A packed house of leaders representing the Micronesian community took The Advertiser to task last week for a July 8 story based on a researcher's report about the growing number of Micronesians using the state's homeless shelters.

Most of the angry reaction was directed at researcher Michael Ullman, a doctoral student at the University of Hawai'i-Manoa's school of social work, but many wondered why the state's largest newspaper would use its Sunday edition to tout the findings at the top of the front page.

The issue of homelessness is extremely important to us and we have done substantial reporting in this area, including a multipart series on the homeless of the Wai'anae Coast in October 2006. Any new study showing trends in homelessness is important to us.

But this study was different: It was not commissioned by a state or federal agency or a university, rather it was Ullman's independent analysis of data he gleaned from the state's system for inputting instances of those using homeless shelter services. Critics of the study noted that no Micronesians were interviewed, it was not done scientifically and there was no peer review.

Ullman admitted in the study that the Homeless Management Information System collecting the information doesn't list Micronesians as an ethnicity choice — "other" Pacific Islander comes closest — for those using the shelters. He also acknowledged that the numbers may not necessarily be representative of everyone using the shelters.

Since there is no system for checking how uniformly the data is inputted, Ullman noted that the data "must be considered problematic with respect to accuracy. A more comprehensive analysis of the quality of the data is beyond the scope of this study to exhaustively research." Ullman did say that the research results were consistent with what he was hearing from shelter providers.

Our reporters — having used Ullman's research on the homeless in another story — were convinced that the study had merit and diligently tracked down homeless advocates and representatives of the Micronesian community, none of whom disputed the general conclusions.

Then again, those who were interviewed hadn't read the study.

The best intentions of Ullman and The Advertiser to call attention to a significant problem were undermined by a lack of context, something the leaders at the Kuhio Park Terrace meeting last week were eager to provide.

The group representing the Federated States of Micronesia (Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Yap), the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau said it's difficult enough to live with the negative stereotypes they have been trying to avoid but to see them perpetuated in The Advertiser was deflating.

"It ruined our Sunday," one woman said.

Others in the audience were less kind.

Ullman's use of the word "epidemic" in describing the increased use of shelters and his supposition that Micronesians may have "pushed" other ethnicities, including Native Hawaiians, out of the shelters, was especially hurtful, the group's leaders said. They also objected to Ullman's use of the word "underclass" when describing the increase of Micronesians entering shelters.

"We all know what epidemic means," said one of the women in the group. "It says we are a disease and we should be evicted."

What's clear to me is though this study and our story were far from perfect, the situation was made worse by our historic inability to cover a community that, despite struggles, has stories of success that we have not addressed. Our reporters did the best they could on a short deadline with a piece of news they thought would be important for the paper to highlight.

One of the reporters on the story, Will Hoover, said he learned a great deal from the Kuhio Park Terrace meeting.

"It illustrated the need to make every effort to explore all facets of the communities and individuals we report on to be sure we understand the sensibilities involved," Hoover said.

"While the facts may have been reported accurately, the overwhelming sense among the Micronesian community was that Ullman's report, and thus our coverage of it, perpetuated negative stereotypes. Whether or not that's true, it is important for us to be aware of how our coverage affects those being written about."