United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Immigration and Claims, Committee

on the Judiciary, House of

Representatives

October 1998 CRIMINAL ALIENS

INS’ Efforts to Remove

Imprisoned Aliens

Continue to Need

Improvement

GAO/GGD-99-3

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-278745 

October 16, 1998

The Honorable Lamar S. Smith

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration

 and Claims

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This report responds to your July 30, 1997, request that we continue to

monitor the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) efforts to

initiate and complete removal proceedings1

 for criminal aliens2 through its

Institutional Hearing Program (IHP).3

 In 1997, we testified before your

Subcommittee4

 that INS needed to improve its efforts to identify potentially

deportable criminal aliens in federal and state prisons and complete the

IHP for these aliens before they were released. We based this conclusion on

our analysis of data provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and

five states on potentially deportable criminal aliens who were released

from their prison systems between April and September, 1995. INS’

Executive Associate Commissioner for Programs told the Subcommittee

that INS had improved program operations since 1995. In response, the

Subcommittee asked us to review program performance during 1997. To

accomplish this, we determined

• the extent to which deportable criminal aliens were included in the IHP,

• the extent to which INS completed removal hearings for deportable aliens

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

• whether INS had acted on recommendations that we made in our July 1997

testimony.

1

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

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, aliens charged by INS as deportable are now

placed in “removal” proceedings as opposed to “deportation” proceedings. Proceedings initiated

before the effective date of the 1996 Act would be deemed “deportation” proceedings. For consistency,

we refer to deportation and removal proceedings as removal hearings or proceedings throughout this

report.

2

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

3

In June 1998, the IHP was subsumed under a broader program called the Institutional Removal

Program (IRP). The IRP is to capture data for all removals that originate in an institutional setting,

including the IHP; reinstatements of prior final removal orders; and administrative removal orders.

During the period covered by our review, the IRP was proposed but not official. Therefore, this report

provides information almost exclusively on IHP performance.

4

Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens Need to Be Improved

(GAO/T-GGD-97-154, July 15, 1997).

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

The IHP is a cooperative program involving the INS, the Executive Office for

Immigration Review (EOIR), and federal and state correctional agencies. It

was formally established in 1988 to enable INS and EOIR to complete

removal proceedings for criminal aliens while they were still serving their

sentences, thus eliminating the need for agents to locate the aliens after

their release, and freeing up INS detention space for other cases. With the

proceedings complete, expeditious removal of criminal aliens upon

completion of their sentence can occur. Federal law requires the Attorney

General to initiate and, to the extent possible, complete removal

proceedings for aggravated felons5

 before their release from incarceration.

INS has been delegated the authority to enforce the immigration laws.6

Results in Brief The results of our recent analysis indicate that INS’ performance has shown

limited improvement since 1995, and we continue to have several of the

same concerns about the IHP. In 1995, INS’ database of deportable aliens did

not have records on about 34 percent of the released inmates included in

our analysis who had been identified by the states and BOP as foreign born.

About 32 percent of these were subsequently determined by INS’ Law

Enforcement Support Center (LESC) to be potentially deportable criminal

aliens. In 1997, INS had no records on 36 percent of such aliens, 27 percent

of whom were determined by LESC to be potentially deportable criminal

aliens. Although some of these inmates were United States citizens and

some were ordered removed through means other than the IHP, a

substantial number were aliens on whom INS did not have records.

In 1995, about 33 percent of these potentially deportable criminal aliens

for whom INS did not have records were aggravated felons at the time of

the analysis, as determined by LESC. In our analysis of 1997 data, 63 percent

of the potentially deportable criminal aliens for whom INS did not have

records were identified by LESC as being aggravated felons. This is

important because federal law requires INS to initiate removal proceedings

for aggravated felons while they are incarcerated and, to the extent

possible, complete deportation proceedings for these felons before their

release from prison.

5

The definition of “aggravated felony” is contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended,

codified at 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). Examples of crimes that constitute aggravated felonies are murder

and certain drug and weapons trafficking crimes.

6

We focus in this report on INS’ responsibilities in implementing immigration laws.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

In 1995, INS did not complete the IHP before prison release for 57 percent of

the potentially deportable criminal aliens for whom INS had records; as a

result, INS incurred about $37 million in avoidable detention costs. In 1997,

INS did not complete the IHP for about 50 percent of these aliens; the

avoidable detention costs were about $40 million.

At last year’s hearing, the Chairman urged INS to fully implement our

recommendations for improving the IHP. As of September 1998, INS had

made limited progress in doing so, as follows:

• INS had begun to establish an automated system for tracking potentially

deportable criminal aliens in BOP facilities, but it had not determined

whether it will be able to use this system to track potentially deportable

criminal aliens in state prison systems.

• INS had not taken specific actions to ensure that aggravated felons are

placed in removal proceedings while they are incarcerated and then taken

into custody upon their release from prison.

• Regarding resource issues, INS completed a draft workload analysis model

in June 1998 that IHP managers intend to use to determine what resources

are needed to accomplish program goals. INS had not resolved the problem

of high attrition among immigration agents, who are considered the

backbone of the IHP.

• INS has taken limited actions to address our recommendations to improve

its management practices and still needs to improve its management

oversight to meet program performance goals.

Background Criminal aliens annually cost our criminal justice system millions of

dollars, and these aliens are generally perceived to be a serious and

growing threat to public safety. In response to these problems, several

major laws were passed between 1986 and 1996 that (1) provided for the

initiation of removal proceedings for certain criminal aliens while they

were incarcerated, (2) expanded the types of crimes for which aliens

could be deported, and (3) sought to facilitate the expeditious removal of

those aliens found to be deportable.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-603) requires

that INS initiate removal proceedings for criminal aliens as expeditiously as

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

meet this requirement. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L.

100-690) defined the crimes of murder and certain drug and weapons

trafficking crimes as “aggravated felonies” and required INS to initiate and,

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

to the extent possible, complete removal proceedings for aggravated

felons before their release from incarceration. It also required that INS take

all such aggravated felons into custody when the aliens are released from

prison.

Several laws passed in the 1990s, including the Illegal Immigration Reform

and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208 (1996 Act),

expanded the types of crimes that are considered aggravated felonies.

Under the 1996 Act, INS is required to take all aggravated felons and certain

other criminal aliens into custody when the aliens are released from

prison. Currently, INS may release deportable criminal aliens, including

aggravated felons, from custody only if (1) the aliens were lawfully

admitted to the United States, or were not lawfully admitted to the United

States but the designated country of removal will not accept the aliens,

and (2) the aliens satisfy the Attorney General that they will not pose a

danger to the safety of other persons or of property and that they are likely

to appear for any scheduled proceeding.

In addition to traditional removal proceedings, which require a hearing

before an immigration judge, Congress has provided alternative methods

for INS to remove certain criminal aliens. The Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) provided for administrative

removals, thereby eliminating the hearing requirement for those aliens

who were not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, were convicted

of an aggravated felony, and were not eligible for relief from removal. The

1996 Act provided for reinstatement of removal orders (referred to as a

“final order of deportation”) against aliens who reentered the United

States illegally after being removed. The prior order of removal is

reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or

reviewed; the alien is not eligible for and may not apply for any relief.

The IHP Process For criminal aliens who are in prison and have a right to an immigration

judge review before being removed, proceedings before an immigration

judge are to be conducted through the IHP. As of September 1998, the IHP

was carried out at 15 federal and 61 state prisons where INS staff are to

conduct interviews and process aliens for removal. Since 1994, INS has

developed written IHP enhancement plans for BOP and states with large

foreign-born inmate populations to enhance the processing of aliens in

prisons. The plans, which varied among BOP and the states, included such

enhancements as reducing the number of prison locations that INS staff

had to visit to process criminal aliens and increasing the number of INS

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

staff who process IHP cases. For example, INS signed a memorandum of

understanding (MOU) with BOP to enable INS staff to process a large portion

of the foreign-born inmates by visiting 11 federal institutions that were

designated as IHP sites instead of visiting more than 70 federal institutions.

At the state level, INS’ agreement with Texas was to enhance the IHP

process by establishing one state prison where all of the foreign-born

inmates would be identified and processed for hearings and from which

inmates would be released into INS custody.

The IHP’s goal is for INS and EOIR to complete removal proceedings for all

criminal aliens while they are still serving their sentences and

expeditiously remove aliens deemed deportable upon their release from

prison. This action would eliminate the need for INS to take aliens into

long-term custody upon their release and would free up INS detention

space for other cases. Aliens who do not complete the IHP are often taken

into INS custody after prison release to complete the hearing process while

in INS detention, and these aliens can be ordered removed by an

immigration judge during the detention period.

INS agents generally rely on BOP and state corrections personnel to notify

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

corrections personnel identify as foreign born. According to corrections

personnel, they typically first learn that prisoners are foreign born during

prison intake procedures, which include interviews with and record

checks on arriving inmates. The IHP process begins when INS agents screen

foreign-born inmates to determine their deportability. If the INS agent

determines that an inmate has committed a crime for which he or she can

be deported, the agent is to file a “detainer” with corrections officials. A

detainer in a prisoner’s record signifies that he or she is to be released to

INS custody upon completion of the prison sentence.

The information that INS agents gather on criminal aliens during the initial

phase of the IHP process is to be used to prepare documents notifying the

aliens of INS’ intention to deport them through removal proceedings,

administrative removal, or reinstatement of a prior order. INS attorneys are

to review the notices for legal sufficiency, and, for removal proceeding

cases, INS files the cases with EOIR and serves the aliens with a document

charging them with having committed a deportable offense. At that point,

the aliens are included in the IHP.

EOIR is to schedule an initial hearing and notify the alien. The purpose of

the initial hearing is to explain the process to the alien, resolve evidentiary

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

issues, prepare a list of desired witnesses, and address the issue of legal

representation for the alien.7

 The alien may immediately accept an order

for deportation. Alternatively, if the alien contests removal, a subsequent

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

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

claim for relief from removal. After all of the evidence is presented and

appeals processes, if any, are completed, an immigration judge renders a

final decision. If the alien is ordered removed, a deportation order is to be

served on the alien. Before a final decision on the case, INS is required to

take certain deportable aliens into custody, even if the removal

proceedings have not been completed.8

 Those in removal proceedings who

receive a final order of deportation, as well as those who are to be

deported through administrative and reinstatement orders, are to be held

in INS detention until they are removed from the United States.

Appendix II contains a flowchart of the IHP process.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

To assess the performance of INS’ efforts to deport criminal aliens, we

analyzed data on 19,639 individuals who were identified by BOP and four

states9

 as foreign born and released from prisons between January 1 and

June 30, 1997. Our work was designed to determine

• the extent to which deportable criminal aliens were included in the IHP,

• the extent to which INS completed removal hearings for deportable aliens

during their time in prison and after their release, and

• whether INS had acted on the recommendations that we made during our

July 1997 testimony.

Also, for this report we compared, where appropriate, IHP performance in

1997 to the 1995 data on foreign-born inmates presented in our IHP

testimony. We generally used the same methodology for our data

collection and analysis that we used for our July 1997 testimony. However,

for our 1995 sample we were able to conduct a 16- to 22-month follow-up

on the disposition of released inmates. For the 1997 sample, time

7

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

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

and ensure that he or she has been given a list of such programs.

8

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

aggravated felonies and certain other criminal aliens. These criminal aliens may be released by INS

under certain circumstances.

9

We eliminated Arizona from our current study because the Subcommittee request letter specified that

we focus on BOP and the four selected states. Arizona accounted for a small number (626 of 17,320) of

the total cases in our 1995 analysis.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

constraints limited us to doing a 9- to 15-month follow-up. Because 9

months was the common amount of time that all inmates in both samples

could be followed up, comparisons between the 1995 and 1997 results are

based on a 9-month follow-up period from the time an inmate was

released.

We concentrated primarily on the activities of INS—as opposed to

EOIR—because INS has the lead role in identifying incarcerated criminal

aliens, determining these aliens’ deportability, initiating removal

proceedings, and removing aliens from the United States. We focused on

IHP activities in the federal BOP and in California, Florida, New York, and

Texas, which are four of the five states that were included in our July 1997

IHP study. To identify which released inmates were in or had completed

removal proceedings, we asked EOIR to do a computer match of EOIR data

with data from BOP and four states on foreign-born aliens released in the

first half of 1997. To gather data on aliens released to INS custody and

removed, we asked INS to match data for cases with identifying alien

numbers (A-number) from BOP and the four states against INS’ Deportable

Alien Control System. We asked LESC to query several INS and criminal

databases to determine the immigrant and criminal status of released

inmates who did not have A-numbers and those who were not matched

through EOIR or INS databases.

To assess INS’ efforts to implement the five recommendations that we

made in our July 1997 testimony, we interviewed INS headquarters officials

and reviewed available documentation. (See app. III for a detailed

description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.)

Our work was conducted between November 1997 and September 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

INS Still Failed to

Identify All

Deportable Criminal

Aliens, Including

Aggravated Felons

As was the case when we testified before your Subcommittee in July 1997,

we again found that INS had not identified all potentially deportable

imprisoned criminal aliens. As a result, INS did not fully comply with the

legal requirements that it (1) place criminal aliens who had committed

aggravated felonies in removal proceedings while they are incarcerated or

(2) take those aggravated felons into custody upon their release from

prison.

As we reported in our July 1997 testimony, our analysis of 1995 data on

17,320 foreign-born inmates released from BOP and five state prisons,

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

showed that INS and EOIR did not have records on 5,884 (34 percent) of the

released inmates. Therefore, INS was unable to determine whether any of

these released inmates were potentially deportable criminal aliens. Of the

5,884 released inmates, INS’ LESC identified 1,899 (32 percent) as potentially

deportable criminal aliens on the basis of their immigration status and the

nature of their crime. Furthermore, LESC identified 635 (33 percent) of the

1,899 potentially deportable criminal aliens as having committed crimes

that were defined in immigration law as aggravated felonies at the time of

LESC’s determination. Further review by INS found that 333—more than

50 percent—of the 635 cases were criminal aliens who were potentially

eligible for removal; in 45 cases, INS was unable to determine whether the

alien was potentially removable. In the remaining 257 cases, INS

determined that the inmates were either United States citizens, were

deceased, had been granted relief from deportation, or were not released

from incarceration. We did not assess the reason for the discrepancy in the

two determinations.

Our current analysis of data on 19,639 foreign-born inmates who were

released from BOP and four state prisons between January 1 and June 30,

1997, showed that INS and EOIR did not have records on 7,144 (36 percent)

of the released inmates. We requested that LESC conduct a search to

determine whether any of these released inmates were potentially

deportable criminal aliens.10 Of the 7,144 released inmates, LESC identified

1,903 (27 percent) as potentially deportable criminal aliens on the basis of

their immigration status and the nature of their crime. Although aliens

meeting these criteria are to be screened by INS; assessed as to their

removability; and, as appropriate, put into removal proceedings as

expeditiously as possible following their convictions, neither INS’ nor EOIR’s

databases indicated that these actions occurred for any of these aliens

either while they were in prison or after they were released.

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

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

upon their release. LESC identified 1,198 (63 percent) of the 1,903

potentially deportable criminal aliens as aggravated felons. Compared to

our 1995 results on released foreign-born inmates for whom INS and EOIR

did not have records, our 1997 results indicate an increase in aggravated

felons. Specifically, for inmates with no records whom LESC determined to

be potentially deportable criminal aliens, LESC further found that

10LESC provided information on 6,579 inmates. Approximately 140 files from Florida could not be

searched because of insufficient information on the inmates, and 425 files from New York were not

completed in time to be included in our analysis. In addition, we identified duplicate inmate records to

the extent that we could and eliminated them from our analysis.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

33 percent of the 1995 sample were aggravated felons at the time that LESC

made its determination, and 63 percent of the 1997 sample were

aggravated felons. According to INS, this increase may be due to the

additional crimes classified as aggravated felonies in the 1996 Act.

According to the INS and EOIR databases, none of the 1,903 potential

deportable criminal aliens had been in removal proceedings while they

were in prison or afterward, had been taken into INS custody, or had been

deported. LESC provided information on the postrelease criminal activities

of the 1,198 aggravated felons as follows:

• 80 of the 1,198 criminal aliens were rearrested,

• 19 of the 80 aliens were charged with committing additional felonies, and

• 15 of the 19 aliens were convicted of the felony charges.

We asked LESC to provide us with information on the nature of the crimes

for which the 80 criminal aliens were rearrested. These included crimes

such as assault, robbery, and drug offenses. The types of felonies for

which the 15 aliens were convicted included crimes mostly involving drug

possession, burglary, theft, and robbery.

INS Did Not Complete

the IHP for About

One-Half of the

Released Criminal

Aliens, Resulting in

Avoidable Detention

Costs Amounting to

Millions of Dollars

We performed an analysis of data on foreign-born inmates who, according

to BOP and the corrections departments of the four states we reviewed,

were released from their prison systems during the first 6 months of 1997

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

were 12,495 released inmates in this population. We found that about

45 percent of these inmates were released from prison with a final

deportation order (having completed the IHP), about 3 percent were

released from prison without a deportation order but with INS’ having

completed the removal hearing process, and about 36 percent were

released from prison before INS completed the process. For the remaining

15 percent of the inmates, there was no indication that hearings were

completed either before or after prison release. Figure 1 provides

information on the disposition of all the cases that were indicated by INS

and EOIR as potentially deportable during 6-month periods in 1997 and

1995.

11INS’ data on the IHP were limited because INS had not identified all of the individuals who were

foreign-born inmates in the BOP and state prison systems and did not maintain a database of these

individuals that would enable INS to routinely track the IHP status of all potentially deportable

inmates. Therefore, as was the case in fiscal year 1995, INS could not readily determine where

individuals were in the IHP process, nor could it readily provide summary information on the number

of criminal aliens that had committed aggravated felonies.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

Figure 1: Disposition of Potentially Deportable Inmates Released From BOP and Selected States’ Prisons During 6-Month

Periods in 1997 and 1995

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP and state data.

Compared to our analysis of 1995 data, when INS completed the IHP before

release from prison for 43 percent of the 11,436 released inmates who

were deemed potentially deportable, INS completed the IHP for 48 percent12

of such inmates released during the first half of 1997. Furthermore,

40 percent of the 1995 cases completed the IHP with a final deportation

order compared to 45 percent of the 1997 cases. Conversely, the

percentage of cases completing the hearing process after prison release

decreased from 41 percent in 1995 to 36 percent in 1997. Thus, INS made

some improvement in completing the IHP for incarcerated aliens; but for

the majority of cases, INS still did not complete the hearing process before

prison release.

12In addition to removal proceedings, our analysis found that INS had issued 1,668 administrative and

reinstatement final orders during the first 6 months of 1997. As previously mentioned, legislation

authorized INS to use administrative removals in 1994 and reinstatement of removal orders in 1996. To

make our 1995 and 1997 results comparable, we did not include these removals in our analysis of IHP

removal proceedings. If we were to assume that the 1,668 administrative and reinstatement final

orders were issued before prison release, and if we had included these removals in our analysis as

having completed the IHP, INS would have completed the IHP for 54 percent of the inmates released

from prison. However, INS had no data on how many of these orders were issued before prison

release. Therefore, we estimated that IHP completions did not exceed 54 percent.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

For two states, California and New York, IHP completion rates before

prison release were generally the same in our analyses of 1995 and 1997

data. In Texas, IHP completions had increased from 21 percent to

49 percent. In BOP, IHP completions had increased from 33 percent to

48 percent. INS officials told us that they believed these increases could be

attributed to enhancements made in 1996 to the IHP in this state and BOP.

Our analyses of 1995 and 1997 data showed that completion of IHP hearings

in Florida declined from 72 percent to 59 percent. According to INS

officials, the 1995 data may reflect an artificially high number of IHP

completions due to an April 1994 MOU between Florida and INS. Under the

MOU, the Florida Department of Corrections and INS were to establish a

demonstration project to identify alien inmates who could have their

sentences commuted and subsequently be excluded or deported.

According to INS officials, in fiscal year 1995, about 500 alien inmates were

identified as deportable through this project. The project was designed to

expedite the deportation of certain criminal aliens to help relieve

overcrowding in Florida’s correctional institutions. (App. IV shows the

disposition of inmates released from BOP and four state prison facilities in

greater detail.)

Similar to our 1995 analysis, our current analysis of the 12,495 potentially

deportable cases for which INS had records showed that INS was able to

quickly remove those deportable aliens who had completed the IHP with

final deportation orders before they were released from

prison—75 percent were removed from the United States within 1 week of

their prison release in both 1995 and 1997. During both time periods, at

least 92 percent of such cases were removed in less than 1 month. Our

analyses also showed that of the aliens for whom INS started removal

hearings before prison release and completed the hearings after release,

68 percent of the aliens were removed in less than 1 month in 1995,

compared to 66 percent in 1997. However, there was a notable

improvement in removal time for aliens for whom INS started and

completed the hearing process after their release from prison. Specifically,

in 1995, 36 percent of such aliens were removed within 1 month, compared

to 59 percent in 1997. INS and EOIR officials said that the improvement may

be due to an increase in the immigration law judge time spent at INS

detention facilities since 1995. The INS officials said that the improvement

also may be attributable to their ability to obtain travel documents more

readily than in the past from some countries that had been considered

difficult. (App. V shows the time that elapsed between release from prison

and deportation for those aliens who were removed.)

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

Not completing removal proceedings during incarceration means that INS

has to use its limited detention space to house released criminal aliens

rather than using the space to detain other aliens. INS has acknowledged

that it incurs detention costs for housing these aliens, costs that our

analyses showed could be avoided. Our analysis of fiscal year 1995 data

showed that detention costs of about $37 million could have been avoided

for criminal aliens who completed the hearing process after prison release

and were deported within 9 months of release. Our analysis of fiscal year

1997 data showed that INS could have avoided about $40 million in

detention costs for such cases.13

INS Had Not Fully

Implemented Our

1997

Recommendations for

Program

Improvements

We concluded in our July 1997 testimony that if fully implemented, the IHP

would be an effective way to achieve the requirements of the law

regarding the timely deportation of eligible criminal aliens. We also stated

that INS had not processed aliens in a way that would ensure optimum

performance results and that INS did not have a systematic basis for

determining the performance results it could accomplish with various

resource levels. We recommended steps that INS could take to improve the

operations of and outcomes from the IHP to include establishing a

nationwide database, establishing controls to ensure that proceedings for

aggravated felons are inititated before release from prison, addressing

certain resource issues, and improving management oversight. In a

December 1997 letter to your Subcommittee, INS stated that it planned to

act on our recommendations. INS has taken some action on most of the

recommended program improvements; however, none of these actions

had been fully implemented as of September 1998.

INS Is Piloting a BOP

Nationwide Database

We stated in our July 1997 testimony that INS needed better information

about prison inmates—more specifically, information about which

inmates are eligible for the IHP and which of these inmates have been and

have not been included in the program. Our work at that time showed that

INS’ databases did not contain complete and current information on the IHP

status of individual foreign-born inmates at any given point in time. INS

could use this information to determine which of the released foreign-born

inmates had been screened for the IHP, identified as deportable, or placed

in the hearing process. We recommended that the Commissioner of INS

establish a nationwide data system containing the universe of foreign-born

inmates reported to INS by BOP and the state departments of corrections

and use this system to track the IHP status of each inmate.

13See appendix VI for a discussion of how we estimated these detention costs.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

In a December 1997 letter responding to our recommendations, INS told

your Subcommittee that it recognized the need to automate its processes

for identifying and tracking its processing and removal of criminal aliens.

INS has begun an effort to establish an automated federal IHP tracking

system that is to capture information, such as name, date of birth, country

of birth, and A-number, if available, on foreign-born inmates in BOP

correctional facilities. This information is to be used to perform record

checks in other databases to make a determination on an alien’s

removability. As currently designed, the tracking system does not include

information on removal hearings, nor does it capture data on whether

aliens have been removed. According to INS, it plans to augment the

tracking system by making it compatible with another system that is to

include this information. We did not assess the feasibility of making the

systems compatible. Also, INS officials told us that the plan is to expand

this system to include state IHP programs, but no action had been taken as

of June 1998 to determine whether the tracking system could be adapted

to state data systems.

INS is in the process of developing, testing, and implementing the tracking

system at federal facilities. According to an INS official, the tracking system

was pilot tested at INS’ Oakdale, LA, federal IHP site between March and

June, 1998. The official also said that the tracking system was

implemented at three federal IHP locations, including Oakdale, as of the

end of fiscal year 1998, and that INS expects to have the tracking system

operational at all remaining federal IHP locations during fiscal year 1999.

According to INS’ project manager, $1.6 million was allocated in fiscal year

1998 to develop the tracking system and make it operational at four federal

locations. Funding levels for fiscal year 1999 were still tentative as of

September 1998 because INS’ appropriations bill had not been enacted.

INS Had Not Established

Controls to Ensure That

Proceedings for

Aggravated Felons Are

Initiated Before Prison

Release

The law requires INS to take certain actions regarding criminal aliens who

have been convicted of aggravated felonies beyond those actions required

for other criminal aliens. As previously mentioned, INS is required by law to

initiate and, to the extent possible, complete removal proceedings against

aggravated felons while they are incarcerated and to take these felons into

custody upon their release. Our work showed, as it did in July 1997, that

INS had not complied fully with the required provisions of the law.

In our July 1997 testimony, we recommended that the Commissioner of INS

give priority to aliens serving time for aggravated felonies by establishing

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

controls to ensure that these aliens (1) are identified from among the

universe of foreign-born inmates provided by BOP and the states, (2) are

placed into removal proceedings while in prison, and (3) are taken into

custody upon their release. In its December 1997 letter to the

Subcommittee, INS stated that a control system to single out aggravated

felons as a unique group was not needed since INS should be screening all

foreign-born inmates as they enter the prison systems.

We asked INS to explain our finding that aggravated felons had been

released from prison into communities without INS’ having identified them.

According to INS officials, to provide an accurate accounting for these

cases, they would need to conduct individual case reviews. They thought

the aggravated felons in our sample may not have been identified by INS

agents for two reasons. First, the officials said that a backlog exists for

cases from previous years when INS did not screen all foreign-born inmates

when they entered the prison systems. INS had each of its regional offices

submit a plan to address the backlog in the seven states with the highest

concentration of foreign-born inmates.14 According to INS, these backlog

cases are to be addressed by December 1998. Second, the officials said

that resources for the IHP are inadequate to address the increasing number

of aliens being incarcerated. If IHP resources are inadequate, we believe

that the risk of aggravated felons being released into communities will

persist unless INS establishes controls to ensure that these felons are

identified.

Resource Issues Related to

the IHP Had Not Been

Fully Addressed

INS received additional funding for the removal of criminal and

noncriminal deportable aliens in fiscal year 1997, which included the IHP,

but did not request or receive additional funding in fiscal year 1998. To

address the need for more IHP resources, INS requested $31 million for the

IHP in the fiscal year 1999 President’s budget to aid in INS’ efforts to identify

criminal aliens for removal. In the budget request, INS stated that

additional program enhancements, such as increased investigations and

detention staff, video capabilities for conducting hearings, and detention

vehicles to transport aliens, are required to address the growth of

incarcerated criminal alien populations at existing program sites and to

expand into new locations where prison populations are growing.

14This action was taken in response to a September 1995 Department of Justice, Office of Inspector

General, report recommending that INS eliminate the current backlog of unprocessed foreign-born

inmates in state prisons, giving first priority to the seven states with the highest concentrations of

foreign-born prison inmates. The seven states are Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey,

New York, and Texas.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

In our July 1997 testimony, we reported to your Subcommittee that INS had

established IHP performance goals without having a systematic basis for

determining the performance results it could accomplish with various

resource levels. We reported that INS had not developed a uniform method

for projecting the resources it would need—taking into consideration the

level of cooperation from BOP and the states—to achieve its overall goal of

completing removal proceedings for every eligible foreign-born inmate

before release from prison.

In our July 1997 testimony, we recommended that the Commissioner of INS

(1) develop a workload analysis model to identify the IHP resources needed

in any period to achieve overall program goals and the portion of those

goals that would be achievable with alternative levels of resources and

(2) use the model to support its IHP funding and staffing requests. Such a

model was to consider several factors, including the number of

foreign-born inmates, number of prisons that must be visited, number and

types of IHP staff, length of time to process cases, and travel time and

costs. In June 1998, a draft workload analysis model was submitted to the

Office of the Executive Associate Commissioner for Field Operations. The

model contains a detailed analysis of the tasks involved in identifying,

processing, detaining, and removing incarcerated aliens and the average

amount of time associated with each task. INS staff visited 23 locations in 5

states and 3 federal facilities to develop the model. As of September 1998,

the draft workload analysis model had not been approved; thus, INS had

not yet used it to make determinations about IHP funding and staffing

needs.

We also reported in our July 1997 testimony that INS had a 30-percent

attrition rate for immigration agents, which was significantly higher than

the 11-percent average attrition rate for all INS staff. We recommended that

the Commissioner identify the causes of immigration agent attrition and

take steps to ensure that staffing was adequate to achieve IHP program

goals. INS officials told us that the attrition rate for immigration agents

during fiscal year 1997 was 32 percent; thus, the problem had not been

resolved. INS has identified what it believes are the causes for the high

attrition rate but has not determined the appropriate solution to the

problem. According to INS officials, one reason for the high attrition rate

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

potentially better paying positions within INS, such as the special agent

position. Benefits and advancement opportunities for immigration agents

are limited, but these agents often possess many of the qualifications

required for INS positions with greater pay and advancement potential.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

Thus, immigration agents are competitive for filling vacancies in those

potentially better paying positions. The IHP workload analysis plan

previously mentioned included a recommendation that a group be formed

to conduct an in-depth review of the immigration agent position situation.

As part of the IHP workload analysis, INS is also considering several options

for staffing the IHP, one of which would be to eliminate the immigration

agent position and use deportation officers to process IHP cases.

Better Management

Oversight Still Needed

We reported to your Subcommittee in July 1997 that INS’ top management

(1) had not formally communicated to the district directors how additional

staff (e.g., newly hired immigration agents) should be used in the IHP;

(2) did not ensure that specific operational goals were established for each

INS district director with IHP responsibilities; and (3) did not respond with

specific corrective actions when it became apparent that the program

would not achieve its goals for fiscal year 1996.

Therefore, we recommended that INS establish and effectively

communicate a clear policy on the role of special agents in the IHP (e.g.,

whether immigration agents were replacements for or supplements to

special agents). We also said that INS should use a workload analysis

model to set IHP goals for district directors with IHP responsibilities.

Furthermore, we said that if it appeared that IHP goals would not be met,

INS should document actions taken to correct the problem.

In its December 1997 letter to your Subcommittee, INS stated that the role

of special agents in the IHP had been communicated to regional and district

directors. The Office of Field Operations sent a memorandum to field

managers in October 1997 to clarify the use of special agents in the IHP and

define the amount of time special agents could devote to IHP work on the

basis of their grade level. However, the memorandum did not clarify the

issue that we had raised in our July 1997 testimony, that is, whether

immigration agents were replacements for or supplements to special

agents in doing IHP work. INS is currently reviewing the structure and

staffing of the IHP and the results of this review may affect the role of

immigration agents.

INS stated in its December 1997 letter that it establishes regional goals that

represent a composite of the individual district’s goals. An INS official told

us that INS management prefers that the regional directors have the

flexibility to manage the district goals and resources. Our current work

found that INS had not set IHP goals for district directors in either fiscal

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

year 1997 or 1998. Furthermore, for fiscal year 1998, INS did not set goals

for regional directors. Servicewide IHP goals were not communicated to

regional directors until February 1998. According to an INS official, the

goals were not finalized until February because INS’ position allocations for

fiscal year 1998 were not completed until December 1997, and the agency

was trying to transition from its former priorities management system to a

results-oriented system so that it would be more consistent with the

requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act.15

In its December 1997 letter to the Subcommittee, INS did not specifically

address the recommendation to document actions taken by the agency

when it appeared that IHP goals would not be met. INS set a fiscal year 1998

servicewide goal to remove 16,800 criminal aliens through the IHP. At its

May 1998 midyear review to assess whether targeted goals were being met,

INS realized that it might have difficulty meeting this goal. Following the

midyear review, the Commissioner of INS requested that the regional

directors develop plans for increasing criminal removals for the remainder

of the fiscal year and submit these plans to the Office of Policy and

Planning. According to an INS official, the plans were to be reviewed by the

Office of Policy and Planning and were to be used as a benchmark for the

August 1998 review of the IHP goals.

Conclusions INS has shown limited improvement in its IHP performance on the basis of

our analysis of its 1997 program performance. This, coupled with INS’

limited progress in fully implementing our recommendations, suggests that

INS still does not know whether it has identified all potentially deportable

criminal aliens in the BOP and state prison systems. More importantly, INS

still is not doing all it should to ensure that it is initiating removal

proceedings for aggravated felons and taking the felons into custody upon

their release from prison. We continue to believe that the

recommendations we made in our 1997 testimony are valid and that INS

should fully implement them as soon as possible.

Agency Comments We provided INS with a draft of the report and on September 11, 1998, we

met with INS’ Executive Associate Commissioner for Field Operations and

other officials from INS’ Offices of Field Operations, General Counsel,

Policy and Planning, Internal Audit, and Congressional Relations to

15The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62) was enacted to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program

performance and to measure results.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
B-278745 

discuss its contents. They generally concurred with our findings and

provided technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the INS Commissioner, the Attorney

General, the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House and

Senate Appropriations Committees, the Chairman and Ranking Minority

Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, and the Director of

the Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available

to others upon request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. If you have any

questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration

 of Justice Issues

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Definitions of “Aliens”

and “Criminal Aliens”

24

Aliens 24

Criminal Aliens 24

Appendix II 

The IHP Process

26

Appendix III 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

28

Appendix IV 

Disposition of

Potentially Deportable

Inmates Released

From BOP and

Selected States’

Prisons During

6-Month Periods in

1997 and 1995

32

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Contents

Appendix V 

Time From Release to

Deportation for Aliens

Released From BOP

and Selected States’

Prisons During

Periods in 1997 and

1995 With Final

Deportation Orders

34

Appendix VI 

GAO Estimate of

Avoidable Detention

Costs

36

Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to

This Report

39

Tables Table V.1: Time From Release to Deportation for Aliens Released

From BOP and Four States’ Prisons During a 6-Month Period in

1997 With Final Deportation Orders

34

Table V.2: Time From Release to Deportation for Aliens Released

From BOP and Five States’ Prisons During a 6-Month Period in

1995 With Final Deportation Orders

35

Table VI.1: INS’ Detention Costs for Deported Criminal Aliens

Who Did Not Complete the IHP During Fiscal Years 1997 and

1995

36

Figures Figure 1: Disposition of Potentially Deportable Inmates Released

From BOP and Selected States’ Prisons During 6-Month Periods

in 1997 and 1995

10

Figure II.1: Flowchart of INS’ IHP Process for Removal

Proceedings

26

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Contents

Figure IV.1: Disposition of Potentially Deportable Inmates

Released From BOP and Four States’ Prisons During a 6-Month

Period in 1997 (Jan.-June)

32

Figure IV.2: Disposition of Potentially Deportable Inmates

Released From BOP and Five States’ Prisons During a 6-Month

Period in 1995 (Apr.-Sept.)

33

Abbreviations

BOP Bureau of Prisons

DACS Deportable Alien Control System

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review

IHP Institutional Hearing Program

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

IRP Institutional Removal Program

LESC Law Enforcement Support Center

MOU memorandum of understanding

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix I 

Definitions of “Aliens” and “Criminal Aliens”

Aliens Aliens are individuals who are not citizens of the United States, regardless

of whether their immigration status is legal or illegal. Legal aliens include

(1) immigrants who entered the country with valid visas and were later

granted resident status by INS and (2) nonimmigrants, such as students,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Aliens The term criminal aliens, as used in this report, includes all aliens, legally

or illegally residing in the country, who have been convicted of a crime. In

some cases, the aliens’ crime may not warrant removal.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix I 

Definitions of “Aliens” and “Criminal Aliens”

Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix II 

The IHP Process

Figure II.1: Flowchart of INS’ IHP Process for Removal Proceedings

State or BOP personnel

identify foreign-born

individuals entering prison

system and notify INS

A

Interviewed

by

INS?

Found not

deportable End

Yes

No

EOIR schedules

IHP hearing

INS serves alien 

with charging 

documents and files

with EOIR

Found deportable

and INS lodges 

detainer B

Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix II 

The IHP Process

A

Released at end

of sentence 

Hearing not

completed before

release

Detained or released

until hearing 

completed and

removed if ordered

deported

B

Hearing completed

before release 

Deportation 

order issued

End

End

Released 

to INS

Granted relief

from deportation

Other conclusion

Detained until

removal 

Note: INS may serve some aliens with a charging document that notifies them that they are to be

removed under an administrative or reinstatement of a prior removal order. These types of

removals do not require a hearing and are not filed with EOIR.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix III 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Following our testimony in July 1997 on the Immigration and

Naturalization Service’s (INS) Institutional Hearing Program (IHP), the

Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims

requested that we continue to monitor the IHP and evaluate its

effectiveness. To accomplish this, we determined

• the extent to which deportable criminal aliens were included in the IHP,

• the extent to which INS completed removal hearings for deportable aliens

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

• whether INS had acted on recommenations that we made in our July 1997

testimony.

We analyzed IHP results for the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the

corrections systems of four states—California, Florida, New York, and

Texas. We analyzed these locations because they were included in our

previous 1997 testimony regarding INS’ IHP efforts and they were of specific

interest to the requester.

To determine whether INS had improved its IHP performance, we gathered

and analyzed data for inmates released from January to June, 1997, as a

comparison to our past IHP analysis for inmates released from April to

September, 1995. We concentrated on INS—as opposed to the Executive

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which makes adjudicative decisions

regarding deportability—because INS has the lead role in identifying

incarcerated criminal aliens, determining their deportability, and initiating

removal proceedings.

We sought to determine the extent to which IHP-eligible inmates were

placed into removal proceedings, completed the IHP process, and were

removed from the United States upon release from prison. To answer

these questions, we obtained data from BOP and correctional departments

in four states on all foreign-born inmates released from January through

June, 1997. The data from the January to June, 1997, period are considered

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

completeness or accuracy of the lists of foreign-born inmates provided to

us. We asked INS to conduct a computer match of the records with

identifying alien numbers (A-number) against information in its

Deportable Alien Control System (DACS) to identify those released

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

from prison, were detained, or were removed from the United States.

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix III 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

data, although we did ask INS about what, if any, quality controls and

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

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

(1) was taken into custody or detained, (2) was issued a final deportation

order, and (3) was removed. INS personnel who operate and manage the

DACS database responded that both the accuracy and completeness of

these data elements in DACS are good. They stated that supervisors perform

random checks on DACS data each time an officer submits a case for

review. Further, they reported that all of these data elements are entered

into DACS, but that depending on the complexity of the case, there may be

some lag time between the occurrence of events and input of data into

DACS.

We also asked EOIR to conduct a computer match of the records against

information in its Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review

to identify those released foreign-born inmates who had been in removal

proceedings. Again, we did not independently assess the database’s

reliability, but we asked EOIR about what, if any, quality controls and

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

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

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

proceedings. EOIR personnel who operate and manage the agency’s

automated system responded that the accuracy and completeness of the

data fields are superior, with error rates being less than 1 percent. They

stated that reports to verify data accuracy are run daily, weekly, and

monthly and that EOIR staff are held to high performance standards with

respect to data integrity.

From these data matches, we determined for BOP and four states how

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

before prison release, how many completed removal proceedings within 9

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

proceedings within 9 months after their release from prison. For those

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

how many had been removed from the United States through March 1998.

We selected the January through June, 1997, time frame because we

wanted data that were relatively recent and at the same time sufficiently in

the past so that we could follow up on released criminal aliens and

determine whether they had completed removal proceedings and had been

removed from the United States.

Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix III 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In addition, we sought to compare IHP results for January to June, 1997,

with the results of our previous analysis of April to September, 1995, data.

We analyzed the 1995 and 1997 data the same to be able to directly

compare program performance. To make the information comparable, we

used a follow-up period of 9 months after prison release for all inmates in

the 1995 and 1997 samples. We did this because 9 months was the

maximum amount of time that all inmates in both samples had the

opportunity to be followed up.

Of the 19,639 foreign-born released inmates, 7,144 were not in either INS’ or

EOIR’s database. We sought to determine the extent to which this sizable,

unmatched group consisted of (1) U.S. citizens who were not candidates

for the IHP or (2) criminal aliens who should have been, but were not,

included in the IHP and who were released from prison without being taken

into INS custody.

To determine the composition of the group of 7,144 unmatched cases, we

asked the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC)—an INS unit that

conducts database searches for local law enforcement agencies to

determine whether arrested individuals are criminal aliens—to

individually search the 7,144 unmatched cases16 with information

contained in 6 INS databases,17 the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s

National Crime Information Center, and state criminal history databases.

The results enabled us to determine (1) how many individuals were U.S.

citizens and, therefore, ineligible for the IHP; (2) how many individuals

were deportable criminal aliens who were released from prisons;

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

committing an aggravated felony; and (4) whether any identified criminal

aliens had committed additional crimes, including aggravated felonies,

since their prison release.

To determine what actions INS took to improve the effectiveness of the IHP,

we reviewed INS’ planning documents pertaining to the removal of criminal

aliens and the IHP’s annual goals. We interviewed INS officials about actions

16LESC provided information on 6,579 inmates. Approximately 140 files from Florida could not be

searched because of insufficient information on the inmates, and 425 files from New York were not

completed in time to be included in our analysis. In addition, we identified duplicate inmate records to

the extent that we could and eliminated them from our analysis.

17The six INS databases searched by LESC were (1) the Central Index System, (2) the Computer-linked

Application Information Management System, (3) the Deportable Alien Control System, (4) the

National Automated Immigration Lookout System II, (5) the Nonimmigrant Information System, and

(6) the Student and Schools System.

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix III 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

the agency had taken or planned to take to implement our

recommendations for improving IHP performance results.

Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix IV 

Disposition of Potentially Deportable

Inmates Released From BOP and Selected

States’ Prisons During 6-Month Periods in

1997 and 1995

Figure IV.1: Disposition of Potentially Deportable Inmates Released From BOP and Four States’ Prisons During a 6-Month

Period in 1997 (Jan.-June)

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP and state data.

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix IV 

Disposition of Potentially Deportable

Inmates Released From BOP and Selected

States’ Prisons During 6-Month Periods in

1997 and 1995

Figure IV.2: Disposition of Potentially Deportable Inmates Released From BOP and Five States’ Prisons During a 6-Month

Period in 1995 (Apr.-Sept.)

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP and state data.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix V 

Time From Release to Deportation for

Aliens Released From BOP and Selected

States’ Prisons During Periods in 1997 and

1995 With Final Deportation Orders

Table V.1: Time From Release to Deportation for Aliens Released From BOP and Four States’ Prisons During a 6-Month

Period in 1997 With Final Deportation Orders

IHP completed in prison

Hearings started in

prison, completed after

release

Hearings started and

completed after prison

release

Time from release to deportation Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

< 1 month 4,408 93 2,025 66 253 59

1 mo. to < 2 mos. 168 4 551 18 95 22

2 mos. to < 4 mos. 89 2 308 10 54 13

4 mos. to < 6 mos. 45 1 83 3 10 2

6 mos. to < 8 mos. 19 a 50 2 11 3

8 mos. to < 10 mos. 8 a 30 1 7 2

Total 4,737b 100 3,047b 100 430b 101c

Note: The four states are California, Florida, New York, and Texas.

aLess than 1 percent.

bOf criminal aliens released from prisons in 4 states and BOP from January through June 1997,

5,663 had completed the IHP with a final deportation order (see app. IV); 4,737 of the aliens

(84 percent) were deported within 9 months of their release. Of 4,011 released criminal aliens

who completed removal proceedings after their release from prison, 3,477 (87 percent) were

deported within 9 months of release.

cTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP and state data.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix V 

Time From Release to Deportation for

Aliens Released From BOP and Selected

States’ Prisons During Periods in 1997 and

1995 With Final Deportation Orders

Table V.2: Time From Release to Deportation for Aliens Released From BOP and Five States’ Prisons During a 6-Month

Period in 1995 With Final Deportation Orders

IHP completed in prison

Hearings started in

prison, completed after

release

Hearings started and

completed after prison

release

Time from release to deportation Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

< 1 month 3,080 92 2,456 68 130 36

1 mo. to < 2 mos. 135 4 644 18 55 15

2 mos. to < 4 mos. 80 2 296 8 55 15

4 mos. to < 6 mos. 25 a 110 3 47 13

6 mos. to < 8 mos. 18 a 47 1 34 9

8 mos. to < 10 mos. 9 a 34 1 45 12

Total 3,347b 100 3,587b 99c 366b 100

Note: The five states are Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas.

aLess than 1 percent.

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

4,582 had completed the IHP with a final deportation order (see app. IV); 3,347 of the aliens

(73 percent) were deported within 9 months of their release. Of 4,160 released criminal aliens

who completed removal proceedings after their release from prison, 3,953 (95 percent) were

deported within 9 months of their release.

cTotal does not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: GAO analysis of BOP and state data.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix VI 

GAO Estimate of Avoidable Detention Costs

Because most criminal aliens released from state and federal prisons in

fiscal year 1997 had not completed the IHP, INS needed to detain these

aliens until their removal hearings could be completed. This situation

placed unnecessary demands on INS’ limited detention space and, as

shown below, cost INS over $40 million over a 9-month period that could

have been avoided.

Table VI.1: INS’ Detention Costs for

Deported Criminal Aliens Who Did Not

Complete the IHP During Fiscal Years

1997 and 1995 Fiscal year 1997

(N=22,974)

Fiscal year 1995

(N=20,118)

Criminal aliens released to INS from prison without

final deportation orders

Hearing process

Started

before

prison

release

Started after

prison

release

Started

before

prison

release

Started after

prison

release

Estimated number of criminal

aliens 20,217 2,757 18,307 1,811

Average avoidable days in

detentiona 26 33 23 88

Average daily detention cost $65.61 $65.61 $64.45b $64.45b

Fiscal year detention costc $34,487,372 $5,969,263 $27,137,381 $10,271,268

Total avoidable fiscal year

detention cost

$40,456,635

(FY 1997)

$37,408,649

(FY 1995)

Note 1: These data are based on aliens who were deported within 9 months of release from

prison.

Note 2: INS revised its procedures for tracking alien travel, detention, and welfare costs. The

revised procedures, effective fiscal year 1997, eliminated certain types of costs that were

previously part of the daily detention costs, added some costs that had not been included

previously, and classified some of the same costs in different categories.

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

who had a final order when released.

bThe 1995 average daily detention cost of $64.45 is about 2 percent less than the 1995 estimate

of $65.75 reported in our previous testimony because all costs in this report account for the

proportion of detainees who are spread among three types of facilities—INS Service Processing

Centers, contract facilities, and state and local correction facilities—that have different daily rates.

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

detention cost.

Source: GAO analysis of INS data.

We used our sample results to estimate total avoidable detention costs

nationwide for criminal aliens released from prisons to INS without final

deportation orders. Our calculations were based on criminal aliens in our

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix VI 

GAO Estimate of Avoidable Detention Costs

1995 and 1997 samples who completed removal proceedings and were

deported within 9 months of release from prison. Using these data and

information from INS on the total number of criminal aliens released to INS

in 1995 and 1997 without final deportation orders, we derived separate

nationwide cost estimates for detaining criminal aliens (1) who started

proceedings before prison, completed them after prison, and were

deported within 9 months of prison release and (2) who started and

completed proceedings after prison and were deported within 9 months of

prison release.

Our sample of 12,495 potentially deportable criminal aliens released from

BOP and four states’ prisons during the first half of 1997 included 6,450

inmates who were released to INS without INS’ having completed the

inmates’ hearing process while they were in prison. Nationwide, INS

reported that in all of fiscal year 1997, a total of 22,974 such inmates were

released into its custody. Of the 6,450 released inmates that we studied,

3,477 inmates had received deportation orders and were deported within 9

months of prison release. We were able to determine for 3,477 of these

released inmates both the average number of days detained by INS and

whether the hearing process started before or after prison release. Of the

3,477 inmates, 88 percent started removal proceedings in prison, and they

were held for an average of 34 days. The remaining 12 percent of these

inmates started removal proceedings after prison release and were held

for an average of 41 days. For the remaining 2,973 inmates in our study, we

assumed that the timing of removal proceedings and the average number

of days in INS detention were similar. The 2,973 inmates included (1) 1,932

inmates for whom there was no evidence that the hearing process was

completed, (2) 507 inmates for whom the hearing process was completed

after release from prison and no deportation order was issued, and (3) 534

inmates for whom the hearing process was completed after release from

prison and a deportation order was issued. These data provide the

estimate that for 88 percent, or 20,217 of the 22,974 released inmates, INS

would have begun their hearing process before release, and that for the

remaining 2,757 released inmates, INS would have begun their hearing

process after release.

To determine the avoidable detention cost, we subtracted 8 days from

each of the observed detention times because this was the average

detention time for criminal aliens who completed the IHP with final

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

single alien was $65.61 in fiscal year 1997.

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix VI 

GAO Estimate of Avoidable Detention Costs

To compare avoidable detention costs in 1997 with 1995, we dropped all

cases from both of our 1997 and 1995 samples in which aliens had been

out of prison for longer than 9 months. This was because 9 months was the

maximum amount of time that every foreign-born inmate in both samples

was followed up in our study. Using a weighted average, we found that in

fiscal year 1995, INS could have avoided over $37 million in detention costs.

In 1995, the average detention time for criminal aliens who completed the

IHP with final deportation orders was 9 days, the average daily detention

cost was $1.16 per alien higher in 1997, and the number of aliens who were

detained and deported within 9 months of release was nearly 3,000 less

than in 1997.

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

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

additional funding that might be required to provide additional resources

for the IHP.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Evi L. Rezmovic, Assistant Director

Linda R. Watson, Evaluator-in-Charge

Brenda I. Rabinowitz, Senior Evaluator

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Bonita J. Vines, Senior Computer Specialist

Barry L. Reed, Senior Social Science Analyst

James M. Fields, Senior Social Science Analyst

Joanne D. Meikle, Senior Social Science Analyst

Charlotte A. Moore, Communications Analyst

Office of the General

Counsel

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

(183629) Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-3 Imprisoned Aliens
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

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

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

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100