ALTERNATIVES TO 

DETENTION

Improved Data 

Collection and 

Analyses Needed to 

Better Assess 

Program 

Effectiveness

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2014

GAO-15-26

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-26, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2014

ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION

Improved Data Collection and Analyses Needed to 

Better Assess Program Effectiveness

Why GAO Did This Study

Aliens awaiting removal proceedings or 

found to be removable from the United 

States are detained in ICE custody or 

released into the community under one 

or more options, such as release on 

bond and under supervision of the ATD 

program. Within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), ICE is 

responsible for overseeing aliens in 

detention and those released into the 

community. In 2004 ICE implemented 

the ATD program to be a cost-effective 

alternative to detaining aliens. ICE 

administers the program with 

contractor assistance using case 

management and electronic monitoring 

to ensure aliens comply with release 

conditions—including appearing at 

immigration court hearings and leaving 

the United States if they receive a final 

order of removal. The Joint 

Explanatory Statement to the 2014 

Consolidated Appropriations Act 

mandated that GAO evaluate ICE's 

implementation of the ATD program. 

This report addresses (1) trends in 

ATD program participation from fiscal 

years 2011 through 2013 and the 

extent to which ICE provides oversight 

to help ensure cost-effective program 

implementation, and (2) the extent that 

ICE measured the performance of the 

ATD program for fiscal years 2011 

through 2013. GAO analyzed ICE and 

ATD program data, reviewed ICE 

documentation, and interviewed ICE 

and ATD contractor officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that ICE analyze 

data to monitor ERO field offices’ 

implementation of guidance and 

require the collection of data on the 

Technology-only component. DHS 

concurred with the recommendations.

What GAO Found

From fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013, the number of aliens who 

participated in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) 

Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program increased from 32,065 to 40,864, in part 

because of increases in either enrollments or the average length of time aliens 

spent in one of the program’s components. For example, during this time period, 

the number of aliens enrolled in the Full-service component, which is run by a 

contractor that maintains in-person contact with the alien and monitors the alien 

with either Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment or a telephonic reporting 

system, increased by 60 percent. In addition, the average length of time aliens 

spent in the Technology-only program component, which offers a lower level of 

supervision at a lower contract cost than the Full-service program component 

and involves ICE monitoring of aliens using either telephonic reporting or GPS 

equipment provided by a contractor, increased by 80 percent—from about 10 

months to about 18 months. In 2011, ICE recommended practices in guidance to 

its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) field offices to better ensure 

cost-effective implementation of the program. For example, ICE recommended 

that field officers move aliens who have demonstrated compliance under the Fullservice component to the less costly Technology-only component. GAO’s work 

showed differences in ERO field offices’ implementation of the guidance. 

However, ICE headquarters officials said that because of limitations in how they 

collect and maintain program data, they do not know the extent to which field 

officers have consistently implemented this guidance. ICE plans to institute new 

data collection requirements to address these limitations and use these data for a 

variety of purposes; however, ICE has not considered how to analyze these data 

to monitor the extent to which ERO field offices are implementing the guidance. 

Analyzing these data, once collected, could help ICE better monitor the extent to 

which ERO field offices are implementing the practices in its guidance intended 

to ensure more cost-effective program operation.

ICE has established ATD program performance measures to, among other 

things, assess alien compliance with requirements to appear in court and leave 

the country after receiving a final order of removal, but it has not collected 

complete data for assessing progress against these measures. Specifically, 

ICE’s ATD contractor collected data for the Full-service component, and from 

fiscal years 2011 through 2013, these data showed that over 99 percent of aliens 

with a scheduled court hearing appeared in court as required. However, ICE did 

not collect similar performance data to report results for aliens enrolled in the 

Technology-only component—which composed 39 percent of the overall ATD 

program participants in fiscal year 2013—because when the program was first 

created, ICE officials stated that they envisioned that most aliens would be in the 

Full-service component with data tracked by the contractor. ICE plans to expand 

the contractor’s role in data collection but does not plan to require collection of 

performance data for aliens enrolled in the Technology-only component; rather 

ICE plans to leave it to the discretion of field officials as to whether to require the 

contractor to collect these data. Without requirements to collect these data, ICE 

may not have complete information to fully assess program performance. View GAO-15-26. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 

or gamblerr@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Letter 1

Background 6

ICE Expanded the ATD Program and Changed Program Use, but 

Has Not Monitored Implementation of Guidance Intended to 

Help Ensure Program Cost-Effectiveness 13

ICE Has Established Program Performance Measures for the ATD 

Program, but Has Not Collected Complete Data for Assessing 

Progress against All of These Measures 30

Conclusions 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Appendix I Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 39

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Tables

Table 1: Number of Times U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) Released Aliens under Various 

Options, Fiscal Year 2013 8

Table 2: Detention Facility Bookings and Enrollments under 

Release Options, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013 16

Table 3: Average Length of Time Aliens Spent in the Alternatives 

to Detention (ATD) Program in Days, Fiscal Years 2011 

through 2013 17

Table 4: Average Cost per Alternatives to Detention (ATD) 

Program Participant Day, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013 20

Table 5: Alternatives to Detention Program Goals and Results 

Related to Removal of Aliens from the United States, 

Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013 33

Table 6: Performance Rates for Aliens in the Full-service 

Component of the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) 

Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013 35

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figures

Figure 1: Alternatives to Detention Program Requirements 12

Figure 2: Number of Aliens Participating in the Alternatives to 

Detention (ATD) Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013 14

Figure 3: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Enrollments from Fiscal 

Years 2011 to 2013 15

Figure 4: Number of Aliens Terminated from the Alternatives to 

Detention (ATD) Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013 22

Figure 5: Reasons for Termination from the Full-service 

Component of the Alternatives to Detention Program, 

Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013 24

Figure 6: Court Appearance Rate for Aliens Enrolled in the Fullservice Component of the Alternatives to Detention 

Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013 30

Abbreviations 

ATD Alternatives to Detention

BI Behavioral Interventions, Inc.

DHS Department of Homeland Security

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review

ERO Enforcement and Removal Operations 

GPS Global Positioning System

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

INA Immigration and Nationality Act

RCA Risk Classification Assessment

TRUST Act Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 13, 2014

The Honorable Mary Landrieu

Chairman

The Honorable Dan Coats

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable John Carter

Chairman

The Honorable David Price

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

For more than a decade, the federal government has been exploring costeffective alternatives to immigration detention that would provide 

appropriate federal oversight for some of the over 1.5 million aliens in 

fiscal year 2013 who, if not detained in a detention facility, were released 

into the community.1

 1

The 1.5 million aliens represent the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) caseload in fiscal year 2013 as reported in 

DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal 

Operations, Fiscal Year 2013 Report to Congress (Feb. 28, 2014). Of this number, ICE 

reported that 36,379 aliens were in detention at the end of fiscal year 2013 and the 

remaining aliens were released into the community. Detention facilities include those 

facilities ICE manages in conjunction with private contractors or under agreements with 

state and local governments.

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for such 

oversight and implemented the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program 

in 2004 to be a cost-effective alternative to detention that uses case

management and electronic monitoring to ensure adult aliens released 

into the community comply with their release conditions—including 

requirements to appear at immigration court hearings—and comply with 
Page 2 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

final orders of removal from the United States.2 Congress has increased 

funding for operation of the ATD program from $3 million in fiscal year 

20033 to $91.4 million in fiscal year 2014.4

ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) enforces the nation’s 

immigration laws by identifying and apprehending aliens, detaining these 

individuals when legally required or otherwise appropriate during the 

course of their immigration proceedings, and upon completion of those 

proceedings, ensuring that aliens who receive a final order of removal 

leave the United States. ERO prioritizes the apprehension, arrest, and 

removal of aliens from the United States who are convicted criminals, 

pose a threat to national security, are fugitives or obstruct immigration 

controls, or are recent border entrants. Based out of 24 field offices and 

186 suboffices located throughout the country, ERO is also responsible 

for supervising aliens who are not held in detention facilities, but instead 

are released to the community under ATD or other release conditions, 

such as being released on bond. ERO’s ATD Unit provides guidance and 

coordinates program implementation across participating ICE ERO field 

offices that administer the program, with the assistance of a contractor 

that provides technological and case management services. ERO field 

officials’ responsibilities include ensuring that detained and nondetained 

aliens comply with requirements to appear in court for their immigration 

hearings, which are administered by the Department of Justice’s 

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

5

 2

In removal proceedings initiated by DHS, an immigration judge determines whether an 

alien is removable from the United States as a result of being deemed inadmissible under 

section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)) or 

deportable under section 237(a) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)), and, if removable, 

whether such alien is eligible for relief or protection from removal under section 240 of the 

INA (8 U.S.C. § 1229a) or the United Nations Convention Against Torture. See 

Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment 

or Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. Obligations of the United States 

under article 3 of the Convention Against Torture were implemented pursuant to the 

Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, tit. 

XXII, ch. 3, subch. B, § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822, 2681-823. See Regulations 

Concerning the Convention Against Torture, 64 Fed. Reg. 8478 (Feb. 19, 1999).

At 59 EOIR immigration 

3

149 Cong. Rec. H707, H885 (daily ed. Feb. 12, 2003).

4

160 Cong. Rec. H475, H930 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2014).

5

Under the authority of the Attorney General, EOIR interprets and administers federal 

immigration laws by conducting immigration court proceedings, appellate reviews, and 

administrative hearings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a; 8 C.F.R. pt. 1003.
Page 3 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

courts across the country, immigration judges conduct court hearings to 

determine whether aliens should be removed from the country under an 

order of removal, granted voluntary departure, or allowed to remain in the 

United States under a form of relief, such as asylum.6

Since the ATD program was first implemented, ICE has made changes to 

align the program with agency priorities and program goals—with some 

key program changes occurring around 2011. The Joint Explanatory 

Statement to the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 113-

76) mandated that GAO provide a report evaluating ICE’s implementation 

of the ATD program, including any recommendations for how the program 

could be improved.7

To determine the trends in ATD program participation and to what extent 

ICE provides oversight to help ensure cost-effective program 

implementation, we analyzed data for ATD program costs and 

performance provided by ICE and its contractor; reviewed relevant federal 

laws and DHS documents including ICE policy memorandums, 

congressional budget justifications, and ICE’s teleconference meeting 

notes regarding the ATD program; and conducted interviews at ICE and 

its contractor headquarters and 4 of 24 ERO field office locations. 

Specifically, we analyzed ICE and contractor ATD program data from 

fiscal years 2011 through 2013, including data on costs, enrollments, 

terminations from the ATD program, and average length of time enrolled 

in the program, to determine program trends over time. We analyzed data 

from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 to determine trends in the most 

recent fiscal years in which complete data were available. Using these 

This report addresses the following questions: (1) 

What were the trends in ATD program participation from fiscal years 2011 

through 2013, and to what extent does ICE provide oversight to help 

ensure cost-effective program implementation? (2) To what extent has 

ICE measured the performance of the ATD program for fiscal years 2011 

through 2013?

 6

For provisions governing the conduct of removal proceedings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a and 

8 C.F.R. pts. 1003, 1240. In some cases, aliens may be permitted to depart voluntarily in 

lieu of or prior to completion of removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. Aliens in 

removal proceedings may apply for relief or protection from removal if they meet the 

criteria for doing so and, for purposes of asylum, are able to establish that they are 

refugees within the meaning of section 101(a)(42)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 

1101(a)(42)(A)). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1229a(c)(4).

7

160 Cong. Rec. H475, H930.
Page 4 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

data, we also calculated the average ATD program cost per day per alien. 

We could not compare this cost per day for aliens who are released under 

other conditions, such as being released on bond, because ICE does not 

capture cost data associated with these release options. We also 

reviewed the Department of Justice’s EOIR data on the length of time 

aliens spend in immigration proceedings before receiving their final 

disposition. We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing or 

soliciting written responses from ICE and EOIR officials regarding their 

oversight of their respective databases, as well as the ATD database 

maintained by ICE’s contractor, and reviewed the data for any missing 

data fields, entries with values beyond expected ranges, or other entries 

that appeared to be unusual. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also interviewed 

ICE and contractor headquarters officials regarding (1) how ICE has 

structured the ATD program and how ICE officials decide which aliens to 

place in the ATD program and at what supervision level; (2) how ICE 

officials determine when to terminate an alien from the ATD program or 

one of the program’s components;8 (3) changes to program 

implementation over time, including future plans; and (4) benefits and 

challenges of the program. In addition, we interviewed ICE ERO field 

office officials and contractor officials in four locations—Dallas, Texas; 

Los Angeles, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; and St. Paul, Minnesota—

regarding their implementation of the program.9

 8

The ATD program includes two components—the Full-service and Technology-only 

components. The Full-service component is operated by a contractor and includes a 

higher level of supervision of aliens than the Technology-only component, which is 

operated by ICE, utilizing the contractor’s systems and equipment. 

We selected these offices 

on the basis of various factors, including the (1) size of the program at 

each office, (2) geographic location, (3) program components offered, and 

(4) recommendations from cognizant DHS officials. While we cannot 

generalize the results of our interviews to all ICE ERO field office 

locations, officials we interviewed provided us with a general overview 

and perspective on how ICE implements the ATD program at the selected 

locations. In addition, we compared ICE’s management of the ATD 

9

We did not interview contractor officials in one location because this location did not have 

a local contractor office.
 

Page 5 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

program against standards in Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government.

10

To determine how ICE measured the performance of the ATD program 

for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, we analyzed DHS documents, 

congressional budget justifications, and ICE’s teleconference meeting 

notes regarding the ATD program. We also analyzed ICE and ICE 

contractor data from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 related to ATD 

program performance, including data on court appearances, removals 

from the United States, and other performance metrics. To assess the 

reliability of these data, we interviewed ICE and ATD contractor 

headquarters officials regarding database oversight and reviewed the 

data for any missing data fields, entries with values beyond expected 

ranges, or other entries that appeared to be unusual. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report, except 

for certain limitations as noted later in our report. For example, because 

of limitations in some of the performance data, we were not able to 

assess some aspects of performance results for one component of the 

ATD program or compare performance data of aliens in the ATD program 

with performance data for the rest of the nondetained population. We also 

interviewed ICE and contractor officials in headquarters and the 4 ICE 

ERO field office locations to obtain their perspectives on performance 

metrics and future plans for data collection. Additionally, we compared 

ICE’s management of the ATD program against standards in Standards 

for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

11

We conducted this performance audit from March 2014 to November 

2014, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

10GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999). The standards state that an agency’s internal controls 

should provide reasonable assurances that operations are effective and efficient and that 

management directives are carried out.

11GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states 

that agencies should develop mechanisms to reliably collect data that can be used to 

compare and assess program outcomes related to entire program populations.
Page 6 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Within the Department of Justice, EOIR immigration judges conduct 

hearings to determine whether an alien is removable from the United 

States and whether he or she is eligible for a form of relief or protection 

from removal. If an immigration judge determines that an alien is 

removable from the United States and not eligible for relief or protection 

from removal, including voluntary departure, the immigration judge can 

issue an order of removal. The removal order becomes administratively 

final when all avenues for appeal with EOIR to remain in the United 

States have been exhausted or waived by the alien, and the alien is to be 

removed from the United States.12

While immigration judges have the authority to make custody 

determinations, ICE also makes the initial decision as to whether to detain 

aliens in ICE custody or release them to the community pending removal 

proceedings, subject to certain laws.

Once an order of removal is final, ICE 

is responsible for carrying out the removal. In fiscal year 2013, ICE 

reported removing 368,644 aliens from the United States.

13 The Immigration and Nationality 

Act, as well as other legislation, requires that under specified 

circumstances ICE detain certain aliens, including those arriving without 

documentation or with fraudulent documentation, those who are 

inadmissible or removable on criminal or national security grounds, and 

those aliens subject to a final order of removal.14

 12See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1.

Even if not required to 

do so, ICE may detain aliens who it believes pose a threat to public safety 

or are flight risks, with the option for some aliens to be subsequently 

released. In fiscal year 2013, ICE booked 440,557 aliens into detention 

facilities.

13Removal proceedings usually arise when DHS alleges that an alien is inadmissible to 

the United States, has entered the country illegally by crossing the border without being 

inspected by an immigration officer, has violated the terms of his or her admission, or 

otherwise falls into one of the classes of deportable aliens under section 237 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1227, 1229. Immigration 

proceedings may begin after ICE receives custody of an alien from another law 

enforcement agency. ICE may receive custody of aliens from other DHS or ICE entities, 

such as the Homeland Security Investigations or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

148 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231.

Background

EOIR and ICE Roles in 

Managing Aliens
Page 7 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

ICE uses one or more release options when it determines that an alien is 

not to be detained in ICE’s custody—including bond, order of 

recognizance, order of supervision, parole, and on condition of 

participation in the ATD program.

• If an alien is not a threat to public safety, presents a low risk of flight, 

and is not required to be detained, ICE may release him or her on (1) 

a bond of at least $1,500 or (2) an order of recognizance that requires 

the alien to abide by specified release conditions but does not require 

the alien to post a bond.15

• DHS may release an alien on an order of supervision, despite such 

alien being subject to a final order of removal, where there is no 

significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, 

because, for example, travel documents are not forthcoming.16 An 

alien subject to a final order of deportation or removal may also 

request a stay of deportation or removal.17

• ICE may release certain aliens on parole for urgent humanitarian 

reasons or significant public benefit, or for a medical emergency or 

legitimate law enforcement objective, on a case-by-case basis.18

• Finally, an alien can also be placed in the ATD program, which 

requires that, among other things, aliens released into the community 

agree to appear at all hearings and report to ICE periodically.19

In fiscal year 2013, ICE released aliens under these various options 

113,690 times, as shown in table 1.

 15See 8 U.S.C. § 1226; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1. DHS may set a bond, which may also be used 

in conjunction with other release conditions, such as placement in ATD. Upon the alien’s 

request, an EOIR immigration judge may redetermine the amount of bond set by DHS. 

See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1).

16See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.5, 241.13, 241.14. ICE officers 

determine the frequency with which aliens released on an order of supervision must report 

to ICE.

17See 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.6, 1003.2(f), 1003.23(b)(1)(v).

18See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.5, 235.3(b)(2)(iii).

19Upon the alien's request, an EOIR immigration judge may review the alien's placement 

in ATD in some instances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1); Matter of Aguilar-Aquino, 24 I. & 

N. Dec. 747, 753 (B.I.A. 2009).
Page 8 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Table 1: Number of Times U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Released Aliens under Various Options, Fiscal Year 2013

Release option Enrollment

Bond 40,714

Order of recognizance 29,672

Order of supervision 13,108

Parole 6,242

Alternatives to Detention 23,954

Total 113,690

Source: GAO analysis of ICE data. | GAO-15-26

Note: The data in the table above include the number of times that ICE decided to release aliens 

under these options in fiscal year 2013. It does not include aliens who were released under these 

options in prior fiscal years, and still remain under these options. Further, because aliens may be 

released under more than one option—either concurrently or at different times—these data may 

contain duplications.

To assist ICE officers in their decisions whether to detain aliens in ICE 

custody or release them, ICE developed an analytical tool known as the 

Risk Classification Assessment (RCA). The RCA, which ICE fully 

deployed in February 2013, considers several factors related to an alien’s 

public safety and flight risks—such as criminal history, prior removal data, 

ties to the local community, and gang affiliation—and recommends each 

alien for detention or release. An ICE officer reviews the RCA results 

along with other factors, such as an alien’s final order status, and, after 

obtaining supervisory approval, makes a custody determination. ICE 

officials stated that they generally do not use the RCA for aliens that ICE 

must detain by law or that are likely to be removed from the United States 

within 5 days.20

ICE created the ATD program in 2004 as another condition of release to 

help ensure that aliens released into the community appear at their 

immigration proceedings. The ATD program seeks to provide an 

enhanced monitoring option for those aliens for whom ICE, or an 

immigration judge, has determined that detention is neither mandated nor 

appropriate, yet may need a higher level of supervision than that provided 

 20In fiscal year 2013, the RCA recommended 15,162 aliens for release out of 168,087 

total recommendations; the RCA was deployed in February 2013.

Overview of the ATD 

Program
Page 9 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

by the less restrictive release conditions.21

For fiscal year 2003, ICE was allocated $3 million for alternatives to 

detention to promote community-based programs for supervised release 

from detention.

When reviewing an alien’s 

case for possible placement in ATD, officers are to consider the alien’s 

criminal history, compliance history, community and family ties, and 

humanitarian concerns. ICE may require participation in the ATD program 

as a condition of the alien’s release during immigration proceedings, or 

upon receipt of the alien’s final order of removal or grant of voluntary 

departure.

22 Subsequently, ICE created the first iteration of the ATD 

program in 2004 across eight cities; this iteration ran until 2009 and 

consisted of three separate programs operated by ICE and two 

companies under separate contracts.

23

ICE initiated the second phase of the ATD program in 2009 with a 5-year 

contract with a private contractor and consolidated the program into a 

single contract with two components—Full-service and Technologyonly.

These three programs provided 

varying levels of alien supervision intended to help improve alien

attendance rates at scheduled immigration court proceedings. By the end 

of 2009, the ATD program expanded to all of the 24 ICE ERO field offices 

and 5 of 186 suboffices.

24 Behavioral Interventions, Inc. (BI), the contractor, operates the 

Full-service component out of stand-alone sites or out of ICE offices—

currently in 45 cities.25

 21In limited circumstances related to ongoing class action litigation, EOIR immigration 

judges can order aliens released subject to “reasonable conditions of supervision, 

including electronic monitoring if necessary.” Rodriguez v. Robbins, 2012 WL 7653016, at 

*1 (C.D. Cal. 2012), aff’d, 715 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013).

To be eligible for the Full-service component, 

22149 Cong. Rec. H707, H885.

23Under this initial phase of the ATD program, the Intensive Supervision Appearance 

Program began in 2004 and the Enhanced Supervision/Reporting program began in 

2007—both of which were operated by contractors. The Electronic Monitoring program 

was operated by ICE.

24According to ICE officials, ICE officially began using the terms “Full-service” and 

“Technology-only” in January 2011, prior to which the programs were known as the 

Intensive Supervision Appearance Program and Electronic Monitoring program, 

respectively.

25In fiscal year 2013, the Full-service component was available in 44 cities. ICE expanded 

Full-service into Fresno, California, in fiscal year 2014. 
Page 10 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

aliens must be at least 18 years old and generally must reside within 

about 75 miles of the contractor’s office, depending on the field office. 

The contractor maintains in-person contact with the alien, which includes 

requiring periodic office visits and conducting unscheduled home visits, 

and monitoring the alien with either Global Positioning System (GPS) 

equipment or a telephonic reporting system.26 The contractor also 

provides case management services, which may include helping aliens 

understand the legal process, acquiring travel documents, and developing 

travel plans; reminds aliens to attend immigration proceedings; and 

handles initial alerts and violations for aliens.27

Generally, ICE field officials make all decisions about the appropriate 

level of supervision and type of technology for aliens. Under the current 

program, an alien’s status in immigration proceedings generally dictates 

the required number of office visits and unscheduled home visits by the 

contractor for aliens in the Full-service component.

Last, the contractor 

documents aliens’ attendance at court hearings and compliance with 

electronic monitoring and in-person supervision requirements. ICE 

officers are ultimately responsible for removing aliens from the United 

States and responding to program violations.

28 For example, aliens 

whose immigration proceedings are still ongoing (known as pre-order 

under the ATD contract) must visit the contractor’s office once every 2 

weeks and be subject to home visits once every 4 weeks. When an alien 

receives a final order of removal (known as post-order), the frequency of 

required visits doubles, and an alien with a pending appeal must visit the 

office and is subject to home visits once every 4 weeks.29

 26An alien enrolled in the telephonic reporting voice verification program will receive an 

automated telephone call at periodic intervals, which will require the alien to call the 

system back within a certain time frame; the computer will recognize the biometric 

voiceprint and register the “check-in”. It is not the purpose of the voice verification system 

to locate an alien.

Further, ICE 

officers may enroll aliens in ATD who were detained and subsequently 

27The contractor forwards alerts to ICE if the contractor cannot resolve them or for 

informational purposes. 

28ICE officers can change the level of supervision regardless of where an alien is in his or 

her immigration proceedings, per a contract modification. According to contractor officials, 

this is typically done in special circumstances.

29As of June 2014, 71 percent of the alien population in the Full-service component of 

ATD was pre-order, 24 percent was post-order, and 4 percent was in appeal. The 

remaining aliens were in post-order custody review.
Page 11 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

released into the community after a post-order custody review; the level 

of supervision determined for these aliens depends on whether their 

removal from the United States is significantly likely in the reasonably 

foreseeable future.30

ICE ERO field office officials manage the Technology-only component of 

the ATD program, which is available in 96 locations, utilizing the 

contractor’s systems and equipment.31 The Technology-only component 

offers a lower level of supervision at a lower contract cost than the Fullservice component and allows ICE to monitor aliens’ compliance with the 

terms of their release using either telephonic reporting or GPS equipment 

provided by the contractor.32

 30ICE ERO field officers are required to conduct a post-order custody review within 90 

days of the date an order of removal becomes administratively final. ICE can still detain an 

alien after 90 days if it expects travel documents for an alien to be forthcoming in the 

reasonably foreseeable future. ICE is required to review cases for post-order aliens who 

are not likely to be removed in the foreseeable future and are held in detention for 180 

days after receiving a final order and release aliens pending removal, barring special 

circumstances, such as an alien being a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with a 

removal order, or posing a significant threat to national security or a significant risk of 

terrorism. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a); 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.13, 241.14. 

ICE officers are responsible for providing 

case management, in addition to removing aliens from the country and 

responding to violations. In locations where Full-service and Technologyonly are available, ICE officers can de-escalate aliens from the Fullservice component to the Technology-only component (or vice versa) at 

their discretion. For both components, ICE officers determine when an 

alien’s participation in the program should be terminated. ICE terminates 

aliens from the ATD program who are removed from the United States, 

depart voluntarily, are arrested by ICE for removal, or receive a benefit or 

relief from removal. ICE may also terminate an alien from the program 

when aliens are arrested by another law enforcement entity, abscond, or 

otherwise violate the conditions of the ATD program. Further, ICE may 

terminate an alien from the program if ICE officers determine the alien is 

no longer required to participate. The program requirements for the 

various levels of supervision for aliens in the Full-service and Technologyonly components are shown in figure 1.

31These 96 locations include all 45 sites that support the Full-service component. As of 

April 2014, 76 out of 96 possible cities had at least one alien who was enrolled in the 

Technology-only component at any point during the year. 

32According to ICE officials, these cost data are considered privileged as confidential 

business/commercial information, and therefore are not presented in this public report.
Page 12 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figure 1: Alternatives to Detention Program Requirements

In June 2014, ICE issued a request for proposal for the third phase of the 

ATD program, to begin in September 2014,33 which, according to the 

request, is intended to provide ICE officers with more flexibility to 

determine the appropriate level of supervision based on an alien’s history 

and circumstances. Under the second phase of the program, the level of 

alien supervision for Full-service participants is based on where the alien 

is in the immigration process. For the third phase, the program’s goals are 

to be to maintain a high court appearance rate and to remove aliens from 

the United States after they receive final orders of removal.

 33The second ATD contract is scheduled to conclude in November 2014. The third 

contract will begin prior to the conclusion of the second contract to allow time for any 

needed transition. 
Page 13 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

The number of aliens participating in the ATD program increased from 

fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, in part because of increases in either 

enrollments or the average length of time aliens spent in one of the

program’s components; and ICE changed the focus of the program to 

align with changes in agency priorities. Pursuant to ICE guidance in 2011, 

ICE also recommended that ERO field offices transition aliens among the 

two ATD program components—or levels of supervision—to help facilitate 

cost-effective use of the ATD program; however, ICE has not monitored 

the extent to which ERO field offices have consistently implemented the 

guidance. ICE plans to increase the average daily participation level of 

both ATD program components with increased funding, but ATD program 

officials stated that several factors affect their ability to identify future 

capacity and expand the program.

ICE increased the number of aliens participating in the ATD program over 

the last 3 fiscal years with some differences between the Full-service and 

Technology-only components, and this increase, in part, can be attributed 

to increased enrollments and the increased average length of time aliens 

spent in the Technology-only component of the program. Specifically, the 

total number of unique aliens who participated in the program increased 

from 32,065 in fiscal year 2011 to 40,864 in fiscal year 2013, with most 

aliens participating in the Full-service component, as shown in figure 2.34

 34Aliens are counted once for each of the Full-service and Technology-only components, 

regardless of whether they were enrolled in the component more than once in the same 

fiscal year. Accordingly, if an alien was enrolled in both components, he or she would be 

counted once for each component. However, the total number of aliens in the ATD 

program is unique and does not include such duplicates.

These numbers include all aliens in the ATD program for each of these 

years—regardless of the year in which they were initially enrolled. The 

increase in the number of aliens in the program over this time occurred 

primarily in the Technology-only component. Specifically, the overall 

number of aliens participating in the ATD program grew by 27 percent; 

the number of aliens in the Technology-only component increased by 84 

percent; and the number of aliens in the Full-service component 

increased by 23 percent.

ICE Expanded the 

ATD Program and 

Changed Program 

Use, but Has Not 

Monitored 

Implementation of 

Guidance Intended to 

Help Ensure Program 

Cost-Effectiveness

The Number of Aliens 

Participating in the ATD 

Program Increased, in 

Part, because of 

Increased Enrollments and 

Longer Times That Some 

Aliens Spent in the 

Program
Page 14 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figure 2: Number of Aliens Participating in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) 

Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013

Note: The figure represents unique aliens in the Full-service component and the Technology-only 

component. Since aliens can be placed in both components in the same year, they may be counted in 

both categories. The total number of aliens in the ATD program is unique and does not include such 

duplicates.

During this time, the composition of aliens in the ATD program also 

changed to align with agency priorities. Specifically, ICE shifted its overall 

enforcement priorities with a June 2010 policy memorandum that detailed 

the priorities for alien apprehension, detention, and removal as follows: 

(1) aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public 

safety—including aliens convicted of crimes—and (2) recent illegal 

entrants and aliens who are fugitives or otherwise obstruct immigration 

controls.35

 35The policy laid out in this June 2010 memorandum was reiterated in a March 2011 

memorandum which also included one additional statement.

ICE established such priorities because, as stated in the 

memo, ICE has resources to remove only approximately 400,000 aliens 

per year from the country, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal 

alien population in the United States. According to ICE data, about 50 

percent of aliens in the ATD program met an ICE enforcement priority in 
Page 15 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

fiscal year 2012, such as aliens convicted of crimes. As of April 2014, ICE 

reported that about 90 percent of aliens in the ATD program met ICE 

enforcement priorities and 51 percent were criminal aliens.

One factor contributing to the increase in ATD program participation was 

that ICE generally increased the number of aliens it enrolled in the 

program each year. Specifically, the total number of unique enrollments in 

the ATD program increased by 26 percent—from 16,252 in fiscal year 

2011 to 20,441 in fiscal year 2013—although there was a slight decline in 

fiscal year 2012 before increasing in fiscal year 2013.

36

Figure 3: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Enrollments from Fiscal Years 2011 to 

2013

As shown in 

figure 3, the increase from fiscal years 2011 to 2013 was due to 

enrollments in the Full-service component—which increased by 60 

percent during this time.

Note: The figure represents unique aliens in the Full-service component and the Technology-only 

component. Since aliens can be placed in both components in the same year, they may be counted in 

 36Since aliens can be placed in both the Full-service component and the Technology-only 

component in the same year, they may be counted in both categories. However, the total 

number of aliens in the ATD program is unique and does not include such duplicates.
Page 16 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

both categories. The total number of aliens in the ATD program is unique and does not include such 

duplicates.

Information on alien enrollments showed that the extent to which ICE 

booked aliens into detention facilities or released them into the 

community varied across fiscal years 2011 through fiscal year 2013, as 

shown in table 2, although these enrollments were not unique. For 

example, these enrollments include aliens who may have been enrolled in 

both detention and one or more release options in the same fiscal year 

and aliens who may have been booked multiple times into detention 

facilities or released multiple times under the same option in the same 

fiscal year.

Table 2: Detention Facility Bookings and Enrollments under Release Options, Fiscal 

Years 2011 through 2013

2011 2012 2013

Detention 429,096 477,383 440,557

Alternatives to Detention 16,933 17,107 23,954

Other release options 

Bond 40,408 47,091 40,714

Order of recognizance 9,693 16,633 29,672

Order of supervision 8,816 11,646 13,108

Parole 2,132 2,079 6,242

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data. | GAO-15-26

Note: The table data include the number of times that ICE booked a person into detention or released 

aliens under the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program or other release options in each of the fiscal 

years. These data categories are not mutually exclusive and can include duplicates for several 

reasons. Aliens may be released into more than one category—either concurrently or at different 

times. For example, an alien could be in detention prior to being released into the community, 

released on an order of recognizance and enrolled in the ATD program at the same time, or released 

and subsequently detained. Further, some aliens may have been detained or placed in detention or 

under the same release option more than once in the same fiscal year. ICE has limited options for 

how to place some aliens. For example, ICE may be required to detain some aliens.

During this time, ICE also expanded use of the ATD program across ERO 

field office and suboffice locations. Specifically, ICE expanded use of the 

Full-service component from 38 ERO field offices and suboffices in fiscal 

year 2011 to 44 field offices in fiscal year 2013.37

 37In 2013, all but one Full-service location had a Technology-only component as well.

During this time, ICE 

expanded the use of the Technology-only component from 70 to 76 ERO
Page 17 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

field office and suboffice locations that were actively using the 

component.38

Another factor contributing to the increase in the number of aliens in the 

Technology-only component of the ATD program was an increase in the 

length of time these aliens were in the program. While the average length 

of time aliens spent in the ATD program has remained fairly constant, 

differences existed across the program’s components. The average 

length of time that aliens spent in the Full-service component decreased 

by about 20 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013, while the 

average length of time increased nearly 80 percent for aliens in the 

Technology-only component during this same time, as shown in table 3. 

Specifically, aliens enrolled in the Full-service component in fiscal year 

2013 spent about 10 months in the component, and those enrolled in 

Technology-only in fiscal year 2013 spent about 18 months in this 

component.39

Table 3: Average Length of Time Aliens Spent in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) 

Program in Days, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

According to an ICE official, this difference is likely because 

of guidance that directs field office officials to move compliant aliens from 

the more expensive Full-service component to the Technology-only 

component after 90 days, which is discussed later in this report.

Year Full-service Technology-only Total ATD program

2011 398 302 382

2012 415 394 409

2013 312 542 383

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement contractor data. | GAO-15-26

ICE officials stated that how long an alien is in the ATD program before 

receiving a final decision on his or her immigration proceedings depends 

on how quickly EOIR can process immigration cases. According to EOIR 

officials, the length of time before an alien receives a final decision has 

been much longer for aliens released from detention under the ATD 

 38In April 2014, 96 field offices and suboffices received training, and were eligible, for the 

Technology-only component, but not all offices were actively using the component. 

According to ICE officials, these locations may have officers trained in ATD use but are 

based out of a detention facility and therefore would not have a nondetained population.

39ICE reported that aliens spent an average of 29 days in detention in fiscal year 2013.
Page 18 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

program or other release options, primarily because EOIR has prioritized 

immigration cases for detained aliens, and because detained aliens are 

less likely to be eligible for relief as many have been convicted of 

crimes.

40 For example, EOIR data show that after DHS filed the charging 

document, aliens in detention waited 41 days on average to have their 

first court hearing and 82 days on average to receive a final decision in 

fiscal year 2013.41 In that same year, aliens released from detention 

waited 281 days on average to have their first hearing and 770 days on 

average—over 2 years—to receive a final decision.42

While our analyses showed that the average daily cost of the ATD 

program ($10.55) was significantly less than the average daily cost of 

detention ($158) in fiscal year 2013,43

 40In July 2014, EOIR refocused its resources and prioritized cases involving aliens who 

have recently crossed the southwest border and whom DHS has placed in removal 

proceedings, in addition to cases involving detained aliens.

the extent to which the length of 

immigration proceedings affects the cost-effectiveness of the ATD

program varies under different scenarios. Specifically, we conducted two 

analyses to estimate when the cost of keeping aliens in the ATD program 

would have surpassed the cost of detaining an alien in a facility. Under 

our first analysis, we considered the average costs of ATD and detention 

and the average length of time aliens in detention spent awaiting an 

immigration judge’s final decision, and found that the ATD program would 

have surpassed the cost of detention after an alien was in the program for 

41EOIR officials stated that they calculated these data for aliens who were detained when 

the case was completed or, if the case was pending on April 12, 2014, on that date. These 

aliens may not have been detained for the entire time leading up to the completion of the 

case. These data show the average time between the filing of the charging document and 

the first hearing where the first hearing took place in fiscal year 2013, as well as the 

average time between the filing of the charging document and the immigration judge’s 

decision, not including decisions following remands, where the decision was issued in 

fiscal year 2013. A case may have more than one hearing.

42These data do not include aliens who were never detained. EOIR officials stated that 

they calculated these data for aliens who had been released from detention by the time 

the case was completed or, if the case was pending on April 12, 2014, by that date. These 

data show the average time between the filing of the charging document and the first 

hearing where the first hearing took place in fiscal year 2013, as well as the average time 

between the filing of the charging document and the immigration judge’s decision, not 

including decisions following remands, where the decision was issued in fiscal year 2013.

43The ATD program and detention cost per day estimates include personnel costs, but do 

not include expenditures paid toward agency-wide overhead activities, such as rent or 

information technology services.
Page 19 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

1,229 days in fiscal year 2013—significantly longer than the average 

length of time aliens spent in the ATD program in this year (383 days).

44

In our second analysis, we considered the average costs of ATD and 

detention and the average length of time aliens spent in detention—

regardless of whether they had received a final decision from an 

immigration judge—since some aliens may not be in immigration 

proceedings or may not have reached their final hearing before ICE 

released them from detention. ICE reported that the average length of 

time that an alien was in detention in fiscal year 2013 was 29 days. Using 

this average, we calculated the average length of time aliens could have 

stayed in the ATD program before they surpassed the cost of detention 

would have been 435 days in fiscal year 2013.45 Our analyses of costs for 

the ATD program from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2013 showed 

that the costs per day per alien in the ATD program increased to $10.55 

in fiscal year 2013—which includes ATD personnel costs—after 

decreasing in fiscal year 2012, as shown in table 4.46 This compares with 

the average cost of detention, which is $158 a day per alien, which 

includes personnel costs.47

 44Our analysis took into consideration the average daily cost of $10.55 for the ATD 

program and the average daily cost of $158 for placing an alien in a detention facility. Our 

analysis also considered the average time EOIR reported it took between DHS filing a 

charging document and an immigration judge issuing a final decision. For aliens detained 

at the time of the final decision—but who may not have been detained for the entire time 

leading up to the completion of their case—the average was 82 days in fiscal year 2013. 

Specifically, we multiplied the average cost of detention with the average time aliens 

detained at the time of the final decision waited for his or her final decision, and divided 

this number by the average cost of ATD.

45Specifically, we multiplied the average cost of detention with the average time aliens 

spent in detention, and divided this number by the average cost of ATD.

46If an alien is enrolled in Full-service and also has electronic monitoring of GPS or 

telephonic reporting, ICE counts him or her as having 2 participant days. To adjust for this 

in our cost per day estimate, we reduced the number of Full-service participant days in 

half. This cost estimate is higher than what ICE reports, as ICE’s estimate is based upon 

the contract costs for ATD divided by the total number of participation days—it does not 

include personnel costs. Our estimate incorporates both the cost of ATD personnel, as 

well as the cost of the ATD contract.

47ICE reports an official average daily cost for detention to be $118 a day, but this cost 

does not include personnel costs. The detention personnel costs included in our analysis 

include personnel who work at detention facilities, as well as support staff who support 

detention-related activities but are not working at the detention facilities.
Page 20 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Table 4: Average Cost per Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program Participant Day, 

Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

ATD program 2011 2012 2013

Expenditures (Dollars in millions) $64.8 $64.9 $85

Participation days 8,061,113 8,297,148 6,045,144

Cost per participant day $10.72 $7.83 $10.55

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. | GAO-15-26

Note: If an alien is enrolled in Full-service and also has electronic monitoring using Global Positioning 

System or telephonic reporting, he or she is counted as having 2 participant days. To adjust for this in 

our cost per day estimate, we reduced the number of Full-service participants in half, as reflected in 

the table above.

ICE officials told us that while ICE received an additional $24 million 

funding for the ATD program in fiscal year 2013, by the time it became 

available, it was too late to expand capacity of the program. These 

officials stated that they reprogrammed some of the additional funding, 

and used the remaining on various ATD-related activities, such as 

conducting trainings and purchasing new vehicles for ICE officers.48

ICE increased the number of aliens terminated from the ATD program 

since 2011 after guidance directed ERO field offices to more costeffectively use the ATD program; however, ICE has not monitored the 

extent to which field offices have implemented the guidance. Under the 

original ATD contract, ICE officials stated that aliens enrolled in the ATD 

program generally stayed in the program from the time of enrollment 

through completion of the immigration process (i.e., completion of a final 

court hearing or, if ordered removed at the final hearing, removal from the 

United States). However, concerned about the time it has taken for aliens 

to complete immigration proceedings and the subsequent impact on ATD 

program costs, ICE recommended in 2011 that ERO field offices help 

facilitate cost-effective use of the ATD program. Pursuant to this 

guidance, ICE officials recommended that field officials reserve more 

intense and costly supervision options under the Full-service component 

for (1) aliens who are newly enrolled in ATD who do not have an order of 

removal or an immediate immigration court date and (2) aliens who have 

 48ICE discussed and researched using funds for a kiosk pilot for the ATD program that 

would allow aliens to check-in with ICE through kiosk machines, but no action was taken 

to develop and implement the pilot.

ICE Increased the Number 

of Aliens Terminated from 

the ATD Program, but Has 

Not Monitored 

Implementation of 

Guidance to Help Ensure 

Cost-Effective Program 

Implementation
Page 21 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

already received a final order of removal from the country—the latter of 

which is seen as a best practice, according to ICE. Specifically, pursuant 

to ICE’s guidance, ICE recommended that ICE ERO field office officials 

assess whether aliens in the Full-service component demonstrated 

compliance with the conditions of their release, at least every 90 days, 

and if so, terminate them from the Full-service component after 90 days 

and de-escalate them to lower levels of supervision at a lower cost by 

moving them to the Technology-only component of the ATD program.49

 49The guidance initially recommended that ICE officials review ATD cases every 180 

days. However, after reviewing data on when aliens are most likely to abscond, officials 

stated that the guidance was changed to at least every 90 days.

Conversely, ICE recommended that ERO field office officials terminate 

aliens from the Technology-only component who received their final order 

of removal or grant of voluntary departure and escalate them to the Fullservice component so that ICE, along with the contractor, could more 

easily monitor and ensure their departure. Subsequently, ICE increased 

the number of terminations from the two components of the ATD 

program. Specifically, as shown in figure 4, ICE increased the number of 

terminations from the Full-service component by 82 percent and the 

number of terminations from the Technology-only component by 299 

percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013.
Page 22 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figure 4: Number of Aliens Terminated from the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) 

Program from Fiscal Years 2011 to 2013

Note: Since aliens could be enrolled in both the Full-service component and the Technology-only 

component in the same year or may have been enrolled in the same component more than once in a 

year, they may be counted multiple times if they were terminated more than once in a year.

ICE does not have complete data to identify the specific reasons field 

officials decided to terminate aliens from the program and therefore 

cannot determine whether ERO field offices are implementing the 

guidance for changing an alien’s level of supervision between the ATD 

program components with the goal of cost-effectively implementing the 

ATD program. According to ICE officials, because the individual 

circumstances for each alien’s case can vary, the decision to terminate or 

change an alien’s level of supervision is made by the field officer, who 

decides whether to keep aliens in the Full-service component, deescalate aliens from the Full-service component to the Technology-only 

component, or terminate aliens from the ATD program entirely by placing 

them in detention or releasing them under their own recognizance or 

another release option. While ICE collects some data on the reasons for 

termination decisions made by field officials, ICE does not collect data on 

the specific reason why field officials would determine an alien is no 

longer required to participate in the program. For example, our analysis of 

termination data for the Full-service component showed that 13 percent of 

terminations from the Full-service component were made after 
Page 23 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

confirmation of an alien’s removal and departure from the United States 

or after the alien had been granted relief and benefits to remain in the 

country, and another 15 percent of terminations were made for reasons 

including that aliens had violated the terms of the ATD program, had 

absconded, had been arrested, were pending departure, or other 

reasons. However, it was unclear why ERO field office officials made 

most terminations—71 percent—before the completion of the aliens’ 

immigration proceedings or removal from the United States, because the 

reason provided was that a field official determined that an alien was no 

longer required to participate in the program.50 As a result, ICE officials 

stated that they did not know if field office officials made the majority of 

these terminations in response to its guidance recommending changing 

the levels of supervision that could result in more cost-effective operation 

of the program, or for other reasons.51

 50Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

Figure 5 shows the reasons for 

Full-service terminations in fiscal years 2011 through 2013.

51According to ICE officials, ICE officers can make these termination decisions for a 

variety of reasons, including because an immigration judge temporarily removed a case 

from an immigration judge’s calendar (administrative closure), changes in jurisdiction that 

result from an alien moving to a location where the ATD program is not offered, and ICE’s 

decision to change the level of supervision required for the alien. Although there is a 

subcode for this category that would provide additional information on the reason for a 

termination in this category, ICE officials stated that they were unable to query and 

analyze these data.
Page 24 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Figure 5: Reasons for Termination from the Full-service Component of the 

Alternatives to Detention Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

Note: Since aliens could be enrolled in the Full-service component more than once in a year, they 

may be counted twice if they were terminated more than once in a year.

In addition, ICE contractor data showed ERO field office officials may not 

be following ICE guidance intended to help ensure cost-effective program 

implementation. Specifically, data on the Full-service component of the 

ATD program in fiscal year 2013 showed that the majority of aliens 

terminated from the Full-service component were not subsequently 

enrolled into the Technology-only component, as recommended by ICE 

guidance. These data show that of 12,769 unique aliens terminated from 

the Full-service component for the reason that ICE determined the alien 

no longer needed to participate, 1,051—or 8 percent—were subsequently 

enrolled in the Technology-only component.52

 52ICE officials stated that there could be additional subsequent enrollments in the 

Technology-only component that were not captured in their data. For example, some 

aliens who were terminated from the Full-service component in fiscal year 2013 may have 

been subsequently enrolled in the ATD program in fiscal year 2014. 

ICE officials said that 

because of the data limitations discussed above, they do not have 

information necessary to analyze why ERO field offices were terminating 

aliens from higher levels of supervision under the Full-service component 
Page 25 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

without subsequently enrolling them in lower-level supervision under the 

Technology-only component as specified in the guidance. For example, 

they could not determine how many of the cases terminated because ICE 

decided the alien no longer needed to participate were a result of 

something outside ICE’s control, such as an administrative closure, or 

how many were terminated because ICE ERO field officers released the 

alien under an order of recognizance rather than de-escalate the alien’s 

level of supervision to the Technology-only component.53

Our interviews with ICE officials in three of the four ERO field offices also 

showed differences in how the ICE guidance was implemented.

These data 

would provide insight into how field officers are implementing ICE’s 

guidance. In addition, ICE officials stated that they do not have data 

available to determine how many aliens in the Technology-only 

component were re-escalated to higher levels of supervision under the 

Full-service component upon receiving their final order of removal from 

the country—which ICE considers a best practice to ensure that aliens do 

not abscond and do comply with requirements to leave the country—

because data maintained in its information system on final orders for 

aliens in the Technology-only component are not reliable. ICE officials 

said that data maintained in its information system on final orders for 

aliens in the Technology-only component are not complete because field 

officials do not have time to track these data given limited resources and 

other priorities.

54

 53In addition, during this time, ICE was directing its ERO field offices to terminate aliens 

from the ATD program who were not likely removable from the United States, which may 

have caused an increase in terminations. Although the ATD program, as initially 

developed, was not intended to provide indefinite monitoring of nonremovable aliens, ICE 

officials stated that they did enroll nonremovable aliens in the program until ICE changed 

its program goal focus to removals from court appearances. ICE officials stated that this 

change was made because they had already achieved a very high court appearance rate 

and focusing on removals would also align with the agency’s overall strategic goals of 

detaining and removing aliens.

Officials 

from two field offices said that they had implemented changes to more 

actively move aliens to higher and lower levels of supervision, as needed. 

For example, officials in one field office said that they began generally 

reviewing cases on a monthly basis and, after 30 days, often lowered the 

level of supervision of aliens in the Full-service component from using 

more expensive GPS to less expensive telephonic monitoring if an alien 

54One of the four field offices that we selected to interview did not have the Full-service 

component.
Page 26 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

had shown compliance during that time. These officials reported that after 

90 days they often terminated aliens from the more expensive Fullservice component and moved them to the less expensive Technologyonly component or other release options. These officials reported reenrolling aliens who had received their final order of removal in the Fullservice component. Officials in the other of these field offices cited 

implementing a similar practice of de-escalation and escalation of 

supervision across the Full-service and Technology-only components, 

with some differences. These officials reported generally reviewing cases 

every 4 to 6 months and escalating all aliens in the Technology-only 

component to the Full-service component 30 days before any court 

hearing, and de-escalating these aliens back down to the Technologyonly component after the alien’s attendance at the hearing unless a final 

order of removal was issued. They also said they had a practice to 

consider enrolling aliens in ATD who are under all release options—not 

just ATD—when they receive an order of removal. These officials stated 

that they now review all aliens who receive a final order of removal for 

possible enrollment in ATD—even if the alien was never previously in the 

ATD program. According to ICE, Full-service supervision has proven to 

be a best practice in ensuring successful removal from the United 

States.55

 55ATD contractor officials concurred with this general assessment, stating that they 

believe that once the order of removal has been issued, it is often difficult to effectively 

remove an alien when ICE or the contractor has lost contact with the alien because the 

alien was terminated from the Full-service component of the ATD program. These officials 

stated that they believe that the Full-service component of the ATD program allows ICE 

officers to focus more on their law enforcement duties because the contractor case 

manager can manage the nondetained population in virtually the same manner as an ICE 

officer. However, as these officials stated, the contractor case manager has a much 

smaller caseload than an ICE officer, which allows them to have a closer relationship with 

the alien and they are able to follow up with aliens sooner and more often.

Officials in the other field office said that they changed their 

practice of using Full-service enrollment to focus only on aliens who had 

received their final order of removal to align with agency priorities. 

Furthermore, the four field offices we selected for interviews were 

generally consistent with national trends in placing the majority of aliens 

in the Technology-only component on telephonic reporting—which has 

lower associated contract costs than GPS. As of April 2014, 97 percent of 

aliens in the Technology-only component and 52 percent of aliens in the 

Full-service component were monitored via telephonic reporting, with the 

remaining being monitored by GPS.
 

Page 27 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Under the new ATD program contract to be implemented in September 

2014, ICE planned to address these data limitations but did not plan to 

use these data to monitor the extent to which ERO field offices have 

implemented the guidance for cost-effective program implementation 

across field offices. ICE officials said the new ATD program contract will 

require the contractor to maintain data on final orders; when an alien’s 

supervision level changed; and for aliens that ICE determined are no 

longer required to participate in the ATD program, the specific reason for 

this determination. ICE officials stated that these data will provide them 

with information on how long participants were monitored by the ATD 

program before being de-escalated to lower levels of supervision or 

terminated from the program and that these data can be used to establish 

a better profile of a participant’s program life cycle and outcome. While 

requiring the contractor to maintain these data is a positive step that will 

help ICE collect more complete data on ATD participants, ICE officials did 

not have a plan to analyze these data to monitor ERO field offices’ 

implementation of ICE guidance that is intended to ensure more costeffective use of the program. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government states that an agency’s internal controls should provide 

reasonable assurances that operations are effective and efficient.56 The 

standards also call for agencies to examine and use the information to 

make decisions and monitor programs. Once additional data are collected 

under the new ATD program contract, analyzing termination data—

specifically data on when an alien’s level of supervision changes and the 

specific reasons for terminations from the ATD program—could help ICE 

better monitor how ERO field offices are implementing the guidance to 

cost-effectively use the ATD program.

ICE intends to increase the average daily participation level of both ATD 

program components with increased funding, according to ICE’s fiscal 

year 2015 budget justification; however, ATD program officials stated that 

several factors affect their ability to identify future capacity and expand 

the program. These officials said that one of these factors was limited 

information for determining how many aliens who were detained or 

otherwise released could have been considered suitable for the ATD 

program. For example, ATD program officials said that ERO field office 

officials who manage the ATD program have the ability to see the cases 

 

56GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

ICE Officials Cited Factors 

That Affect Future 

Capacity and Expansion of 

the ATD Program
Page 28 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

that are referred to the ATD program, but not the cases that resulted in 

the alien being detained in ICE custody or released under other options 

after the RCA process is completed. Nationwide, the RCA tool 

recommended that 91 percent of the 168,087 aliens processed by the 

RCA in fiscal year 2013 be detained in ICE custody—some of whom were 

subsequently eligible for bond—and that the remaining 9 percent (15,162 

aliens) be released under ATD or other release options. However, ICE 

field officials managing the ATD program may not have seen the cases 

that resulted in detention or release and accordingly, are limited in their 

ability to estimate to what extent ATD program capacity could be 

expanded or changed in their location. To help increase the number of 

cases referred for ATD program consideration, ICE has issued guidance 

to its ERO field offices emphasizing that all nondetained criminal aliens 

should be given priority consideration for ATD program enrollment. 

Accordingly, this guidance directs the Criminal Alien Program and 

Fugitive Operations teams that generate case referrals in the field to 

coordinate with their local ATD component for enrollment consideration, 

including aliens released on a bond.57

Other factors that ICE officials identified as affecting their ability to identify 

capacity and expand the ATD program are federal and state statutes and 

agency guidance. For example, ICE reported that from fiscal year 2011 to 

fiscal year 2013, 77 percent to 80 percent of aliens in detention facilities 

were required to be detained under federal law, and were not eligible for 

consideration in the ATD program.

ICE reported that field offices 

coupling a bond with ATD as a condition of release have shown an 

increased rate of success in alien removals from the United States.

58 In addition, federal law requires that 

ICE maintain a minimum of 34,000 detention beds each day,59

 57ICE’s Criminal Alien Program is designed to identify, process, and remove criminal 

aliens from prisons across the United States, and the Fugitive Operations Program is 

designed to pursue known at-large criminal aliens and fugitive aliens. 

and as 

part of its fiscal year 2015 budget justification, ICE reported that a 

decrease in the number of detention beds required to be maintained 

would result in an increase in the number of aliens who could be enrolled 

in the ATD program. In regard to state statute, one state, for example, 

passed a law whereby law enforcement officials have the discretion to 

58See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), 1226(c)(1), 1226a, 1231(a)(2).

59The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014 requires ICE to maintain a 

level of not less than 34,000 detention beds. Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 251.
Page 29 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

cooperate with federal immigration officials by detaining an individual on 

the basis of an immigration hold after that individual becomes eligible for 

release from custody, only where certain criteria are met.

60 In regard to 

agency guidance, ICE has instructed ERO field offices generally not to 

enroll aliens who are not likely removable, as well as aliens who were 

brought to the United States as children and may be eligible for the 

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.61

ICE officials stated that they did not plan to expand use of the ATD 

program to additional ERO field office locations until after the new 

contract was in place; however, officials reported that several factors 

could affect whether a field office could be or is willing to implement the 

program. For example, ICE reported in May 2014 that five field offices 

had requested to implement the Full-service component in their office but 

ICE did not approve the requests because the field offices did not have 

the necessary resources to implement the program. Such resources 

include officers’ time to respond to instances of alien noncompliance with 

the terms of the program and review ATD cases and make supervision 

and termination decisions.

 60Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act (TRUST Act), Cal. Gov’t Code 

§§ 7282, 7282.5 (2014). Under the TRUST Act, law enforcement officials may not detain 

an individual pursuant to an immigration hold, where such individual is eligible for release 

from custody, unless: (1) continued detention would not violate any other federal, state, or 

local law, or local policy; and (2) any of the listed conditions under subdivision (a) are 

satisfied. Section 7282.5(b) of the TRUST Act reiterates that where none of the specified 

conditions under subdivision (a) are fulfilled, an individual who is eligible for release from 

custody shall not be detained pursuant to an immigration hold.

61Under this program, certain people who came to the United States as children may be 

eligible for deferral of any removal action against them for a certain period of time.
Page 30 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

ICE established two program performance measures to assess the ATD 

program’s effectiveness in (1) ensuring alien compliance with court 

appearance requirements and (2) ensuring removals from the United 

States, as well as performance rates to evaluate the program’s 

performance, but limitations in data collection hinder ICE’s ability to 

assess overall program performance.

Compliance with court appearances. ICE established a program 

performance measure in 2004 to monitor alien compliance with 

requirements to appear at their immigration hearings. Data collected by 

ICE’s ATD contractor for the Full-service component of the ATD program 

from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 showed that over 99 percent of 

aliens with a scheduled court hearing appeared at their scheduled court 

hearings while participating in this component of the ATD program, with 

the appearance rate dropping slightly to over 95 percent of aliens with a 

scheduled final hearing appearing at their final removal hearing, as shown 

in figure 6.

Figure 6: Court Appearance Rate for Aliens Enrolled in the Full-service Component

of the Alternatives to Detention Program, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

Note: Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not have court appearance program goals for the 

Alternatives to Detention program in fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

ICE Has Established 

Program 

Performance 

Measures for the ATD 

Program, but Has Not 

Collected Complete 

Data for Assessing 

Progress against All 

of These Measures
Page 31 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

However, ICE does not collect similar performance data or report results 

on the court appearance rate for aliens enrolled in the Technology-only 

component of the ATD program—which constituted 39 percent of the 

overall ATD program in fiscal year 2013. According to ICE officials, the 

agency did not require the contractor to capture similar data for the 

Technology-only component because when the ATD program was 

created, it was envisioned that most aliens would be in the Full-service 

component for the duration of the immigration process, and data for 

aliens in the Full-service component are collected by the contractor.62

ICE has taken steps to address the lack of data collection for the 

Technology-only component. Specifically, during the course of our review, 

ICE initiated a pilot program with its contractor in May 2014 to establish 

improved data collection efforts, as well as expanded supervision options. 

The pilot, which is being tested in eight cities, increases the role the ATD 

contractor has in collecting and tracking data on aliens in the Technologyonly component. Specifically, the contractor tracks compliance with 

release requirements, including court appearance requirements, for aliens 

enrolled in the Technology-only component, as it already does for aliens 

enrolled in the Full-service component. Under the new contract, ICE plans 

to implement key aspects of the pilot across all program locations, 

including giving ICE officers the ability to require the contractor to track 

data on aliens in the Technology-only component—including data on 

court appearances—to the contractor, according to the request for 

proposal for the new ATD program contract. However, ICE officials will 

not be required to have the contractor collect these data under the 

ICE 

officials stated that they did not have sufficient resources to collect such 

data for the Technology-only component, given other priorities.

 62Although we cannot compare the Full-service population with aliens in the Technologyonly population, EOIR does report some data to inform the court appearance rate for all 

nondetained aliens who do not appear for their immigration hearings, but not specifically 

for aliens in the ATD program or its components. Data reported in EOIR’s Fiscal Year

2013 Statistics Yearbook show that, in fiscal year 2013, of the 53,616 decisions rendered 

by immigration judges for aliens who were never detained, 12,071 (23 percent) were 

issued in absentia–where the alien did not appear at his or her hearing. This indicates a 

court appearance rate of 77 percent. In that same year, for aliens who were once detained 

but subsequently were released from custody, 9,343 of 28,061 decisions were issued in 

absentia, for a lower court appearance rate of 67 percent. Aliens who were never detained 

or released may include aliens in the ATD program.
 

Page 32 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

contract.63 While ICE’s plan to expand data collection for the Technologyonly component under the new contract is a positive step that will help 

provide more information for assessing the performance of that program 

component, ICE may not have complete data for assessing program 

performance without requirements that ICE or contractor field staff collect 

these data. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government 

states that agencies should employ control activities to monitor their 

performance.64

Removals from the United States. ICE established a new program 

performance measure in fiscal year 2011 to assess the number of aliens 

removed from the country who had participated in the ATD program.

More specifically, agencies should develop mechanisms 

to reliably collect data that can be used to compare and assess program 

outcomes related to entire program populations. Requiring ERO field 

offices to collect, or have the contractor collect, court appearance data on 

the Technology-only component of the ATD program would help ensure 

that ICE has complete data for assessing the performance of that 

program component as well as the overall ATD program, particularly in 

light of ICE’s guidance issued in fiscal year 2011 directing field offices to 

transition more aliens to the Technology-only component. 

65

 

63According to ICE officials, having the contractor track court appearance data for aliens in 

the Technology-only component will be optional because some aliens in the Technologyonly program may have already received their final order and would not require the 

contractor to track such data.

ICE officials said the decision to replace the court appearance goal with 

the removal goal was based on the fact that the court appearance rate 

had consistently surpassed 99 percent and the program needed to 

establish another goal to demonstrate improvement over time. For this 

program performance measure, a removal attributed to the ATD program 

counts if the alien (1) was enrolled in ATD for at least 1 day, and (2) was 

removed or had departed voluntarily from the United States in the same 

64GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

65This removal goal was incorporated in DHS’s Future Years Homeland Security Program 

for fiscal year 2011, according to ICE officials. The Future Years Homeland Security 

Program lays out DHS’s plan for responsibly allocating resources within established 

funding targets and provides an overview of the department’s strategic structure. Although 

ICE officials stated that they subsequently maintained an overall goal for removals in the 

Future Years Homeland Security Program, it is not specific to aliens who participated in 

the ATD program. According to DHS’s fiscal year 2015 budget justification, the ATD 

program aligns with ICE’s strategic plan for detaining and removing aliens seeking illegal 

entry.
Page 33 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

fiscal year, regardless of whether the alien was enrolled in ATD at the 

time the alien left the country. As shown in table 5, ATD met its goal for 

removals in fiscal years 2012 and 2013.66

Table 5: Alternatives to Detention Program Goals and Results Related to Removal 

of Aliens from the United States, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

In fiscal year 2012, their goal 

was to have a 3 percent increase from their fiscal year 2011 total, and in 

fiscal year 2013, a 3 percent increase from their 2012 removal goal.

Verified removals

Year Goal Total Full-service Technology-only

2011 — 2,733 2,458 275

2012 2,815 2,841 2,340 501

2013 2,899 2,901 2,353 548

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data. | GAO-15-26

Note: There was no removal goal in fiscal year 2011, as this was the baseline year.

Performance rates. ICE also uses four performance rates to evaluate 

how well the ATD program is operating while aliens are participating in 

the program.67

 66We could not compare the performance data for alien removals under the ATD program 

with data for alien removals under other release options for a variety of reasons. First, ICE 

officials reported that the data on the number of aliens in the Technology-only component 

of the ATD program who received a final order is not tracked, and accordingly, we would 

not be able to determine the percentage of aliens in ATD who received a final order who 

were removed from the country. Second, ICE officials said that similar data for other 

nondetained aliens was either incomplete or untimely. ICE officials cited limited ICE staff 

resources for monitoring these aliens as a reason for these data limitations.

These four performance rates (success rate, failure rate, 

absconder rate, and removal rate)—though not measures of how well 

aliens in the ATD program comply with court appearances or removal 

orders—assess the status of an alien’s case at the time the alien is 

terminated from the ATD program. These performance rates are based 

on outcomes defined as favorable, neutral, and unfavorable.

67According to ICE officials, although these rates are not included as part of their larger 

homeland security goals, they may use these rates to respond to Questions for the 

Record for Congress, Freedom of Information Act requests, and media inquiries—and 

officials reported that they provide the methodology on how these rates are calculated, to 

ensure transparency. In addition, according to ICE officials, further examination of these 

rates can lead management to evaluate how the ATD program works to see how it can be 

improved to most effectively meet the demands placed on ICE. For example, these 

officials stated that an examination of the absconder rate over time was used to help the 

agency determine when an alien was most likely to abscond from the program.
Page 34 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

• Favorable outcomes reflect cases where the final outcome of an 

alien’s immigration proceeding resulted in either a verified departure 

from the United States or a grant of relief and benefits to remain in the 

country while the alien was an active participant in the ATD program.

• Neutral outcomes do not reflect final outcomes of immigration 

proceedings, but rather include aliens who are terminated from the 

ATD program while awaiting departure, after being arrested, or 

because ICE determined the alien no longer needed to participate in 

the program—which could be because the case was administratively 

closed, the alien moved to a jurisdiction that did not have the ATD 

program, or ICE determined to lower or raise the alien’s level of 

supervision by moving him or her to a detention facility or another 

release option.

• Unfavorable outcomes include aliens who were terminated from the 

ATD program after absconding or violating program requirements.

Specifically, the success rate reflects the percentage of aliens whose 

cases resulted in either favorable outcomes or neutral outcomes. This 

rate essentially measures the ATD program’s effectiveness in being able 

to track and monitor an alien while in the program, according to ICE 

officials. The failure rate is the converse of the success rate, measuring 

the percentage of unfavorable outcomes, including noncompliance with 

program terms or absconding from the program. The absconder rate 

measures the percentage of aliens whom ICE terminated from the 

program as a result of aliens absconding from the program. The removal 

rate approximates the percentage of aliens in ATD who will be removed 

or depart after the completion of their immigration proceedings. ICE 

calculates these rates for both its Full-service and Technology-only 

components.

Using these performance rates, ICE reported that for the Full-service 

component over the last 3 years, ICE, along with its contractor, was able 

to track and monitor 90 percent or more of aliens until they were 

terminated from the Full-service component of the ATD program, with 

variance in the rate of aliens who had absconded from the program or 

who were projected to be removed from the country. During that same 

time, ICE reported improved ability to track and monitor aliens in the 

Technology-only component from nearly 80 percent in fiscal year 2011 to 

nearly 90 percent in fiscal year 2013. See table 6 for Full-service and 

Technology-only performance rates over these last 3 years.
 

Page 35 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention 

Table 6: Performance Rates for Aliens in the Full-service Component of the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Program, Fiscal 

Years 2011 through 2013 

 2011 2012 2013 

Performance metric 

FullserviceTechnologyonlyFullserviceTechnologyonly FullserviceTechnologyonly

Success rate: the percentage of all aliens terminated 

from the ATD program whose departure from the 

United States was verified or were granted relief or 

were no longer required to participate in ATD, pending 

departure, or arrested. This measure is not intended to 

be an indicator for successful removal from the United 

States or compliance with a court appearance; instead, 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

uses this rate to measure its ability to track and 

monitor aliens when enrolled in ATD. 

 90% 79.8% 93% 88% 93.5% 89.5%

Failure rate: the percentage of all aliens terminated 

from the ATD program who absconded or violated 

terms. 

 10% 20.3% 7% 12% 6.5% 10.5%

Absconder rate: the percentage of all aliens 

terminated from the ATD program who absconded 

from the program. 

 8.6% 9.6% 5.6% 3.7% 5.3% 4.5%

Removal rate: the percentage of aliens whose 

departure from the United States was verified divided 

by the number of absconders and violators who have 

received their final orders of removal, and aliens who 

were verified to have departed the country. 

 84.1% 44.1% 84.9% 48.9% 79.2% 47.1%

Source: GAO analysis of ICE contractor data. | GAO-15-26 

However, ATD program performance measures and rates provide limited 

information about the aliens who are terminated from the ATD program 

prior to receiving the final disposition of their immigration proceedings or 

were removed or voluntarily departed from the country. Specifically, with 

respect to program performance measures, ICE counts an alien who was 

terminated from the program and was subsequently removed from the 

United States toward his or her removal performance measure as long as 

the alien was in the program during the same fiscal year he or she was 

removed from the country.68 However, aliens who were terminated from 

the program do not count toward court appearance rates if they 

subsequently do not appear for court. Further, performance rates, for 

 

68According to ICE officials, after an alien is terminated from the ATD program, the 

information obtained while the alien was in the program (i.e., contact information) may 

assist ICE in locating an alien, as necessary, and accordingly, this is why these aliens are 

included in the official removal count. 
Page 36 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

example, did not reflect whether the 87 percent of the aliens whom ICE 

terminated from the ATD program in fiscal year 2013 were removed, 

voluntarily departed from the United States, or were granted relief.69 ICE 

officials reported that it would be challenging to determine an alien’s 

compliance with the terms of his or her release after termination from the 

ATD program given insufficient resources and the size of the nondetained 

alien population. In accordance with ICE guidance, staff resources are 

instead directed toward apprehending and removing aliens from the 

United States who are considered enforcement and removal priorities.

The ATD program is intended to help ICE cost-effectively manage the 

aliens for whom ICE, or an immigration judge, has determined that 

detention is neither mandated nor appropriate, yet may need a higher 

level of supervision when released into the community until they are 

removed from the United States or receive approval to remain in the 

country. ICE has altered its implementation of the ATD program to 

address the cost associated with keeping aliens in the program in light of 

lengthy immigration proceedings. However, by analyzing data that ICE 

plans to collect on supervision levels and specific reasons aliens are 

terminated from the program, ICE could be better positioned to monitor 

ERO field offices’ implementation of guidance intended to ensure costeffective management of the ATD program. Further, collecting reliable 

data on both components of the program would help ensure that ICE has 

more complete data for assessing the relative performance of these 

program components as well as the overall ATD program.

To strengthen ICE’s management of the ATD program and ensure that it 

has complete and reliable data to assess and make necessary resource 

and management decisions, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security direct the Deputy Assistant Secretary of ICE to take 

the following two actions:

• analyze data on changes in supervision levels and program 

terminations to monitor ERO field offices’ implementation of ICE 

 69Regarding aliens that ICE terminated from the Full-service component of the program, 

these aliens may have been subsequently enrolled in the Technology-only component—

and in fiscal year 2013, about 8 percent of these aliens were enrolled in the Technologyonly component.

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 37 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

guidance intended to ensure cost-effective management of the 

program, and

• require that field offices ensure that ICE or contractor staff collect and 

report data on alien compliance with court appearance requirements 

for all participants in the Technology-only component of the ATD 

program.

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Homeland 

Security and Justice for their review and comment—both provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We provided 

selected excerpts of this draft report to the ATD contractor to obtain its

views and verify the accuracy of the information it provided, and the

contractor had no technical comments. DHS also provided written 

comments, which are summarized below and reproduced in full in 

appendix I. DHS concurred with the two recommendations in the report 

and described actions under way or planned to address them.

With regard to the first recommendation, that ICE analyze data on 

changes in supervision levels and program terminations to monitor field 

offices’ implementation of guidance intended to ensure cost-effective 

management of the program, DHS concurred. DHS stated that ICE 

recognized that, because of contractual limitations, information on

termination codes was not amenable to detailed reporting and analysis, 

which limited the program’s ability to adapt and improve. To address this, 

ICE established a requirement under its new ATD contract that 

information on termination codes must be collected and reported and that 

this would allow for more in-depth analyses that may yield avenues for 

further program refinements. DHS provided an estimated completion date 

of December 31, 2014. These planned actions, if fully implemented to 

include monitoring of field offices’ cost-effective management of the 

program, should address the intent of the recommendation. 

With regard to the second recommendation, to require that field offices 

ensure that ICE or contractor staff collect and report data on alien 

compliance with court appearance requirements for all participants in the 

Technology-only component of the ATD program, DHS concurred. DHS 

stated that ICE was aware that this recommended enhancement would 

greatly improve the program and that ICE began working in early fiscal 

year 2014 to implement the enhancement while developing the 

requirements for the new ATD contract. Under the new contract, ICE will 

have the opportunity to select a variety of case management services, 

including EOIR case tracking for any participant in the ATD program. 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 38 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

DHS provided an estimated completion date of December 31, 2014. 

These planned actions, if fully implemented to include oversight on the 

extent that field offices are ensuring that ICE or contractor staff collect 

and report data on alien compliance with court appearance rates, should 

address the intent of the recommendation.

We are sending copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 

Attorney General of the United States, appropriate congressional 

committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions 

to this report are listed in appendix II.

Rebecca Gambler, Director

Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 39 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 40 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-15-26 Alternatives to Detention

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Lacinda Ayers (Assistant 

Director), Tracey Cross, Landis Lindsey, David Alexander, Pedro 

Almoguera, Frances Cook, Jon Najmi, Jessica Orr, and Eric Warren 

made significant contributions to the work.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441213)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.