electricity in municipalities controlled by either political party was the same.

I recently received a copy of a map prepared by the USACE and PREPA for the 28 February meeting mentioned above. At the time, 80.5% of the island’s electric customers had power. The figures suggest that the average number of customers with electricity in municipalities administered by mayors of the PPD and PNP is roughly the same. But given that more Puerto Ricans today reside in PPD-controlled municipalities, the total number of customers connected to the grid is larger in PPD-controlled municipalities than in PNP-controlled ones.

chart (8)

Although I do not have recent figures, these numbers suggest that political favoritism probably did not influence the USACE‘s and PREPA’s efforts to restore electricity to Puerto Rico’s customers. Looking at averages is a tricky undertaking as these numbers can hide important trends. In future posts, I will break these numbers at the regional level. This may provide new ways to look at the data, discover new trends, and reveal insights that may answer these important questions.

While more research is still need, it is also critical to take this opportunity and reflect as to why the mayors and so many Puerto Ricans believe that the USACE and PREPA’s efforts are driven by political favoritism and corruption. Lack of trust in the island’s political parties or political institutions is not a new development. The slow recovery process has only heightened these sentiments and these will further complicate efforts to reform Puerto Rico’s economy and political structures.

Similarly, this lack of trust is also an outcome of a poor public relations strategy on the part of the Puerto Rico’s government. To be fair to the USACE and PREPA, they have used their various social media accounts to inform the world about their efforts. Although their communications do help us understand why it has taken so long to repair the electrical system, they have not addressed Puerto Ricans’ frustrations or anxieties.

Moreover, Puerto Ricans’ negative view of PREPA’s record of poor service has shaken their confidence on the public utility’s capacity to restore power to the island. Similarly, Governor Rosselló’s repeated criticisms of the USACE’s efforts has forced many Puerto Ricans to question its personnel’s commitment and resolve.

It is too late to correct these problems. But lessons need to be learned as Puerto Ricans start to prepare for the 2018 hurricane season.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Installation of Blue Roofs in Post-Maria Puerto Rico: An Update

On a 19 December 2017 post, I presented some data on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Blue Roof program in post-Maria Puerto Rico and some of the challenges FEMA faced trying to procure these blue tarps. At the time, 31% of the requested blue roofs had been installed. As the graph below demonstrates, the current percentage of installed roofs stands at 97%.

chart (4)

What is interesting about this graph is not the number of installed tarps but that the number of requested blue roofs has declined from 75,000 to 63,000. What factors explains this decline? One possible answer is that FEMA may have provided some of these families the money to repair their homes, nullifying their request for a temporary roof.

Similarly, some families may have been fed up with the slow installation of these blue tarps and they may have decided to repair their roofs without USACE or FEMA support. As I noted last December, procurement of these blue tarps slowed down the process. In the last weeks, one of the challenges has been connected to the bidding process, where conflicts between the USACE and local contractors did slow down the installation process.

Finally, many Puerto Rican homes are illegal or their owners do not have the requisite paperwork to prove they own the property. Additionally, many more homes in the island were not built according to code. Under these conditions, FEMA and the USACE may have denied these requests.

All in all, the USACE has so far installed more than 59,000 blue roofs. It seems that in the next weeks it will finish the program. And while 59,000 have benefited by this program, there are many unanswered questions about the people who have failed to gain access to the program. I will try to explore these issues in future posts.