DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

Review of U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement’s Detainee 

Tracking Process

Office of Audits 

OIG-07-08 November 2006
Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

November 16, 2006 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General 

Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared as part of our 

oversight responsibilities to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the effectiveness of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

policies and procedures to track the location of detainees and respond to public inquiries on detainee 

whereabouts. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and 

institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our office, and 

have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is our hope that this report 

will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We express our appreciation to all 

of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................1 

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

Results of Audit ............................................................................................................................3 

ICE Needs to Update DACS in a More Timely Manner ..........................................................3 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis .............................................................................6 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology...................................................................7 

Appendix B: Management Comments ..................................................................................9 

Appendix C: Delayed Data Entry Details............................................................................11 

Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report...................................................................12 

Appendix E: Report Distribution.........................................................................................13 

Abbreviations 

CCA Corrections Corporation of America 

DACS Deportable Alien Control System

DETS DACS Detention Summary 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IEA Immigration Enforcement Agent 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

RCC Regional Correctional Center 

SPC Service Processing Center 
Audit OIG Report 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

This report represents the results of our review of U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) detainee tracking process. ICE is responsible for 

immigration investigations and detention and removal of illegal aliens. Our 

audit objective was to determine whether ICE had an effective system to track 

the location of detainees and respond to public inquiries. 

The detainee tracking system, for five of the eight ICE detention facilities 

tested, did not always contain timely information. At the five facilities, data for 

10% of the detainees examined were not recorded in the Deportable Alien 

Control System (DACS) within the first five days of detainment. ICE 

procedures stipulated that detainee data should be recorded in DACS as soon as 

possible, usually within two business days from the date of detainment. 

At six of eight ICE detention facilities tested, DACS and detention facility 

records did not always agree on the location of detainees, or contained 

information showing the detainee had been deported. Inaccurate detainee 

information reduces ICE’s ability to correctly identify the actual location of 

detainees and to verify that individuals have been detained. There is also the 

potential for ICE to under or over pay detention facilities because of incorrect 

data. At one detention facility, ICE overpaid the facility $9,620 for eight 

detainees that had been released. At the same time, ICE underpaid the detention 

facility $1,665 for two detainees that were being held. 

ICE had no formal policy regarding what information it would provide to 

anyone inquiring about detainees in their custody. However, the four field 

offices we visited and the eight detention facilities contacted indicated that they 

would confirm whether the detainee was held in their facility. Requests for 

more detailed information would be referred to ICE headquarters. 

We made three recommendations to ICE: (1) issue formal instructions to field 

offices requiring timely DACS entries and proper supervisory review, (2) 

perform daily/periodic reconciliations of DACS data, and (3) obtain a 

reimbursement of the $7,955 in ICE net overpayments. ICE concurred with the 

recommendations and will issue guidance to the field addressing timely DACS 

entries, supervisory reviews, and periodic reconciliations of DACS data. ICE 

will also work with the appropriate officials to recover the $7,955 overpayment. 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 1
Background 

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for: 

• Identifying and removing all high-risk illegal alien fugitives; 

• Ensuring that those aliens who have already been identified as criminals 

are expeditiously removed; and 

• Developing and maintaining a robust removal program with the capacity 

to remove all final order cases, thus precluding growth in the illegal alien 

population. 

ICE secures bed space in detention facilities, and monitors those facilities for 

compliance with national detention standards. Detainees are often transferred 

from one facility to another for various reasons including medical, change of 

venue, recreation, security issues, or other ICE needs. During fiscal year (FY) 

2005, ICE detained in custody an average of 18,500 aliens per day and 

formally removed 204,193 aliens from the United States. 

ICE field offices use DACS to track detainees. DACS automates many of the 

clerical control functions associated with the arrest, detention, and deportation 

of illegal aliens. The system provides management information concerning 

the status and disposition of individual cases, as well as statistical and 

summary data of cases by type, status, and other attributes. DACS, 

specifically the DACS Detention Summary (DETS), tracks the location of 

detainees housed at Service Processing Centers (SPCs),1 contract detention 

facilities,2 and Intergovernmental Service Agreements detention facilities 

(local jails). 

An ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent (IEA) updates DACS with the 

required information when a detainee is taken into custody. IEAs, deportation 

officers, and detention removal assistants, in addition to updating DACS for 

detainee transfers to other facilities and deportations, may also update DACS 

when a detainee is taken into custody. Supervisory IEAs also have access to 

1

 ICE operated facilities located in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico; Batavia, New York; El Centro, California; San Pedro, 

California; El Paso, Texas; Florence, Arizona; Miami, Florida; and Los Fresnos, Texas. 2

 Private firm operated facilities located in Aurora, Colorado; Houston, Texas; Laredo, Texas; Seattle, Washington; 

Elizabeth, New Jersey; Queens, New York; and San Diego, California. 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 2
DACS and, at some locations, clerical staff and deportation officers have 

access to the system. 

Results of Audit 

ICE Needs to Update DACS in a More Timely Manner 

DACS does not always contain accurate information3 on detainees. For 10 

percent of the records examined (322 of 3,201) at five of eight sites, detainee 

data was not recorded or updated in DACS within the first five days of 

detainment or transfer. At six of eight sites, detainees were listed in DACS as 

being in ICE custody when they were not, and the detention facilities where 

they were being held were incorrect. We also identified approximately $9,620 

in ICE overpayments and $1,665 underpayments to detention facilities. Field 

office policies require recording detainee data in DACS as soon as possible, 

usually within two business days. The field offices did not follow their 

policies because detention officers did not receive notification or did not 

update DACS when detainees were placed in custody or released. When 

DACS is not updated, the statistical information obtained from DACS may be 

inaccurate and individuals requesting information could be misinformed on 

the whereabouts of detainees. Further, ICE could and has made incorrect 

payments to detention facilities for detainee bed space. 

DACS data for five of the eight detention facilities tested at the four ICE field 

offices visited were not being updated in a timely manner. We reviewed 

DACS records to determine if the book-in date was within five days of the 

information entered in DACS. The number of records not updated within 5 

days ranged from nearly 19% at Piedmont to 7% at McHenry. (See Table 1.) 

3

 Information recorded in Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) for each detainee includes items such as alien 

number, name, country of origin, book-in date, and detention facility. 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 3
Detention Facility DACS 

Records 

More than 

5 days after 

book-in-date 

Percent 

Table 1 

Timeliness of DACS Input 

Piedmont 487 91 18.7 

Hampton Roads 276 26 9.4 

Regional 

Correctional Center 

(RCC) 

829 79 9.5 

Corrections 

Corporation of 

America (CCA) 1,179 97 8.2 

McHenry County 430 29 6.8

 Total 3,201 322 10.1 

At 6 of 8 detention facilities tested, 21 detainees were listed in the wrong 

detention facility and 23 detainees who were not recorded in DACS had been 

released. For example, at RCC, eight detainees were either listed in DACS at 

the wrong detention facility or not listed in DACS even though they were in 

custody. Also, at RCC, one detainee was deported in early January, but was 

still in DACS as of the end of March 2006. Two other detainees were 

deported more than four months before DACS was updated. At Hampton 

Roads, two detainees were released in December 2005, but one was still listed 

in DACS as of January and the other was listed until February 2006. One 

detainee was released in November 2005 and still listed in DACS on January 

31, 2006. A detainee from CCA was transferred to a Florida detention facility 

in November 2005. He remained listed in DACS for CCA until April 2006. 

Furthermore, in our limited testing of the DACS data, we identified $9,620 in 

ICE overpayments and $1,665 in underpayments to the Piedmont detention 

facility. Table 2 shows that the Piedmont detention facility overcharged ICE 

for housing 8 detainees for 208 days, including charges for one detainee for 

the months of December 2005 and January 2006, even though the detainee 

was deported in November 2005. 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 4
Table 2 

Piedmont Billing Errors 

Detainee Number 

of Days 

Daily 

Rate 

Total 

Overcharge 

1 24 46.25 $1,110 

2 8 46.25 $370 

3 24 46.25 $1,110 

4 28 46.25 $1,295 

5 62 46.25 $2,868 

6 26 46.25 $1,203 

7 28 46.25 $1,295 

8 8 46.25 $370 

Total 208 46.25 $9,620 

The Piedmont detention facility also failed to charge ICE for two detainees 

who were in custody for 36 days. This resulted in a $1,665 undercharge. 

There is no ICE policy requiring reconciliations; however, the field offices 

visited have established their own policies. They record information on new 

detainees or update information on transferred detainees on the day of the 

arrival, or the next business day for detainees received at the facility after 

normal working hours, on weekends, or on holidays. For example, entries for 

detainees arriving after hours on a Friday evening could be delayed up to three 

days. ICE officials stated that DACS should be reconciled to the detention 

facility list on a regular basis. The El Paso and Chicago field offices 

reconciled daily, while the Washington field offices reconciled weekly and 

Phoenix monthly. ICE officials at three locations stated that they compare 

DACS data to the number of detainees in custody per detention facility 

records, such as billing documents, prior to approving detention facility bills 

for payments. The fourth field office reconciled the number of detainees 

billed to DACS without verifying detainee identities. 

The field offices did not consistently follow these policies because of the 

numerous detainee movements. In addition, IEAs responsible for entering 

detainee data in DACS are not notified of detainee activity, i.e., aliens taken 

into custody or transferred between facilities, performed by other ICE 

personnel. At locations such as the contract facilities, there were a large 

number of detainees and numerous moves between locations. The 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 5
reconciliations of detainees listed in DACS to those listed in detention facility 

records were not thorough enough to identify errors. 

We recommend that the Assistant Secretary for ICE: 

Recommendation #1: Issue formal instructions to field offices requiring 

timely DACS entries and proper supervisory review. 

Recommendation #2: Perform daily/periodic reconciliations and train staff 

responsible for verifying the accuracy of DACS records. 

Recommendation #3: Obtain a reimbursement of $7,955 for the net 

overpayments to the Piedmont detention facility. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

Management Comments to Recommendation #1 

ICE concurred with our recommendation and stated that it would issue 

guidance to all field offices and DRO staff requiring the detainee information 

be entered into DACS Detention Summary module within 24 hours of an 

alien’s placement in detention. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #2 

ICE concurred with our recommendation and stated that its issued guidance to 

the field will require reconciliation of jail bills and periodic review and 

oversight by supervisors. 

Management Comments to Recommendation #3 

ICE concurred with our recommendation and stated that it will work with the 

ICE Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the DRO Washington Field 

Office to obtain reimbursement for the $7,955 overpayment. 

OIG Comments and Analysis 

We consider Recommendations #1, #2, and #3 resolved but will remain open 

until implementation is complete. 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 6
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The purpose of the audit was to determine whether ICE had effective policies 

and procedures to track the location of detainees. The specific audit 

objectives were to determine: 

• What method ICE used to manage and track the location of alien 

detainees; 

• How accurately ICE managed and tracked the location of alien detainees; 

and 

• What procedures ICE used to inform individuals whether a detainee is in 

custody. 

We also determined whether ICE had an effective system to respond to public 

inquiries on the location of detainees in its custody. 

The audit period covered the detainee tracking process from October 

2004 to April 2006. To accomplish the objectives, we conducted fieldwork at 

ICE headquarters in Washington, DC, and at field offices located in 

Washington, DC; Chicago, IL; El Paso, TX; and Phoenix, AZ. 

We reviewed policies and procedures, interviewed ICE personnel, and 

reviewed documents and records as necessary. We performed the audit under 

the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according 

to generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Service Processing Center Testing 

We used different testing methods for the two Service Processing Centers 

(SPCs) included in our sample. The SPCs are controlled and operated by ICE. 

No bill for payment is submitted for reimbursement. The detainee expense is 

a budgeted allocation. In addition, the facilities used different record retention 

methods. 

El Paso 

We compared a random sample of 30 DACS entries from the month January 

2006 (total DACS population 1,125) and 30 DACS entries from February 28, 

2006, (total DACS population 745) to the I-203 forms (Order to Detain) and 

other documentation in the alien file. 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 7
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

We also selected 12 DACS entries from the month of January 2006 and 6 

DACS entries from February 28, 2006, that may not have been entered in a 

timely manner for comparison to daily DACS printouts. 

Lastly, we compared facility body counts to DACS for those detainees held on 

March 21, 2006. 

Florence 

We compared a random sample of 30 DACS entries from the month of 

January 2006 (total DACS population 896) and 30 DACS entries from 

February 28, 2006, (total DACS population 347) to the Florence logbook. 

In addition, we compared the facility body counts to DACS for those 

detainees held on April 11, 2006. For detainees that were on one list but not 

the other, we consulted with ICE deportation officers to determine the 

detainees’ correct location. 

Non-Service Processing Center Testing 

We made two comparisons, one for the month of January 2006, and the other 

for February 28, 2006. We compared billing data provided by the detention 

facilities, which included a list of detainees and the number of days they had 

been housed at the facility, to the DACS data for each of the detention 

facilities. For detainees that were on one list but not the other, we examined I203 forms, bills from other detention facilities, and other documents, as 

needed, to determine the actual location of the detainees. 

Release of Detainee Information 

We discussed the type of detainee information released to the public with both 

ICE officials at the four field offices we visited and representatives from the 

eight detention facilities we selected to test data. Although there is no formal 

policies, ICE officials and the detention facility representatives said they 

would advise us whether or not the detainee was held in their facility. If an 

individual wanted any additional information, they would be directed to 

contact ICE headquarters. 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 8
Appendix B 

Management Comments 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 9
Appendix B 

Management Comments 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 10
Appendix C 

Delayed Data Entry Details 

The table and chart below detail the time taken to enter detainee data into the 

Deportable Alien Control System at the five facilities with significant delays 

in data entry. We defined significant delays as above 5 percent. 

Entered All Delays Percent 

FACILITY within 5 5 to 7 8 to 14 Over 5 Days or Delayed 5 

Sample days days days 14 Days Over Days 

Hampton 

Roads 276 250 11 5 10 26 9.4 

Piedmont 487 396 32 35 24 91 18.7 

McHenry 430 401 5 8 16 29 6.8 

RCC 829 750 0 13 66 79 9.5 

CCA 1,179 1,082 4 89 4 97 8.2 

Totals 3,201 2,879 52 150 120 322 10.1 

Detainee’s Data Entry Time

 Entered within 

5 days 

89.9%

 5 to 7 days 

1.6%

 8 to 14 days 

4.7%

 Over 14 Days 

3.8% 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 11
Appendix D 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Chicago Field Office 

Roberta N. Rickey, Audit Director 

Brad Mosher, Supervisory Auditor 

Larry Fugate, Auditor-in-Charge 

Aldon Hedman, Staff Auditor 

Sharleda Davis, Staff Auditor 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 12
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Assistant Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Service 

Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 

Acting Chief Privacy Officer 

DHS GAO OIG Liaison 

ICE Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 

Review of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

 Detainee Tracking Process 

Page 13
Appendix F 

Report Distribution 

Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

at (202) 254-4100, fax your request to (202) 254-4285, or visit the OIG web site at 

www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG Hotline 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of 

criminal misconduct relative to department programs or operations, call the OIG 

Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; write to DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 

2600, Attention: Office of Investigations – Hotline, 245 Murray Drive, SW, 

Building 410, Washington, DC 20528; fax the complaint to (202) 254-4292; or 

email DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov. The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each 

writer and caller.