Early Experiences with 

COVID-19 at 

CBP Border Patrol Stations 

and OFO Ports of Entry 

September 4, 2020 

OIG-20-69 
6HSWHPEHU
 

 

 

 

 

DHS OIG HIGHLIGHTS 

Early Experiences with COVID-19 at 

CBP Border Patrol Stations and OFO Ports of Entry 

September 4, 2020 

Why We 

Did This 

Inspection 

The World Health 

Organization (WHO) 

declared novel coronavirus 

19 (COVID-19) a pandemic 

on March 11, 2020, noting 

it was not just a public 

health crisis, but one that 

would affect every sector 

of society. We surveyed 

personnel at U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection 

(CBP) facilities from April 

22 to May 1, 2020, 

regarding their 

experiences and 

challenges managing 

COVID-19. 

What We 

Recommend 

We make no 

recommendations. 

For Further Information: 

Contact our Office of Public Affairs at 

(202) 981-6000, or email us at 

DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov 

What We Found 

The 136 Border Patrol stations and 307 Office of Field 

Operations (OFO) ports of entry that responded to our 

survey described various actions they have taken to prevent 

and mitigate the pandemic’s spread among travelers, 

detained individuals, and staff. These actions include 

increased cleaning and disinfecting of common areas and 

having personal protective equipment for staff, as well as 

supplies available to those individuals with whom they 

come into contact. However, facilities reported concerns 

with their inability to practice social distancing and the risk 

of exposure to COVID-19 due to the close-contact nature of 

their work. Regarding staffing, facilities reported decreases 

in current staff availability due to COVID-19, but have 

contingency plans in place to ensure continued operations. 

The facilities expressed concerns regarding staff availability, 

should there be an outbreak of COVID-19 at the facility. 

Overall, the majority of respondents reported their facilities 

were prepared to address COVID-19. The observations 

contained in the report, which are primarily based on 

survey responses from facilities, provide an early 

perspective on CBP’s efforts during the pandemic. While we 

make no recommendations, our intention is to inform 

agency decision makers as they consider additional actions 

to respond to the pandemic. 

CBP Response 

CBP’s response recapped various measures described in 

this report that Border Patrol agents and OFO have taken to 

“prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19 among 

travelers, persons in custody, and CBP staff.” 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table of Contents 

Background .................................................................................................... 2 

Results of Inspection....................................................................................... 3 

Border Patrol and OFO Described Actions Taken to Prevent the Spread of 

COVID-19 among Travelers and Detained Individuals, but Social Distancing 

Is a Challenge.............................................................................................. 4 

Facilities Had Contingency Plans and Protective Equipment for Staff, but 

Expressed Concerns with Staff Availability and Risk of Exposure if COVID-19 

Spreads ...................................................................................................... 9 

CBP Has Provided Guidance Regarding COVID-19 to Personnel at Border 

Patrol Stations and OFO Ports of Entry ..................................................... 15 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Objective, Scope, and Methodology ...................................... 17 

Appendix B: CBP Comments to the Draft Report ...................................... 19 

Appendix C: Survey Results ..................................................................... 22 

Appendix D: Special Reviews and Evaluations Major Contributors to This 

Report .................................................................................. 39 

Appendix E: Report Distribution .............................................................. 40 

Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

COVID-19 novel coronavirus 19 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

OFO Office of Field Operations 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PPE personal protective equipment 

TEDS National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention and 

Search 

U.S.C. United States Code 

WHO World Health Organization 

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-20-69 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background 

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared novel coronavirus 19 

(COVID-19) a pandemic on March 11, 2020, noting it was not just a public 

health crisis, but one that would affect every sector of society. On that day, 

roughly 118,000 people had confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide, and 4,291 

people had died from the virus. Four months later, on July 13, 2020, there 

were almost 11 million confirmed COVID-19 cases worldwide, with 3.2 million 

cases and 134,000 related deaths in the United States alone. 

Because COVID-19 spreads easily, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

faces unique challenges in preventing further transmission of the disease. 

These challenges are two-fold, mitigating the risk of infection and transmission 

of COVID-19 not only among CBP personnel, but also among the individuals 

with whom they come into contact. Specifically, CBP processes thousands of 

travelers each day at Office of Field Operations (OFO) ports of entry, such as 

airports and land borders, and detains inadmissible aliens1 encountered at or 

between ports of entry. Regarding detained individuals, Border Patrol stations 

and OFO ports of entry are designed for short-term holding and lack the space 

needed to maintain effective social distancing among those in custody. CBP 

employees are also at risk of coming into contact with COVID-19 due to their 

job responsibilities. For example, Border Patrol agents come into close contact 

with inadmissible aliens during apprehension between ports of entry, 

transportation, processing, and detention at stations. OFO officers come into 

close contact with individuals when they conduct customs and immigration 

screenings of travelers and detain inadmissible aliens at ports of entry. 

CBP is responsible for ensuring its holding facilities at Border Patrol stations 

and OFO ports of entry comply with the National Standards on Transport, 

Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS), which specify how individuals should be 

treated in CBP custody, including general medical requirements related to 

contagious diseases.2 In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) issued interim guidance on the management of COVID-19 in 

detention facilities, including recommendations for enhanced cleaning and 

disinfecting, social distancing strategies, infection control, screening 



1 Inadmissible aliens are aliens who are ineligible for visas or admission, including aliens 

present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, and aliens not in possession of 

a valid visa or border crossing card. 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1182(a)(6)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 

1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(II). CBP holds inadmissible aliens in short-term detention pending release, 

removal, or transfer to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services for long-term detention. 

2 Under TEDS standards, if a Border Patrol agent or CBP officer suspects — or a detainee 

reports — that a detainee may have a contagious disease, the detainee should be separated 

whenever operationally feasible, and all other appropriate precautions must be taken and 

required notifications made according to the operational office’s policies and procedures. TEDS 

4.10 Secure Detention Standards: Medical: Contagious Disease 

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

procedures, and care of confirmed and suspected cases.3 A CBP official stated 

that although the CDC guidance is directed at correctional and detention 

facilities, and was not intended for CBP’s short-term holding facilities, the 

guidance still informs CBP’s decisions when dealing with the COVID-19 

pandemic response. Regarding worker safety, CDC also provides guidance for 

law enforcement personnel, including Border Patrol agents, on preventing the 

spread of COVID-19. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) provides recommendations for controlling and preventing the spread of 

COVID-19 among border protection workers such as CBP officers.4 These 

recommendations include using physical barriers to separate employees from 

incoming travelers and limiting travelers as they pass through screening areas. 

In April 2020, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) initiated a limited-scope 

review of CBP’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at its facilities, with 

respect to travelers, detained individuals, and staff. OIG surveyed personnel at 

136 Border Patrol stations and 311 OFO ports of entry regarding their 

experiences with the COVID-19 pandemic from April 22 to May 1, 2020. We 

received 136 surveys from Border Patrol, for a 100 percent response rate, and 

307 surveys from OFO for a 99 percent response rate. We also reviewed 

COVID-19 guidance distributed to CBP facilities during the early stages of the 

pandemic and interviewed the CBP Chief Medical Officer. Our analysis 

provides a snapshot of steps CBP and its facilities have taken to manage 

COVID-19, as well as challenges they face in staffing, resources, and facility 

operations. The information presented in this report represents the experience 

and perspective of CBP facilities at a particular point in time — April 22 toMay 

1, 2020. These observations, which are primarily based on survey responses 

from facilities, provide an early perspective on CBP’s efforts during the 

pandemic. While we make no recommendations, our intention is to inform 

decision-makers at the agency as they consider additional actions to respond to 

the pandemic. 

Results of Inspection 

CBP personnel at the Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry who 

responded to our survey described various actions they have taken to prevent 

and mitigate the pandemic’s spread among travelers, detained individuals, and 

staff.5 These actions include increased cleaning and disinfecting of common 

areas, and having personal protective equipment for staff, as well as supplies 

available to those individuals with whom they come into contact. However, 

facilities reported concerns about their inability to practice social distancing 

and the risk of exposure to COVID-19 due to the close-contact nature of their 



3 CDC Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional 

and Detention Facilities, March 23, 2020 4 See https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/border-protection-transportation-security.html. 5 Appendix C contains the full survey results. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

work. Regarding staffing, facilities reported decreases in current staff 

availability due to COVID-19, but have contingency plans in place to ensure 

continued operations. The facilities expressed concerns regarding staff 

availability, should there be an outbreak of COVID-19 at the facility. Overall, 

the majority of facilities stated they were prepared to address COVID-19. 

Border Patrol and OFO Described Actions Taken to Prevent the 

Spread of COVID-19 among Travelers and Detained Individuals, 

but Social Distancing Is a Challenge 

Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry reported various actions they 

have taken to prevent and mitigate the pandemic’s spread among staff and 

detained individuals. For example, they have worked to reduce the detained 

populations at their facilities and decreased the number of individuals traveling 

to the United States through ports of entry. For those individuals who are in 

custody, almost every facility reported it conducts risk assessments to 

determine their potential exposure to COVID-19. Facilities also generally 

reported they had adequate supplies to lessen the spread of COVID-19, and 

have taken other steps, such as increasing the cleaning and disinfecting of 

common areas. Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry reported their 

major concern was the inability to practice social distancing and implement 

other physical restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19. 

CBP Reduced Its Detained Population and Restricted Travel through Ports 

of Entry to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 

To limit the spread of COVID-19, CBP reported it has worked to reduce the 

number of individuals detained in its holding facilities and the number of 

individuals traveling through ports of entry. Title 42, Section 265 of the United 

States Code allows the Government to suspend the introduction of individuals 

from foreign countries to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. On 

March 20, 2020, under that authority and in response to COVID-19, the CDC 

issued an order6 temporarily prohibiting the introduction of certain persons 

from foreign countries traveling from Canada or Mexico, regardless of their 

countries of origin, and who would otherwise be introduced into congregate 

settings.7 Under Title 42 and the CDC Order, CBP has expelled (i.e., Title 42 

expulsions) thousands of inadmissible aliens back to their home countries. Of 

the 136 Border Patrol stations surveyed, 47 percent (64) reported Title 42 



6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services CDC, Order Under Sections 362 & 365 of the 

Public Health Service Act, (42 U.S.C. 265, 268), Order Suspending Introduction of Certain 

Persons From Countries Where a Communicable Disease Exists. The original Order was 

extended for 30 days on April 20, 2020, and indefinitely on May 19, 2020. 

7 Specifically, the order prohibited the following individuals from entering the United States: 

aliens seeking to enter the country at ports of entry who do not have proper travel documents; 

aliens whose entry is otherwise contrary to law; and aliens apprehended near the border who 

are seeking to unlawfully enter the country between ports of entry. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

expulsions totaling 11,454 individuals; more than 75 percent of these 

expulsions occurred along the Southwest Border. Seven percent (22) of OFO 

ports of entry reported Title 42 expulsions totaling 1,474 inadmissible aliens.8 

According to CBP, aliens subject to the order would “not be held in congregate 

areas for processing and instead [would] immediately be expelled to their 

country of last transit.” With these processes in place, CBP estimated the 

average time from initial encounter with an inadmissible alien to expulsion 

from the United States was less than 2 hours. 

In addition, travel through ports of entry has been restricted. On March 20, 

2020, jointly with Canada and Mexico, the United States restricted all nonessential travel (i.e., travel that is considered tourism or recreational in nature) 

across the border.9 This restriction has further reduced the number of 

individuals that OFO encounters and processes at ports of entry. On April 20, 

2020, there were 220,000 passenger vehicle occupants and pedestrians at 

ports of entry, compared to roughly 546,000 the year before. 

Finally, Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry have seen a major 

decline in apprehensions (unrelated to Title 42 expulsions) along the Southwest 

and Northern borders. In March 2020, there were 31,275 apprehensions; in 

April, that number decreased 92.5 percent to 2,328. Combined, Title 42 

expulsions, travel restrictions, and reduced apprehensions have greatly 

reduced CBP’s detained alien population and the number of travelers through 

ports of entry. 

Facilities Reported Conducting Risk Assessments and Having Testing 

Protocols in Place for Detained Individuals 

Ninety percent of all responding Border Patrol stations (122 of 136) and OFO 

ports of entries (277 of 307) reported they conduct risk assessments on those 

individuals detained in CBP custody to determine their potential exposure to 

COVID-19. Generally, these testing protocols include determining individuals’ 

travel history and whether they were previously exposed to COVID-19, 

screening individuals for COVID-19 symptoms when they are initially 

processed at a facility, and continued monitoring for potential COVID-19 

symptoms for as long as they remain in CBP custody. However, it was rare for 

facilities to have the capacity to test detained individuals for COVID-19 on site. 

Specifically, only three (2 percent) Border Patrol stations and five (3 percent) 

OFO ports of entry reported they were able to test detained individuals on site 

for COVID-19, but none had testing kits available on site at the time of our 

survey. At the time of our survey, Border Patrol stations reported that 9 of the 



8 According to data available on CBP’s website, there were 14,856 Title 42 expulsions in April 

2020, and 19,707 Title 42 expulsions in May 2020. 

9 See https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/20/joint-statement-us-mexico-joint-initiativecombat-covid-19-pandemic and https://www.dhs.gov/news/2020/03/20/joint-statement-uscanada-joint-initiative-temporary-restriction-travelers-crossing. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

109 detained individuals had been tested. OFO ports of entry reported that 1 

of the 23 detained individuals had been tested. Border Patrol officials stated 

that as of July 13, 2020, 58 detained individuals across all Border Patrol 

stations had tested positive for COVID-19. 

Facilities Reported They Had Adequate Supplies, Cleaned Areas More 

Frequently, and Took Other Actions to Mitigate the Spread of COVID-19 

Most facilities reported they had adequate supplies to mitigate the spread of 

COVID-19 among detained individuals. On average, more than 98 percent of 

Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry responded they had sufficient 

stocks of masks for individuals who exhibited symptoms of COVID-19. Most 

stations and ports of entry also reported having enough liquid soap and hand 

sanitizer available. Table 1 describes the availability of supplies for detained 

individuals at Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry. 

Table 1. Availability of Supplies for Detained Individuals at 

Border Patrol Stations and OFO Ports of Entry, April 22–May 1, 2020 

Border Patrol 

Stations 

OFO 

Ports of Entry 

Masks 99.3% 

(135 of 136) 

98.4% 

(302 of 307) 

Liquid soap 92.6% 

(126 of 136) 

95.4% 

(293 of 307) 

Hand sanitizer 80.9% 

(110 of 136) 

94.1% 

(289 of 307) 

Source: OIG analysis of survey responses 

Although 93 percent of Border Patrol stations reported an increase in frequency 

of cleaning and sanitizing the vehicles used to transport inadmissible aliens to 

help prevent the spread of COVID-19, only 74 percent reported they had 

increased the frequency of cleaning and sanitizing their holding facilities. Most 

(91 percent) OFO ports of entry reported they had increased cleaning and 

sanitizing in processing and holding areas. Almost all Border Patrol stations 

(99 percent) and OFO ports of entry (94 percent) reported that overall, their 

facilities were doing enough to maintain clean and sanitized environments. 

When asked, CBP personnel responding to our survey provided various 

additional measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19: 

x instituting remote processing of inadmissible aliens; 

x processing inadmissible aliens and conducting other work in outdoor 

environments when possible; 

x asking passengers to remain in their vehicles during secondary 

processing; 

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

x limiting the number of visitors to facilities; and 

x conducting daily staff musters (briefings) telephonically, outdoors, or 

eliminating them altogether rather than conducting them in person. 

Facilities Were Concerned with the Inability to Practice Social Distancing 

and Implement Other Physical Restrictions 

Even with actions that Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry have 

taken, almost 20 percent (26) of Border Patrol stations and 5 percent (15) of 

OFO ports of entry still reported they were not prepared to handle COVID-19. 

Specifically, they remained concerned about their ability to practice social 

distancing and their limited space to quarantine or isolate detained individuals. 

Generally, the nature of detention in Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of 

entry makes social distancing impractical, as the facilities have limited holding 

cells for short-term custody, which are meant to hold multiple individuals 

segregated by age, gender, and/or family status. Border Patrol stations are 

typically designed to hold a maximum of 150 to 300 individuals in separate 

holding areas, whereas in ports of entry, inadmissible aliens are typically held 

in small holding areas next to normal processing areas. Both were designed for 

short-term holding and lack the space needed to maintain effective social 

distancing. In addition, detention settings such as Border Patrol stations and 

OFO ports of entry may have limited medical resources. Although CBP is 

required to provide access to medical care, only select facilities have on-site 

medical staff. For example, as OIG’s visits to CBP facilities in 2019 indicated, 

only 10 of 21 facilities had on-site medical personnel.10 Typically, medical care 

for serious conditions is provided by local medical facilities.11 Combined, these 

factors create unique challenges for Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of 

entry to mitigate the risk of infection and transmission of COVID-19. 

The ability to maintain social distancing was a primary concern for Border 

Patrol stations responding to our survey, as Border Patrol agents require 

continuous contact with inadmissible aliens during apprehension, 

transportation, processing, and release. Table 2 describes the concerns of 

survey respondents regarding their ability to practice social distancing between 

Border Patrol agents and inadmissible aliens while performing various job 

duties. 



10 In its management response, CBP stated that since the OIG’s 2019 visits, it now had more 

than 1,000 contracted medical staff in 65 facilities along the Southwest border. 

11 Capping Report: CBP Struggled to Find Adequate Detention Conditions During 2019 Migrant 

Surge (OIG 20-38), June 12, 2020 

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Table 2. Ability to Practice Social Distancing between Staff and 

Inadmissible Aliens at Border Patrol Stations, April 22–May 1, 2020 

Border Patrol 

Stations 

During apprehension 29.4% 

(40 of 136) 

During transportation 69.9% 

(95 of 136) 

During processing 48.5% 

(66 of 136) 

During removal or release 55.9% 

(76 of 136) 

Source: OIG analysis of survey responses 

Similarly, we asked OFO ports of entry if they were able to maintain proper 

social distancing between staff and travelers during the screening process — 98 

percent responded they could. 

We also asked Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry whether it was 

possible to maintain social distancing between the detained individuals 

themselves (other than family members) in holding areas. Thirty percent (38) 

of Border Patrol stations and 5 percent (16) of OFO ports of entry reported they 

were not able to provide social distancing among detained individuals due to 

limited space in holding areas. 

Some survey comments from Border Patrol and OFO reported the following 

challenges regarding social distancing: 

x “Small facility makes social distancing a challenge.” 

x “The station has two detention cells and will not be able to maintain 

social distancing among detained individuals with groups of four or 

more.” 

x “Only two small holding cells make it imposable [sic] to maintain social 

distancing.” 

x “The ability to effectively apply social distancing measures for 

simultaneously/concurrently arriving flights.” 

x “[Maintaining] a safe distance between individuals is difficult as we need 

to interact with people, ask questions, review documents, and perform 

searches.” 

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-20-69 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Facilities Had Contingency Plans and Protective Equipment for 

Staff, but Expressed Concerns with Staff Availability and Risk 

of Exposure if COVID-19 Spreads 

Facilities reported decreases in current staff availability due to COVID-19, 

either because staff are self-quarantining or are unavailable to work due to 

other community mitigation measures. Still, many facilities reported having 

contingency plans in place to ensure continued operations. 

Facilities Reported Decreases in Staff Availability Due to COVID-19 

In response to our survey, 7 percent (10) of Border Patrol stations and 8 

percent (24) of OFO ports of entry reported they had staff members who had 

tested positive for COVID-19. In total, at the time of our survey, respondents 

reported 16 Border Patrol agents and 228 OFO officers as having confirmed 

cases of COVID-19. 

According to CBP data, 148 Border Patrol and OFO employees had tested 

positive for COVID-19 as of April 6, 2020. Fourteen weeks later, on July 13, 

2020, the total number of Border Patrol and OFO employees with COVID-19 

had risen to 1,235. Eight employees had died as a result of COVID-19. Figure 

1 shows the rise in number of Border Patrol and OFO employees with COVID19 from April 6 to July 13, 2020. 

Figure 1. Increase in Number of Border Patrol and 

OFO Employees with COVID-19, April 6–July 13, 2020 

Ϭ

ϭϬϬ

ϮϬϬ

ϯϬϬ

κϬϬ

ρϬϬ

ςϬϬ

ϳϬϬ

ΘϬϬ

κͬς κͬϭϯ κͬϮϬ κͬϮϳ ρͬκ ρͬϭϭ ρͬϭΘ ρͬϮρ ςͬϭ ςͬΘ ςͬϭρ ςͬϮϮ ςͬϮε ϳͬς ϳͬϭϯ

ŽƌĚĞƌWĂƚƌŽů K&K

Source: OIG analysis of CBP data 

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

In response to our survey, about 37 percent of Border Patrol stations and 

almost 35 percent of OFO ports of entry also reported they had staff who were 

either in precautionary self-quarantine, or had staff members who were 

unavailable to work due to community-spread mitigation measures. In total, 

Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry reported that more than 1,650 

employees were unavailable to work because of the pandemic. Table 3 shows 

the number and percent of Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry 

whose staff were affected by COVID-19. 

Table 3. Border Patrol Stations and OFO Ports of 

Entry with Staff Affected by COVID-19, April 22–May 1, 2020 

Border Patrol 

Stations 

OFO 

Ports of Entry 

Staff members tested positive for 

COVID-19 

7.4% 

(10 of 136) 

7.8% 

(24 of 307) 

Staff members were in 

precautionary self-quarantine 

24.3% 

(33 of 136) 

19.2% 

(59 of 307) 

Staff members were unavailable to 

work 

12.5% 

(17 of 136) 

15.6% 

(48 of 307) 

Source: OIG analysis of survey responses 

During the pandemic, Federal agencies could also allow employees to use 

weather and safety leave, 

in circumstances in which allowing an employee to travel to or perform 

work at the normal worksite would pose significant safety risks for the 

employee, other employees, or the general public.12 

Officials from Border Patrol and OFO stated that their staff used weather and 

safety leave when appropriate, such as when an employee was considered highrisk because of potential exposure and needed to self-quarantine. In addition, 

OFO initially allowed officers at ports of entry to also use weather and safety 

leave to reduce potential exposure to travelers who could be carrying COVID-19 

and to increase social distancing by reducing staff at ports of entry. On April 

6, 2020, OFO recalled officers along the Northern and Southwest borders who 

were in a weather and safety leave status “to enhance the security posture in 

those environments in response to requests for assistance from U.S. Border 

Patrol.”13 In response to our survey, 68 percent (210) of OFO ports of entry 

reported that prior to the April 6, 2020 recall, staff had used weather and 

safety leave due to the COVID-19 outbreak. About 87 percent (267) of the 

ports of entry reported that if weather and safety leave became available again 



12 Weather and safety leave is statutorily-authorized paid leave excusing absences related to 

weather emergencies and safety events. See https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/covid-19/fact-sheet-additional-guidance-in-connection-with-the-covid-19-

emergency/. 

13 Letter to IG Joseph V. Cuffari from Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, OFO 

on May 5, 2020 

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-20-69 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

for purposes of reducing potential exposure and increasing social distancing, 

they would use it. 

Most Facilities Had Prepared Contingency Staffing Plans, but Some 

Facilities Expressed Concerns about Staffing Shortages 

When asked about contingency staffing plans during the pandemic, facilities 

described various solutions, including requesting staff from other facilities, 

modifying staffing models, reassigning staff from neighboring facilities, or 

requesting resources from other Federal partners such as U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Department of Defense. Survey 

responses included: 

x “Early in the pandemic we initiated an alternate work site plan that had 

the vast majority of employees at Sector HQ begin teleworking to insure 

[sic] that any COVID-19 infection did not impact the ability of the Sector 

to operate.” 

x “Depending on the extent of the impact, the mandatory border security 

requirements would be identified and additional personnel would be 

requested from adjacent stations and/or sector staff. A shift staffing rebalance could also be initiated should the conditions arise to an 

emergent situation.” 

Although most facilities responded they were prepared to handle the pandemic, 

approximately 9 percent expressed concern about staffing and reported that 

maintaining minimum staffing would be a major challenge if the pandemic 

were to spread. Survey responses included: 

x “Port staffing prior to COVID-19 pandemic is 40%. If an officer tests 

positive everyone in the port will have been exposed.” 

x “[One CBP officer] contracting COVID-19 could ... essentially wipe out 

50% or more of the staff very quickly. This would adversely impact the 

level of service that could be provided.” 

x “Bringing detailed personnel from across the United States, could have 

brought COVID-19 to a community that had no cases. Detailed 

personnel spent upwards of 5 days driving across the country, 

potentially spreading the virus to areas that had little or no outbreaks.” 

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-20-69 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Facilities Have PPE and Supplies but Remain Concerned about Safety and 

Risk of Exposure 

We asked facilities whether they had enough personal protective equipment 

(PPE)14 and other supplies on hand for all staff. The majority of the Border 

Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry reported they had enough PPE, such as 

gloves, masks, hand sanitizer, and cleaning supplies, on hand for those staff 

who dealt directly with travelers or detained individuals, as well as for those 

who do not. Table 4 describes PPE availability at Border Patrol stations and 

OFO ports of entry for staff who interacted with travelers or detained 

individuals. 

Table 4. Availability of PPE and Supplies at 

Border Patrol Stations and OFO Ports of Entry, April 22–May 1, 2020 

Border Patrol 

Stations 

OFO 

Ports of Entry 

Disinfectant cleaning agents 90.4% 

(123 of 136) 

99.0% 

(304 of 307) 

Face shields or goggles 91.9% 

(125 of 136) 

88.0% 

(267 of 307) 

Hand sanitizer 84.6% 

(115 of 136) 

91.2% 

(280 of 307) 

Nitrile or latex gloves 98.5% 

(134 of 136) 

99.4% 

(305 of 307) 

N95 respirators 99.3% 

(135 of 136) 

98.4% 

(302 of 307) 

Standard surgical masks 94.1% 

(128 of 136) 

94.8% 

(291 of 307) 

Source: OIG analysis of survey responses 

Survey results described other protective equipment or supplies available at 

facilities to help prevent or mitigate the spread of COVID-19 based on guidance 

they received. These measures included: 

x “Currently in discussion with airport operators to install [Plexiglas] in 

primary booths.” 

x “When there was a shortage of disinfectant cleaning supplies, we mixed 

bleach dilutions per recommended guidelines for spray bottles until new 

supplies were received.” 



14 To help stop the spread of COVID-19, the CDC recommends the use of PPE, such as gloves 

and a face mask. See Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, March 23, 2020. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

x “Specific transport vehicle, mobile processing computer for open air 

processing, negative pressure cells,15 Tyvek suits,16 boot cover and 

vehicle foggers.”17 

x “A limited number of [Tyvek] suits are available for use along with a 

commercial ozone generator.18 The detention and processing areas along 

with the front foyer are equipped with negative air pressure to ensure the 

main facility is not contaminated.” 

The largest concern for Border Patrol station staff was the physical limitations 

of their facilities to quarantine or isolate detained individuals. Almost half (67) 

of the Border Patrol stations described holding cell issues, long-term detention 

capability, and proximity to medical facilities as the major challenges they 

faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Border Patrol personnel reported: 

x “In an effort to maintain CDC guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic 

the isolation and quarantine of detainees would quickly saturate holding 

cells and USBP holding capacity would be maximized and the system 

overwhelmed.” 

x “This facility is not designed to accommodate subjects whom [sic] need to 

be isolated and/or quarantined. Specifically, should the facility need to 

isolate and/or quarantine multiple subjects/groups, the facility would 

exceed detention capacity in a short period of time in order to comply 

with CDC guidelines.” 

x “The facility is not engineered for proper isolation or quarantine.” 

x “Should subjects be held for quarantine or isolation purposes related to 

COVID 19 for significant periods of time (a week or longer), the facility 

would become quickly overwhelmed and operations would likely be 

forced to shift to another facility.” 

More than 25 percent (79) of OFO ports of entry said their major challenge 

regarding the pandemic was risk of exposure due to their interaction with 

travelers. OFO personnel highlighted the following concerns: 

x “The major challenge currently facing the POE [port of entry] is the 

hundreds of travelers the employees are coming in contact with daily and 



15 According to the CDC, a negative pressure room is used to isolate individuals with a 

suspected or confirmed airborne infectious disease. The rooms have negative pressure in the 

room and direct exhaust of air from the room to the outside of the building, 

https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/isolation/glossary.html.

16 Tyvek suits are single-use, disposable gowns, which CDC recommends as PPE for law 

enforcement personnel, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidancelaw-enforcement.pdf. 

17 Vehicle foggers release a disinfectant that kills germs and disinfects air and surfaces. 

18 An ozone generator is a machine that can be used to purify the air people breathe. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

the handling of documents and all personal effects during inspection. 

The interaction may be as quick as a couple of minutes to several... 

hours. The traveler may be asymptomatic at the time of inspection or 

detention. Detection of possible COVID-19 exposure is never known 

until the officer starts feeling symptomatic. Concern for employees and 

immediate family members in high risk categories.” 

x “The nature of passenger processing requires close proximity to 

travelers.” 

x “Distancing with travelers and officers in the booths, personal searching, 

baggage searching, detaining, arresting, and transporting travelers. 

Morale, due to employees feeling nervous or scared to perform their 

duties with the public.” 

x “Even though the [port of entry] follows all possible safety measures there 

is a high risk of exposure due to the need to follow enforcement 

guidelines for inspecting travelers, luggage and vehicles which requires 

close proximity interaction. There is also the unknown [sic] factor of 

what exposure the traveler has been in contact with.” 

CBP Has Provided Guidance Regarding COVID-19 to Personnel 

at Border Patrol Stations and OFO Ports of Entry 

In January 2020, CBP started providing guidance to Border Patrol stations and 

OFO ports of entry. The guidance includes best practices for staff regarding 

preparedness, prevention, and management of COVID-19 at facilities. For 

example, CBP created a Job Hazard Analysis, which categorized the risks of 

CBP staff based on their job responsibilities, and described protective measures 

CBP staff should take based on these risks. CBP also provided guidance for 

supervisors to assess their employees’ risk of COVID-19 exposure, and 

described various actions supervisors should take depending on the risk. In 

addition, CBP issued information on how to track incidents of suspected or 

confirmed COVID-19 exposure among employees. CBP also provided CDC 

guidance to staff, including measures for law enforcement personnel to protect 

against COVID-19 contamination and personal decontamination techniques. 

CBP also issued direction regarding how to deal with possible COVID-19 

exposure among travelers and detained individuals. For example, Border 

Patrol sent guidance to stations about assessing and managing individuals who 

traveled from at-risk countries or who displayed symptoms of COVID-19. The 

guidance included providing masks to the individuals, isolating the individuals 

if possible, and consulting with local medical contract personnel if available. 

Guidance for OFO ports of entry included recognizing travelers who displayed 

COVID-19 symptoms, isolating them, and requesting a medical evaluation or 

assistance. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

According to our survey results, 99 percent (135) of Border Patrol stations and 

98 percent (301) of OFO ports of entry stated they had received COVID-19 

guidance from CBP headquarters. Every Border Patrol station and OFO port of 

entry reported receiving guidance from their respective headquarters offices. 

CBP’s Comments and OIG Analysis 

CBP management provided written comments on a draft of this report. We 

included a copy of CBP’s comments in their entirety in appendix B. We also 

received technical comments and incorporated them in the report where 

appropriate. CBP expressed four specific concerns with the report. CBP’s 

concerns, as well as our response, are described below. 

First, CBP was concerned the draft report implied Border Patrol had not taken 

a comprehensive approach to managing the pandemic. However, determining 

the comprehensiveness of the Border Patrol’s approach to managing the 

pandemic was not a specific objective of our review, and we made no 

conclusion in our report in this regard. We appreciate CBP’s description of the 

administrative, work practice, and engineering controls it has implemented to 

prepare for and manage the pandemic at its detention centers nationwide. This 

information is in addition to the various measures already described in our 

report, such as Job Hazard Analyses. 

CBP disagreed with the survey methodology we used for our review, as well as 

the lack of independent verification of the survey responses. As we explained 

in our initial meeting with CBP at the beginning of our review, our work and 

the resulting report are based primarily on the survey responses and we never 

intended to provide an in-depth assessment of CBP’s ability to manage the 

pandemic at its facilities. Given the review’s limited scope and objective, the 

purpose of our report is to illustrate CBP officials’ perspectives and personal 

experiences with COVID-19 at a specific point in time. We aimed to accomplish 

this review expeditiously and provide the survey information we received while 

it was still relevant and useful to help guide CBP’s response to the pandemic. 

Some survey questions sought opinions and beliefs (for example, “Do you 

believe the facility is prepared to handle the COVID-19 pandemic?”) and by 

their nature are not verifiable. Factual survey questions would require 

inspections to corroborate answers, make visual observations (in-person or 

virtually), interview staff and detainees, and review documentation. Given the 

hundreds of respondents from CBP’s detention centers nationwide, we could 

not verify the accuracy of the responses with our available staff resources in 

the allotted timeframe. 

Further, CBP stated the draft report did not accurately describe the current 

availability of medical resources at its facilities. CBP asserts we conflated the 

TEDS provision regarding accessible medical care to include a requirement that 

CBP have medical staff on-site. We appreciate CBP’s update regarding the 

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

number of medical personnel currently working in facilities along the 

Southwestern Border, and have added corresponding language in the body of 

the report as appropriate. However, we disagree with the assertion that the 

draft report conflates the TEDS standards to also require that CBP have 

medical staff on-site. Our report clearly states that medical care for serious 

conditions is provided by local medical facilities. We also describe a lack of onsite medical staff as one of the unique challenges CBP facilities face during the 

pandemic. 

Finally, CBP expressed concerns that our draft report did not provide specific 

details regarding opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of 

CBP operations. In providing the survey responses from CBP officials at 

facilities nationwide, we have given CBP considerable information as a basis for 

further analysis and decision-making to improve its facility operations during 

the pandemic. Given the unverified nature of our findings, the abbreviated 

timeframe for completing the review, and the limited scope and objective for the 

review, we did not consider recommendations appropriate. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix A 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107ï296), by 

amendment to the Inspector General Act of 1978. 

We initiated this review to determine how both CBP and ICE are managing the 

pandemic at their facilities. Our observations regarding ICE facilities can be 

found in OIG 20-42. We conducted our fieldwork in April and May 2020. 

To learn about CBP facilities’ experience with COVID-19, we asked 

CBP to forward an electronic survey to one individual at each Border Patrol 

station and OFO port of entry who had knowledge of (1) the daily operations of 

the facility and (2) how the facility was responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

CBP sent the survey on April 22, 2020, to those individuals at 136 Border 

Patrol Stations and 392 OFO ports of entry. Border Patrol respondents 

included Patrol Agents in Charge, Deputy Patrol Agents in Charge, Supervisory 

Border Patrol Agents, Watch Commanders, and Special Operations 

Supervisors. OFO respondents included Port Directors, Assistant Port 

Directors, Chief CBP Officers, and Watch Commanders. 

We chose to conduct the inspection via survey because of inherent risks 

associated with on-site inspections, and because the survey allowed us to 

quickly gain real-time information about CBP facilities. Of the 135 Border 

Patrol stations on our original list, we removed 1 when we learned it did not 

have a holding area. We later added 2 Border Patrol stations that were missing 

from the original list, which gave us a total of 136 Border Patrol stations. We 

received responses from personnel at all 136 Border Patrol stations, resulting 

in a 100 percent response rate. Of the 392 OFO ports of entry on our original 

list, we later determined that 13 facilities were no longer in use and 1 location 

was a duplicate. Respondents from another 77 ports of entry were ultimately 

combined with others to reflect responses from 10 ports of entry in total, as the 

ports were physically located together and were supported by the same 

employees. Of the 311 remaining ports of entry, 4 facilities did not respond, 

despite three follow-up attempts by e-mail and telephone. Ultimately, we 

received responses from 307 OFO ports of entry, for a 99 percent response 

rate. We received all survey responses between April 22 and May 1, 2020. 

The responses in the survey represent the experiences of the 136 Border Patrol 

stations and 307 OFO ports of entry at a particular point in time (April 22 to 

May 1, 2020). We did not independently verify the information provided by 

Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

In addition to our survey of CBP Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry, 

we also reviewed CBP guidance related to COVID-19 and interviewed the CBP 

Chief Medical Officer. 

We conducted this inspection under the authority of the Inspector General Act 

of 1978, as amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Federal 

Offices of Inspector General issued by the Council of the Inspectors General on 

Integrity and Efficiency. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix B 

CBP Comments to the Draft Report 

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-20-69 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-20-69 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix C 

Survey Results 

Our survey to Border Patrol stations and OFO ports of entry contained both 

multiple-choice and open-ended questions. For multiple-choice questions, we 

provide a table of the responses. For open-ended questions calling for a 

numeric response, we provide a table categorizing the response, followed by the 

range of responses and the total. Responses to open-ended questions calling 

for a descriptive or narrative answers were too lengthy for inclusion. Therefore, 

we include examples of representative responses throughout the report. 

Border Patrol Stations 

QUESTIONS ABOUT FACILITY STAFF 

1. Total number of staff who have been tested for COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one employee has been 

tested 76 55.9% 

None tested 60 44.1% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 22 employees who had 

been tested at the time of our survey. The total number of staff who were 

reported tested was 279. 

2. Total number of facilities with staff who have tested positive for COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one employee tested 

positive 10 7.4% 

None tested positive 126 92.6% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 4 employees who had 

tested positive for COVID-19 at the time of our survey. The total number of staff 

who were reported tested positive was 16. 

3. Total number of staff who are in precautionary self-quarantine: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one employee is in 

precautionary self-quarantine 33 24.3% 

None are in precautionary selfquarantine 103 75.7% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 20 employees who were 

in precautionary self-quarantine at the time of our survey. The total number of 

staff who were reported in precautionary self-quarantine was 100. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 22 OIG-20-69 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

4. Total number of staff who are unavailable to work due to community 

mitigation measure (considered non-essential; absent for child care due to 

school closures, weather and safety leave, etc.): 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one employee is 

unavailable to work 17 12.5% 

No employees are unavailable 

to work 119 87.5% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 10 employees who were 

unavailable to work at the time of our survey. The total number of staff who 

were reported unavailable to work was 39. 

5. Have any staff used “weather and safety leave” to limit risk of exposure to 

COVID-19 before it was rescinded on April 6th? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 48 35.3% 

No 88 64.7% 

Total 136 100% 

6. If “weather and safety leave” were still available, do you believe staff would 

use it? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 84 61.8% 

No 52 38.2% 

Total 136 100% 

7. What are the facility’s contingency staffing plans in the event there is not 

sufficient staff to operate during the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

QUESTIONS ABOUT STAFF RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE 

8. Do you believe the facility has enough of the following protective equipment 

and supplies on hand for staff who interact with detained individuals to 

use? 

8a. Nitrile or latex gloves 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 134 98.5% 

No 2 1.5% 

Total 136 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 23 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

8b. Standard surgical masks 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 128 94.1% 

No 8 5.9% 

Total 136 100% 

8c. N95 respirators 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 135 99.3% 

No 1 0.7% 

Grand Total 136 100% 

8d. Hand sanitizer 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 115 84.6% 

No 21 15.4% 

Total 136 100% 

8e. Face shields or goggles 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 125 91.9% 

No 11 8.1% 

Total 136 100% 

8f. Disinfectant cleaning agents 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 123 90.4% 

No 13 9.6% 

Total 136 100% 

9. Do you believe the facility has enough of the following protective equipment 

and supplies on hand for staff who do not interact with detained 

individuals to use? 

9a. Nitrile or latex gloves 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 136 100% 

No 0 0% 

Total 136 100% 

9b. Standard surgical masks 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 129 94.9% 

No 7 5.1% 

Total 136 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 24 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

9c. N95 respirators 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 134 98.5% 

No 2 1.5% 

Grand Total 136 100% 

9d. Hand sanitizer 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 115 84.6% 

No 21 15.4% 

Total 136 100% 

9e. Face shields or goggles 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 122 89.7% 

No 14 10.3% 

Total 136 100% 

9f. Disinfectant cleaning agents 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 125 91.9% 

No 11 8.1% 

Total 136 100% 

10. Describe any other protective equipment or supplies available at the facility 

to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

11. Have all staff been trained in the proper fitting, use, and disposal of the 

above protective equipment? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 129 94.9% 

No 7 5.1% 

Total 136 100% 

12. Are staff able to maintain proper social distancing between staff and 

detained individuals during: 

12a. The apprehension of individuals? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 40 29.4% 

No 96 70.6% 

Total 136 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 25 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

12b. The transportation of apprehended individuals? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 95 69.9% 

No 41 30.1% 

Total 136 100% 

12c. The processing of apprehended individuals? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 66 48.5% 

No 70 51.5% 

Total 136 100% 

12d. The removal or release of detained individuals? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 76 55.9% 

No 60 44.1% 

Total 136 100% 

13. Has the facility increased the frequency of cleaning and sanitizing holding 

facilities to help prevent the spread of COVID-19? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 101 74.3% 

No 35 25.7% 

Total 136 100% 

14. Has the facility increased the frequency of cleaning and sanitizing vehicles 

to help prevent the spread of COVID-19? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 127 93.4% 

No 9 6.6% 

Total 136 100% 

15. Overall, do you believe the facility is doing enough to maintain a clean and 

sanitized environment for all staff? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 134 98.5% 

No 2 1.5% 

Total 136 100% 

16. Has the facility received guidance from the following offices that addresses 

how to prevent, control, and mitigate an outbreak of COVID-19 in the facility? 

16a. CBP headquarters 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 135 99.3% 

No 1 0.7% 

Total 136 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 26 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

16b. Border Patrol headquarters 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 136 100% 

No 0 0% 

Total 136 100% 

16c. Border Patrol sector 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 135 99.3% 

No 1 0.7% 

Total 136 100% 

QUESTIONS ABOUT DETAINED INDIVIDUALS AT THE FACILITY 

17. Total number of detained individuals: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee at facility 15 11% 

No detained individuals are at 

facility 121 89% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 29 detained individuals at 

their facilities at the time of our survey. The total number of individuals who 

were reported detained in the Border Patrol facilities was 109. 

18. Total number of detained individuals who have been tested for COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee has been 

tested 8 5.9% 

No detainee has been tested 128 94.1% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 2 detained individuals who 

had tested for COVID-19 at their facility at the time of our survey. The total 

number of detained individuals who were reported tested was 9. 

19. Total number of detained individuals who have tested positive for 

COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee has tested 

positive 1 0.7% 

No detainee has tested positive 135 99.3% 

Total 136 100% 

One facility responded that it had 1 detained individual who had tested positive 

for COVID-19. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 27 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

20. Total number of detained individuals who are in isolation for suspected 

COVID-19 symptoms or exposure: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

No detainee is in isolation 136 100% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they did not have any detained individuals in isolation at 

their facility at the time of our survey. 

21. Total number of detained individuals who are being monitored for 

suspected COVID-19 symptoms or exposure: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

No detainee is being monitored 136 100% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they did not have any detained individuals being monitored 

at their facility at the time of our survey. 

22. Total number of Title 42 expulsions: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee has been 

expelled 64 47.1% 

No detainee has been expelled 72 52.9% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they had expelled anywhere from 0 to 1,532 detained 

individuals under Title 42 expulsions. The total number of Title 42 expulsions 

reported was 11,454. 

23. Do you believe the facility has enough of the following resources to 

maintain proper hygiene and protection among detained individuals? 

23a. Masks for detained individuals who exhibit COVID-19 symptoms or test 

positive for COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 135 99.3% 

No 1 0.7% 

Total 136 100% 

23b. Liquid soap for detained individuals to use: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 126 92.6% 

No 10 7.4% 

Total 136 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 28 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

23c. Hand sanitizer for detained individuals to use: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 110 80.9% 

No 26 19.1% 

Total 136 100% 

24. Is the facility able to maintain social distancing among detained individuals 

(except among family members), from point of apprehension to release? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 98 72.1% 

No 38 27.9% 

Total 136 100% 

QUESTIONS ABOUT FACILITY'S MEDICAL PRACTICES 

25. Does the facility conduct risk assessments on detained individuals to 

determine potential COVID-19 exposure? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 122 89.7% 

No 14 10.3% 

Total 136 100% 

26. What is the protocol, if any, to determine whether a detained individual 

should be tested for COVID-19? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses we did not include in this 

report. 

26a. If the facility has testing protocols in place, how many detained 

individuals have met the testing protocols but have not been tested? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee met 

testing protocols 1 0.7% 

None of the detainees met 

testing protocols 135 99.3% 

Total 136 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 2 detained individuals who 

met testing requirements but were not tested. The total number of detained 

individuals who were reported to have met testing requirements but were not 

tested was 2. 

27. Does the facility have the capacity to test detained individuals for COVID19 on site? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 3 2.2% 

No 133 97.8% 

Total 136 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 29 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

27a. If yes, how many on-site COVID-19 testing kits does the facility have? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

The facility did have testing kits 0 0% 

The facility did not have testing 

kits 136 100% 

Total 136 100% 

All facilities responded no to the question. There were 3 facilities that reported 

having the capacity to test detained individuals for COVID-19 (Question 27), but 

reported having 0 available testing kits. 

OVERALL QUESTIONS 

28. Do you believe the facility is prepared to handle the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 110 80.9% 

No 26 19.1% 

Total 136 100% 

29. What are the major challenges, if any, facing the facility regarding the 

COVID-19 pandemic? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

30. What other measures other than the ones described above has the facility 

taken to prepare for, prevent, control, and mitigate an outbreak of COVID-19 in 

the facility? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

31. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the facility's handling 

of the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses we did not include in this 

report. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 30 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

OFO Ports of Entry 

QUESTIONS ABOUT FACILITY STAFF 

1. Total number of staff who have been tested for COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one employee has been 

tested 113 36.8% 

None tested 192 62.5% 

No response 2 0.7% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 196 employees who had 

been tested at the time of our survey. The total number of staff who were 

reported tested was 1,233. 

2. Total number of facilities with staff who have tested positive for COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one employee tested 

positive 24 7.8% 

None tested positive 283 92.2% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 76 employees who had 

tested positive for COVID-19 at the time of our survey. The total number of staff 

who reported tested positive was 228. 

3. Total number of staff who are in precautionary self-quarantine: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one employee is in 

precautionary self-quarantine 59 19.2% 

None are in precautionary selfquarantine 248 80.8% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 160 employees who were 

in precautionary self-quarantine at the time of our survey. The total number of 

staff who were reported in precautionary self-quarantine was 658. 

4. Total number of staff who are unavailable to work due to community 

mitigation measure (considered non-essential; absent for child care due to 

school closures, weather and safety leave, etc.): 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one employee is 

unavailable to work 48 15.6% 

No employees are unavailable 

to work 259 84.4% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 169 employees who were 

unavailable to work at the time of our survey. The total number of staff who 

were reported unavailable to work was 647. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 31 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

5. Have any staff used “weather and safety leave” to limit risk of exposure to 

COVID-19 before it was rescinded on April 6? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 210 68.4% 

No 97 31.6% 

Total 307 100% 

6. If “weather and safety leave” were still available, do you believe staff would 

use it? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 267 87% 

No 40 13% 

Total 307 100% 

7. What are the facility’s contingency staffing plans in the event there is not 

sufficient staff to operate during the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

QUESTIONS ABOUT STAFF RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE 

8. Do you believe the facility has enough of the following protective equipment 

and supplies on hand for staff who interact with detained individuals to use 

if a COVID-19 outbreak occurs in the facility? 

8a. Nitrile or latex gloves 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 305 99.3% 

No 2 0.7% 

Total 307 100% 

8b. Standard surgical masks 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 291 94.8% 

No 16 5.2% 

Total 307 100% 

8c. N95 respirators 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 302 98.4% 

No 5 1.6% 

Total 307 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 32 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

8d. Hand sanitizer 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 280 91.2% 

No 27 8.8% 

Total 307 100% 

8e. Face shields or goggles 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 267 87% 

No 40 13% 

Total 307 100% 

8f. Disinfectant cleaning agents 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 270 87.9% 

No 37 12.1% 

Total 307 100% 

9. Do you believe the facility has enough of the following protective equipment 

and supplies on hand for staff who do not interact with detained 

individuals to use if a COVID-19 outbreak occurs in the facility? 

9a. Nitrile or latex gloves 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 304 99% 

No 3 1% 

Total 307 100% 

9b. Standard surgical masks 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 295 96.1% 

No 12 3.9% 

Total 307 100% 

9c. N95 respirators 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 303 98.7% 

No 4 1.3% 

Total 307 100% 

9d. Hand sanitizer 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 287 93.5% 

No 20 6.5% 

Total 307 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 33 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

9e. Face shields or goggles 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 276 89.9% 

No 31 10.1% 

Total 307 100% 

9f. Disinfectant cleaning agents 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 272 88.6% 

No 31 10.1% 

No response 4 1.3% 

Total 307 100% 

10. Describe any other protective equipment or supplies available at the facility 

to prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

11. Have all staff been trained in the proper fitting, use, and disposal of the 

above protective equipment? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 303 98.7% 

No 4 1.3% 

Total 307 100% 

12. Are staff able to maintain proper social distancing between staff and 

detained individuals during the screening process? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 300 97.7% 

No 7 2.3% 

Total 307 100% 

13. Has the port of entry increased the frequency of cleaning and sanitizing 

processing and holding areas to help prevent the spread of COVID-19? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 279 90.9% 

No 28 9.1% 

Total 307 100% 

14. Overall, do you believe the facility is doing enough to maintain a clean and 

sanitized environment for all staff? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 289 94.1% 

No 18 5.9% 

Total 307 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 34 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

15. Has the port of entry received guidance from the following offices that 

addresses how to prevent, control and mitigate an outbreak of COVID-19 in the 

facility? 

15a. CBP headquarters: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 301 98% 

No 6 2% 

Total 307 100% 

15b. OFO headquarters: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 307 100% 

No 0 0% 

Total 307 100% 

15c. OFO regional office: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 307 100% 

No 0 0% 

Total 307 100% 

QUESTIONS ABOUT DETAINED INDIVIDUALS AT THE FACILITY 

16. Total number of detained individuals: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee at facility 8 2.6% 

No detained individuals are at 

facility 299 97.4% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 8 detained individuals at their 

facilities at the time of our survey. The total number of individuals who were 

reported detained in OFO facilities was 23. 

17. Total number of detained individuals who have been tested for COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee has been 

tested 1 0.3% 

No detainee has been tested 306 99.7% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 1 detained individuals who 

had been tested for COVID-19 at their facilities at the time of our survey. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 35 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

18. Total number of detained individuals who have tested positive for 

COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

No detainee has tested positive 307 100% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they did not have any detained individuals who tested 

positive at their facilities at the time of our survey. 

19. Total number of detained individuals who are in isolation for suspected 

COVID-19 symptoms or exposure: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

No detainee is in isolation 307 100% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they did not have any detained individuals in isolation at 

their facilities at the time of our survey. 

20. Total number of detained individuals who are being monitored for 

suspected COVID-19 symptoms or exposure: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

No detainee is being monitored 307 100% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they did not have any detained individuals being monitored 

at their facilities at the time of our survey. 

21. Total number of Title 42 expulsions: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee has been 

expelled 22 7.2% 

No detainee has been expelled 285 92.8% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they had expelled anywhere from 0 to 583 detained 

individuals. The total number of Title 42 expulsions was 1,474. 

22. Do you believe the facility has enough of the following resources to 

maintain proper hygiene and protection among detained individuals? 

22a. Masks for detained individuals who exhibit COVID-19 symptoms or test 

positive for COVID-19: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 302 98.4% 

No 5 1.6% 

Total 307 100% 

www.oig.dhs.gov 36 OIG-20-69 
 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

22b. Liquid soap for detained individuals to use: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 293 95.4% 

No 14 4.6% 

Total 307 100% 

22c. Hand sanitizer for detained individuals to use: 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 289 94.1% 

No 18 5.9% 

Total 307 100% 

23. Is the port of entry able to maintain social distancing among detained 

individuals (except among family members), from point of apprehension to 

release? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 291 94.8% 

No 16 5.2% 

Total 307 100% 

QUESTIONS ABOUT FACILITY'S MEDICAL PRACTICES 

24. Does the facility conduct risk assessments on detained individuals to 

determine potential COVID-19 exposure? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 277 90.2% 

No 29 9.4% 

No response 1 0.3% 

Total 307 100% 

25. What is the protocol, if any, to determine whether a detained individual 

should be tested for COVID-19? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses we did not include in this 

report. 

25a. If the facility has testing protocols in place, how many detained 

individuals have met the testing protocols but have not been tested? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

At least one detainee met 

protocols 3 1% 

None of the detainees met 

protocols 279 8.1% 

No response 25 90.1% 

Total 307 100% 

Facilities responded they had anywhere from 0 to 1 detained individuals who 

met testing requirements but were not tested. The total number of detained 

individuals who met testing requirements but were not tested was 3. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 37 OIG-20-69 
 

 

 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

26. Does the facility have the capacity to test detained individuals for COVID19 on site? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 5 1.6% 

No 298 97.1% 

No response 4 1.3 

Total 307 100% 

26a. If yes, how many on-site COVID-19 testing kits does the facility have? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

The facility did have testing kits 209 68.1% 

The facility did not have testing 

kits 98 31.9% 

Total 307 100% 

There were 5 facilities that reported having the capacity to test detained 

individuals for COVID-19 (Question 26), and reported having 0 available testing 

kits. 

OVERALL QUESTIONS 

27. Do you believe the facility is prepared to handle the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Number of Facilities Percentage of Facilities 

Yes 290 94.5% 

No 15 4.9% 

No response 2 0.7% 

Total 307 100% 

28. What are the major challenges, if any, facing the facility regarding the 

COVID-19 pandemic? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

29. What other measures other than the ones described above has the facility 

taken to prepare for, prevent, control, and mitigate an outbreak of COVID-19 in 

the facility? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

30. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the facility's handling 

of the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Facilities provided a range of open-ended responses and a limited number were 

included in this report. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 38 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix D 

Special Reviews and Evaluations Major Contributors to This 

Report 

Erika Lang, Chief Inspector 

Erika Algeo, Senior Inspector 

Jennifer Berry, Senior Inspector 

Michael Brooks, Senior Inspector 

Ryan Nelson, Senior Inspector 

Donna Ruth, Senior Inspector 

Ronald Hunter, Inspector 

www.oig.dhs.gov 39 OIG-20-69 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

DHS Liaison 

CBP Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees 

www.oig.dhs.gov 40 OIG-20-69 
Additional Information and Copies 

To view this and any of our other reports, please visit our website at: 

www.oig.dhs.gov. 

For further information or questions, please contact Office of Inspector General 

Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov. 

Follow us on Twitter at: @dhsoig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report fraud, waste, or abuse, visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov and click 

on the red "Hotline" tab. If you cannot access our website, call our hotline at 

(800) 323-8603, fax our hotline at (202) 254-4297, or write to us at: 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General, Mail Stop 0305 

Attention: Hotline 

245 Murray Drive, SW 

Washington, DC 20528-0305