Note: This story contains graphic descriptions about female genital mutilation.
For years, a distinguished UC San Diego economist has wanted to stop young girls in Kenya from undergoing genital mutilation by offering them and their families money toward education.
The ritual of female genital mutilation has been outlawed since 2011 in Kenya, but it continues among the Maasai, an ethnic group that celebrates the act as a rite of passage. Girls are restrained and their clitorises cut off without anesthesia using a knife, scissors, razor blades or broken glass. It’s estimated that more than 100 million females have undergone the “cut” in more than 30 countries.
Why this matters
The doctors, researchers, professors and community members who make up institutional review boards often conduct their work behind closed doors, even though their decisions to approve or deny biomedical or behavioral studies can affect millions of people around the world.
UCSD Professor Uri Gneezy thinks he can end the centuries-old practice within the Maasai community by using economic incentives, but research approval boards at his university worry that his study may do more harm than good.
The boards have said Gneezy’s plan is riddled with social, legal and ethical problems that far outweigh the study’s potential benefits. There are questions about child safety and how to ethically study an illegal act, as well as concerns about privacy, financial sustainability, cultural ignorance and Western arrogance.
“There’s just no way this is ever going to be ethical or should be ethical,” said Dr. Timothy Johnson, a University of Michigan obstetrician and international women’s health researcher. Johnson said he thinks female genital mutilation “just is not a particularly good area to test economic incentives.”
After being rejected four times, Gneezy pitched his study to a UCSD review board again this summer. The members denied the study for a fifth time in late August.
inewsource analyzed more than 50,000 pages detailing proposed biomedical studies at the university. Most of the records go back to 2004.
We found no other human research study that has been denied this many times.
Gneezy said through a university spokeswoman that he wasn’t interested in talking about the topic because it’s sensitive. Members of his proposed research team also wouldn’t grant an interview.
Kip Kantelo, director of UCSD’s human research protections program, told inewsource he wouldn’t talk about the study’s details but acknowledged it is “very rare” for a board to disapprove research.
UCSD records detail Gneezy’s three-year battle with the university to get his Kenya project approved. They offer a rare glimpse into how decisions on risky research are made, how vulnerable populations are supposed to be protected and how even well-intentioned researchers can cross ethical lines.
A big name with a big idea
Gneezy is a behavioral economist and endowed chair at the UCSD Rady School of Management. His research often looks at money and how it can change behaviors when introduced into social contracts. He co-authored a book on the topic in 2013 in which he said his laboratory is “as big as the whole world.” He has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Vox, National Geographic and other publications.
His wife, Ayelet Gneezy, is an associate professor of marketing at the Rady School of Management. She co-founded a consulting firm with her husband that puts “behavioral economics to work.” She is also a researcher on the Kenya project.
Uri Gneezy’s academic papers have been cited nearly 30,000 times. He’s looked into a matrilineal society in Northeast India, gym habits in Norway and daycare centers in Israel.
Steven Levitt, an economist and co-author of the book “Freakonomics,” called Gneezy a genius – a true trailblazer with “the ability to see things that are completely obvious but to which everyone else is blind.”
Gneezy, 52, knows the Maasai. More than 1.5 million of them inhabit large swaths of Kenya and northern Tanzania, and research Gneezy published in 2008 examined competitive differences among the group’s men and women.
Wives in the strongly patriarchal society are “said to be less important to a man than his cattle,” according to Gneezy’s research. The Maasai mutilate their girls’ genitals as early as 10 years old, believing it makes women more desirable for marriage.
The practice also exists in the U.S., though it’s not nearly as prevalent. It has no health benefits and can cause severe bleeding, complications with childbirth and death – as well as extreme psychological trauma.
Gneezy wants to end female genital mutilation – calling it an “immoral cultural practice” in his research proposal – and by 2016 he had enlisted an international team of researchers to help.
Their original plan, according to a 2016 article detailing the study, was to have Kenyan nurses check 400 girls ranging in age from 8 to 12 to determine whether they had undergone genital mutilation. Researchers would pay the girls $30 for their time.
Gneezy’s team would then split the children into two groups, and for the next four years, girls in one group would receive a $1,000 scholarship toward the cost of school if they remained uncut. That’s half the cost of tuition, the article said.
Girls in the second group would be monitored but not receive the scholarship.
The purpose, according to the article, would be to “create a critical mass of girls who do not undergo circumcision and will also attend school, where they will be educated against the practice and learn that they have the right to reject it.”
Two Norwegian economists, Gneezy’s wife and a UCSD dean were committed to the project. A documentary filmmaker shot a promotional video for the study, and an Israeli reporter wrote in 2016 that the project would begin within a year.
But at that point, UCSD hadn’t approved the study. In fact, a few months after the reporter published her article, a UCSD review board denied Gneezy’s idea in a unanimous July 2016 decision.
Local help
If you or someone you know has undergone female genital mutilation and you’re looking for help, you can explore these resources made available by The Nile Sisters, a San Diego nonprofit assisting refugee and immigrant families. Click here for a list of additional local resources and agencies that can help.
The board members said that because female genital mutilation is illegal, discovering which girls were already cut could threaten their livelihood or physical safety because they are walking evidence of an illegal act.
In addition, the board wrote, asking parents to give permission for researchers to examine their daughters who have undergone genital mutilation would be problematic — the parents are often the ones who allow the illegal ritual to be performed on their children in the first place, so “such an act would be self-incriminating.”
Gneezy’s plan “did not fully address the risks of the study, especially the social, legal, and financial consequences of disclosure of an illegal act,” the board said in its official ruling. He also didn’t have a research permit or review board approval from Kenyan authorities.
To proceed with the research, he’d have to try again.
Research among the vulnerable
Gneezy faced an uphill battle with the Kenya project from the start.
Researchers are supposed to protect their subjects partly by providing safety plans, getting informed consent and disclosing any conflicts of interest. But when dealing with vulnerable groups like prisoners, ethnic minorities or in this case children, safeguards multiply.
That’s because these people were often exploited in unethical research conducted throughout the 20th century. American researchers deliberately infected soldiers, prisoners and mental patients with sexually transmitted diseases in Guatemala. They withheld syphilis treatment from African American sharecroppers in the now-infamous Tuskegee experiment. They fed radioactive food to mentally disabled children, and they injected pregnant women and babies with radioactive chemicals.
These widely condemned examples prompted higher ethical standards in human research in the 1970s. Today, Gneezy and other researchers must seek approval from institutional review boards to perform almost any experiment on people – even if those people live half a world away like the Maasai.
So not only did Gneezy’s proposal to the UCSD review board involve vulnerable children – it also meant examining the genitals of these poor, ethnic-minority girls in a developing country to determine if they’d received an illegal procedure.
“I mean, talk about vulnerable times n,” said Johnson, the University of Michigan obstetrician.
Johnson has devoted his career to women’s health. He took an interest in Africa in the 1980s when he launched an obstetrics and gynecological training program in Ghana. Since then, he’s visited more than 60 times. He’s even got a medical school library named after him in the west African country.
Johnson said that as soon as he read about Gneezy’s proposal, “I was like, well, there’s no way this is gonna fly.”
“We’re very sensitive when we look at little girls’ and little boys’ private parts,” he explained, adding that it’s not part of routine pediatric care for children to have their genitals closely examined at yearly visits.
“One of the problems with these researchers is they’re not gynecologists, they’re not pediatricians, and they don’t really have expertise in how the practice happens,” Johnson said.
After his first denial, Gneezy pressed ahead. In 2018, he proposed a new, expanded project to the UCSD board. Now he’d offer to pay for the entire cost of tuition for the girls in the experimental group – roughly $2,000 a year.
When money enters the equation
Money is the crux of Gneezy’s research. It also poses a problem, according to ethics experts interviewed for this story.
Kayte Spector-Bagdady, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology and chair of the University of Michigan’s research ethics committee, said she’s “obviously very opposed” to female genital mutilation and supports “creative, international research methods to help enable communities to help children.”
But Gneezy’s proposal, she said, “seems incredibly punitive to these young children to somehow put the responsibility on them, that they don’t get a scholarship unless they somehow protect themselves from getting mutilated – when we know that they don’t have any control over it.”
To be clear, financial incentives are not new in research. They’ve been used many times in smoking cessation, student achievement and weight loss studies, to name a few.
But Leonard Glantz, an emeritus professor of health law, ethics and human rights at the Boston University School of Public Health, said Gneezy’s incentive structure is inherently flawed.
“Assuming they’re able to show that essentially bribing people – which I have no problem with in this sense – will get them to change certain practices,” he said, “that doesn’t tell you what happens when you stop bribing them,” Glantz said. “So their assumption is that this will change cultural practices. That’s a gigantic leap.”
Spector-Bagdady said she also doubts Gneezy’s project will change much of anything – and might result in more harm.
“I would be very concerned for the welfare of these young women,” she said. “And in addition, I am concerned about conflicting details and things that don’t seem particularly well thought out” with Gneezy’s idea.
She was also troubled that Gneezy’s research team would possibly see hundreds of girls in the control group receive genital mutilation without trying to stop it.
“You can’t just say something terrible is happening and I’m just going to watch it because I’m a researcher and I am somehow absolved from all responsibility,” Spector-Bagdady said.
Researchers have an enhanced obligation to protect the vulnerable populations they’re studying, she said. And because the researchers often reap benefits from their work – such as getting more funding, publishing in a journal or boosting their prestige – they “are held to a higher standard of behavior than just saying, ‘Well, this is occurring so I observed it,’” Spector-Bagdady added.
When the UCSD review board in April 2018 unanimously voted to deny Gneezy’s study for a second time, the members cited some of these ethical issues.
They said Gneezy gave no plans for the emotional or societal impact the study could have on the community when the research team left. There was no plan for the children if their parents were arrested because of their involvement in genital mutilation. There was no guarantee the girls involved wouldn’t be “outed” due to their sudden financial gains, possibly ostracizing them from their peers, family or society.
And even if all things were addressed and Gneezy’s research proved to be effective, there was no way to keep paying the Maasai after the study ended. That means the girls might end up getting cut anyway or no longer be able to afford school when the money dried up.
“The risks to the children involved do not warrant conducting the study,” the board said.
Johnson, the University of Michigan obstetrician, talked of his work swaying queen mothers in Ghana against genital mutilation many years ago. Johnson said it worked because he focused on education, describing how useless the practice was and appealing to the powerful women’s maternal instincts by showing the harmful effects it can have during childbirth.
Because queen mothers are respected leaders, they were then able to go back to their own communities and demand change.
“The real intervention,” Johnson concluded, “has to be education, and it can’t be white people from the West saying, ‘You shouldn’t do this.’”
He applied that critical lens to a main problem he saw with Gneezy’s project.
“If you’re 12 years old and your mother and your father and your aunt and your uncle hold you down and a ritual circumciser cuts your clitoris off, there’s not a whole lot you can do – even though you may want to continue to go to school.”
Gneezy’s frustration grows
Gneezy made a third attempt to get his project approved shortly after the April denial.
In May 2018, review board members told Gneezy, “Westerners have attempted for over 100 years to change this practice without success,” and he had provided no evidence to prove his approach would make a difference.
They denied him for a third time.
The rejection grated on Gneezy. He crafted a letter that did not win over the board.
“The Committee found the angry tone of the response letters to be unprofessional and decreases confidence that the study will be conducted in a professional manner according to ethical standards,” the members responded.
They assured Gneezy that they did not exist to thwart him but rather to work “to facilitate effective research by ensuring that proper safeguards are in place to protect human subjects from physical, psychological, and social harm.”
They noted that Gneezy still had no assurances from Kenyan authorities that the girls and their families would not be prosecuted if they were “outed” and he didn’t have anyone on his team with experience conducting sensitive research on children.
“It would not have taken two years and this many disapprovals,” they wrote, if Gneezy had taken their advice.
A review board documenting that kind of frustration in its meeting minutes is “very unusual,” said Holly Fernandez Lynch, an assistant professor of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and an expert in research ethics and regulation.
“They’re just frustrated with him,” Fernandez Lynch said. “He thinks there are no ethical issues and clearly there are.”
She said female genital mutilation is very serious, with deep cultural context behind it, and it appeared Gneezy’s approach to studying it was “sloppy.”
However, she said, the bigger question about whether someone can conduct research on the practice is “really important.”
“This is not an easily open and shut case,” she said.
It’s common for researchers and review boards to clash, said Dr. Robert Klitzman, a professor of clinical psychiatry and director of the bioethics master’s program at Columbia University.
He wrote a book about that tension after interviewing dozens of review board leaders around the country and found that as science and funding have ramped up over the past few decades, many review boards have not kept pace – hampering or blocking what researchers believe is important and necessary research.
“There’s a need for each side to respect the other, and sometimes unfortunately that doesn’t happen,” Klitzman told inewsource. He added that research oversight is necessary because some researchers, if left on their own, may break ethical rules.
Gneezy, after three denials from the UCSD review boards, proposed his project again in the summer of 2018.
This time the study was assigned to a UCSD review board that deals with sociological studies — not to either of the biomedical committees that had previously considered and rejected it.
In an unusual move, members from the sociological committee voted to create a special ad hoc group of experts “to ensure a broad spectrum of expertise can review the study,” according to meeting minutes. inewsource reviewed UCSD board minutes and found that had never before happened in that committee in more than a dozen years.
The ad hoc group members disapproved the study for a fourth time.
Gneezy pitched it again to UCSD this year. Again it was assigned to an ad hoc committee.
Last week, the board told Gneezy that his study was disapproved again.
Former inewsource intern Lauren J. Mapp contributed to this report.
- Editorial Standards Page
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity Statement
- Diversity Staffing Report
- Corrections Policy
- Ownership Structure, Funding
- Founding Date
- Masthead
- Mission Statement with Coverage Priorities
- Fact-checking Standards
- Unnamed Sources Policy
Editorial Standards Page
- Our Mission
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity
- Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
- Financial Documents
- Fact-checking and Verification Standards
- Unnamed Sources
- Corrections and Clarifications
- Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
- Masthead
- Byline Policy
- The Trust Project
- Privacy Policy
Our Mission
inewsource is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to improving lives in the San Diego region and beyond through impactful, data-based investigative and accountability journalism.
Our Vision
Betrayals of the public trust are revealed and rectified, wrongdoing is deterred, and inequities are illuminated thanks to inewsource’s deep, dogged, fact-based reporting.
Our Values
Truth: Above all else, we value the importance of a free and credible press. Truth is the cornerstone of democracy and the core value for inewsource.
Transparency: We build trust with our readers by adhering to the highest standards and ethics, and to reporting with facts, precision and context.
Collaboration: Our newsroom prioritizes collaboration over competition. We regularly partner with media outlets on reporting projects and to share content.
Community: Our reporting serves the San Diego region, and we strive to build relationships with our audience by getting out into the community to listen and engage.
Ethics Policy
inewsource will conduct its business with the highest standards of decency, fairness and accuracy. These standards shall apply equally to inewsource employees, freelancers and all others engaged in gathering information on behalf of inewsource. All receive a copy of these ethical standards.
In the course of our reporting, we will consistently:
● Identify our organization and ourselves fully and avoid false representations of any kind to any source.
● Obtain consent from all parties before electronically recording any interview or conversation except in extraordinary cases authorized by the Managing Editor and Editor. If a source refuses to be taped, that must be honored; no recordings are to be made without consent.
● Respect the individual’s right to privacy. inewsource will never manipulate or barter private, personal, health, financial or other extraneous information in the course of preparing its reports.
● Any source we describe or write about in any significant manner must be contacted. The employee should document all efforts to contact the source, and if unsuccessful, should summarize these efforts at contact in the body of his/her writing.
In addition, inewsource follows the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The latest version, revised in 2014, can be found here.
Editorial Independence Policy
We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) as follows:
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We will maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Our organization also may consider donations to support the coverage of particular topics, but our organization maintains editorial control of the coverage. We will cede no right of review or influence of editorial content, nor of unauthorized distribution of editorial content.
Our organization will make public all donors who give a total of $1,000 or more. We will accept anonymous donations for general support only if it is clear that sufficient safeguards have been put into place that the expenditure of that donation is made independently by our organization and in compliance with INN’s Membership Standards.
Diversity
Diverse Voices
Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists, and it supports the educational mandate of inewsource. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. inewsource believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.
inewsource is committed to employment equity and diversity.
Diverse Staffing Report
Below is a breakdown of staffing data at inewsource. We determine the composition of our staff by asking them to self-identify. It is based on a newsroom of 11 and a total staff of 15 as of August 2020. Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
| All Staff Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns. | Newsroom Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | Business Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | |||
| Gender Identity | Gender Identity | Gender Identity | |||
| Women | 80% | Women | 82% | Women | 75% |
| Men | 20% | Men | 18% | Men | 25% |
| Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | |||
| Straight | 87% | Straight | 82% | Straight | 100% |
| LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | ||
| Not specified | 7% | Not specified | 7% | ||
| Speak a language beyond English at home | 33% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 18% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 75% |
| Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | |||
| White | 67% | White | 73% | White | 50% |
| Hispanic or Latinx | 20% | Two or more races | 18% | Hispanic or Latinx | 50% |
| Two or more races | 13% | Hispanic or Latinx | 9% | ||
| Age | Age | Age | |||
| 20-29 | 40% | 20-29 | 45% | 20-29 | 25% |
| 30-39 | 47% | 30-39 | 45% | 30-39 | 50% |
| 60 or older | 13% | 60 or older | 9% | 60 or older | 25% |
* The percentages in the charts have been rounded and may not add up to 100.
Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
inewsource is a nonprofit organization, whose legal name is Investigative Newsource. It does business as inewsource. The business was incorporated on Aug. 4, 2009 in the state of California. Tax-exempt status as a 501c3 was granted by the IRS on Sept. 15, 2010. inewsource is funded primarily by individual contributions and foundation grants. We are guided by a board of directors.
Editorial independence: Journalists employed by inewsource take no editorial direction from donors whose contributions may support the organization. inewsource will not hesitate to report on its donors when events warrant. Our Editorial Independence Policy details the firewall between journalism and revenue.
To be transparent with the public, inewsource lists its donors on its website. In cases where a donor is the subject of an inewsource story, additional disclosure will be made.
Financial Documents
We do our due diligence to earn your trust in our reporting, as well as in our governance and financial sustainability. All of our financial documents are made available to view so that our supporters can trust we are sound stewards of your philanthropy. Review our IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements and annual reports:
Tax Returns
Financial Statements
Annual Reports
Fact-checking and Verification Standards
Transparency is one of our core values. Today, there is a need to build trust with our audience because new media and ways of communicating spread lies and slanted news faster than “real” news. At the same time, this era of new technologies makes it easier than ever for news organizations to be transparent. People don’t just have to believe us, they can investigate our investigations with our source materials.
Transparency is key to building credibility.
inewsource reporters have primary responsibility for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their stories. But before a story is published, the reporter reviews all facts and sources with an editor or another reporter. Facts must be traced to a primary source.
In addition, we “transparify” certain investigative stories. This process involves publishing a version of the web story with hyperlinks to all the story’s facts. This is proof that all facts have been documented with primary evidence. We do this to build trust with our readers and to be as transparent as we hope the public figures and institutions that we hold accountable will be.
Unnamed Sources
Not all sources are created equal. Some sources cannot speak authoritatively, provide proper analysis or speak specifically to every inquiry placed before them. To maintain the integrity of our reporting, inewsource reporters must select sources who can speak with validity to the topic at hand, and avoid presenting unqualified or underqualified sources as experts.
If an interviewed source has a conflict of interest, or whose qualifications may be tangential or limited, reporters will note that within the context of the story.
It is incumbent upon reporters to fully background their sources to uncover conflicts of interest or slant prior to using them in a story.
Unless discussed prior to an interview, all subjects talking to inewsource journalists are on the record. Specifically, the source is identified by name and title, and their exact or paraphrased words are attributed to them for publication. If journalists speak with sources who are not politicians, public figures or those not commonly interviewed by journalists, staff should explain clearly that information discussed will be on the record and for publication.
There are times, however, when information may be critical for a story but cannot be found or verified by other means. For example, a source may be able to confirm specific information about a series of events they may have witnessed, but have legitimate concerns about using their name or title. The repercussions to the source could be legal, job-related retribution or personal safety. The source and journalist must discuss these potential dangers and terms of use should be agreed upon by both parties.
If inewsource publishes information from an anonymous source, inewsource will explain to readers, in as much detail as possible, why we agreed to anonymity.
Corrections and Clarifications
inewsource strives for accuracy in everything we do, which is why we are committed to fact checking our content. But sometimes we make errors. When that happens, we correct them. We also clarify stories when something we’ve written is confusing or could be misinterpreted.
We endeavor to always be transparent about our commitment to correcting errors and clarifying misperceptions. When staffers see, hear or read about a possible issue with the accuracy of any inewsource content, they are expected to bring it to the attention of an editor and the web producer so it can be evaluated to determine how to proceed.
Including the web producer is key because inewsource is a multimedia news organization and shares its content with multiple partners on multiple platforms. The web producer must alert these partners about corrections and clarifications.
Corrections and clarifications should be included at the bottom of stories and dated.
Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
Our audiences know the region we cover and have a stake in maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Diego and Imperial counties. We know your knowledge and insights can help shape what we cover and how we cover it. We invite your comments and complaints on news stories, suggestions for issues to cover or sources to consult. We rely on you to tell us when we get it right and when we need to keep pushing.
Your comments, questions and suggestions can be sent to the team as a whole at contact@inewsource.org or you can contact a specific member of our staff.
Masthead
CEO, Editor and Founder: Lorie Hearn, loriehearn@inewsource.org
Lorie Hearn is the chief executive officer, editor and founder of inewsource. She founded inewsource in the summer of 2009, following a successful reporting and editing career in newspapers. She retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune, where she had been a reporter, Metro Editor and finally the senior editor for Metro and Watchdog Journalism. In addition to department oversight, Hearn personally managed a four-person watchdog team, composed of two data specialists and two investigative reporters. Hearn was a Nieman Foundation fellow at Harvard University in 1994-95. She focused on juvenile justice and drug control policy, a natural course to follow her years as a courts and legal affairs reporter at the San Diego Union and then the Union-Tribune.
Hearn became Metro Editor in 1999 and oversaw regional and city news coverage, which included the city of San Diego’s financial debacle and near bankruptcy. Reporters and editors on Metro during her tenure were part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and led to his imprisonment.
Hearn began her journalism career as a reporter for the Bucks County Courier Times, a small daily outside of Philadelphia, shortly after graduating from the University of Delaware. During the decades following, she moved through countless beats at five newspapers on both coasts.
High-profile coverage included the historic state Supreme Court election in 1986, when three sitting justices were ousted from the bench, and the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris. That gas chamber execution was the first time the death penalty was carried out in California in 25 years.
In her nine years as Metro Editor at the Union-Tribune, Hearn made watchdog reporting a priority. Her reporters produced award-winning investigations covering large and small local governments. The depth and breadth of their public service work was most evident in coverage of the wildfires of 2003 and then 2007, when more than half a million people were evacuated from their homes.
Managing Editor: Laura Wingard, laurawingard@inewsource.org
Laura Wingard is the managing editor at inewsource. She has been an editor in San Diego since 2002, working at The San Diego Union-Tribune, KPBS and now inewsource. At the Union-Tribune, she served in a variety of roles including as enterprise editor, government editor, public safety and legal affairs editor, and metro editor. She directed the newspaper’s award-winning coverage of the October 2007 wildfires and the 2010 disappearance of Poway teenager Chelsea King. She also oversaw reporting on San Diego’s pension crisis.
For two years, Wingard was news and digital editor at KPBS, overseeing a team of four multimedia reporters and two web producers. She also was the KPBS liaison with inewsource and collaborated with inewsource chief executive officer and editor Lorie Hearn on investigative work by both news organizations.
Wingard also worked at the Las Vegas Review-Journal as the city editor and as an award-winning reporter covering the environment and politics. She also was the assistant managing editor for metro at The Press-Enterprise in Riverside. She earned her bachelor’s degree at California State University, Fullerton, with a double major in communications/journalism and political science.
Assistant Editor and Senior Reporter: Brad Racino, bradracino@inewsource.org
Brad Racino is the assistant editor and a senior reporter at inewsource. He has produced investigations for print, radio and TV on topics including political corruption, transportation, health, maritime, education and nonprofits.
His cross-platform reporting for inewsource has earned more than 50 awards since 2012, including back-to-back national medals from Investigative Reporters and Editors, two national Edward R. Murrow awards, a Meyer “Mike” Berger award from New York City’s Columbia Journalism School, the Sol Price Award for Responsible Journalism, San Diego SPJ’s First Amendment Award, and a national Emmy nomination.
In 2017, Racino was selected by the Institute for Nonprofit News as one of 10 “Emerging Leaders” in U.S. nonprofit journalism.
Racino has worked as a reporter and database analyst for News21; as a photographer, videographer and reporter for the Columbia Missourian; as a project coordinator for the National Freedom of Information Coalition and as a videographer and editor for Verizon Fios1 TV in New York. He received his master’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri in 2012.
Byline Policy
Most of our articles carry a byline to identify the author. In some cases, inewsource will use a brand byline such as “Staff” or “inewsource” for internal or editorial information about the newsroom. In these instances, inewsource‘s Editor and Managing Editor are responsible for content that uses a brand byline.
The Trust Project
inewsource is proud to be a member of The Trust Project and support efforts to increase transparency in journalism by displaying the 8 Trust Indicators on our stories. We launched the Trust Indicators on Sep. 16, 2020.
Privacy Policy
inewsource has prepared this Privacy Policy to explain how we collect, use, protect, and share information when you use our inewsource.org website (the “Site“) or when you use any of our services (the “Services“).
By using the Site or Services you consent to this Privacy Policy.
Log Data
Like many site operators, we collect information that your browser sends whenever you visit our site (“Log Data”).
This Log Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, browser type, browser version, the pages of our site that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages and other statistics.
Cookies
Cookies are files with small amount of data, which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a web site and stored on your computer or mobile device.
Like many sites, we use “cookies” to collect information. You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our site.
Certain pages on our site may set other third party cookies. For example, we may embed content, such as videos, from another site that sets a cookie. While we try to minimize these third party cookies, we can’t always control what cookies this third party content sets.
Additionally, we may use third party services — such as those that provide social media conveniences, measure traffic, send newsletters and facilitate donations — that may place cookies on your computer. We don’t have any way of knowing how such services handle the resulting data internally. inewsource makes no claim, nor takes liability for the insecure submission of information via these applications.
Here are the services whose cookies you can find on inewsource.org:
- Sharing buttons for Facebook and Twitter. These use the standard scripts provided by each company.
- Google Analytics, which we use to measure site traffic. Google Analytics gathers certain non-personally identifying information over time, such as your IP address, browser type, internet service provider, referring and exit pages, time stamp, and similar data. We also use Facebook Pixel to measure, optimize and build audiences for advertising campaigns served on Facebook. In particular it enables us to see how our users move between devices when accessing our website and Facebook, to ensure that our Facebook advertising is seen by our users most likely to be interested in such advertising by analyzing which content a user has viewed and interacted with on our website.
- Stripe, which allows us to accept donations through our website.
- Salesforce to manage newsletter subscriber, donor, and other identifiable user data.
- Mailchimp, to manage newsletter distributions. We collect your email address if you choose to subscribe to one of our email newsletters or email news alerts. Other optional information that you enter when subscribing – such as your first and last names or city are simply so that we can deliver more personalized email newsletters. We DO NOT sell, rent or market your information to any other parties. We retain your information only as long as necessary to provide your service. When we send emails, it collects some data about which users open the emails and which links are clicked. We use this information to optimize our email newsletters and, as aggregate information, to explain what percentage of our users open and interact with our newsletters.
Personal Data
We only collect personally identifiable information such as your name and email address when you sign up for a newsletter, donate to our organization, or otherwise submit it to us voluntarily. We do not share your personal data with any third parties other than some common service providers, whose products use your information to help us improve our site, deliver newsletters, or allow us to offer donation opportunities.
inewsource limits access to all user data for the purposes of newsletter, fundraising, and customer service only. User data is not sold to or otherwise shared with anyone not working with or for the inewsource.
You may unsubscribe or opt-out of our email and mail communications at any time by hitting the “unsubscribe” button in any email you receive from inewsource, or by emailing us at contact@inewsource.org or calling us at 619-594-5100.
Donor Information
The identities of all donors will be listed on our website. inewsource does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise release donors’ personal information to any third parties.
Refunds
If you encounter errors when donating on the website, please contact us at members@inewsource.org. For example, if you submit a donation for an incorrect amount or make a duplicate transaction please email us immediately so we can reverse the charges.
Cancellation of Recurring Donations
You can cancel your monthly recurring donations free of charge by notifying us at members@inewsource.org.
Links to Other Websites
Our site may contain links to documents, resources or other websites that we think may be of interest to you. We have no control over these other sites or their content. You should be aware when you leave our site for another, and remember that other sites are governed by their own user agreements and privacy policies, which should be available to you to read.
Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability
Although we take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, “Trojan Horses” or other destructive materials to our site, we do not guarantee or warrant that our site or materials that may be downloaded from our site are free from such destructive features. We are not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. We are not liable for any claim, loss or injust based on errors, omissions, interruptions or other inaccuracies on our site, nor for any claim, loss or injust that results from your use of this site or your breach of any provision of this User Agreement.
Contact Us
If there are any questions regarding this privacy policy, please contact us at contact@inewsource.org or call us at 619-594-5100.