United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT

July 15, 1997

CRIMINAL ALIENS

INS’ Efforts To Identify And

Remove Imprisoned Aliens

Need To Be Improved

Statement of Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration of Justice Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-97-154

Summary 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

The Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) is the Department of Justice’s

main vehicle for placing aliens who are incarcerated in federal and state

prisons into deportation proceedings so that they can be expeditiously

deported upon release from prison. In fiscal years 1995 and 1996, Congress

authorized dedicated IHP staff to help expand and enhance the program.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has not fully complied

with the law’s requirements concerning criminal aliens who committed

aggravated felonies, nor has it realized the full potential of the IHP. INS did

not identify many deportable criminal aliens before their release from

prison. For the second half of fiscal year 1995, this resulted in nearly 2,000

criminal aliens, including some aggravated felons, being released into U.S.

communities without an INS determination of the risk they posed to public

safety. GAO asked INS to determine whether there had been post-release

criminal activity by 635 of these criminal aliens. INS determined that

23 percent had been rearrested for crimes, including 183 felonies.

INS did not complete the IHP for the majority of criminal aliens who were

identified as potentially deportable and were released from federal and

five state prisons during the last 6 months of fiscal year 1995. INS was able

to more quickly remove from the country those aliens for whom it

completed the IHP with final deportation orders than those aliens for whom

it completed deportation hearings after their prison release. If INS had

completed proceedings for all aliens released from state and federal

prisons in fiscal year 1995 before their release, it could have avoided

nearly $63 million in detention costs.

INS’ efforts to improve the IHP have encountered several impediments. The

federal Bureau of Prisons and some states have accepted INS’ proposals to

make the processing of aliens more efficient, but others have not. Further,

INS did not staff the IHP at the expected levels because of hiring delays,

agent attrition, and the use of lower graded agents to replace rather than

supplement higher graded agents already working on IHP cases. Finally,

INS’ top managers did not adequately respond to identified IHP performance

problems.

GAO is making recommendations designed to help INS realize more of the

IHP’s potential.

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Institutional Hearing Program

(IHP), a cooperative program involving the Department of Justice and the

states. The program’s goal is to place incarcerated criminal aliens in

deportation hearings so they can be readily deported upon their release

from prison.1

 Removing deportable aliens—particularly criminal aliens2

—has been the subject of congressional hearings and has been designated

as a management priority at INS.

To assess the performance of the IHP, we reviewed INS activities and

analyzed data on over 17,000 foreign-born individuals released from

prisons in the last half of fiscal year 1995. Our work was designed to:

• determine the extent to which deportable criminal aliens were included in

the IHP,

• assess the extent to which INS completed deportation hearings for

deportable aliens during their time in prison or after their release, and

• assess INS’ efforts to enhance the IHP.

We focused primarily on fiscal years 1995 and 1996 because during these

years Congress provided additional resources for IHP operations, and INS

initiated several measures intended to improve the IHP’s effectiveness in

deporting criminal aliens. We concentrated primarily on the activities of

INS—as opposed to the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR),

which makes judicial decisions regarding deportability—because INS has

the lead role in identifying incarcerated criminal aliens, determining their

deportability, initiating deportation proceedings, and removing aliens from

the United States. In addition, we focused on IHP activities in the federal

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and in five states that account for over 80 percent

of the total number of incarcerated foreign-born inmates in the country.

These states are Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas.

To assess the extent to which hearings were initiated and completed, we

reviewed INS’ nationwide statistics on the IHP. To identify which released

inmates were in or had completed deportation proceedings, we asked EOIR

1

Under revised provisions for the removal of aliens established in the Illegal Immigration Reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, P.L. 104-208, aliens charged by INS as deportable are now placed

in “removal” proceedings as opposed to “deportation” proceedings. For consistency, we refer to these

proceedings as deportation hearings or proceedings throughout this testimony.

2

For definitions of “alien” and “criminal alien,” see appendix I.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

to do a computer match of EOIR data with data from BOP and seven states3

on foreign-born aliens released in the last half of fiscal year 1995. To

gather data on aliens taken into INS custody and removed, we asked INS to

match the data obtained from BOP and the seven states against INS’

Deportable Alien Control System. In addition, we asked INS to extract

certain information from alien files for a random sample of released

foreign-born inmates.4

 To assess INS’ success in enhancing the IHP, we

interviewed INS, BOP, and EOIR officials in headquarters and field locations

and state corrections department staff. We also reviewed INS plans,

performance reports, and other documentation on the IHP. (See app. II for

a more detailed description of our scope and methodology.) Our work was

conducted between January 1996 and July 1997 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Based on information developed from interviews, documentary review,

and analyses of data from large automated databases and from alien case

files, our assessment of the IHP’s performance is that it falls far short of its

overall goals. We found that (1) INS failed to identify many deportable

criminal aliens, including aggravated felons, and initiate IHP proceedings

for them before they were released from prison; (2) INS did not complete

the IHP by the time of prison release for the majority of criminal aliens it

did identify; and (3) INS has not realized several intended enhancements to

the IHP.

Background Criminal aliens cost our criminal justice systems hundreds of millions of

dollars annually and are generally perceived to be a serious and growing

threat to public safety. In response to these problems, several major laws

were passed between 1986 and 1996 that provided for the initiation of

deportation proceedings for certain criminal aliens while incarcerated,

expanded the types of crimes for which aliens could be deported, and

sought to facilitate the expeditious removal of those aliens found to be

deportable.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, P.L. 99-603, requires that

INS initiate deportation proceedings for criminal aliens as expeditiously as

possible after the date of conviction. INS and EOIR established the IHP to

meet this requirement. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, P.L. 100-690,

3

In addition to the five states, we also obtained data on Illinois and New Jersey. As explained in

appendix II, these states were dropped because data from these states’ corrections departments could

not be reliably matched with INS’ data.

4

When foreign-born inmates are interviewed to determine their deportability, INS agents are to

document the interview in the aliens’ files, which are referred to as “A-files.”

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

defined the crimes of murder and drug or weapons trafficking as

“aggravated felonies” and required INS to begin and, to the extent possible,

complete deportation proceedings for aggravated felons before their

release from prison. It also required that INS take all such aggravated

felons into custody upon completion of their sentences. In the early 1990s,

the law was changed to allow INS to release aggravated felons from

custody if they were lawfully admitted aliens, were not a threat to the

community, and were likely to appear for their deportation hearings.

However, beginning in October 1996, under provisions of the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, P.L.

104-208 (1996 Act), INS is required to take into custody a much larger class

of criminal aliens beyond aggravated felons.5

The IHP Process INS agents generally rely on state and federal corrections personnel to

notify them of incoming prisoners who state they are foreign born or

whom corrections personnel identify as foreign born. Corrections

personnel typically first learn that prisoners are foreign born during prison

intake procedures, which include interviews with and record checks on

arriving inmates. The IHP process begins when INS agents screen

foreign-born prisoners to determine their deportability. The INS agents who

screen foreign-born prisoners may be permanently assigned to a state or

federal prison or may travel to the prison from their official duty stations.

If the INS agent determines that an inmate has committed a crime for

which he or she can be deported, the agent is to file a “detainer” with

corrections officials. A detainer in a prisoner’s record signifies that he or

she is to be released to INS custody upon completion of the prison

sentence.

The information that INS agents gather on a criminal alien is to be used to

prepare an Order to Show Cause, a document that charges the alien with

having committed a deportable offense. INS attorneys are to review the

order for legal sufficiency and file it with EOIR. EOIR is to schedule an initial

hearing and notify the alien. Once the alien is notified, the alien is included

in the IHP. The purpose of the initial hearing is to explain the process to the

alien, resolve evidentiary issues, prepare a list of desired witnesses, and

address the issue of legal representation for the alien.6

 The alien may

5

The 1996 Act made major changes to immigration law and procedures, many of which went into effect

on April 1, 1997. Since our review focused primarily on fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the changes in the

1996 Act are generally not reflected in this testimony.

6

The immigration judge is to inform the alien of his or her right to be represented by counsel at no cost

to the government. The judge is to advise the alien of the availability of free legal service programs and

ensure that the alien has been given a list of such programs.

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

immediately accept an order for deportation. Alternatively, a subsequent

hearing may be held, during which witnesses may be called and evidence

may be entered supporting INS’ charge of deportability and/or the alien’s

claim for relief from deportation. After all the evidence is presented, an

immigration judge renders a final decision. If the alien is ordered deported,

a deportation order referred to as a “final order of deportation” is to be

served on the alien.

The IHP ends when the alien is released from prison (1) with a final

decision that either orders the alien deported, grants the alien relief from

deportation, or closes the case in some other manner;7

 or (2) prior to a

final decision on the case. INS is required to take certain deportable aliens

into custody, whether or not the IHP proceedings have been completed.8

Those for whom the IHP proceedings are completed by issuance of a final

order of deportation are to be held in detention until they are removed

from the United States. A flow chart of the IHP process is in appendix III.

INS Failed to Identify

Many Deportable

Criminal Aliens,

Including Aggravated

Felons, Who Were

Released From Prison

INS does not have information on all imprisoned criminal aliens. As a

result, INS has no assurance that it complied with the legal requirements

that it (1) place criminal aliens who had committed aggravated felonies in

deportation proceedings while they are incarcerated, or (2) take those

aggravated felons into custody upon their release from prison.

Our analysis of data on 17,320 foreign-born inmates released from BOP and

5 state prisons during the last half of fiscal year 1995 showed that INS and

EOIR databases had no indication that IHP procedures had been initiated for

nearly 6,000 individuals. To determine why these individuals were not in

INS’ database—for example, whether INS may have screened them for the

IHP and/or put them into deportation proceedings without recording the

information in its database—we drew a random sample of these cases and

asked INS district offices to extract relevant information from individual

7

IHP proceedings may be discontinued by an immigration judge in several ways other than the

issuance of a final order of deportation or the granting of relief from deportation, including

(1) administrative closure for such reasons as the alien did not appear for a hearing, and the judge

decided that the alien was not properly notified; (2) a change of venue, whereby the immigration judge

transfers the case to another immigration judge’s jurisdiction, as can occur when an alien who starts

IHP proceedings is released before the case is completed; and (3) termination, when the immigration

judge decides that insufficient grounds exist to issue a final order of deportation, and the alien is

allowed to remain in the United States.

8

During the time of our review, INS was required to take into custody and detain criminal aliens

convicted of aggravated felonies. Lawfully admitted aliens who did not pose a threat to the community

and who were deemed likely to appear for their hearings could be released. Criminal aliens not

convicted of aggravated felonies could be taken into custody and then could be released on bond or on

their own recognizance, pending completion of deportation proceedings.

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

alien files. On the basis of 329 responses obtained from INS districts in

Arizona, California, New York, and Texas, and from BOP, we found that INS

could not determine whether it had interviewed many of these

foreign-born inmates to determine their deportability.9

We requested INS’ Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) to conduct a

follow-up search to help determine whether any of the nearly 6,00010

released inmates were potentially deportable criminal aliens. LESC

identified 1,899 of these foreign-born inmates as deportable criminal aliens

because of their immigration status and the nature of the crime they had

committed. Although aliens meeting these criteria are to be screened by

INS and put into deportation proceedings as expeditiously as possible

following their convictions, there was no indication in INS’ or EOIR’s

databases that these actions occurred while the aliens were in prison or

after they were released.11

Under the law, INS is required to initiate deportation proceedings against

aggravated felons while they are in prison and take them into custody

upon their release.12 Because the definition of “aggravated felony” has

been expanded several times since it was first created in 1988, determining

whether a criminal alien would have been classified as an aggravated felon

at the time of his or her release depends on the definition in effect at the

time of conviction in some cases, and the date of commission of the

offense in other cases. LESC identified 635 of 1,899 released criminal aliens

as having committed crimes that were defined as aggravated felonies at

the time that LESC did its analysis—July 1996 through March 1997.

However, LESC told us that it was not possible for it to determine whether

all of these 635 aliens had committed crimes that were considered

aggravated felonies at the time they were convicted because doing so

9

Our sample was originally designed so that we could statistically estimate how many of the nearly

6,000 cases were interviewed, placed in deportation proceedings, or did not have any indication of

having been interviewed by INS. However, an error in the computer matching done by INS resulted in

INS having to redo the match and send us new data. Because our sample was drawn before the error

was detected, we are not able to make statistical projections from the case file review.

10There were 5,884 foreign-born inmates whom BOP and the 5 states told us were released from prison

but were not contained in INS and EOIR databases. LESC checked the records of 5,109 of these

released inmates.

11The Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General reported in September 1995 that some states

had substantial numbers of foreign-born inmates who had not been interviewed and processed through

the IHP. The report concluded that if INS did not eliminate the existing backlogs, foreign-born inmates

would be released into the community without INS having identified them as deportable.

12As discussed earlier, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,

beginning October 1996, INS is required to take into custody a larger group of criminal aliens than

aggravated felons.

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

would be too resource intensive. Although LESC was unable to determine

the history of all of the 635 aliens

who were released, it identified some who had committed crimes that met

the aggravated felony definition either at the time of the offense or at the

time of their conviction.

According to INS and EOIR databases, none of the nearly 6,000 aliens had

been in deportation proceedings while they were in prison or afterward,

had been taken into INS custody, or had been deported. We asked INS to

follow up on the post-release criminal activities of the 635 aggravated

felons. In a July 11, 1997 letter, INS told us that:

• 148 of the 635 have been rearrested since their release,

• 31 of the 635 have been rearrested more than once,

• the 148 aliens were charged with committing 184 felonies; and

• 114 of the 148 have been convicted.

INS Did Not Complete

the IHP for a Majority

of Released Criminal

Aliens, Resulting in

Avoidable Detention

Costs Amounting to

Millions of Dollars

INS’ overall goal for the IHP is to have all deportable criminal aliens released

from federal and state prisons with final deportation orders. However,

according to IHP and other INS managers, they recognized that, for various

reasons, INS would not have sufficient staff to enable INS to complete

deportation proceedings for all criminal aliens in all states while they were

in prison. Therefore, for fiscal years 1995 and 1996, INS set nationwide

operational goals that were lower than INS’ desired goal for the IHP.

Specifically, for fiscal years 1995 and 1996, respectively, INS’ operational

goals were that about 30 and 40 percent of the criminal aliens whom it

took into custody would have completed deportation proceedings with

final deportation orders prior to their release from prison and would be

removed.13 The goals were based on IHP managers’ estimates of the

number of aliens who could be processed through the IHP and removed. It

was necessary to produce estimates using this method because INS did not

have a formal workload model that would systematically take into account

such factors as the projected number of foreign-born inmates, number of

prisons that must be visited, number and types of IHP staff expected to be

available, length of time required to process cases, and travel time and

costs. Further, although district directors make resource allocation

decisions for their districts,and are directly responsible for implementing

13INS’ operational goals for fiscal years 1995 and 1996, respectively, were to complete hearings for,

take into custody, and remove 8,250 and 13,400 criminal aliens nationwide.

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

the IHP, top management officials did not allocate the national operational

goals among the district directors with IHP responsibilities.

In each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996, INS completed the IHP for, obtained a

final deportation order for, and deported about 32 percent of the released

criminal aliens that it took into custody from federal and state prisons.

Relative to its operational goals, INS exceeded the fiscal year 1995 goal of

30 percent and fell short of the fiscal year 1996 goal of 40 percent.

However, relative to its overall goal of 100 percent, INS did not complete

the IHP for and remove approximately two-thirds of the criminal aliens it

took into custody upon their release from state and federal prisons in

either of these 2 years.

INS’ data on the IHP are limited because, as discussed earlier, INS has not

identified all individuals who are foreign-born inmates in the BOP and state

prison systems and does not maintain a centralized database of these

individuals, which would enable it to routinely track the IHP status of all

potentially deportable inmates. Therefore, it could not readily determine

where individuals were in the IHP process, nor could it readily provide

summary information on the number of criminal aliens who had

committed aggravated felonies. Consequently, we performed an analysis of

data on foreign-born inmates who, according to BOP and the corrections

departments of the five states we reviewed, were released from their

prison systems during the last 6 months of fiscal year 1995 and, according

to INS and EOIR data, were potentially deportable. There were 11,436

released inmates in this population. We found that 40 percent of these

aliens left prison with a final deportation order (having completed the IHP),

3 percent left prison without a deportation order but with INS having

completed the deportation hearing process, and INS completed the process

for 49 percent after they were released from prison. For the remaining

8 percent of cases, there was no indication that hearings were completed

either before or after prison release. Appendix IV shows the variation

among the states and BOP in the number of foreign-born inmates who

completed the hearing process.

Our analysis showed that INS was able to quickly remove those deportable

aliens who had completed the IHP with final deportation orders before they

were released from prison—75 percent were removed from the United

States within 1 week of their prison release. Of the aliens for whom INS

started deportation hearings before prison release and completed them

after release, 75 percent were removed in about 5 weeks after their

release. However, among the aliens for whom INS started and completed

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

the hearing process after their release from prison, it took about 1 year

before 75 percent were removed.14

Not completing deportation proceedings during incarceration means that

INS has to use its limited detention space to house most released criminal

aliens rather than using the space to detain other aliens. INS acknowledges

that it incurs detention costs for housing these aliens when these costs

could be avoided. On the basis of INS’ nationwide data for fiscal year 1995,

we estimated that INS could have avoided nearly $63 million in detention

costs for aliens who were released before INS completed the IHP process.15

INS Has Not

Enhanced the IHP to

the Extent Intended

Since 1994, INS has focused its efforts on improving IHP operations in BOP

and in seven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New

York, and Texas—which INS estimates account for 86 percent of the

criminal aliens incarcerated in state and federal prisons. INS developed

formal enhancement plans for BOP and the seven states. These plans were

generally designed to improve efficiency by reducing the number of intake,

hearing, and release sites and by increasing IHP staffing. INS also made the

removal of criminal aliens an INS management priority.

We reviewed the status of INS’ enhancement efforts in BOP and four

states—California, Texas, Florida, and New York. Our work has shown

that several factors have slowed INS’ efforts to improve the operations of

the IHP. First, through the enhancement plans, INS generally sought to

reduce the number of state prison facilities that served as intake, hearing,

and release sites for foreign-born inmates. However, INS needed the states’

approval to implement such a reduction, and approval was not always

forthcoming. On the one hand, several states reduced the number of sites

they had been operating: for example, Texas went from about 25 release

sites to a single facility. On the other hand, some states did not consolidate

their IHP sites to the extent INS had wanted. For example, Florida would

not agree to reduce the number of release sites to less than 15, citing

security concerns as a reason for not further reducing the number of sites.

Second, INS did not achieve its expected staffing levels for the IHP in fiscal

years 1995 and 1996 for several reasons:

14For those aliens who were deported, appendix V contains a fuller analysis of the time that elapsed

between their release from prison and their deportation.

15See appendix VI for a discussion of how we estimated these costs.

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

• Because of budget and funding delays, INS could not hire new agents for

the IHP until about 6 months into each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996. In

fiscal year 1995, INS did not authorize hiring for newly established IHP

positions until February 1995. In fiscal year 1996, according to INS budget

staff, Congress did not approve INS’ budget until almost 7 months into the

year. Because it takes about 2 months to recruit and screen applicants for

these positions and about 4 months to train them, many of the newly hired

agents who required training were unavailable to work on the IHP in the

fiscal year in which their positions were funded.

• INS did not clearly communicate to its field offices whether newly hired

immigration agents were to replace or supplement the special agents

already assigned to the IHP. Top INS managers who were tasked with

overseeing the IHP told us that they expected that newly hired agents

would supplement special agents already assigned to the IHP. However, the

officials were not able to provide us with documentation that they

formally communicated this to the INS districts where immigration agents

were assigned. Because INS district directors have authority to adjust

programmatic staffing levels, some districts used the new immigration

agents as supplements, and other district directors used them as

replacements for special agents assigned to the IHP. For example, the

Dallas district director increased IHP staffing because he assigned three

new immigration agents to supplement the two special agents already

processing IHP cases at a BOP facility. In contrast, the New Orleans district

director reassigned two special agents who were working on IHP cases and

replaced them with five newly hired immigration agents. As a result,

although the number of agents assigned to the IHP in the New Orleans

district increased, it was two fewer than the number of agents that the lead

official expected would be assigned to the IHP.

• Immigration agent attrition was also a problem. For example, in fiscal year

1996 the average attrition rate for all INS staff was about 11 percent. In

comparison, the attrition rate for immigration agents was about

30 percent.16 According to INS, one reason for this relatively high attrition

rate was that immigration agents who were hired to staff the IHP left for

potentially better paying positions within INS, such as that of special agent.

Immigration agents are limited in their benefits and advancement

opportunities, but they often possess many of the qualifications required

for INS positions with greater pay and advancement potential; thus, they

were competitive for filling vacancies in those potentially better paying

positions.

16These attrition rates represent only the internal organizational movement of INS staff from one INS

position to another and do not include losses to other employers.

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

Third, although INS has designated the removal of criminal aliens, through

the IHP and other programs, as a key management priority, top

management officials did not adequately respond to identified problems

with the IHP. INS’ fiscal year 1996 mid-year and third quarter progress

reports, prepared by the IHP staff for top management, stated that INS

would fall short of its IHP goal at the current productivity rate. INS criteria

indicate that when resources are not adequate to accomplish program

objectives, lead officials for the priority areas must either identify

necessary changes in the work processes to increase productivity in order

to meet the goal, or they must propose modifying the priority objective to

match realistic expectations of available resources. However, top

management officials did not revise the goals or, alternatively, develop a

plan of action to ensure that INS would meet its goal. As discussed earlier,

in fiscal year 1996, INS fell short of its IHP operational goal.

Conclusions and

Recommendations

If fully implemented, the IHP would be an effective way to achieve the

requirements of the law regarding the timely deportation of eligible

criminal aliens. However, the IHP is a resource-intensive program that

relies in large part on the cooperation of BOP and the state departments of

corrections. To date, some of the states INS has approached about IHP

enhancements have not cooperated to the extent that INS has sought.

Further, INS has not implemented the IHP in a way that would ensure

optimum performance, nor has it systematically determined what

resources would be needed to achieve that level of performance.

We believe that INS can take steps that will improve the operations of and

outcomes from the IHP. First, INS needs better information about prison

inmates—more specifically, which inmates are eligible for the IHP and

which of these inmates have been and have not been included in the

program. Our work has shown that INS’ databases do not contain complete

and current information on the IHP status of individual foreign-born

inmates at any given point in time. We could not use INS’ data to determine

which of the released foreign-born inmates had been screened for the IHP,

identified as deportable, or placed in the hearing process.

Therefore, we recommend that the Commissioner establish a nationwide

data system containing the universe of foreign-born inmates reported to

INS by BOP and the state departments of corrections and use this system to

track the IHP status of each inmate.

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

Second, the law requires INS to take certain actions with regard to criminal

aliens who have been convicted of aggravated felonies beyond those

required for other criminal aliens. As mentioned above, INS is required by

law to initiate and, to the extent possible, complete deportation

proceedings against aggravated felons while they are in prison and to take

them into custody upon their release. Yet our work shows that INS did not

fully comply with the required provisions of the law in effect prior to 1996.

Therefore, we recommend that the Commissioner give priority to aliens

serving time for aggravated felonies by establishing controls to ensure that

these aliens are identified from among the universe of foreign-born

inmates provided by BOP and the states, are placed into deportation

proceedings while in prison, and are taken into custody upon their release.

Third, INS has established IHP performance goals without having a

systematic basis for determining what performance results it could

accomplish with various resource levels. We found that INS has not

developed a uniform method for projecting the resources it would

need—taking into consideration the level of cooperation from BOP and the

states—to achieve its overall goal of completing deportation proceedings

for every eligible foreign-born inmate before release or for alternative

operational goals.

Therefore, we recommend that the Commissioner (1) develop a workload

analysis model to identify the IHP resources needed in any period to

achieve overall program goals and the portion of those goals that would be

achievable with alternative levels of resources, and (2) use the model to

support its IHP funding and staffing requests. Such a model should consider

several factors, including the number of foreign-born inmates, number of

prisons that must be visited, number and types of IHP staff, length of time

to process cases, and travel time and costs.

Fourth, the relatively high attrition rate among immigration agents in fiscal

year 1995 contributed to the IHP not being fully staffed and adversely

affected INS’ attainment of the IHP goals. Although INS officials point out

that the immigration agent position has been a stepping-stone to higher

level positions within INS, we do not know the specific root causes for the

attrition rate.

Therefore, we recommend that the Commissioner identify the causes of

immigration agent attrition and take steps to ensure that staffing is

adequate to achieve IHP program goals.

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Statement 

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and

Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be

Improved

Finally, our work has shown that INS top management did not provide

attention commensurate with the priority it assigned to the program. Top

management did not formally communicate to the district directors how

additional staff should be used in the IHP, did not ensure that specific

operational goals were established for each INS district director with IHP

responsibilities, and did not respond with specific corrective actions when

it became apparent that the program would not achieve its goals for fiscal

year 1996.

Therefore, we recommend that INS establish and effectively communicate

a clear policy on the role of special agents in the IHP and, using a workload

analysis model, set IHP goals for district directors with IHP responsibilities.

In addition, if it appears that IHP goals will not be met, INS should

document any actions taken to correct the problem.

Agency Comments On June 12, 1997 and July 11, 1997, we briefed the Executive Associate

Commissioner (EAC) for Programs and other officials from INS’ Office of

Programs, General Counsel, Field Operations, Internal Audit, and

Congressional Relations, and they generally concurred with our findings,

conclusions, and recommendations. With regard to our recommendation

on identifying causes of immigration agent attrition, the EAC for Programs

noted that INS believes that immigration agent attrition is no longer as high

as it used to be. He added, however, that INS plans to undertake a broad

examination of the immigration agent position, including benefits,

flexibility, and vacancies.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be happy to answer

your questions at this time.

Page 13 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix I 

Definition of “Alien” and “Criminal Alien”

Alien An alien is any individual who is not a citizen of the United States,

regardless of whether the individual’s immigration status is legal or illegal.

Legal aliens include (1) immigrants who entered the country with valid

visas and were later granted resident status by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS); and (2) nonimmigrants, such as students,

tourists, temporary workers, and business visitors who do not violate the

conditions of their visas. Illegal aliens include those who (1) enter the

country without visas or passports; (2) do not present themselves for

inspection by INS; (3) enter the country using fraudulent documents; and

(4) are nonimmigrants who have violated a condition of their visas, such

as remaining in the country beyond the period of time authorized.

Criminal Alien Criminal aliens are noncitizens who have been convicted of a crime

committed in this country for which they could be removed from the

United States. At the time of our review, most aliens were placed in

deportation proceedings to effect their removal. Some aliens were placed

in exclusion proceedings because, from a legal standpoint, they were not

deemed to have actually entered the country. As an example of such a

situation, aliens may arrive at U.S. airports, declare their intent to seek

political asylum, and be temporarily allowed into the United States

pending a determination of their cases. Because such aliens were not

considered to have formally entered the United States, they would be

placed in exclusion rather than deportation proceedings if convicted of a

deportable offense before their asylum cases were resolved. We use

“deportation proceedings” or “deportation hearings” in this testimony to

refer to both deportation and exclusion proceedings. Under the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,

deportation and exclusion proceedings are now referred to as removal

proceedings.

Page 14 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix II 

Scope and Methodology

We reviewed IHP plans and activities for BOP and the corrections systems of

seven states—Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York,

and Texas. We selected these states because, in March 1996, their

corrections systems accounted for 86 percent of the total number of

foreign-born inmates reported as incarcerated in state institutions. In

addition, INS has targeted its additional resources for IHP initiatives to these

seven states and BOP.

We focused primarily on fiscal years 1995 and 1996, because during these

years Congress provided additional resources for IHP operations, and INS

initiated several measures to improve the IHP’s effectiveness in deporting

criminal aliens. We concentrated on INS—as opposed to EOIR, which makes

adjudicative decisions regarding deportability—because INS has the lead

role in identifying incarcerated criminal aliens, determining their

deportability, and initiating deportation proceedings.

To assess the IHP’s performance, we analyzed INS documents and statistics

on IHP performance goals, measures, and results to determine (1) how the

IHP’s performance in deporting incarcerated criminal aliens changed

during fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and (2) the extent to which INS was

meeting its IHP goals.

In addition, we sought to determine whether INS was screening the entire

universe of foreign-born inmates identified by corrections personnel and

the extent to which IHP-eligible inmates were placed into deportation

proceedings, completed the IHP process, and were removed from the

United States upon release from prison. To answer these questions, we

obtained data from BOP and correctional institutions in seven states on all

of the foreign-born inmates they released from April through September

1995. The data from the April to September 1995 period are considered to

be representative of the entire year. We did not determine the

completeness of the lists of foreign-born inmates provided either to us or

to INS. We asked INS to match these records against information in its

Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) to identify those released

foreign-born inmates who were taken into INS custody upon their release

from prison, detained, or removed from the United States. Although we

did not independently assess the reliability of DACS data in this review, we

addressed questions to INS about what, if any, quality controls and

procedures are used to ensure the reliability of those data elements that

we used in this review. The data elements included whether the alien was

(1) taken into custody, (2) issued a final deportation order, and

(3) removed. INS personnel who operate and manage the DACS database

Page 15 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix II 

Scope and Methodology

responded that both the accuracy and completeness of these data

elements in DACS are good. They stated that supervisors perform random

checks on DACS data every time an officer submits a case for review.

Further, they reported that all of these data elements are entered into DACS

, although,

depending on the complexity of the case, there may be some lag time

between the occurrence of events and input of data into DACS. We also

asked EOIR to match the records against information in its Automated

Nationwide System for Immigration Review (ANSIR) to identify those

released foreign-born inmates who had been in deportation proceedings.

Again, although we did not independently assess the database’s reliability,

we addressed questions to EOIR about what, if any, quality controls and

procedures are used to ensure the reliability of those data elements that

we used in this review. The data elements included (1) whether the alien

was placed in deportation proceedings and (2) the outcome of the

proceedings. EOIR personnel who operate and manage the ANSIR database

responded that the accuracy and completeness of the data fields are

superior, with error rates being less than 1 percent. They stated that

reports to verify data accuracy are run daily, weekly, and monthly, and

EOIR staff are held to high performance standards with respect to data

integrity.

From these data matches, we determined for BOP and five states17 how

many of the foreign-born inmates were included in and completed the IHP

prior to prison release, how many completed deportation proceedings

after release, and how many had started but had not completed

proceedings at the time we completed our review. For those who were

issued a final order of deportation, we were able to determine how many

had been removed from the United States by January 1997. We selected

the April through September 1995 time frame because we wanted to follow

up on how many criminal aliens had completed deportation proceedings

and been removed from the United States. We did our followup

approximately 16 to 22 months after the aliens’ release from prison.

About 6,000 of the approximately 17,300 foreign-born released inmates

were not in either INS’ or EOIR’s database. We sought to determine the

extent to which this sizable unmatched group consisted of (1) cases that

17We dropped two additional states from our analysis, Illinois and New Jersey, because data obtained

from these states’ corrections departments could not be reliably matched with INS’ data. Without a

unique identifier, such as an A-number, that is common to both databases, we would have had to rely

on such information as names and birthdates, which are not a conclusive way of identifying

individuals.

Page 16 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix II 

Scope and Methodology

were screened for inclusion in the IHP and perhaps even processed through

the IHP but not entered into the appropriate databases; (2) foreign-born

U.S. citizens who are not eligible for the IHP; or (3) criminal aliens who

should have been, but were not, included in the IHP and were released

from prison without being taken into INS custody.

We took two steps to determine the composition of the group of nearly

6,000 unmatched cases. First, we selected a random sample of several

hundred of these cases from BOP and seven states and asked INS district

staff to review the original case files for each of these individuals. Our

purpose was to determine whether there was information in the files that

had not been entered in DACS. Second, we asked LESC—an INS unit that

conducts database searches for local law enforcement agencies to

determine whether arrested individuals are criminal aliens—to match the

nearly 6,000 records with information contained in 6 INS databases,18 the

FBI’s National Crime Information Center, and state criminal history

databases. The results enabled us to determine (1) how many individuals

were U.S. citizens and, therefore, ineligible for the IHP; (2) how many were

deportable criminal aliens who were released from prisons; and

(3) whether any identified criminal aliens had been convicted of

committing an aggravated felony.

To determine what actions INS took to improve the operations and

effectiveness of the IHP, we reviewed formal plans approved by the INS

Commissioner to streamline IHP operations in each of the seven key states

as well as in BOP. We examined documents pertaining to the roles of IHP

staff and the allocation of staff resources to the IHP. Additionally, we

reviewed INS planning documents pertaining to the removal of criminal

aliens and the IHP’s annual goals.

In addition, we interviewed key officials at INS and BOP headquarters and in

corrections departments and INS field locations in California, Florida, New

York, and Texas. We selected these four states for site visits because they

represented four of the five states where IHP enhancement efforts began,

and because they had the largest number of foreign-born inmates among

all state correctional facilities. Resource constraints precluded our visiting

all seven states. We interviewed INS and BOP officials at BOP’s Oakdale, LA,

and La Tuna, NM, federal correctional institutions and INS’ El Paso, TX,

district office. We chose the Oakdale facility because it was the first IHP

18The six databases searched by LESC were (1) the Central Index System (CIS), (2) the

Computer-linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS), (3) the Deportable Alien

Control System (DACS), (4) the National Automated Immigration Lookout System II (NAILS II), (5) the

Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), and (6) the Student and Schools System (STSC).

Page 17 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix II 

Scope and Methodology

site in a federal prison and because it was one of two sites staffed full-time

by INS personnel and immigration judges. We chose the La Tuna facility

because, in contrast to Oakdale, the facility has neither full-time INS staff

nor immigration judges at the facility.

To determine what factors have influenced the IHP’s performance and INS’

implementation of IHP enhancement initiatives, we interviewed officials

with INS, EOIR, and BOP; and officials in corrections departments in

California, Florida, New York, and Texas. We discussed the overall status

of IHP enhancement plans, including implementation barriers, with INS’

General Counsel and district counsel officials and the national

coordinators for the BOP and state IHPs. We also reviewed periodic reports

and other documentation on the IHP’s performance that INS and BOP

officials provided to us.

Table II.1 shows the INS district that we visited to review BOP and state IHP

activities and the districts’ regional office jurisdiction.

Table II.1: INS District Offices and

Regions GAO Visited Reviewing BOP

and State IHP Activities

IHP focus

INS district office INS region

La Tuna,

NM (BOP)

Oakdale,

LA (BOP) CA FL NY TX

El Paso Central X

Houston Central X

Los Angeles Western X

Miami Eastern X

New Orleans Central X

New York Eastern X

San Diego Western X

San Francisco Western X

Legend: X - Visited by GAO.

Source: GAO.

In each of the INS districts listed in the table, we interviewed key officials

involved in IHP processing to document IHP roles and procedures, changes

brought about by IHP enhancement initiatives, obstacles to progress

toward a more efficient IHP, and the program’s overall status. Our INS

contacts included district directors, assistant district directors for

investigations, assistant district directors for detention and deportation,

IHP directors and coordinators, and district counsel staff. At EOIR, we

Page 18 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix II 

Scope and Methodology

interviewed immigration judges who conduct IHP hearings and court

administrators who schedule deportation proceedings. We also

interviewed BOP and state corrections system authorities to get their

perspectives on the IHP and efforts to improve the program’s performance.

Page 19 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix III 

The IHP Process

State or BOP Personnel

Identify Foreign-Born

Individuals Entering Prison

System and Notify INS

A

Interviewed

by

INS?

Found not

deportable End

Yes

No

EOIR schedules

IHP hearing

INS serves alien 

with charging 

documents and files

with EOIR

Found deportable

and INS lodges 

detainer B

Page 20 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix III 

The IHP Process

A

Released at end

of sentence 

Hearing not

Completed before

Release

Detained or released

until hearing 

completed and

removed if ordered

deported

B

Hearing Completed

Before Release 

Deportation 

order issued

End

End

Released 

to INS

Granted relief

from Deportation

Other conclusion

Detained until

removal 

Source: INS.

Page 21 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix IV 

Disposition of Potentially Deportable

Inmates Released From BOP and 5 States’

Prisons Over a 6-Month Period in Fiscal

Year 1995

Location

Potentially deportable cases (as

indicated by INS/ EOIR data match)

Number

Arizona 448

California 5,113

Florida 368

New York 960

Texas 530

BOP 4,017

Total 11,436

Page 22 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix IV 

Disposition of Potentially Deportable

Inmates Released From BOP and 5 States’

Prisons Over a 6-Month Period in Fiscal

Year 1995

Potentially deportable

cases completing the IHP

Potentially deportable

cases completing the

IHP with final order of

deportation

Deportable cases

completing hearing

process

Deportable cases

completing hearing

process with final order

of deportation

Hearings completed before prison release Hearings completed after prison release

No evidence that

hearings were

completed before or

after prison release

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

230 51 213 48 191 43 144 32 27 6

2,443 48 2,350 46 2,460 48 2,006 39 210 4

264 72 224 61 94 26 63 17 10 3

536 56 472 49 409 43 232 24 15 2

111 21 99 19 326 62 294 55 93 18

1,334 33 1,224 30 2,162 54 1,801 45 521 13

4,918 43 4,582 40 5,642 49 4,540 40 876 8

Page 23 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix V 

Time From Release to Deportation for

Aliens Released From BOP and 5 States’

Prisonsa

 During the Last Half of Fiscal Year

1995 With Final Deportation Orders

Time from release to

deportation IHP completed in prison

Hearings started in prison,

completed after release

Hearings started and completed

after prison release

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

<1 month 3,088 91 2,497 68 132 24

1 mo. to < 2 mos. 130 4 608 17 53 10

2 mos. to < 4 mos. 78 2 296 8 56 10

4 mos. to < 6 mos. 24 *b 105 3 46 8

6 mos. to < 8 mos. 18 *b 48 1 36 7

8 mos. to < 10 mos. 10 *b 33 *b 43 8

10 mos. to < 12 mos. 14 *b 31 *b 39 7

12 mos. and over 33 *b 55 1 145 26

Total 3,395c 100 3,673c 100 550c 100

aThe five states are Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas.

bLess than 1 percent.

cOf criminal aliens released from prisons in 5 states and BOP from April through September 1995,

4,582 had completed the IHP with a final deportation order (see app. IV); and 3,395 of them

(74 percent) were deported by January 1997. Of 4,540 released criminal aliens who completed

deportation proceedings after their release from prison, 4,223, or 93 percent, were deported by

January 1997. Although INS has reported difficulty obtaining travel documents to some countries,

we did not determine the specific reasons that aliens with final deportation orders were not

removed quickly.

Page 24 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix VI 

GAO Estimate of Avoidable Detention Costs

Because most criminal aliens released from state and federal prisons in

fiscal year 1995 had not completed the IHP, INS needed to detain them until

their deportation hearings could be completed. This placed unnecessary

demands on INS’ limited detention space, and, as shown below, cost INS

nearly $63 million that could have been avoided.

Table VI.1 INS’ Detention Costs for

Criminal Aliens Who Did Not Complete

the IHP in Fiscal Year 1995

Criminal aliens released to INS from

prison without final deportation orders

(N = 20,118)

Hearing process

Started before

prison release

Started after prison

release

Estimated number of criminal aliens 17,498 2,620

Average avoidable days in detentiona 26 191

Average daily detention cost $65.75 $65.75

Fiscal year detention costb $29,912,831 $32,902,615

Total avoidable fiscal year detention cost $62,815,446

aAvoidable days = average number of days in detention beyond those spent by criminal aliens

who had a final order when released.

bAvoidable detention cost = number of aliens X average net days in detention X average daily

detention cost.

Our sample of 11,436 potentially deportable criminal aliens released from

BOP and five states’ prisons during the second half of fiscal year 1995

included 6,518 inmates who were released to INS without INS having

completed their hearing process while they were in prison. Nationwide, INS

reported that in all of 1995, a total of 20,118 such inmates were released

into its custody. Of the 6,518 released inmates that GAO studied, 4,223

inmates had received deportation orders and were deported by January of

1997. We were able to determine for 4,223 of these released inmates both

the average number of days detained by INS and whether the hearing

process started before or after prison release. Of the 4,223 inmates,

87 percent started deportation proceedings in prison, and they were held

for an average of 41 days. The remaining 13 percent started deportation

proceedings after prison release and were held for an average of 206 days.

For the remaining 2,295 inmates in our study, we assumed that the timing

of deportation proceedings and the average number of days in INS

detention were similar. The 2,295 inmates included (1) 876 inmates for

whom there was no evidence that the hearing process was completed;

(2) 1,102 inmates for whom the hearing process was completed after

release from prison and no deportation order was issued; and (3) 317

Page 25 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix VI 

GAO Estimate of Avoidable Detention Costs

inmates for whom the hearing process was completed after release from

prison and a deportation order was issued. This provides the estimate that

for 87 percent, or 17,498, of the 20,118 released inmates, INS would have

begun their hearing process before release, and for the remaining 2,620

released inmates, INS would have begun their hearing process after release.

To determine the avoidable detention cost, we subtracted 15 days from

each of the observed detention times because this was the average

detention time for criminal aliens who completed the IHP with final

deportation orders. According to INS, the average daily cost to detain a

single alien was $65.75 in fiscal year 1995.

At least some of the savings in detention costs that INS could realize by

processing more criminal aliens through the IHP would be offset by any

additional funding that might be required to provide additional resources

for the IHP.

Page 26 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix VII 

INS Failed to Identify Many Deportable

Criminal Aliens, Including Aggravated

Felons

Foreign-born inmates released from prison

Apr.-Sept. 1995 (n = 17,320) 

Identified as deported, in proceedings,

or in INS custody (n = 11,436)

Not known (n = 5,884)

43%

57%

IHP was not

completed

(6,518)

IHP was

completed

(4,918)

Was the IHP completed prior to prison release?

66%

34%

Source: INS.

Page 27 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Appendix VIII 

IHP Was Not Completed for Most Released

Criminal Aliens

Were they potentially deportable aliens?

Criminal aliens,

including 

aggravated felons

Foreign-born inmates released from prison

Apr.-Sept. 1995 (n = 17,320) 

Identified as deported, in proceedings,

or in INS custody (n = 11,436)

Not known (n = 5,884)

32%

68%

Other (deported

aliens, immigration

status not known, and

U.S. citizens)

66%

34%

Source: INS.

(183602) Page 28 GAO/T-GGD-97-154
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100