&217$,1635,9$&<$&7,1)250$7,21
'2127',6&/26(Management Alert –DHS Needs to Address
Dangerous Overcrowding
and Prolonged Detention ofChildren and Adults in theRio Grande Valley(Redacted):DUQLQJ 7KLV GRFXPHQW FRQWDLQV 3ULYDF\ $FW LQIRUPDWLRQ 'R QRW GLVFORVH RU  FRS\WKLVUHSRUWZLWKRXWWKHH[SUHVVHGZULWWHQFRQVHQWRIWKH2IILFHRI,QVSHFWRU*HQHUDO

&217$,1635,9$&<$&7,1)250$7,21
'2127',6&/26(July 2, 2019
OIG-19-51

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov

July 02, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR:

The Honorable Kevin K. McAleenan
Acting Secretary
Department of Homeland Security

FROM:

Jennifer L. CostelloActing Inspector General

SUBJECT:

Management Alert – DHS Needs to Address
Dangerous Overcrowding and Prolonged Detentionof Children and Adults in the Rio Grande Valley

For your action is our final management alert, Management Alert – DHS
Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention ofChildren and Adults in the Rio Grande Valley, the purpose of which is to
notify you of urgent issues that require immediate attention and action.
Specifically, we encourage the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) totake immediate steps to alleviate dangerous overcrowding and prolonged
detention of children and adults in the Rio Grande Valley. Issuance of thismanagement alert is consistent with our duties under the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, to conduct inspections and recommend
policies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in DHSprograms and operations.
We have incorporated the formal comments provided by your office on thedraft management alert and appended them verbatim. We may continue
our spot inspections of the southern border facilities, and may revisit Rio
Grande Valley sector sites to monitor overcrowding and prolongeddetention.
Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we will
provide copies of our alert to congressional committees with oversight andappropriation responsibility over DHS. We also will post the alert on ourwebsite for public dissemination.
Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact Diana Shaw,
Assistant Inspector General for Special Reviews and Evaluations, at(202) 981-6000.

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Background
In May 2019, we issued a management alert about dangerous overcrowding
observed in the El Paso area during our unannounced inspections of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) holding facilities.1 During the week ofJune 10, 2019, we traveled to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas and again
observed serious overcrowding and prolonged detention in Border Patrol
facilities requiring immediate attention.
According to Border Patrol statistics, the Rio Grande Valley sector has thehighest volume on the southwest border, with nearly a quarter million
apprehensions in the first eight months of FY 2019. This total represents a124 percent increase compared to the same period in FY 2018, with thegreatest increase in family units. Table 1 shows the total number ofapprehensions by category and the percent increase for the Rio GrandeValley sector.
Table 1. Rio Grande Valley Sector Border Patrol Apprehensions
Apprehensions
October 2017 toMay 201814,822

Apprehensions
October 2018 toMay 201923,944

Unaccompanied Alien
ChildrenFamily Units
36,773
135,812Single Adults
48,24063,507
Total
99,835223,263
Source: Border Patrol southwest border apprehensions by sector

Percent
Increase
62%
269%
32%
124%

During our visits to five Border Patrol facilities and two ports of entry inthe Rio Grande Valley,2 we reviewed compliance with CBP’s Transport,
Escort, Detention and Search (TEDS) standards, which govern CBP’sinteraction with detained individuals,3 and observed serious overcrowding
and prolonged detention of unaccompanied alien children (UACs),4families, and single adults that require immediate attention. Specifically,
1 Management Alert – DHS Needs to Address Dangerous Overcrowding Among Single
Adults at El Paso Del Norte Processing Center (OIG-19-46), May 2019.
2 We visited the McAllen, Weslaco, and Fort Brown Border Patrol Stations, and the Border
Patrol Centralized Processing Center and Donna Processing Center. We also visited theHidalgo and Progreso ports of entry.
3 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, National Standards on Transport, Escort,Detention, and Search, October 2015.
4 Unaccompanied alien children are aliens under the age of 18 with no lawful immigration
status in the United States and without a parent or legal guardian in the United States“available” to provide care and physical custody for them. 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2).

OIG-19-51
2
CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

www.oig.dhs.gov

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Border Patrol was holding about 8,000 detainees in custody at the time ofour visit, with 3,400 held longer than the 72 hours generally permitted
under the TEDS standards.5 Of those 3,400 detainees, Border Patrol held
1,500 for more than 10 days.
CBP is responsible solely for providing short-term detention for aliens
arriving in the United States without valid travel documents. CBP detains
such individuals on a short-term basis to allow for initial processing, andthen transfers the individuals to other government agencies. However,even when CBP has completed its initial processing obligations, it cannot
transfer detainees out of its facilities until U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) has space for single adults and some families, and theU.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has space for
UACs. Currently, because both ICE and HHS are operating at or above
capacity, CBP has experienced increasing instances of prolonged detention
in its facilities.
This management alert addresses overcrowding at four of the five Border
Patrol facilities, and prolonged detention at all five facilities, we visited inthe Rio Grande Valley. While our prior management alert on an El Paso
facility identified similar issues with respect to the single adults detainedin that facility, this alert highlights additional concerns with respect toUACs and families being detained in the Rio Grande Valley facilities wevisited. This alert also addresses security incidents in these facilities thatreflect an escalation of the security concerns raised in our prior alert.
At-Risk Populations are Subject to Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention
in Border Patrol Facilities
During our visits to five Border Patrol facilities in the Rio Grande Valley,
we observed serious overcrowding of UACs and families, populations
defined as “at-risk” in TEDS standards (see figures 1 through 3).

5 TEDS 4.1 provides that “[d]etainees should generally not be held for longer than 72
hours in CBP hold rooms or holding facilities. Every effort must be made to holddetainees for the least amount of time required for their processing, transfer, release, orrepatriation as appropriate and as operationally feasible.”

OIG-19-51
3CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

www.oig.dhs.govCONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Figure 1. Overcrowding of families observed by OIG on June 10, 2019, at Border Patrol’s
McAllen, TX, Station. Source: OIG

Figure 2. Overcrowding of families observed by OIG on June 11, 2019, at Border
Patrol’s McAllen, TX, Centralized Processing Center. Source: OIG

OIG-19-51
4CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

www.oig.dhs.gov

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Figure 3. Overcrowding of families observed by OIG on June 11, 2019, at Border Patrol’s
Weslaco, TX, Station. Source: OIG

In addition to the overcrowding we observed, Border Patrol’s custody data
indicates that 826 (31 percent) of the 2,669 children6 at these facilities had
been held longer than the 72 hours generally permitted under the TEDS
standards and the Flores Agreement.7 For example, of the 1,031 UACs
held at the Centralized Processing Center in McAllen, TX, 806 had alreadybeen processed and were awaiting transfer to HHS custody. Of the 806that were already processed, 165 had been in custody longer than a week.

6 This population consisted of 1,130 UACs, and 1,539 children who crossed as part of afamily unit.
7 The Flores Agreement generally permits detention of minors no longer than 72 hours,with a provision that in an influx of minors, placement should be as expeditious aspossible. In addition, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
requires DHS to meet this timeline unless there are “exceptional circumstances.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1232(b)(3). The Flores Agreement also includes a requirement that immigration officials
hold minors immediately following arrest in facilities that provide: (1) access to food anddrinking water; (2) medical assistance in the event of emergencies; (3) toilets and sinks;(4) adequate temperature control and ventilation; (5) adequate supervision to protect
minors from others; (6) separation from unrelated adults whenever possible; and(7) contact with family members who were arrested with the minor.

OIG-19-51
5CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSEwww.oig.dhs.gov

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Additionally, there were more than 50 UACs younger than 7 years old, andsome of them had been in custody over two weeks while awaiting transfer.
In addition to holding roughly 30 percent of minor detainees for longer
than 72 hours, several Rio Grande Valley facilities struggled to meet otherTEDS standards for UACs and families. For example, children at three ofthe five Border Patrol facilities we visited had no access to showers,
despite the TEDS standards requiring that “reasonable efforts” be made toprovide showers to children approaching 48 hours in detention.8 At thesefacilities, children had limited access to a change of clothes; Border Patrol
had few spare clothes and no laundry facilities. While all facilities had
infant formula, diapers, baby wipes, and juice and snacks for children, weobserved that two facilities had not provided children access to hot meals— as is required by the TEDS standards9 — until the week we arrived.10Instead, the children were fed sandwiches and snacks for their meals.
Additionally, while Border Patrol tried to provide the least restrictive
setting available for children (e.g., by leaving holding room doors open), thelimited space for medical isolation resulted in some UACs and families
being held in closed cells.
Overcrowding and Prolonged Detention of Single Adults Have Resulted in
Security Incidents and Non-Compliance with TEDS Standards
In the Border Patrol facilities we visited, we also observed serious
overcrowding and prolonged detention among adult detainees. TEDS
provides that “under no circumstances should the maximum [cell]
occupancy rate, as set by the fire marshal, be exceeded.”11 However, at one
facility, some single adults were held in standing room only conditions fora week and at another, some single adults were held more than a month inovercrowded cells (see figures 4 and 5).

8 TEDS 5.6
9 TEDS 5.6

10 Border Patrol management at these facilities told us there were too many detainees onsite to microwave hot meals, and it had taken time to secure a food contract.
11 TEDS 4.7

OIG-19-51
6
CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

www.oig.dhs.gov

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Figure 4. Standing room only for adult males observed by OIG on June 10, 2019, at
Border Patrol’s McAllen, TX, Station. Source: OIG

Figure 5. Fifty-one adult females held in a cell designated for male juveniles with acapacity for 40 (left), and 71 adult males held in a cell designated for adult females with acapacity for 41 (right), observed by OIG on June 12, 2019, at Border Patrol’s Fort Brown
Station. Source: OIG

We are concerned that overcrowding and prolonged detention represent animmediate risk to the health and safety of DHS agents and officers, and to
those detained. At the time of our visits, Border Patrol management told
us there had already been security incidents among adult males atmultiple facilities. These included detainees clogging toilets with Mylar
blankets and socks in order to be released from their cells during
maintenance. At one facility, detainees who had been moved from their cellwww.oig.dhs.gov

OIG-19-51
7CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

during cleaning refused to return to their cell. Border Patrol brought in its
special operations team to demonstrate it was prepared to use force ifnecessary. Additionally, detainees have attempted to escape while removed
from their cells during maintenance.
Senior managers at several facilities raised security concerns for theiragents and the detainees. For example, one called the situation “a ticking
time bomb.” Moreover, we ended our site visit at one Border Patrol facility
early because our presence was agitating an already difficult situation.
Specifically, when detainees observed us, they banged on the cell windows,
shouted, pressed notes to the window with their time in custody, andgestured to evidence of their time in custody (e.g., beards) (see figure 6).

Figure 6. Eighty-eight adult males held in a cell with a maximum capacity of 41, somesignaling prolonged detention to OIG Staff, observed by OIG on June 12, 2019, at Border
Patrol’s Fort Brown Station. Source: OIG

In these overcrowded conditions, CBP was unable to meet TEDSstandards. For example, although TEDS standards require CBP to make areasonable effort to provide a shower for adults after 72 hours,12 mostsingle adults had not had a shower in CBP custody despite several being
held for as long as a month. At some facilities, Border Patrol was giving
12 TEDS 4.11

OIG-19-51
8
CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

www.oig.dhs.gov

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

detainees wet-wipes to maintain personal hygiene. Most single adultdetainees were wearing the clothes they arrived in days, weeks, and evenup to a month prior. Further, although TEDS standards require agents toremain cognizant of detainees’ religious and other dietary restrictions,13
many single adults had been receiving only bologna sandwiches. Some
detainees on this diet were becoming constipated and required medicalattention.14
Border Patrol Requires Immediate Assistance Placing Detainees, but ICECapacity is Limited
Within DHS, providing long-term detention is the responsibility of ICE, notCBP.15 During the week of our visits, ICE had approximately 54,000 beds
occupied nationwide, but was only funded for 42,000 beds. In ourdiscussions with ICE field management about this situation, they
explained that their capacity to find additional bed space is strained.
According to ICE field management, ICE has already increased capacity at
its Port Isabel facility from 800 beds to an “emergency level” of 1,200, andthen further increased capacity to 1,550 by adding plastic beds in somecells. However, the facility remains unable to accommodate most Border
Patrol detainees. From Port Isabel and other detention facilities in the Rio
Grande Valley, ICE can fly detainees to other ICE facilities, but officials
said only limited beds are available nationwide. As a result, Border Patrol
continues to hold detainees for more than 72 hours in overcrowded
conditions while they await transfer.
DHS Management’s Response and OIG Analysis
DHS management provided written comments on a draft of this alert. We
included a copy of DHS’ management comments in their entirety inappendix A. We also incorporated DHS’ technical comments in the finalalert, as appropriate.
DHS Response:
DHS described the situation on the southern border as “an acute andworsening crisis,” and cited measures DHS has taken to expand CBP’scapacity on the southern border. Specifically, DHS said it has added twotents capable of holding 500 people each in the Rio Grande Valley, and13 TEDS 4.13

14 Two of the facilities obtained a contract for hot meals the week of our site visit, butothers continued to serve sandwiches.
15 See 6 U.S.C. § 211(c)(8)(B).

OIG-19-51
9CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

www.oig.dhs.gov

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

plans to add another to house single adults by July 29, 2019. DHS also
cited examples of CBP’s emergency medical response across the southernborder. DHS said the number of UACs in Border Patrol custody had been
reduced from nearly 2,800 on June 7, 2019, to less than 1,000 onJune 25, 2019.
OIG Response:
We recognize the extraordinary challenges CBP faces, and welcome theinformation that DHS has been able to reduce the number of UACs incustody. However, we remain concerned that DHS is not taking sufficientmeasures to address prolonged detention in CBP custody among single
adults. Although an additional 500 beds in the Rio Grande Valley may
reduce overcrowding among single adults, DHS must transfer single adults
to ICE custody as quickly as possible; within DHS, long-term detention isICE’s responsibility.

www.oig.dhs.gov

OIG-19-5110CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERALDepartment of Homeland Security

Appendix A
DHS’s Management Comments to the Draft Management Alert

www.oig.dhs.gov

OIG-19-51
11CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov

OIG-19-51
12CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

www.oig.dhs.gov

OIG-19-51
13CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Department of Homeland Security

Appendix B
Management Alert Distribution
Department of Homeland Security
Secretary
Deputy Secretary
Chief of Staff
General Counsel
Executive Secretary
Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office
Under Secretary Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans
Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs
Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs
Commissioner, CBP
CBP Component Liaison
Office of Management and Budget
Chief, Homeland Security Branch
DHS OIG Budget Examiner
Congress
Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees

www.oig.dhs.gov

OIG-19-51
14CONTAINS PRIVACY ACT INFORMATION – DO NOT DISCLOSE

&217$,1635,9$&<$&7,1)250$7,21'2127',6&/26(ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES
To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at:www.oig.dhs.gov.
For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General
Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov.
Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig.

OIG HOTLINE
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and clickon the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at(800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at:
Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305
Attention: Hotline245 Murray Drive, SW
Washington, DC 20528-0305&217$,1635,9$&<$&7,1)250$7,21'2127',6&/26(