IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION

Additional Actions 

Needed to Strengthen 

Management and 

Oversight of Facility 

Costs and Standards

Report to Congressional Requesters

October 2014

GAO-15-153

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-153, a report to 

congressional requesters.

October 2014

IMMIGRATION DETENTION

Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen 

Management and Oversight of Facility Costs and 

Standards

Why GAO Did This Study

DHS has reported that the number of 

noncitizens in immigration detention 

has increased from about 230,000 in 

fiscal year 2005 to about 440,600 in

fiscal year 2013. ICE applies various 

sets of detention standards—such as 

medical services—at over 250 facilities

owned by ICE or private contractors, or 

owned by or contracted to state and 

local governments. GAO was asked to 

examine differences in cost, standards, 

and oversight across types of facilities. 

This report addresses the extent to 

which (1) ICE has processes to track 

costs, (2) standards vary across facility 

types and the reasons for any 

differences, and (3) oversight and the 

results of that oversight vary across 

facility types. GAO reviewed ICE data 

and information on costs, detention 

population, standards, and oversight 

for 166 facilities that held detainees for 

72 hours or more, from fiscal years 

2011 through 2013, reviewed facility 

contracts, and interviewed federal 

contractors and DHS and ICE officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that ICE assess the extent to 

which it has appropriate controls for 

tracking facility costs, document 

reasons why facilities cannot be 

transitioned to the most recent 

standards, and review reasons for 

differences in inspection results. DHS 

concurred with all recommendations 

but one to document reasons why 

facilities cannot be transitioned to the 

most recent standards because, 

among other reasons, DHS believes it 

already has sufficient documentation. 

As discussed in this report, GAO 

continues to believe in the need for 

such documentation.

What GAO Found

Within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses two different methods to collect and assess 

data on detention costs; however, these methods do not provide ICE with 

complete data for managing detention costs across facilities and facility types. 

One method uses the agency’s financial management system to estimate total 

detention costs per detainee per day for the purposes of developing ICE’s annual 

detention budget request. However, ICE identified errors in the entry of data into 

this system and limitations in the system make it difficult for ICE to accurately 

record expenditures for individual facilities. ICE’s other method involves the 

manual tracking of monthly costs by individual facilities for the purposes of 

reviewing data on individual facility costs. However, this method does not include 

data on all costs for individual facilities, such as for medical care and 

transportation, and such costs are not standardized within or across facility types. 

Thus, ICE does not have complete data for tracking and managing detention 

costs across facilities and facility types. ICE has taken some steps to strengthen

its financial management system, such as implementing manual work-arounds 

to, among other things, better link financial transactions to individual facilities. 

However, ICE has not assessed the extent to which these manual work-arounds 

position ICE to better track and manage costs across facilities or facility types 

and the extent to which additional controls are needed to address limitations in its 

methods for collecting and assessing detention costs, in accordance with federal 

internal control standards. Conducting these assessments could better position 

ICE to have more reliable data for tracking and managing costs across facility 

types. 

GAO’s analysis of ICE facility data showed that ICE primarily used three sets of 

detention standards, with the most recent and rigorous standards applied to 25 

facilities housing about 54 percent of ICE’s average daily population (ADP) as of 

January 2014. ICE plans to expand the use of these standards to 61 facilities

housing 89 percent of total ADP by the end of fiscal year 2014; however, 

transition to these standards has been delayed by cost issues and contract 

negotiations and ICE does not have documentation for reasons why some 

facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards in accordance with 

internal control standards. Documenting such reasons could provide an 

institutional record and help increase transparency and accountability in ICE’s 

management of detention facilities. 

GAO’s analysis of ICE facility oversight programs showed that ICE applied more 

oversight mechanisms at facilities housing the majority of the ADP in fiscal year 

2013. For example, 94 percent of detainees were housed in facilities that 

received an annual inspection. GAO’s analysis of ICE’s inspection reports 

showed that inspection results differed for 29 of 35 facilities inspected by both 

ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of Detention 

Oversight (ODO) in fiscal year 2013. ICE officials stated that ODO and ERO 

have not discussed differences in inspection results and whether oversight

mechanisms are functioning as intended. Assessing the reasons why inspection 

results differ, in accordance with internal control standards, could help ICE better 

ensure that inspection mechanisms are working as intended. 

View GAO-15-153. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 

or gamblerr@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Letter 1

Background 7

Incomplete ICE Data and Limitations in Controls to Track and 

Manage Costs Limit Assessment of Cost Variances across 

Detention Facility Types 13

ICE Applied Different Federal Standards across Facilities but Has 

Not Documented Reasons for the Differences 28

ICE Uses More Oversight Mechanisms at Facilities with Greater 

Detainee Populations, with Some Inconsistencies in Results 

across Key Mechanisms 35

Conclusions 44

Recommendations for Executive Action 45

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 46

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 51

Appendix II Comparison of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Standards 57

Appendix III Example of an Italicized Requirement 60

Appendix IV Example of an Optimal Provision in U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement’s (ICE) 2011 Performance-Based Detention Standards 

(PBNDS) 62

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 64

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 67

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Tables

Table 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Over72-Hour Detention Facility Types and Detainee 

Populations, as of August 2013 9

Table 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Standards 12

Table 3: Number of Deficiencies Identified by Enforcement and 

Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of Detention 

Oversight (ODO) Inspections in Fiscal Year 2013, by 

Facility Type 41

Table 4: Comparison of U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards 57

Table 5: Example of an Italicized Procedure in the 2011 

Performance-Based National Detention Standards 

(PBNDS) 61

Table 6: Example of an Optimal Procedure in the 2011 

Performance-Based National Detention Standards 

(PBNDS) 63

Figures

Figure 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Detention Over-72-Hour Facility Locations, as of August 

2013 10

Figure 2: Appropriations for Immigration Detention and Number of 

Detainees, Fiscal Years 2005-2013 11

Figure 3: Detention Standards and Average Daily Population 

(ADP) by Facility Type, Fiscal Year 2013 31

Figure 4: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Oversight Mechanisms Used at Detention Facilities in 

Fiscal Year 2013, by Facility Type 38

Figure 5: Percentage of Fiscal Year 2013 Average Daily 

Population in Detention Facilities Covered by Type of 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Oversight Mechanism 40
Page iii GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Abbreviations

ADP average daily population

AOR area of responsibility

CDF contract detention facility

CFMF Contract Financial Monitoring File

COR contracting officer representative

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DIGSA dedicated intergovernmental service agreement

DOJ Department of Justice

DSM detention service manager

ERO Enforcement and Removal Operations

FFMS Federal Financial Management System

FPMS Facility Performance Management System

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IGA intergovernmental agreement

IHSC ICE Health Service Corps

IPERA Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act

IPERIA Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery 

Improvement Act

IPIA Improper Payments Information Act

NDS National Detention Standards

OAQ Office of Acquisition Management

OBPP Office of Budget and Program Performance

ODO Office of Detention Oversight

ODPP Office of Detention Policy and Planning

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility

ORSA Operation Review Self-Assessment

PBNDS Performance-Based National Detention Standards

SCA Services Contracting Act

SPC service processing center

USMS U.S. Marshals Service

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

October 10, 2014

Congressional Requesters

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported that the number of 

aliens in immigration detention has increased from a total of about 

230,000 over the course of fiscal year 2005 to a total of about 440,600 

over the course of fiscal year 2013,1 and that appropriations for detention 

have more than doubled, from about $700 million in 2005 to nearly $2 

billion in fiscal year 2014.2 Federal law mandates that DHS maintain 

34,000 immigration detention beds to house aliens each day in fiscal year 

2014,

3 and DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has 

responsibility to provide safe, secure, and humane confinement for aliens 

in the United States who may be subject to removal while they await the 

resolution of their immigration cases or have been ordered removed from 

the United States.

4 ICE fulfills this responsibility by applying various sets 

of detention standards at over 250 detention facilities that are either 

owned by ICE, owned by private contractors, or owned by or contracted 

to state and local governments. These standards cover a variety of 

issues, including detainee safety, security, care, and the administration 

and management of the facilities.5

 1

These figures reflect the number of instances in which individuals were checked into U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities over the course of each 

fiscal year; some individuals may have been admitted more than once or to more than one 

facility during a fiscal year.

To oversee the operations of these 

2 Aliens may be removed from the United States for violations such as illegally entering 

the United States, failing to abide by the terms and conditions of admission, engaging in 

violent crimes, perpetrating document and benefit fraud, engaging in terrorist activities, or 

participating in drug smuggling. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides DHS with 

broad authority to detain aliens believed to be removable while awaiting a determination of 

whether they should be removed from the United States and mandates that DHS detain 

certain categories of aliens. (See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231.)

3

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 251.

4

See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231.

5

These standards generally cover seven areas: detainee safety (e.g., environmental 

health and safety); detainee, staff, and facility security (e.g., sexual abuse and assault 

prevention and intervention and searches of detainees); detainee order (e.g., disciplinary 

system; detainee care (e.g., medical care); detainee activities (e.g., recreation); detainee 

justice (e.g., grievance system and law libraries and legal material); and administration 

and management (e.g., detention files and staff training). 
Page 2 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

facilities and ensure that they adhere to detention standards, DHS and 

ICE employ a variety of oversight mechanisms that can include a mix of 

annual, biennial, or self-inspections; periodic compliance inspections of 

selected facilities; and continuous on-site monitoring by a detention 

service manager.

Various ICE components have roles and responsibilities for detention 

management. ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) 

identifies, apprehends, and removes aliens when it deems necessary, 

and oversees the confinement of detainees across facilities in accordance 

with immigration detention standards. ICE’s Office of Acquisition 

Management (OAQ) negotiates and manages detention facility contracts 

and agreements, and the Office of Detention Policy and Planning (ODPP) 

leads efforts to design detention standards used at facilities managed by 

ERO. ICE’s Office of Budget and Program Performance (OBPP) develops 

and analyzes budget projections, and ERO’s Operations Support Division 

tracks facility expenditures and allocations. Detention facility oversight is 

conducted by both ERO and the Office of Detention Oversight (ODO), 

which is located in ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). 

ERO’s Custody Management contracts with an inspector to conduct 

annual or biennial inspections at facilities to assess compliance with ICE

detention standards and oversees self-assessment inspections, which 

apply to selected facilities. ERO also oversees the on-site Detention 

Monitoring Program, created in 2010, which places ICE detention service 

managers (DSM) at selected facilities to continuously monitor compliance 

with ICE detention standards. ODO generally conducts periodic 

inspections of selected facilities based on designated risk factors.
Page 3 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

You asked us to review differences in costs, standards, and oversight 

across the various types of immigration detention facilities.6

To determine how federal costs compare across different types of 

immigration detention facilities, we analyzed ICE fiscal year 2013 data, 

the most recent fiscal year for which data were available, related to ICE 

expenditures for detention facilities.

This report 

addresses the following questions: (1) How do federal costs compare 

across different types of immigration detention facilities, and to what 

extent does ICE have processes to track and manage these costs? (2) To 

what extent do the federal standards that govern conditions of 

confinement vary across different types of immigration detention facilities, 

and what are the reasons for any differences? (3) To what extent do 

federal oversight and the results of that oversight vary across different 

types of immigration facilities?

7

 6

DHS defines an immigration detention facility as a confinement facility operated by or 

affiliated with ICE that routinely holds persons for over 24 hours. However, of the 251 

facilities authorized by ICE to hold detainees as of August 2013, we limited our analysis to 

the 166 facilities that were designated to hold detainees for 72 hours or longer because of 

the frequent turnover in the detainee population at short-term facilities—such as holding 

facilities and prisons—which temporarily house detainees waiting for ICE transfer. Of 

these 166 facilities, ICE documentation showed that 155 held at least one detainee in 

fiscal year 2013, while 11 facilities did not hold any detainees during this time period. In 

addition to the under-72-hour facilities, we also excluded three federal prisons where ICE 

had detention bed space in fiscal year 2013; two of the prisons housed a few detainees 

and the third prison was discontinued for immigration detainees as of the end of calendar 

year 2013, according to Bureau of Prisons and ICE officials. We also excluded facilities for 

juvenile detainees—individuals under 18 years of age—because these facilities are 

overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services.

To determine the reliability of these 

data, we conducted data testing, reviewed documentation, and 

interviewed agency officials. We determined that some of these data were 

sufficiently reliable to provide a general indication of approximate ranges 

of costs across and within facility types, but have limitations as discussed 

later in the report. To determine the reasons for possible differences in 

facility costs, we analyzed ICE documents, including an ICE-funded study 

of detention bed rate costs across facilities, and interviewed agency 

7

These data were drawn from the Contract Financial Monitoring File, a manual tool 

maintained by ICE ERO Operations Support Division to monitor contract obligations and 

costs, and from ICE’s Federal Financial Management System.
Page 4 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

officials.8 We assessed the methodology for the ICE-funded study and 

determined that it was sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To determine 

the extent to which ICE has processes to track and manage detention 

facility costs, we analyzed relevant documents, such as ICE financial 

management guidance and GAO reports, and interviewed agency 

officials.9 We assessed our findings related to ICE’s financial 

management practices against Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government and ICE’s fiscal years 2010-2014 strategic plan.10

We also analyzed the extent to which ICE’s average daily population 

(ADP) in its facilities met the guaranteed minimums—the number of beds 

ICE pays for each day regardless of their utilization—in those facilities. 

We interviewed agency officials about future plans to develop guidance 

related to factoring cost into detainee placement decisions, and assessed 

those plans against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government.

11 We reviewed relevant laws, such as the Improper

Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA) of 2012, 

as well as related Office of Management and Budget guidance.12

 8

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

Detention Bed Space Procurement Analysis; Report on ICE Detention Sourcing 

(Washington D.C.: April 2014). The purpose of the study was to analyze the effectiveness 

of the ICE detention bed procurement process, develop a common approach to the 

procurement of detention beds, and recommend solutions to ICE to improve its approach, 

particularly for ICE-owned service processing centers (SPC). 

We 

analyzed a sample of invoices and supporting documentation submitted 

to ICE by detention services contractors in December 2013—specifically, 

31 of the 158 invoices submitted by facility contractors to ICE by February 

2014 for services provided in December 2013, the month for which ICE 

indicated that changes it made to its invoicing process were 

implemented—to determine the extent to which these invoices met ICE’s 

9

See GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February

2013), and DHS Financial Management: Additional Efforts Needed to Resolve 

Deficiencies in Internal Controls and Financial Management Systems, GAO-13-561

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2013).

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

(Washington D.C.: November 1999).

11GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

12Pub. L. No. 112-248, 126 Stat. 2390.
Page 5 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

requirements. We assessed these invoices against ICE’s requirements 

and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

13

To assess the extent to which federal standards that govern conditions of 

confinement vary across different types of immigration detention facilities, 

and reasons for any differences, we identified ICE detention standards, 

including the 2000 National Detention Standards (NDS), the 2008 

Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), and the 

2011 PBNDS and analyzed the extent to which ICE applied these 

standards across detention facilities.14 We analyzed the three sets of 

standards to assess similarities and differences among the standards. To 

identify the standards to which each facility was held, we analyzed the 

standards included in 166 facility contracts and agreements in place as of 

January 2014, the period in which ICE had last provided us a list of 

facilities that are authorized to house detainees for over 72 hours when 

we began our analysis. To determine the percentage of ICE detainees 

who were covered by each set of standards during fiscal year 2013, the 

most recent fiscal year for which data were available, we analyzed the 

standards to which each facility was held against the ADP. In addition, we 

analyzed ERO’s plans to implement the 2011 PBNDS and interviewed 

relevant ICE officials to determine why standards might vary by facility 

type. Further, we analyzed 41 waivers ICE granted to facilities to exempt 

them from certain detention standards and which were in effect as of 

August 2014, when we performed the analysis; these waivers were 

approved from fiscal years 2012 through August 2014. We also assessed 

the extent to which ICE documented its decision-making process for 

determining which standards to apply at which facilities against Standards 

for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

15

 13GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

14ICE has a fourth set of detention standards, the 2007 Residential Standards. We 

excluded these standards because at the time we conducted our work, the standards 

applied to two facilities that housed less than 2 percent of the average daily detention 

population in fiscal year 2013. As of September 2014, ICE reported that it has significantly 

increased the number of detainees in family detention because of a recent surge in 

parents with children illegally crossing the southwest border, and therefore is now using 

three facilities to house family units in Berks, Pennsylvania; Artesia, New Mexico; and 

Karnes, Texas. 

15GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 6 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

To assess how federal oversight compares across different types of 

immigration detention facilities, we identified the various oversight 

mechanisms ICE used at detention facilities in fiscal year 2013 and 

analyzed differences in their use and results.16 With respect to ERO’s 

inspection program, we analyzed ERO inspection data for fiscal year 

2013, the most recent fiscal year for which inspection data were available. 

We assessed the reliability of these data by conducting data testing, such 

as checking for duplicate entries and interviewing officials, and we 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report. We compared the percentage of fiscal year 2013 ADP in 

immigration detention facilities by facility type and oversight mechanisms

used at facilities with the percentage of ICE’s ADP at each facility to 

determine what percentage of detainees were housed in facilities at which 

ICE used the various oversight mechanisms. To determine how the 

results of facility inspections may vary across the two ICE offices that 

conduct facility inspections, we compared the results of ICE inspections 

for facilities that were inspected by both ICE offices in fiscal year 2013, 

and interviewed agency officials as to reasons for any differences in 

inspection results. We also assessed ICE’s review of inspection results 

against Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

17

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to October 2014, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Additional details on our scope and methodology are contained in 

appendix I.

 16We analyzed the extent to which ICE used (1) annual and biennial facility inspections

conducted by an ERO contractor, (2) annual facility self-inspections conducted under 

ERO’s Operational Review Self-Assessment (ORSA) process, (3) ERO’s detention 

service manager on-site monitoring program, and (4) Office of Detention Oversight riskbased facility inspections, at 166 ICE facilities authorized to hold detainees for over 72 

hours as of August 2013. 

17GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 7 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, provides ICE with 

broad authority to detain aliens believed to be removable while awaiting a 

determination of whether they should be removed from the United States 

as well as aliens ordered removed, and mandates that ICE detain certain 

categories of aliens.18 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 

Responsibility Act of 1996 increased the number of aliens subject to 

mandatory detention, resulting in the former Immigration and 

Naturalization Service expanding the number of detention beds available 

to meet the mandate.19 The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 

Act of 2004 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to further 

increase the number of detention beds by 8,000 annually starting in fiscal 

year 2006 and continuing through fiscal year 2010.20 Subsequently, the 

House Appropriations Committee began incorporating a mandate into the 

annual appropriations bill. The fiscal year 2014 appropriation act requires 

DHS to maintain 34,000 detention beds per day.21

Immigration custody is civil, not criminal, detention, and is not to be

punitive; rather, ICE is to confine detainees for the administrative purpose 

of holding, processing, and preparing them for removal. According to ICE 

data, during fiscal year 2013, the agency housed an average of 32,805 

detainees in its detention facilities each day and held detainees for an 

average of about 27 days.22

 18See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231.

ICE detainees include a mix of men and 

women from a wide variety of countries and with criminal and noncriminal 

19Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, tit. III, subtit. A, F, §§ 302, 303, 305, 386, 110 Stat. 3009-

546, 3009-579 to 3009-587, 3009-597 to 3009-607, 3009-653 to 3009-654. Aliens subject 

to mandatory detention include those who are in the United States without legal 

documentation or with fraudulent documentation, inadmissible or deportable on criminal or 

national security grounds, certified as terrorist suspects, or under final orders of removal. 

Aliens not subject to mandatory detention may be detained, paroled (granted temporary 

permission to enter and be present in the United States), or released on bond. See 8 

U.S.C. §§1225, 1226, 1226a, 1231.

20Pub. L. No. 108-458, tit. V, subtit. B, § 5204(a), 118 Stat, 3638, 3734.

21Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 251. 

22These data are approximations for ICE detention facilities. 

Background

Legislation and 

Requirements Pertaining 

to Immigration Detention

Detention Population, 

Facility Types, and 

Locations
Page 8 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

backgrounds.23 When detention facilities admit aliens, they are to use a 

classification system that separates detainees by threat risk and special 

vulnerabilities by assigning them a custody level of low, medium, or high. 

From fiscal years 2010 through 2013, about 44 percent of ICE detainees 

were of a low custody level, 41 percent were of a medium custody level, 

and 15 percent were of a high custody level.24

ERO oversees the confinement of ICE detainees in approximately 250 

detention facilities that it manages in conjunction with private contractors 

or state or local governments, of which 166 were authorized to house 

detainees for over 72 hours, as of August 2013.25

 23ICE generally does not detain children, with the exception of children whom the agency 

detains with their families at a family residential facility. ICE must transfer unaccompanied 

alien children less than 18 years of age who are unlawfully in the United States without a 

parent or other legal guardian to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of 

Refugee Resettlement’s custody within 72 hours of determining that they are 

unaccompanied alien children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3). 

Over 90 percent of the 

facilities are operated under agreements with state and local 

governments and house about half of ICE’s total detention population, 

together with, or separately from, other confined populations. The 

remaining facilities house exclusively ICE detainees and are operated by 

a mixture of private contractors and ICE, state, and local government 

employees. Table 1 presents information about the number and types of 

facilities that ICE uses to house detainees, the entities that own and 

operate them, and the percentage of the detainee population confined in 

each facility type.

24ICE’s custody classification system considers various factors including the detainee’s 

most recent charge or conviction, the most serious conviction in the individual’s criminal 

history, any other prior felony convictions, any attempts to escape from custody, if the 

individual has a history of assaultive behavior, and the individual’s behavioral history. In 

2010, ICE shifted its overall enforcement priorities with a June 2010 policy memorandum 

that detailed the priorities for alien apprehension, detention, and removal as follows: (1) 

aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety—including aliens 

convicted of crimes—and (2) recent illegal entrants and aliens who are fugitives or 

otherwise obstruct immigration controls. According to the memo, ICE established these 

priorities because it has resources to remove only approximately 400,000 aliens per year 

from the country, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United 

States.

25The remaining facilities were authorized to house detainees for up to 72 hours.
Page 9 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Table 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Over-72-Hour Detention Facility Types and Detainee Populations, 

as of August 2013

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. | GAO-15-153

Notes: ICE authorizes facilities to house detainees for up to 72 hours or more than 72 hours. In 

addition to the over-72-hour facilities listed in this table, ICE also had 85 facilities authorized to house 

detainees for up to 72 hours, as of August 2013. These consisted of 31 nondedicated 

intergovernmental service agreement facilities and 54 USMS intergovernmental agreement facilities. 

In addition to the 85 facilities authorized to house detainees for up to 72 hours and the facilities listed 

in this table, ICE also used 3 facilities operated by the DOJ Federal Bureau of Prisons to confine 

detainees, but the majority of detainees were removed from these facilities by the end of calendar 

year 2013. 

a

ICE initially used 1 of these facilities as a family residential facility, but in 2009 converted it to a 

women-only facility; for the purposes of this review, we considered it to be a facility operating under a 

dedicated intergovernmental service agreement (DIGSA).

ICE’s detention facilities are located across the United States. In general, 

facilities that house the most detainees and exclusively ICE detainees are 

concentrated in the states along the southern United States border, while 

facilities that house fewer detainees are more evenly distributed across 

the nation. Figure 1 presents the locations of ICE’s over-72-hour facilities 

by size and type.

Facility type Description

Number of 

facilities 

Percentage of 

detainee 

population 

Service 

processing center 

Facilities owned by ICE, operated by a mix of ICE employees and 

contractor staff, that exclusively house ICE detainees. 6 11

Contract 

detention facility 

Facilities owned and operated by private companies under direct ICE 

contract that exclusively house ICE detainees. 7 18

Dedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreementa

Facilities owned by state and local governments or private entities, 

operated under agreements with state and local governments, that 

exclusively house ICE detainees. 9 24

Family residential Facility owned and operated by a local government entity that houses 

children and their families and exclusively houses ICE detainees. 1 <1

Nondedicated 

intergovernmental 

service agreement

Facilities owned by state and local governments or private entities, 

operated under agreement by state and local governments, that house 

ICE detainees in addition to other confined populations (e.g., inmates), 

either together or separately. 72 28

U.S. Marshals

Service (USMS) 

intergovernmental 

agreement or contract 

Facilities owned and operated by state and local governments or 

private entities under agreement or contract with USMS within the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) to house federal prisoners until they are 

acquitted or convicted. ICE takes out task orders against the USMS 

intergovernmental agreement and contracts to house immigration 

detainees at these facilities, either together with or separately from 

other populations. 71 19
Page 10 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Figure 1: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Over-72-Hour Facility Locations, as of August 2013

The number of admissions to detention and related appropriations has 

more than doubled since 2005, as shown in figure 2. In fiscal year 2014, 

Congress provided about $2.8 billion for detention and removal 

Detention Costs
Page 11 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

operations, which include ICE’s maintenance of 34,000 detention beds, 

as required by law.

26

Figure 2: Appropriations for Immigration Detention and Number of Detainees, Fiscal 

Years 2005-2013

Note: Costs include total enacted appropriations for each year.

a

Fiscal year 2013 costs includes a .132 percent across-the-board-reduction and sequestration, prior 

to reprogramming.

ICE primarily uses three sets of national detention standards with varying 

requirements to govern the conditions of confinement in its detention 

facilities. ICE establishes the set of standards applicable to each 

detention facility through an individual contract or agreement with the 

facility. Accordingly, different facilities are governed by different 

standards. Table 2 provides information about each of these three sets of 

standards.

 26Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 251. 

Detention Standards
Page 12 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Table 2: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards

2000 National 

Detention Standards 

(NDS)

These standards are derived from the American Correctional Association’s Standards for Adult Local 

Detention Facilities, Third Edition, and were developed by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 

within the Department of Justice (DOJ) in consultation with various stakeholders, including the American Bar 

Association—an association of attorneys—and organizations involved in pro bono representation and 

advocacy for immigration detainees. Following the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 

2002, DHS became responsible for immigration detention and began operating the detention system under 

the 2000 NDS. 

2008 PerformanceBased National 

Detention Standards 

(PBNDS)

ICE revised the 2000 NDS to integrate changes included in, and moved to a performance-based format more 

in line with, the American Correctional Association’s Performance-Based Standards for Adult Local Detention 

Facilities, Fourth Edition. The 2008 PBNDS, which ICE developed in coordination with agency stakeholders 

to apply to adult detention populations, prescribe the expected outcomes of each detention standard and the 

expected practices required to achieve them. The 2008 PBNDS also include more detailed requirements for 

service processing centers and contract detention facilities.

2011 PBNDS ICE revised the 2008 PBNDS to improve conditions of confinement in various ways, including medical and 

mental health services, access to legal services and religious opportunities, communication with detainees 

with no or limited English proficiency, the process for reporting and responding to complaints, and recreation 

and visitation. The 2011 PBNDS also expanded the more detailed requirements for service processing 

centers and contract detention facilities included in the 2008 PBNDS to dedicated intergovernmental service 

agreement facilities or, in some cases, to all facilities. 

Source: GAO analysis of ICE information. | GAO- 15-153

Note: A fourth set of detention standards—the 2007 Family Residential Standards—pertained to two 

facilities as of August 2013—one owned and operated by a local government entity that houses 

children and their families, and exclusively houses ICE detainees; the other, as of 2009, designated 

to house women only. For the purposes of this review we considered the women-only facility to be a 

facility managed as a dedicated intergovernmental service agreement facility. The Family Residential 

Standards are based on ICE analysis of family detention operations and state statutes that affect 

children. Less than 2 percent of ICE’s average daily population is held in residential facilities. U.S. 

Marshals Service intergovernmental agreement facilities are under agreements to adhere to DOJ 

detention standards. Facilities under private contract with the U.S. Marshals Service are to adhere to 

the Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards, which incorporate elements of American 

Correctional Association standards, DOJ standards, and the 2000 NDS.
Page 13 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

ICE has two offices, OBPP and ERO Operations Support Division, that 

use different methods to collect and assess data on detention 

expenditures and costs for different purposes; however, these two 

methods do not provide ICE with complete data for managing detention 

costs across facilities and facility types. First, for the purposes of 

developing ICE’s annual budget requests for detention, ICE’s OBPP 

developed a method to estimate total detention costs per detainee per 

day. ICE refers to this as the bed-rate—or the total cost to house 1 

detainee for 1 day. OBPP estimates this bed rate for budgetary purposes 

by conducting standardized, repeatable queries of ICE’s financial 

management system—the Federal Financial Management System.27

These standardized queries provide ICE with an average overall bed rate 

and the average bed rate for each of ICE’s 24 areas of responsibility.28

 27ICE OBPP’s bed rate estimate captures all detention-related costs including medical 

costs and ICE overhead costs, but does not include transportation costs. 

However, ICE officials stated that through fiscal year 2013 these queries 

did not produce data that can be used to track or manage costs for 

individual facilities or facility types because of errors in how ICE field 

office personnel enter data into ICE’s Federal Financial Management 

System and limitations in the system that make it difficult for ICE to 

accurately record expenditures for all individual facilities. Specifically, 

OBPP officials said that field office personnel manually enter financial 

codes for each expenditure to categorize and provide descriptive 

28ICE ERO divides its operations geographically, and operates 24 field offices, each of 

which oversees operations in its area of responsibility.

Incomplete ICE Data 

and Limitations in 

Controls to Track

and Manage Costs 

Limit Assessment

of Cost Variances 

across Detention 

Facility Types

ICE Does Not Have 

Complete Data for 

Managing Detention

Costs and Operations
Page 14 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

information about that expenditure—such as if it was for detention

operations—which allows ICE to link expenditures to specific facilities, 

among other things. However, OBPP officials have found significant 

coding errors in these data fields for costs incurred through fiscal year 

2013. For example, according to the officials, charges for 5 facilities 

operating under intergovernmental service agreements (IGSA) in five 

states were erroneously assigned to a SPC, because, according to ICE 

officials, the facilities were in different counties with the same name. In 

addition, while ICE could link expenditures to individual facilities of certain 

types—specifically SPCs, contract detention facilities (CDF), and facilities 

operating under a dedicated intergovernmental service agreement 

(DIGSA)—in its Federal Financial Management System in fiscal year 

2013, it could not link expenditures to individual facilities operating under 

an IGSA because there were not codes in ICE’s Federal Financial 

Management System to link expenditures to IGSAs during fiscal year 

2013. According to ICE officials, in fiscal year 2014, ICE introduced new 

financial coding processes. These processes are intended to address this 

limitation and allow costs to be linked to all types of facilities, including 

IGSA facilities; however, as ICE has recently begun to implement these 

new processes, it is too soon to determine the extent to which they will 

provide ICE with more reliable cost data across individual facilities and 

facility types.

Second, for the purposes of tracking monthly costs at individual facilities, 

among other purposes, ICE ERO’s Operations Support Division—the 

budget office within ERO—developed a mechanism to manually track 

monthly costs by facility, called the Contract Financial Monitoring File, 

according to ICE ERO Operations Support Division officials. Specifically, 

the Operations Support Division developed the Contract Financial 

Monitoring File to monitor obligations and monthly expenditures related to 

the primary contract for each detention facility using information manually 

taken from facility invoices and contracts in addition to data in the Federal 

Financial Management System, according to ERO officials and Contract 

Financial Monitoring File guidance. The Operations Support Division 

developed this manual tool to work around the limitations in the Federal 

Financial Management System, which, in addition to those limitations 

discussed above, does not automatically interface with ICE’s invoice 
Page 15 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

management system, according to ICE officials.29 Operations Support 

Division officials said they use the Contract Financial Monitoring File data 

to determine how much funding to allocate to each facility and to track 

expenditures and contract pricing at a single facility over time, among 

other uses. However, these data have limitations that preclude using the 

data to track and manage costs across individual facilities and facility 

types. For example, the Contract Financial Monitoring File data do not 

consistently or completely capture costs for facilities because some 

facility contracts include services such as medical care and 

transportation, while other contracts do not.30 For facilities with contracts 

that do not include such services, ICE or service providers contract with a 

third-party to provide these services. As a result, ICE officials said that 

some higher-cost facilities may therefore be providing services that are 

not provided by lower-cost facilities, or that are provided and billed by 

third parties. For example, ERO officials said that ICE provides medical 

care at most CDFs either through the ICE Health Service Corps or 

through a separate third-party contract with a health care provider, 

instead of directly through the facility operator.31

 29A 2012 assessment of ICE’s current financial system’s capabilities conducted by Booz 

Allen Hamilton found that the Federal Financial Management System lacked managerial 

cost accounting mechanisms to automatically report on key metrics—such as costs per 

detainee bed. The assessment found that ICE had to manually extract and analyze the 

data needed to report on these key metrics from the Federal Financial Management 

System—a labor-intensive process that required ICE to dedicate significant staff 

resources to report on costs of specific programs, projects, or activities. Booz Allen 

Hamilton Inc., Core Financial System Analysis of Alternatives Project Final Capability 

Assessment Report for Department of Homeland Security U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement Office of the Chief Financial Officer (Washington D.C.: Jan. 27, 2012). 

ICE’s medical costs paid 

for through headquarters—which, according to ICE officials totaled about 

$157.6 million in fiscal year 2013—are not reflected in facility invoice 

costs, and therefore are not included in the Contract Financial Monitoring 

30The Contract Financial Monitoring File data include ICE payments for services billed 

under the primary detention contract or agreement for each facility for CDFs and facilities 

operating under IGSAs and under DIGSAs. For SPCs, ICE tracks expenditures associated 

with the primary detention contracts as well as maintaining a separate tracking 

spreadsheet for costs associated with ancillary contracts that address other facility-related 

services—such as food, maintenance, or trash collection—provided through separate 

contracts. 

31ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) serves as the medical authority for ICE. IHSC

provides direct care to detainees housed at 21 facilities throughout the nation and 

oversees medical care for detainees housed at non-IHSC-staffed detention facilities 

across the country. When necessary, it authorizes and pays for off-site specialty and 

emergency care, consultations, and case management.
Page 16 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

File as costs to those individual facilities. Other facilities that directly 

provide these services would reflect these costs in facility invoices, and 

these costs would therefore be tracked separately in the Contract 

Financial Monitoring File. Further, some facilities provide transportation 

for detainees as part of the primary detention contract, and therefore the 

Operations Support Division captures these costs—which composed up 

to 47 percent of total facility expenditures in fiscal year 2013—for each 

facility in the Contract Financial Monitoring File. However, at other 

facilities, transportation services are not included in the facility contract. 

For these facilities, ICE provides transportation services for detainees 

through separate contracts with transportation providers, which ERO 

tracks separately, and does not link these costs to individual facilities in 

the Contract Financial Monitoring File.32

Since 2009, ICE has taken some steps to strengthen how it tracks and 

manages detention costs and expenditures. However, we identified 

limitations in ICE’s controls and processes in three areas. These 

limitations relate to (1) collecting and maintaining cost data, (2) ensuring 

cost is considered in placing aliens in detention facilities, and (3) 

preventing improper payments to detention facility operators.

In addition, the file’s cost data do 

not include ICE overhead costs that vary across facilities. These costs 

include, among other things, shared utilities and telecommunication 

charges that occur in the field but are paid for through ICE service-wide 

contracts, according to an ICE official. As a result of these limitations, the 

Contract Financial Monitoring File data cannot be used for tracking and 

managing cost data across individual facilities and facility types.

Collecting and maintaining cost data. ICE is in the process of planning 

to upgrade its new financial management system; however, ICE does not 

have a target time frame for when this upgrade will occur, according to 

ICE officials. The agency, however, has taken steps to manually track 

and manage costs, referred to as manual work-arounds. First, ICE has 

required field office personnel to use a new coding system to link all 

financial transactions entered into the Federal Financial Management 

 32For some field offices, ICE consolidated transportation for all facilities within the field 

offices’ areas of responsibility (AOR) to reduce costs, according to ICE officials. For 

example, ICE consolidated transportation for all facilities within the San Antonio Field 

Office’s AOR in fiscal year 2012 as a cost reduction measure. In these instances, ICE 

ERO Operations Support Division tracks costs associated with the transportation contract 

but does not assign the costs to specific facilities.
Page 17 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

System to individual facilities, including IGSAs, to help ICE more reliably 

track costs. According to ICE OBPP officials, this requirement began in 

fiscal year 2014. Second, ICE has taken steps to help ensure that 

expenditures are correctly applied to obligations in the Federal Financial 

Management System. These steps include developing standard operating 

procedures for linking obligations to expenditures and, beginning in the 

third quarter of fiscal year 2014, requiring personnel to input a specific 

period of performance for each facility expenditure, according to ICE 

officials. Finally, as a manual work-around for estimating transportation 

costs, ICE has developed a statement of work to study transportation 

costs to optimize ICE’s ground and air transportation networks and 

identify any inefficiencies in the current process.33

Although these manual work-arounds are positive steps that should help 

strengthen the completeness and reliability of ICE data on detention 

facilities costs, ICE has not assessed the extent to which these manual 

work-arounds are sufficient to address data limitations and allow it to 

reliably compare costs among and across facilities and facility types, 

according to ICE officials. ICE officials said they have not conducted such 

an assessment because they have focused on higher priorities, such as 

developing a national bed rate to support the agency’s annual budget 

request. In addition, ICE has not assessed the extent to which additional 

internal controls are needed to address the challenges we identified and 

collect and maintain more complete data on costs and expenditures for 

individual facilities. For example, as previously discussed, ICE identified 

data entry errors made by staff in entering cost data into the Federal 

Financial Management System. ICE also identified challenges in tracking 

and maintaining complete data on all costs or expenditures associated 

with individual facilities, including costs for medical care and 

transportation, for example. ICE has not assessed the extent to which 

additional controls, such as a process to check for data entry errors, could 

help the agency track and maintain more complete data on detention 

facility costs, as ICE stated that the agency recently implemented the 

manual work-arounds.

The ICE Strategic Plan FY2010-2014 states that ICE will proactively 

identify and correct financial and operational risks and continually 

 33According to an ICE official, ICE had not started the study as of August 2014, but plans 

to issue a request for proposal in September 2014.
Page 18 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

strengthen internal controls to safeguard the public’s resources and trust. 

ICE has strengthened some controls, but it has not assessed the extent 

to which it has appropriate internal controls in place for all tracking and 

reporting of financial information to link costs to individual facilities. 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government notes that 

internal controls are an integral part of each system that management 

uses to regulate and guide its operations, and that control activities are an 

integral part of an entity’s planning, implementing, review, and 

accountability for stewardship of government resources and achieving 

effective results.34 Furthermore, the standards state that control activities, 

which include a wide range of diverse actions and maintenance of related 

records, need to be clearly documented and help to ensure that all 

transactions are completely and accurately recorded.35

Ensuring cost is considered in placing aliens in detention facilities. 

ICE ERO officials stated that field office personnel are to take cost into 

account, as appropriate, when making detainee placement decisions; 

however, ICE headquarters does not have a process or controls in place 

to ensure that field offices are appropriately considering cost in order to 

promote efficient field office management. ERO field offices are 

responsible for deciding where to house detainees within their areas of 

responsibility and are to consider a variety of factors, including cost, when 

making detainee placement decisions, according to ICE officials. ICE 

ERO officials stated that other factors that may be more important than 

cost in making placement decisions include whether (1) the detainee has 

medical needs that can be best served by a particular facility, (2) the 

Assessing the 

extent to which ICE’s manual work-arounds could provide ICE with more 

complete data on facility costs and the extent to which additional controls 

may be needed could better position ICE to have more reliable data for 

tracking and managing costs across facilities and facility types. Moreover, 

as ICE is in the process of planning for upgrading its financial 

management system, assessing the extent to which the appropriate 

internal controls are in place for tracking and managing detention facility 

costs and developing any additional controls deemed necessary could 

help provide ICE with more complete data to help ensure that ICE is 

accurately tracking costs and has the data needed to appropriately and 

effectively manage detention costs.

 34GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

35GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 19 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

detainee has an attorney or family located near a particular facility, and 

(3) there are transportation requirements to bring the detainee to the 

facility.

ERO officials stated that field offices are to place detainees in facilities 

that have guaranteed minimum populations when possible, as ICE pays 

for these beds regardless of whether or not they are used.36

In 2009, the DHS Office of the Inspector General reported that ICE had 

not fully implemented its National Detention Management Plan, resulting 

in mixed progress in moving toward a more cost-effective strategy for 

acquiring detention bed space.

In addition, 

facilities that have guaranteed minimums tend to have tiered pricing—

meaning the contractor charges a lower per diem for each detainee 

housed above an agreed-upon guaranteed minimum number of detainees 

and below the facility’s full capacity—than at other facilities that do not 

have guaranteed minimums.

37

However, our analysis of ICE data showed that in some cases ICE did not 

fill all guaranteed minimum bed spaces, effectively paying for beds that 

the agency did not use. Specifically, our analysis of the ADP and ICE’s 

contractual guaranteed minimums at selected dedicated facilities for fiscal 

years 2011 through 2013 showed instances where ICE paid for beds it 

did not use. For example, our analysis showed that the ADP at a CDF

had fewer detainees than the guaranteed minimum for each fiscal year, 

2011 through 2013, which is the equivalent of about $3.6 million in bed 

space that ICE did not use, based on the per diem rates for this period. 

According to ICE officials, the guaranteed minimum had been negotiated 

Since then, according to ICE officials, 

the agency has taken steps to ensure that cost is taken into account, as 

appropriate, in deciding where to house detainees. For example, ICE 

ERO headquarters develops daily capacity reports that show the 

percentage of capacity filled at SPCs, CDFs, DIGSAs, and large IGSAs. 

According to ICE ERO headquarters officials, if they notice that a 

particular area of responsibility has open space in facilities with 

guaranteed minimums, they can call the field office director to find out 

why the guaranteed minimum is not being met.

 36Guaranteed minimums generally apply to ICE’s dedicated facilities. 

37DHS Office of the Inspector General, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detention 

Bedspace Management, OIG-09-52 (Washington D.C.: April 2009).
Page 20 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

with the facility by USMS, which previously used the facility, and ICE 

renegotiated a lower guaranteed minimum in fiscal year 2012. However, 

we noted that the ADP in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 remained below the 

revised guaranteed minimum number of beds.38

We also found instances through fiscal year 2014—as of July 2014—in 

which ICE placed the guaranteed minimum of detainees in facilities, but 

did not take advantage of the tiered pricing structure, which would have 

provided less costly bed rates for detainees placed above the guaranteed 

minimum. For example, at one CDF, ICE met the guaranteed minimum 

each year from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 and also housed 

additional detainees at the facility, for whom ICE was charged a lower 

bed rate because the facility has a tiered pricing structure. However, the 

number of detainees housed over the guaranteed minimum also 

decreased each year over that time period. Therefore, because ICE did 

not maximize the number of detainees over and above the guaranteed 

minimum, the average cost per detainee at the facility increased from 

$133 per day in 2012 to $135 per day in 2013.

ERO officials also said 

that during that timeframe ICE moved detainees from the CDF to a new 

facility that ERO opened nearby that was intended to better meet ICE’s 

civil detention goals.

39 In addition to our 

analysis, ICE’s bed space procurement study—published in April 2014—

found that at certain SPCs, ICE underutilized facilities with guaranteed 

minimums. Therefore ICE could conserve resources by better filling the 

capacity above the guaranteed minimum, as it costs ICE less per 

detainee to house detainees in these facilities.40

ICE officials discussed efforts to better ensure cost-effective placement 

decisions across field offices. For example, ICE officials stated that they 

plan to provide guidance to field offices regarding how to use cost as a 

factor in detainee placements, among other considerations. As part of the 

 38In fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the guaranteed minimum was 285 beds per day; the ADP 

in those years was 253 and 271, respectively.

39As described above, these costs may not include the full costs of detention at that 

facility. ICE ERO Operations Support Division did not have complete data for fiscal year 

2011.

40U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

Detention Bed Space Procurement Analysis; Report on ICE Detention Sourcing, April 

2014.
Page 21 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

guidance, ERO officials said they will be working with ICE OBPP to 

develop and share cost reports and facility utilization reports with field 

office management. While ICE’s plan to develop and issue this guidance 

is a positive step, as of August 2014, ICE did not have plans to monitor 

the extent to which field offices consider and implement cost as a factor in 

making detainee placement decisions over time, according to ICE 

officials. In particular, ICE’s daily capacity reports are intended to provide 

information to ICE personnel regarding bed space availability on a daily 

basis. However, ICE ERO does not currently use these reports or other 

data to monitor and ensure field offices are appropriately considering cost 

in making detainee placement decisions over time. The ICE strategic plan 

for fiscal years 2010-2014 notes that to expend government resources 

wisely, ICE will work to increase efficiency in every step of the removal 

process—from apprehension through removal. Furthermore, Standards 

for Internal Control in the Federal Government notes that managers need 

to compare actual performance with planned or expected results 

throughout the organization and analyze significant differences, and 

should monitor the quality of performance over time.41

Preventing improper payments to detention facility operators. ICE 

has taken steps to strengthen internal controls over the process used to 

pay contractors for detention services; however, ICE ERO remained 

designated as at high risk for making improper payments in fiscal year 

2013 by DHS. ICE uses manual internal controls over the process to 

review invoices and pay contractors for detention services. Contractors at 

all ICE detention facilities are to receive payment for providing detention 

services by submitting invoices to ICE for review and payment. 

Contractors are to submit summary invoices to the Burlington finance 

center and all required invoice support documentation to the contracting 

officer representative (COR) at the ICE ERO field office overseeing the 

facility. Burlington finance center personnel are to provide an initial review 

of the summary invoice to ensure that the necessary contract information 

is correctly recorded and if it is, are to notify the COR that the invoice is 

available for approval. The COR is then required to review the invoice to 

Developing an 

oversight mechanism to ensure that field offices comply with guidance to 

place detainees, whenever possible, in facilities with guaranteed 

minimums and tiered pricing could provide ICE with better assurance that 

it is cost-effectively managing detainee placement.

 41GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 22 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

verify that it accurately reflects work completed in accordance with 

requirements in the contract. The COR is also to ensure that all required 

supporting documentation is received prior to approving an invoice.

The Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002, the Improper 

Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) of 2010, and the 

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA) 

of 2012 require agencies to review payments made by their components 

in order to identify those susceptible to significant improper payments and 

to carry out cost-effective programs for identifying and recovering 

overpayments made to contractors.42 Improper payments are calculated 

as the percentage of the total dollar value of payments made in each year 

that were improper.43

 42Pub. L. No. 107-300, 116 Stat. 2350; Pub. L. No. 111-204, 124 Stat. 2224; Pub. L. No. 

112-248, 126 Stat. 2390. The term “improper payment” means any payment that should 

not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount under statutory, contractual, 

administrative, or other legally applicable requirements and includes any payment to an 

ineligible recipient, any payment for an ineligible service, any duplicate payment, 

payments for services not received, and any payment that does not account for credit for 

applicable discounts. Pub. L. No. 107-300, § 2(d)(2), 116 Stat. at 2351, redesignated as § 

2(g)(2) by Pub. L. No. 112-248, § 3(a)(1), 126 Stat. at 2390. OMB Circular A-123 

Appendix C, Part 1, Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of 

Improper Payments also requires a payment to be considered an improper payment when 

an agency’s review is unable to discern whether a payment was proper as a result of 

insufficient or lack of documentation.

For fiscal year 2013, a significant improper payment 

was defined as exceeding $10 million of all program or activity payments 

43The DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer Risk Management and Assurance reviews 

and approves ICE proposed testing plans and procedures, statistically selects 

representative ICE sample points to be tested, and validates ICE testing results through 

an independent quality assurance process. In addition, Risk Management and Assurance 

calculates the ICE improper payment rate using the DHS-mandated statistical 

methodology that stratifies payments by dollar value. Once the ICE improper payment rate 

has been identified, the DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer Risk Management and 

Assurance extrapolates the total estimated improper payment amount.
Page 23 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

and 1.5 percent of program payments, or exceeding $100 million alone.

44

IPERIA of 2012 applied these thresholds to fiscal year 2014 and each 

fiscal year thereafter.45

DHS’s annual review of component improper payments has highlighted 

that ICE ERO had unacceptable levels of improper payments.46

ICE has taken several steps to address the primary reasons for improper 

payments. ICE’s analysis of the findings revealed that most of ERO’s 

improper payments were caused by either unresolved discrepancies 

between the invoice and contract documents or that ERO personnel 

responsible for invoice approval did not ensure sufficient documentation 

had been provided by contractors to support the payment of invoices. To 

reduce the improper payment rate, ICE ERO issued requirements aimed 

at standardizing the invoice submission and review process across 

facilities, and strengthening the process, among other actions. These 

requirements include a requirement that facilities provide an itemized list 

ICE ERO 

reduced improper payment amounts by nearly half from fiscal year 2011 

to 2012, but remains designated as at high-risk for making improper 

payments. DHS reported that in fiscal year 2012 testing of fiscal year 

2011 payments, ICE ERO made an estimated $133 million in improper 

payments (approximately 8 percent of all payments), and fiscal year 2013 

testing of fiscal year 2012 payments showed that ICE made an estimated 

$73 million in improper payments (approximately 4 percent of all 

payments).

 44IPIA of 2002 required the head of each agency to identify all programs and activities that 

may be susceptible to significant improper payments, and for an improper payment 

exceeding $10 million, provide an estimate and a report to Congress. Pub. L. No. 107-

300, 116 Stat. at 2350. For purposes of fiscal year 2013, IPERA of 2010 amended IPIA to 

define a significant improper payment as exceeding $10 million of all program or activity 

payments and 1.5 percent of program payments, or exceeding $100 million alone. See 

Pub. L. No. 111-204, § 2(a), 112 Stat. at 2224; OMB Circular A-123 Appendix C, Part I. 

IPERIA of 2012 did not change the fiscal year 2013 thresholds, but it did, among other 

things, direct OMB on an annual basis to identify high-priority federal programs for greater 

levels of oversight and review in which the highest dollar value or highest rate of improper 

payments occur or for which there is a higher risk of improper payments. See Pub. L. No. 

112-248, § 3(a), 126 Stat. at 2390.

45Pub. L. No. 112-248, § 4, 126 Stat. at 2392.

46This improper payment rate is for all ICE ERO payments, including payments for 

detention facilities services as well as payments for other goods and services, such as 

phone service.
Page 24 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

of charges and list contract line items on invoices, among other things. 

According to ICE officials, as of September 2013, ICE had updated all 

facility contracts with the new requirements, and invoices submitted by 

facilities for services in December 2013 and later should meet the new 

requirements.

However, our review of a sample of 31 of 158 invoices from 15 facilities 

for detention services provided in December 2013 showed that corrective 

actions taken by DHS and ICE had not yet fully addressed issues of the 

completeness and accuracy of invoices and supporting documentation 

submitted by detention contractors. Specifically, our review showed that 

13 invoices from 6 facilities did not include all invoice elements required in 

ICE’s new guidance. Examples of missing elements included unit prices 

for mileage and the contractor’s address. In addition, our analysis showed 

that 20 invoices from 11 facilities did not include all required supporting 

documentation, as specified in ICE’s new invoice submission and review 

guidance. Invoices for transportation charges were the type of invoice that 

was most commonly missing supporting documentation. For example, 

invoices included the dates detainees were transported, but did not 

include elements such as the names of detainees, or the number of 

detainees transported.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government notes that 

control activities should be efficient and effective in accomplishing the 

agency’s control objectives, and should occur at all levels of the agency.47

The standards also note that the responsibility for good internal control 

rests with managers, and that management sets the objectives, puts the 

control mechanisms in place, and monitors and evaluates the controls.48

 47

 

In June 2014, ICE issued a policy manual to provide general instruction 

and guidance to CORs in recording the receipt and acceptance of goods 

and services, including the processing of contractor invoices, and plans to 

further assess the need for additional controls through April 2015. Such 

an assessment of internal controls is necessary as ICE ERO has 

remained at high risk for improper payments despite issuance of past 

guidance. By taking additional steps to help ensure that personnel 

responsible for reviewing and paying invoices follow internal control 

procedures contained in the new guidance to ensure proper payment, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

48GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 25 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

and that their actions are appropriately overseen and reviewed by 

management, ICE ERO could have better assurance that its detention 

management practices are in compliance with relevant laws to safeguard 

federal resources for detention services.

Despite the limitations we identified with ICE’s data on facility costs, we 

determined—by interviewing officials and checking data for errors—that 

data maintained by the ICE ERO Operations Support Division in its 

Contract Financial Monitoring File were sufficiently reliable to provide a 

general indication of approximate cost ranges across and within facility 

types for fiscal year 2013. Our analysis of these data indicated that ICE 

generally spent more per detainee per day at ICE-owned SPCs than at 

other types of detention facilities. Specifically, our analysis indicated that 

while the median expenditure per detainee per day at SPCs was about 

$200, these costs were lower at about $120 for CDFs and about $75 for 

IGSAs and facilities operated under USMS intergovernmental agreement 

(IGA) or contract.49 Our analysis of these data also indicated that the 

range of costs within a facility type was greatest for SPCs than for other 

types of facilities. Specifically, our analysis showed that the range 

between the lowest- and highest-cost SPC facilities was about $195,

while the range was lower for IGSAs and IGAs (about $110), CDFs 

(about $80), and DIGSAs (about $50).50

 49Furthermore, our analysis indicated that while ICE spent at least $150 per day at 4 

SPCs and 1 IGSA, ICE spent less than $150 per detainee per day at all CDFs and 

DIGSAs in fiscal year 2013. Our analysis of expenditures at SPCs includes expenditures 

associated with the primary detention contract as well as expenditures associated with 

ancillary contracts for services like maintenance and food, among others. For the 

purposes of this review, we did not include ICE’s family residential facilities in this 

analysis, as they serve a unique population and thus provide a unique service compared 

with ICE’s other over-72-hour facilities.

50The approximate lowest and highest costs across facility types were as follows: SPCs—

about $105 to about $300, CDFs—about $70 to about $150, DIGSAs—about $65 to about 

$115, and IGSAs/IGAs—about $40 to about $150. For the purposes of our review, IGSAs 

include both facilities with which ICE has agreements with the locality and USMS IGAs at 

which ICE houses detainees using a rider on a USMS agreement. For six IGSAs, ICE 

data do not distinguish costs by individual facilities. For these facilities, we estimated the 

cost per detainee per day based on the average daily population in each of the facilities 

and the total costs for all facilities associated with the IGSAs associated with each of the 

facilities. These IGSAs include only those facilities that were authorized to house 

detainees for the full fiscal year 2013. Ten authorized IGSAs holding less than 1percent of 

ICE’s ADP in fiscal year 2013 either did not house detainees in fiscal year 2013 or housed 

detainees for only part of the year. These facilities are excluded from the analysis. 

ICE Data Indicate 

Generally Higher Costs 

per Detainee per Day at 

ICE-Owned Facilities
Page 26 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

ICE officials cited labor costs—which compose approximately 70 percent 

of all facility costs—as one of the common reasons for the differences in 

the ranges of costs across types of detention facilities. ICE officials stated 

that the agency has limited ability to negotiate labor rates in its detention 

and ground transportation contracts because they are subject to the 

Service Contract Act (SCA) of 1965, which, among other things, specifies 

prevailing wages by geographic area.51

Factors that influence the amount of labor needed also affect overall 

costs at a particular facility, according to ICE officials. For example, a 

facility’s design and physical layout affect the number of staff needed to 

monitor the facility, and therefore affect older facilities, which usually have 

more blind corners and require more staff, according to officials. Other 

cost drivers include characteristics of the detainee population held at the 

facility, such as a large population with specialized medical needs that 

increase staff costs; the distance between the facility and other locations, 

such as immigration courts, which affects transportation costs; and the 

extent to which there are other nearby facilities that can house 

immigration detainees, which can lower costs because of competition, 

according to ICE officials.

ICE officials stated that as a result 

of the SCA’s requirements, facilities that are located in more expensive 

areas tend to have higher labor costs.

ICE has taken steps to more specifically identify the reasons for cost 

differences across facility types, including hiring a contractor to identify 

actions the agency could take to more efficiently manage the 

procurement options for dedicated facilities.52

 51Every contract, with certain exceptions, entered into by the United States or the District 

of Columbia in excess of $2,500, in which the principal purpose is to furnish services 

through the use of service employees, is subject to the McNamara-O’Hara Service 

Contract Act (SCA). See 41 U.S.C. §§ 6701-6707. The SCA requires contractors and 

subcontractors performing services on prime contracts in excess of $2,500 to pay service 

employees no less than the wage rates and fringe benefits found prevailing in the locality, 

or the rates contained in a predecessor contractor’s collective bargaining agreement. The 

Secretary of Labor determines the prevailing wage rate for job classifications in each 

locality, which differs by geographic location. Certain types of federal contracts—such as 

those for construction, the carriage of freight or personnel, and contracts for public utility 

services, among others—are not subject to the SCA. 

ICE officials stated that they 

52U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

Detention Bed Space Procurement Analysis; Report on ICE Detention Sourcing. This 

study was funded by ICE and conducted by Deloitte Consulting LLP. It focused on 

dedicated facilities because the main purpose was to analyze procurement options for the 

SPCs.
Page 27 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

conducted this point-in-time study because understanding costs by facility 

is critical to ensuring that detention facilities are managed within budget 

and in a cost-effective manner. As part of its assessment of procurement 

options, the study identified the following cost drivers for each dedicated 

facility type:

• ICE-owned SPCs. The most prevalent issues the study identified at 

all six SPCs included the use of separate service contracts for guards, 

food, facility maintenance, and other services, which can increase 

overhead costs in contracts, as well as low detainee-to-staff ratios 

compared with ratios at other facility types.53

• Privately owned CDFs. The most prevalent issues the study 

identified for the seven CDFs included high profit margins for 

contracts that do not guarantee a minimum amount of business over a 

longer time period, and facility construction costs that are initially 

factored into the per diem rate, but are not removed upon completion 

of payment for the construction debt.

For example, all six 

SPCs were found to have a lower detainee-to-staff ratio than the 

national average of 3.1 to 1, with one SPC having a detainee-to-staff 

ratio of 1.3 to 1.

54

• Government- and privately owned DIGSAs. The study noted that 

the most prevalent issues for DIGSAs were difficult to determine 

because these facilities were unwilling to fully disclose financial 

documentation.

For example, the study found 

that at older CDFs, the contractor had already paid off most of the 

building costs, but the per diem rate had not decreased despite the 

reduced total cost of operations on the part of the contractor, 

according to ICE officials.

55

 53Other issues at SPCs contributing to higher costs included poor facility design, which 

necessitated higher staffing levels (four facilities), location in areas with higher wages, 

inefficient use of transportation (four facilities), and a need to consolidate detention bed 

capacity among facilities within common operating areas.

However, issues at DIGSAs included high profit 

margins for contracts that do not guarantee a minimum amount of 

54Other issues at CDFs contributing to higher costs were a need to consolidate detention 

bed capacity among facilities within common operating areas and the lack of competition 

that drives up prices.

55The study noted that DIGSA contractors sometimes under staff their facilities, which has 

an effect of increasing profit margins at the expense of detainee risk management.
Page 28 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

business over a longer time period.56

• Government- and privately owned IGSAs. According to officials, the 

study did not specifically examine costs at individual IGSAs, but noted 

that facility costs at IGSAs may increase in the future when 

implementing the 2011 PBNDS—ICE’s most recently implemented 

detention standards. The study did not estimate such costs but 

presumed that according to interviews with ICE officials and 

contractors, implementing the 2011 PBNDS at IGSAs would not be 

cost neutral and would require significant contracting action.

For example, one contractor for 

a DIGSA had a profit margin of 20 percent.

ICE detention standards vary in rigor as defined by the number and 

content of standards in place to protect detainees and focus on 

performance outcomes. Since 2000, ICE has primarily used three sets of 

detention standards—the 2000 NDS, the 2008 PBNDS, and the 2011 

PBNDS.57

 56Another issue at two DIGSAs included a need to consolidate detention bed capacity 

among facilities within common operating areas.

In regard to the number of standards, the 2000 NDS contains 

38 standards related to aspects of detainee care and services and facility 

operation, while the 2008 PBNDS contains 41 standards and the 2011 

PBNDS contains 42 standards. These standards are discussed in further 

detail in appendix II. ICE has added standards over time to address 

issues of heightened concern or to address gaps in procedures. For 

57A fourth set of detention standards—the 2007 Family Residential Standards—pertained

to two facilities in fiscal year 2013. For the purposes of this review, we excluded these 

standards from our analysis given that less than 2 percent of ICE’s detainee population 

was held in facilities governed by the standards in fiscal year 2013.

ICE Applied Different 

Federal Standards 

across Facilities but 

Has Not Documented 

Reasons for the 

Differences

ICE Applies the Most 

Rigorous Detention 

Standards to 15 Percent of 

Facilities Housing Over 

Half of Detainees
Page 29 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

example, ICE added a standard in the 2008 PBNDS to address sexual 

abuse and assault, and a standard in the 2011 PBNDS to address 

medical care for women. According to ICE ODPP officials, the agency 

made enhancements or revisions to 39 of the 42 standards in the 2011 

PBNDS, such as in the areas of medical and mental health care. In 

regard to the content of standards, ICE noted certain additional 

requirements that were applicable to a different extent across facility 

types. For example, under the NDS and 2008 PBNDS, ICE requires ICEowned SPCs and privately owned CDFs to conform to these additional 

requirements, while ICE states that government- or privately owned 

DIGSAs and IGSAs may adopt, adapt, or develop alternatives to the 

procedures provided they meet or exceed the intent represented by the 

additional requirements. Appendix III provides more detailed information 

on the additional requirements that SPCs and CDFs are required to 

follow. ICE officials said that under the 2011 PBNDS, some of these more 

substantive requirements became applicable to all facilities and ICE also 

introduced a new concept of optimal provisions that agency officials 

characterize as more stringent than the mandatory provisions, and 

therefore contractors may choose to adopt the optimal provisions 

voluntarily. While these optimal provisions are voluntary, ICE states that 

facility implementation of these provisions would further effective facility 

operation at the level intended by ICE under the revised standards. 

Appendix IV provides additional information on optimal provisions and an 

example. Finally, in regard to the focus of the standards, ICE officials 

explained that the 2008 PBNDS and 2011 PBNDS shifted language from 

expressing what is to be done under the required policies and procedures 

to focus on the results or outcomes the required procedures are expected 

to accomplish; they also provide a higher level of procedural detail than 

the 2000 NDS. ICE officials stated that the expected outcomes each 

standard is intended to produce are stated, rather than assumed, and the 

prescribed expected practices represent what is to be done to accomplish 

those expected outcomes. For example, while both the NDS and PBNDS 

include policies and procedures related to medical care, the 2000 NDS 

states that facilities “must have a procedure in place” to ensure that 

medical staff are alerted to health care requests in a timely manner, while 

the 2008 PBNDS states that health care needs “will be met in a timely 

and efficient manner,” and that each facility shall have a procedure to 

ensure that sick call requests are “received and triaged by appropriate 

medical personnel within 48 hours.”

According to ICE officials, ICE is to specify in each facility’s contract or 

agreement the standards to which the facility is to be held. Our analysis of 

ICE documents, however, showed that in fiscal year 2013, ERO held 3 
Page 30 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

(2.5 percent) of the 118 facilities that had the 2000 NDS or nonfederal 

standards cited in the contract or agreement to the more rigorous 2008 

PBNDS during the inspection process.58

ICE officials reported that as of January 2014, 20 of the 22 facilities that 

exclusively house ICE detainees—SPCs, CDFs, and DIGSAs—as well as 

5 IGSAs, were held to the most recent and rigorous 2011 PBNDS. In 

fiscal year 2013, ICE housed approximately 54 percent of its ADP in 

these 25 facilities. Fourteen of the remaining 141 IGSA facilities—or 

approximately 16 percent of ADP—are held to the 2008 PBNDS, while 

the remaining 125 IGSA facilities—or 28 percent of ADP—that house ICE 

detainees along with other populations are held to 2000 NDS (see fig.3).

For facilities operating under a 

contract that cites the NDS, ERO officials stated that field officials 

responsible for overseeing the facilities, or the administrators operating 

the facilities, may decide to inspect them to the 2008 PBNDS if the 

officials judge that the facilities are able to meet the more rigorous 

requirements, and the facilities agree to this practice, or if the facilities 

themselves ask to be held to more rigorous standards. An ICE official 

responsible for detention policy explained that ERO inspecting a facility to 

more rigorous standards than those cited in the facility’s contract or 

agreement can be beneficial to ICE and detainees because it permits the 

agency to hold facilities accountable for more rigorous requirements. 

According to this official, it can be more efficient and cost-effective for ICE 

to ensure that facilities adhere to more rigorous standards through the 

inspection process rather than modifying the facilities’ contracts or 

agreements to include the more rigorous standards because, for 

example, facility contractors may request to open negotiations for the 

entire contract, which could be a time-consuming process, as well as 

request additional funding from ICE for the change in contract terms. For 

example, inspecting a facility to the 2008 PBNDS when the facility 

contract cites the 2000 NDS standards allows ERO to hold the facility 

accountable to standards for sexual abuse and assault prevention and 

intervention that would not be required of the facility if it was inspected 

under the 2000 NDS, which do not include those provisions.

59

 58With respect to the nonfederal standards, ICE officials explained that facility contracts 

and agreements that were signed before the 2000 NDS were implemented usually specify 

that contractors are to be held to state, local, or “other” standards. ICE officials said that in 

such cases, the facilities are generally inspected to the 2000 NDS. 

59These numbers and percentages exclude two family residential facilities that were held 

to the 2007 Family Residential Standards in fiscal year 2013. 
Page 31 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Furthermore, ODPP officials stated that a number of facilities, regardless 

of whether they have been updated to the 2011 PBNDS, have voluntarily 

adopted the Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention 

standard of the 2011 PBNDS, which requires, among other things, that 

written sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention policies and 

procedures include components beyond those of the 2008 PBNDS, such 

as a statement of a zero tolerance policy for all forms of sexual abuse or 

assault.60

Figure 3: Detention Standards and Average Daily Population (ADP) by Facility Type, Fiscal Year 2013

Note: Two facilities—one nondedicated IGSA and one dedicated IGSA—not included in this figure 

were held to the 2007 Family Residential Standards in fiscal year 2013 and housed less than 2 

percent of the ADP.

 60The sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention provisions for the 2011 

PBNDS address the same topical areas as the 2008 PBNDS and are similarly intended to 

apply to adult facilities. However, the 2011 PBNDS include additional requirements, such 

as broader requirements within the topical areas, such as that intergovernmental service 

agreement facilities designate a sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention 

coordinator rather than only ICE-owned SPCs and privately owned CDFs. See GAO, 

Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Could Strengthen DHS Efforts to Address 

Sexual Abuse, GAO-14-38 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 20, 2013), for more information on 

how sexual abuse and assault provisions are addressed in detention facility standards.
Page 32 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

As of April 2014, ICE officials said that they were in the process of 

requesting that additional facilities authorized to hold detainees for 72 

hours or longer implement the most recent 2011 PBNDS, and 

documenting that change in facility contracts. Specifically, ICE officials 

stated that they planned to request that all such facilities with an ADP of 

150 detainees or greater adopt the 2011 PBNDS by the end of fiscal year 

2014.61 If implemented, this would increase the number of facilities held to 

the 2011 PBNDS from 25 to 61 facilities, or from 54 percent to 89 percent 

of the ADP. According to ICE officials, implementing the 2011 PBNDS 

has taken longer than anticipated. In April 2012, ICE disseminated an 

implementation plan to dedicated facilities requesting that they adopt the 

2011 PBNDS over a staggered 6-month period.62 According to ODPP 

officials, ICE reached out to dedicated facilities first because they house 

the greatest population of detainees and because any increased costs 

would be spread across the entire population of the facility.63 ODPP 

officials said that ICE did not meet the plan’s original milestones because 

most facility contractors submitted extensive questions about the new 

standards and then requested that ICE modify their contract or agreement 

to include higher per diem rates to cover estimated costs of complying 

with the higher standards. ICE’s attempts to minimize the potential 

increased costs associated with adopting the newer standards required 

lengthy negotiations with facilities to arrive at cost-neutral contracts.64

 61All 6 SPCs, 7 CDFs, and 9 DIGSAs had an average ADP of 150 or greater in fiscal year 

2013; 39 nondedicated IGSAs and IGAs had an average ADP of 150 or greater in fiscal 

year 2013. According to ICE ODPP officials, the type and size of facilities that ICE may 

ask to adopt the 2011 PBNDS are subject to change.

In 

the case of nondedicated facilities that house fewer ICE detainees, ICE 

officials said it may not be cost-effective for the agency to negotiate with 

the facility contractors to increase standards for relatively few detainees 

who are held in detention or are held for short periods of time. For 

example, in fiscal year 2013, 46 facilities housed fewer than 10 detainees 

during the year, and the time these detainees spent in detention averaged 

less than 14 days. In addition, some facilities may be limited in their ability 

62Facilities were given 3 months from the respective contract modification deadline to 

come into full compliance with the 2011 PBNDS.

63ODPP officials said that during this time, they also pursued 2011 PBNDS 

implementation opportunities at nondedicated facilities, with an initial focus on facilities 

housing larger numbers of detainees.

64We previously reported that not all ICE facilities are bound to the most recent detention 

standards because of resource considerations. See GAO-14-38. 
Page 33 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

to comply with higher standards because of reasons such as space 

limitations. For example, the 2011 PBNDS require that detainees in 

administrative segregation receive at least 1 hour of daily exercise 

opportunities outside of the living area, but according to ICE officials,

some facilities that house ICE detainees may not have space to expand 

the opportunities for outdoor recreation.65

ICE has not documented the reasons for using different standards across 

facilities or why the 125 facilities under 2000 NDS as of January 2014 had 

not been transitioned to the 2011 PBNDS. ICE officials said that reasons 

different standards were used across facilities include cost issues as well 

as facilities’ ability to comply with recent standards.66

ICE officials said that in certain instances, detention facilities can have 

standards waived after a review and approval by ICE. Specifically, the 

agency may choose to waive certain detention requirements for a facility 

if the contractor can comply with all but a specific detention standard, 

such as the 2011 PBNDS standard for outdoor recreation, which 

describes detainees’ access to exercise and recreation activities within 

These officials also 

stated that agency implementation plans for progressively adopting the 

2008 and 2011 PBNDS across certain facilities served to document the 

agency’s rationale for using different standards across facilities. However, 

while these plans documented which facilities were to receive requests to 

adopt the newer standards, they do not document the reasons why these 

facilities were chosen or why remaining facilities cannot be transitioned to 

the most recent standards. For example, the implementation plan for the 

2011 PBNDS did not explain why some smaller—in terms of facility type 

and ADP—facilities that were not listed in the plan were transferred to the 

2011 PBNDS, while other, similar facilities not included in the plan were 

not transferred to the newer standards.

 65The 2011PBNDS define administrative segregation as a nonpunitive form of separation 

from the general detention population used for administrative reasons. Administrative 

segregation may be available, among other reasons, for detainees awaiting investigations 

or hearings for violations of facility rules; detainees scheduled for release within 24 hours; 

and, under more limited circumstances, detainees who require protective custody or 

separation from the general population for medical reasons.

66An ICE-contracted study on detention bed space acquisition management reported that 

implementing 2011 PBNDS at IGSAs would not be cost-neutral and would require

significant contracting action, reporting in April 2014 that only 29 of 191 facilities had met 

the newest standards.

ICE Did Not Have 

Documentation for 

Reasons Why Standards

Vary across Facilities
Page 34 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

the appropriate security restraints. These officials said that waivers are 

granted infrequently and usually only after ICE has (1) reviewed the 

facility contractor’s request, (2) worked with the facility contractor to 

identify a work-around solution that would allow the facility to comply with 

the standard, and (3) confirmed that the facility has a “better than 

acceptable” process in place that meets the intent of the standard even if 

it does not meet the strict letter of the standard. According to ICE ERO, 

as of August 2014, waivers were in effect for 41 standard components—

the line items that compose the standards—across 35 facilities; these 

waivers were approved from fiscal year 2012 through August 2014.67 Our 

analysis of these waivers showed that 22 (54 percent) of the waivers are 

related to a component of the environmental health and safety standard, 

which requires facilities to, among other things, maintain a dedicated 

barbering space and test power generators every 2 weeks. For example, 

one facility lacks a separate barbering facility and has collocated

barbering services in a multipurpose room that is also used for dental 

appointments. Another 6 (15 percent) of the 41 waivers relate to a 

component of the key and lock standard, which requires facilities to 

ensure that an on-site security officer completes locksmith training. In 

these instances, facilities have agreed to use a contractor to install and 

repair locks because they say training a security officer to perform that 

function would be too expensive. The remaining 13 waivers address a 

variety of other standards.68

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government specifies that all 

transactions and other significant events should be clearly documented 

and the documentation should be readily available for review. According 

to ICE officials, implementation of the 2011 PBNDS at facilities with an 

ADP of fewer than 150 is to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. 

However, ICE ERO was not able to provide documentation of the reasons 

it decided to implement the 2008 or 2011 PBNDS at some of these 

According to ERO officials, copies of 

approved waivers are provided to the facility contractor and to the ICE 

ERO field office that oversees the facility; copies are also to be provided 

to ODO officials upon request.

 67Of these 41 waivers, 22 were approved in fiscal year 2012, 12 in fiscal year 2013, and 7 

in fiscal year 2014. 

68These waivers addressed, among other things, components in the following standards: 

Personal Hygiene, Hold Rooms in Detention Facilities, Facility Security and Control, and 

Special Management Unit Security Measures.
Page 35 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

facilities while keeping other facilities at the older, less rigorous 2000 NDS 

or 2008 PBNDS. A senior ICE official stated that ICE relies on institutional 

knowledge within the agency to track reasons for assigning certain 

standards to individual facilities. For example, our analysis identified 1 

facility that reverted to 2008 PBNDS after attempting to adopt the higher 

2011 PBNDS; ICE officials stated that the rationale for this decision had 

not been documented.69 Documenting reasons why facilities cannot be 

transitioned to the most recent standards could help strengthen ICE’s 

ability to oversee facilities’ compliance with detention standards and could 

provide an institutional record of decisions ICE has made about why 

facilities are held or not held to certain standards.

ICE uses four mechanisms for assessing facilities’ compliance with 

detention standards: (1) annual or biennial inspections conducted by an 

ERO contractor, (2) annual self-inspections conducted by facility staff

under ERO’s Operational Review Self-Assessment (ORSA) process, (3) 

periodic compliance inspections of selected facilities by ODO personnel, 

and (4) on-site monitoring provided by an ERO detention service 

manager (DSM).70

 69ICE later identified an official who explained that the contractor had asked that the 

facility be inspected to the 2011 PBNDS, and when it did not pass the inspection, ICE 

moved the facility back to the 2008 PBNDS. 

ICE officials responsible for detention oversight stated 

70ERO allows self-inspections at certain facilities that maintain an ADP of less than 10 

detainees. 

ICE Uses More 

Oversight 

Mechanisms at 

Facilities with

Greater Detainee 

Populations, with 

Some Inconsistencies 

in Results across Key 

Mechanisms

Amount of ICE Oversight 

Is Driven by Detainee 

Population and Resources
Page 36 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

that these different oversight mechanisms complement one another and 

serve different purposes. ERO inspections are to assess compliance with 

all applicable detention standards at each facility. Likewise, selfinspections, which apply to more than half of the smallest IGSAs and 

IGAs—generally those with an ADP of fewer than 10 detainees—cover 

key components of the detention standards. ODO is to conduct in-depth 

compliance inspections that focus on certain standards and facilities 

selected through a risk-based approach.71

Our analysis of ICE oversight programs conducted in fiscal year 2013 

showed that ICE applied varying types of oversight mechanisms at its 

detention facilities, with facilities having larger and dedicated detainee 

populations generally having more types of oversight mechanisms than 

facilities with small detainee populations. Specifically, in fiscal year 2013, 

ICE generally employed more types of oversight mechanisms at ICEowned SPCs and IGSAs with dedicated and large detainee populations 

than at privately owned CDFs or at IGSAs and IGAs with small ICE 

detainee populations, as shown in figure 4.

DSMs are to monitor facility 

adherence to ICE’s detention standards on a day-to-day basis and 

provide facilities with technical guidance, including guidance advising how 

to implement corrective action plans, as needed.

72 For example, all of the six 

SPCs were subject to continuous on-site monitoring, five received 

comprehensive ERO inspections, and three received an in-depth ODO 

compliance inspection during the year.73 Of the seven privately owned 

CDFs, all seven received ERO inspections, six were subject to on-site 

 71ODO officials stated that ODO selects the facilities it inspects using a risk-based model 

that uses deficiencies identified in ERO’s annual inspections, number and type of 

allegations, deficiencies identified in prior ODO inspections, average daily detention 

population, and the date of the last ODO inspection at a facility. 

72Five medium IGSA and USMS IGA facilities (1 percent)—ranging in average daily 

population from 69 to 137—had on-site monitors during fiscal year 2013 and are excluded 

from this analysis.

73The SPC that did not receive an ERO inspection in fiscal year 2013 was transitioning 

from the 2008 to the 2011 PBNDS and requested additional time to prepare for an 

inspection under the 2011 PBNDS.
Page 37 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

monitoring,74 and none received an ODO compliance inspection.75 ICE 

typically applied fewer types of oversight mechanisms at facilities with 

small detainee populations—generally less than 10 ADP—where more 

than half received oversight in the form of a self-inspection and about a 

third were inspected by ERO. These small facilities were not subject to 

ODO compliance inspections and did not have DSMs. Eighteen facilities 

that housed about 1 percent of total ADP in fiscal year 2013 were not 

subject to any of the four types of oversight mechanisms. ICE officials 

attributed this to various reasons, such as ICE not holding detainees in 

the facility during the year, ICE deciding to no longer use the facility, and 

the fact that some facilities met the criteria for biennial review and 

therefore they were not inspected in fiscal year 2013 (their next 

scheduled inspection was in fiscal year 2014).76

 74ICE ERO reported in August 2014 that a DSM had been hired for the seventh CDF.

75ODO officials stated that ODO conducts compliance inspections of CDFs; however, the 

frequency with which CDFs are inspected is dependent on the outcome of ODO’s riskbased methodology and the date of a CDF’s last inspection. The result is that all CDFs are 

inspected over a 2- to 3-year cycle.

76Of the 18 facilities that did not receive any of the four types of ICE oversight 

mechanisms during fiscal year 2013, 8 were IGSAs with ADPs ranging from about 17 to 

about 77 detainees, and 10 were USMS IGAs with ADPs ranging from 0 to 28 detainees.
Page 38 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Figure 4: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Oversight Mechanisms 

Used at Detention Facilities in Fiscal Year 2013, by Facility Type

Note: According to ICE officials, during fiscal year 2013, a DSM position at one CDF was vacant for 

part of the fiscal year. These officials reported that as of August 2014, the vacant position had been 

filled and all CDFs had a DSM.

ICE ERO officials stated that the agency determines which ERO oversight 

mechanisms are to be used at facilities primarily based on the size of the 

facility—total detainee population—and available resources, among other 

factors. For example, facilities that have an ADP of between 10 and 50 

are inspected by a contractor on an annual basis, or a biennial basis if 

their past two inspections were satisfactory.77

 77ERO selected 34 facilities for biennial inspection in fiscal year 2013.

Because of time and 
Page 39 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

resource concerns, facilities that have an ADP of fewer than 10 may not 

be inspected by ERO, but are required to perform self-inspections on an 

annual basis and report the results of the inspections to ERO. According 

to ERO officials, DSMs are to monitor facility conditions on a day-to-day 

basis.78

Our analysis of the number of detainees confined in facilities where ICE 

used varying oversight mechanisms showed that in fiscal year 2013, 

nearly all ICE detainees were housed in facilities that were subject to at 

least one form of oversight. Further, in fiscal year 2013, the majority of 

detainees—94 percent of ICE’s average daily population—were in 

facilities that received an annual ERO inspection—and continuous on-site 

monitoring by a DSM—78 percent of ICE’s average daily population—as 

shown in figure 5. About 40 percent of ICE’s average daily population of 

detainees were held in facilities that received an in-depth ODO 

compliance inspection in fiscal year 2013. A small minority of detainees—

about 1 percent of ICE’s average daily population—was housed in 

facilities that conducted a self-inspection. Additionally, less than 1 percent 

of the average daily population was not subject to any of these oversight 

mechanisms during fiscal year 2013.

However, ERO officials also stated that ERO generally reserves 

on-site monitoring for facilities with large populations of 100 or more 

detainees and that resource constraints currently limit further expansion 

of the program. According to ODO officials, resource constraints also limit 

the number of facilities ODO can inspect on an annual basis. 

 78The inspection contractor previously provided on-site monitoring at detention facilities; 

however, resource considerations led ICE to take back this role in the form of the DSM 

program. As of April 2014, ICE had 40 DSMs covering 52 facilities. ICE officials said they 

hope to expand the DSM program and bring on an additional 18 DSMs to eventually cover 

about 90 percent of the detained population. However, expansion plans are on hold 

because of budget constraints.
Page 40 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Figure 5: Percentage of Fiscal Year 2013 Average Daily Population in Detention 

Facilities Covered by Type of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

Oversight Mechanism 

ERO and ODO conducted inspections at many of the same facilities, but 

collectively their inspections showed different results in fiscal year 2013. 

Specifically, our analysis of ICE inspection results showed that ERO and 

ODO included 35 of the same facilities in their inspections conducted 

during fiscal year 2013, and in 29 of these inspections, ODO found more 

ICE Has Not Assessed 

Reasons for 

Inconsistencies in Facility 

Inspection Results
Page 41 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

deficiencies than ERO across facility types (see table 3).79 Collectively, 

for those 35 facilities, ODO identified 448 deficiencies and ERO identified 

343 deficiencies. For these facilities inspected under the 2000 NDS and 

the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS, these deficiencies represented failure to 

comply with one or more components that constitute a detention 

standard, but not failure to comply with the overall standard.80

Table 3: Number of Deficiencies Identified by Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of Detention Oversight 

(ODO) Inspections in Fiscal Year 2013, by Facility Type

Number of facilities

inspected by both

ERO and ODO in

fiscal year 2013

Number of deficiencies identified by ERO

and ODO

Facility type ERO ODO

Service processing center 3 8 17

Contract detention facility 0 N/A N/A

Dedicated intergovernmental service agreement 4 13 19

Intergovernmental service agreement and intergovernmental agreement28 322 412

Total 35 343 448

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data. | GAO-15-153

For the 35 facilities at which both ICE ERO and ODO conducted an 

inspection in fiscal year 2013, in some cases ERO and ODO found 

different facility deficiencies within the same standards. This included 

 79ODO did not inspect CDFs in fiscal year 2013. In 4 of the 35 instances in which a facility 

was inspected by both ERO and ODO, ERO identified a greater number of deficiencies 

than ODO, and in 2 instances the inspection results were identical (either an equal 

number of deficiencies or no deficiencies). In each of these 35 instances, ERO and ODO 

assessed facilities against the same set of standards (the 2000 NDS, 2008 PBNDS, or 

2011 PBNDS, as applicable). 

80ICE ERO has designated certain component standards in the checklist it uses to inspect 

facilities against the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS as “priority components.” The 2008 and 2011 

PBNDS inspection checklists identify 100 and 111 priority components, respectively. 

According to ICE ERO officials, priority components represent areas—usually health, 

security, and safety issues—that are of critical importance. Failure of any 5 priority 

components, or 3 priority components within the same standard, results in a failed 

inspection. ERO officials said the contractor who performs annual and biennial inspections 

is to immediately notify ERO if a deficiency in a priority component is identified. According 

to ERO officials, ICE began using priority components in its inspections in March 2013. 
Page 42 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

three standards that ICE has determined are some of the highest-priority 

standards, because they have a high potential for adverse effects: 

Medical Care, Special Management Units, and Use of Force.81

• Medical Care. ICE ERO and ODO inspection reports differed in the 

extent to which they found deficiencies in medical care for the same 

facilities, including facility inspection reports in which only ERO found 

deficiencies, facility reports in which only ODO found deficiencies, and 

reports in which both ERO and ODO found deficiencies but the 

specific deficiencies differed. For example, at one IGSA, ODO found 

that the facility was not properly safeguarding detainee medical 

information, as all facility staff had access to each detainee’s medical 

intake form. At this same facility, ICE ERO did not find any 

deficiencies related to medical care.

For 

example:

• Special Management Units. ERO and ODO inspection reports 

differed in the extent to which they identified deficiencies pertaining to 

special management unit standards. For example, at one facility, ERO 

found the facility deficient in most elements of the special 

management unit standard, as the facility did not have a special 

management unit. ODO noted that the facility did not operate a 

special management unit and therefore did not report the absence as 

a deficiency. At another facility, ODO reported that the facility’s 

policies and procedures did not require the facility administrator to 

consult with ERO’s Detention Management Division prior to approving 

the placement of an individual in a special management unit cell, 

which would provide ERO an opportunity to consult with DHS or ICE 

legal counsel as required by the standard. At that same facility, an 

ERO inspection found that the facility met all components of the 

special management unit standard.

• Use of Force. ODO and ERO inspections both found deficiencies 

related to the use of force standard. For example, at one facility, ODO 

found two deficiencies in the standard: (1) the facility had no 

procedures established for after-action reviews of use of force 

incidents, and (2) facility policy did not require calculated use of force 

incidents to be video-recorded, as required by the standards. At this 

 81Special management units are areas of facilities designed to segregate detainees from 

the general population for administrative or disciplinary reasons.
Page 43 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

same facility, ERO found one use of force deficiency—staff were not 

trained in use of force team techniques, as required.

ICE officials told us they have not assessed the extent to which ODO

compliance inspection results showed a greater number of deficiencies at 

facilities in fiscal year 2013, or the extent to which ERO contract 

inspections have the capacity to fully capture deficiencies in facilities’

compliance with relevant detention standards. However, ICE officials 

cited several reasons as to why ERO and ODO inspection results may 

differ across facilities:82

• Timing of inspections. According to ICE officials, between 

inspections, facilities may resolve previously identified deficiencies or

may incur new ones. In fiscal year 2013, ERO and ODO inspections 

at the 35 facilities ranged from less than 1 to 10 months apart. 

• Coverage and depth of inspections. According to an ICE official, 

ODO’s in-depth compliance inspections are more likely to identify a 

greater number of deficiencies. For example, in reviewing the medical 

care standard, ERO inspectors may select 10 files to review to 

determine if a facility is following policies and procedures. ODO may 

check 50 files to assess overall compliance and may look beyond the 

standards and inspection checklist requirements addressed by ERO

to address any quality of care concerns that have been raised.

• Reporting of results. According to ICE officials, differences in ERO 

and ODO reporting styles can make it difficult to assess the extent to 

which inspection results differ. ERO’s contracted inspector uses a 

checklist to identify deficiencies in the components that compose the 

standards, and determine whether the number of deficient 

components rises to the level of a deficiency in standards. ODO does 

not use a checklist and reports its findings in a narrative descriptive 

report and identifies deficiencies in components but does not assess 

whether these deficiencies meet the threshold of a deficient standard. 

For example, if the ICE ERO inspection sheet does not include a 

component directly related to a particular part of the standard, ODO 

may cite a deficiency that ERO may not find or identify.

 82While ERO and ODO inspections both review facilities’ compliance with detention 

standards, ODO can also evaluate issues that are outside the standards, such as issues 

of high priority or interest to ICE management. 
Page 44 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Given the different purposes of ODO and ERO inspections, it is 

reasonable to expect in some cases the respective findings differ, 

according to differences in the depth and scope of the inspections. 

However, without assessing why these differences occur, ICE is not well 

positioned to determine the extent to which the oversight mechanisms are 

functioning as intended. Moreover, Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government calls for operational information to be recorded and 

communicated to management and others within the entity so that the 

entity can determine whether compliance requirements are being met. In 

addition, management is to ensure there is adequate and effective 

communication between internal and external stakeholders to help ensure 

appropriate decisions are made based on reliable and relevant 

information.83

ICE officials stated that ERO and ODO have not discussed differences in 

their inspection findings and have not addressed broader issues of why 

ERO and ODO inspection results differed across almost all inspections 

conducted at the same facilities within fiscal year 2013, or to what extent 

oversight mechanisms are functioning as intended. Assessing the 

underlying reasons why ERO and ODO inspection results may differ, and 

the extent to which these differences may reflect broader issues, could 

help ICE ensure that inspection mechanisms are working as intended and 

the extent to which any changes may be needed to ensure safe, secure, 

and humane confinement. 

As the number of aliens in detention facilities has dramatically increased 

over the past decade, so too have the associated costs of maintaining 

and operating what is now the nation’s largest civil detention system. ICE 

has recently taken steps to assess the primary drivers of facility costs by 

types of facilities while continuing to improve confinement standards and 

maintain a robust oversight program. However, ICE faces challenges in 

the extent to which it can use its financial management system—including 

manual work-arounds—to reliably identify and compare facility costs, a 

fundamental aspect of effectively estimating and controlling the cost of 

operations. Assessing and developing additional internal controls over the 

management of facility cost data could help ensure that the mechanisms 

ICE has in place, or is developing, to identify facility costs are accurate 

 83GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

Conclusions
Page 45 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

and reliable, and provide ICE with more reliable data to effectively 

manage detention costs. Similarly, while we recognize that ICE faces 

competing priorities in determining detainee placement, developing an 

oversight mechanism to ensure that field offices comply with guidance to 

appropriately consider costs in making detainee placement decisions 

could help ensure that the agency is effectively managing the costs of 

housing detainees. Moreover, although ICE has taken steps to reduce the 

improper payment rate for facility contractors, taking additional steps to 

ensure that responsible personnel follow internal control procedures to 

ensure contractor payments are accurate and properly supported could 

provide additional assurance that ICE’s detention management practices 

comply with relevant laws and are effectively protecting federal resources.

As it seeks to more efficiently manage facility costs, ICE is also in the 

process of applying more rigorous detention standards to generally larger 

detention facilities. Documenting the reasons why remaining facilities are 

not held to the new standards could provide the agency with an 

institutional record and enhance the transparency and accountability of 

the agency’s process for managing detention facilities.

Finally, identifying the underlying reasons why inspections conducted by 

ERO and ODO for the same facilities may result in different findings could 

help ICE better ensure that oversight mechanisms are working as 

intended and inspection results are accurately reflecting facilities’

compliance with relevant standards.

To enhance ICE’s ability to analyze and manage detention facility costs, 

ensure transparency and accountability in the management of detention 

facilities, and strengthen the oversight mechanisms that ensure detention 

facilities provide safe, secure, and humane confinement, we recommend 

that the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement take the 

following five actions:

• assess the extent to which ICE has appropriate internal controls for 

tracking and managing detention facility costs and develop additional 

controls as necessary;

• develop an oversight mechanism to ensure that field offices comply 

with guidance to appropriately consider costs in making detainee 

placement decisions;

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 46 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

• take additional steps to help ensure that personnel responsible for 

reviewing and paying facility detention invoices follow internal control 

procedures to ensure proper payments;

• document the reasons facilities cannot be transitioned to the most 

recent standards; and

• review reasons for differences between ERO and ODO inspection 

results and assess the extent to which differences reflect broader 

issues with the inspection mechanisms themselves to help ensure the 

mechanisms are working as intended.

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOJ for their review and 

comment. In an e-mail from DOJ’s Audit Liaison on September 10, 2014, 

DOJ indicated that it did not have any comments on the draft report. DHS 

provided written comments, which are summarized below and reproduced 

in full in appendix V, and technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. DHS concurred with four of the five recommendations in the 

report and described actions underway or planned to address them. DHS 

did not concur with one recommendation in the report.

With regard to the first recommendation, that ICE assess the extent to 

which ICE has appropriate internal controls for tracking and managing 

detention facilities costs and develop additional controls as necessary, 

DHS concurred and stated that the ICE Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer developed enhanced financial coding to identify expenditures by 

individual detention centers and began collecting data in fiscal year 2014. 

DHS stated that ICE will monitor expenditures to determine proper 

allocation, future funding requirements, and if additional internal controls 

are required. DHS provided an estimated completion date of September 

30, 2015. These planned actions, if fully implemented, should address the 

intent of the recommendation.

With regard to the second recommendation, that ICE develop an 

oversight mechanism to ensure that field offices comply with guidance to 

appropriately consider costs in making detainee placement decisions, 

DHS concurred and stated that ICE ERO will develop such an oversight 

mechanism using the Self-Inspection Program. DHS provided an 

estimated completion date of September 30, 2015. To the extent that the 

Self-Inspection Program provides ICE with oversight of field office 

compliance with the guidance, these planned actions, if fully 

implemented, should address the intent of the recommendation. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 47 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

With regard to the third recommendation, that ICE take additional steps to 

help ensure that personnel responsible for reviewing and paying facility 

detention invoices follow internal control procedures to ensure proper 

payments, DHS concurred. DHS stated that ICE had issued a new policy 

applicable to all program offices and will assess if additional internal 

controls are required and implement any needed ones, as appropriate. 

DHS estimated a completion date of April 30, 2015. To the extent that 

ICE assesses the status and need for internal controls necessary to 

ensure personnel compliance with the policies to ensure proper 

payments, these planned actions, if fully implemented, should address 

the intent of the recommendation.

With regard to the fourth recommendation, that ICE document the 

reasons facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards, 

DHS did not concur. DHS stated that ICE believed it had already 

appropriately documented the rationale for the decisions made in the 

course of implementing PBNDS 2011 and that additional documentation 

is not necessary in this regard. DHS stated that it established and 

followed an implementation plan for transitioning facilities to PBNDS 2011 

first focusing on dedicated facilities, to be followed by non-dedicated 

intergovernmental service agreement facilities with an average daily 

population of 150 or greater and that on an ongoing basis, has been 

making efforts to incorporate PBNDS 2011 into facility agreements as 

contracting opportunities arise. DHS stated that the implementation 

process was labor-intensive and time-consuming, and ICE made an 

assessment of which facilities represent priorities for transitioning to 

PBNDS 2011 given the limits on agency personnel and resources, and in 

recognition of the fact that not all 250 facilities could be transitioned at 

once, or quite possibly, compelled to transition at all. DHS stated that our 

findings and recommendation appeared to presume PBNDS 2011 as a 

starting point for all detention facilities, with ICE making decisions on a 

case-by-case basis whether to make an exception and deviate from that 

norm. DHS noted that as ICE does not have the authority to unilaterally 

impose new detention standards upon facilities, it can only request that a 

facility adopt the new standards with the facility retaining the right to 

refuse implementation or to request additional funds as a condition of 

compliance.

We continue to believe that ICE should document the reasons why 

individual facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards. In 

our report, we noted that ICE makes requests to facilities to adopt new 

standards and that facilities’ adoption of new standards may involve 

contract negotiations between ICE and the facilities. For example, in our 

report, we noted that ICE has attempted to minimize the potential 
Page 48 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

increased costs associated with adopting the newer standards and that 

these attempts have required lengthy negotiations with facilities to arrive 

at cost-neutral contracts. Further, as noted in our report, ICE’s 

implementation plan discusses priorities for transitioning facilities to the 

2011 PBNDS. In its comments to our draft report, DHS discussed the 

reasons why some smaller (less than 150 ADP) nondedicated facilities 

have been transitioned to the 2011 PBNDS—these facilities were 

transitioned because their contracts had come up for renegotiation of the 

per diem rate—however, the 2011 PBNDS implementation plan did not 

document these reasons or why remaining facilities cannot be 

transitioned to the most recent standards. For example, the 

implementation plan for the 2011 PBNDS did not explain why some 

smaller facilities that were not listed in the plan were transferred to the 

2011 PBNDS, while other, similar facilities not included in the plan were 

not transferred to the newer standards. Specifically, the plan did not 

discuss why the 125 individual facilities under 2000 NDS as of January 

2014 were not transitioned to 2011 PBNDS. Documenting reasons why 

facilities cannot be transitioned to the most recent standards would help 

strengthen ICE oversight of facility detention standards and provide an 

institutional record of decisions ICE has made about why facilities are 

held or not held to certain standards. It would also provide more 

transparency and accountability to facility contractors and to the public 

regarding ICE management decisions that result in different standards of 

care for detainees across facilities.

With regard to the fifth recommendation, that ICE review reasons for 

differences between ERO and Office of Detention Oversight inspection 

results and assess the extent to which differences reflect broader issues 

with the inspection mechanisms to ensure the mechanisms are working 

as intended, DHS concurred. DHS estimated that ERO and ODO would 

complete such action by March 30, 2015, and stated that it was important 

to note that ODO must maintain independent oversight authority when 

conducting inspections, and that any proposed changes must be 

reviewed by senior ICE leadership prior to implementation, as 

appropriate. This planned action, if effectively implemented, should 

address the intent of the recommendation.
Page 49 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General of 

the United States, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-

8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix VI.

Rebecca Gambler

Director

Homeland Security and Justice
Page 50 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

List of Requesters

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable Suzan DelBene

House of Representatives

The Honorable Adam Smith

House of Representatives

The Honorable Juan Vargas

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

This report addresses the following three objectives:

1. How do federal costs compare across different types of immigration 

detention facilities, and to what extent does Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) have processes to track and manage these costs?

2. To what extent do the federal standards that govern conditions of 

confinement vary across different types of immigration detention 

facilities, and what are the reasons for any differences.

3. To what extent do federal oversight and the results of that oversight 

vary across different types of immigration facilities?

In this report, we assessed the costs to the federal government of 

housing ICE detainees at different types of facilities, the federal standards 

that govern confinement conditions at those facilities, and ICE oversight 

mechanisms for ensuring compliance with these standards. The 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines an immigration 

detention facility as a confinement facility operated by or affiliated with 

ICE that routinely holds persons for over 24 hours. However, of the 251 

facilities authorized by ICE to hold detainees as of August 2013, we 

limited our analysis to the 166 facilities that were designated to hold 

detainees for 72 hours or longer because of the frequent turnover in the 

detainee population at short-term facilities—such as holding facilities—

which temporarily house detainees waiting for ICE transfer.1

To determine how federal costs compare across different types of 

immigration detention facilities, we analyzed ICE fiscal year 2013 data, 

the most recent fiscal year for which data were available, related to ICE 

expenditures for detention facilities. These data include the Contract 

Financial Monitoring File (CFMF), a manual tool maintained by ICE Office 

of Enforcement and Removal Operations’ (ERO) Operational Support 

These 166 

facilities also exclude three federal prisons where ICE had detention bed 

space in fiscal year 2013; two of the prisons housed a few detainees and 

the third prison was discontinued for immigration detainees as of the end 

of calendar year 2013, according to Bureau of Prisons and ICE officials.

We also excluded facilities for juvenile detainees—individuals under 18 

years of age—because these facilities are regulated by the Department of 

Health and Human Services. 

 1

ICE documentation showed that 155 of these facilities held at least one detainee in fiscal 

year 2013, while 11 facilities did not hold any detainees during this time period. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Division to budget and track costs at individual facilities, and ICE Office of 

Budget and Program Performance (OBPP) fiscal year 2013 data drawn 

from ICE’s Federal Financial Management System (FFMS). ICE OBPP 

uses these data to calculate ICE’s average facility “bed rate”—the 

average cost to house one detainee for 1 day. To determine the reliability 

of the CFMF, we conducted data testing to look for anomalies, reviewed 

related documentation, and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. 

We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes, 

but have limitations as discussed in this report. To assess the reliability of 

ICE OBPP’s bed rate data, we tested the data and interviewed 

knowledgeable agency officials. We determined that the data are not 

reliable for reporting on the differences in cost by facility type, as 

discussed in this report. To determine the reasons for possible 

differences in costs, we analyzed ICE documents, including an ICEfunded study of detention bed rate costs across facilities and in particular 

at ICE-owned service processing centers (SPC), and interviewed agency 

officials.2 We assessed the methodology for the ICE-funded study and 

determined that it was reliable for our purposes. To determine the extent 

to which ICE has processes in place to track and manage detention 

facility costs, we analyzed relevant documents, including DHS annual 

financial reports, previous GAO reports related to DHS financial 

management, and ICE financial management guidance, and interviewed 

agency officials.

3 We assessed our findings related to ICE’s financial 

management practices against Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government and ICE’s 2010-2014 strategic plan.4

 2

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

Detention Bed Space Procurement Analysis; Report on ICE Detention Sourcing. The 

purpose of the study was to analyze the effectiveness of the ICE detention bed 

procurement process, develop a common approach to the procurement of detention beds, 

and recommend solutions to ICE to improve its approach. The focus of the study was on 

23 facilities that housed over 52 percent of the average daily detainee population in 2012, 

including ICE-owned service processing centers, privately owned contract detention 

facilities (CDF), and government-owned facilities under dedicated intergovernmental 

service agreements (DIGSA). 

We also 

analyzed the extent to which ICE’s average daily population (ADP) in its 

3

See GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2013), 

and DHS Financial Management: Additional Efforts Needed to Resolve Deficiencies in 

Internal Controls and Financial Management Systems, GAO-13-561 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 30, 2013).

4

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

(Washington D.C.: Nov. 1999). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

facilities met the guaranteed minimums—the number of beds ICE pays 

for each day regardless of their utilization—in those facilities. We 

assessed ICE’s plans to develop guidance for the field related to 

considering cost in detainee placements against Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government.

5 We reviewed relevant laws, 

including the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002, the 

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) of 2010, and 

the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act 

(IPERIA) of 2012, as well as related Office of Management and Budget 

guidance.6 We analyzed a sample of invoices and supporting 

documentation submitted to ICE by detention services contractors for 

services provided in December 2013 to determine the extent to which 

these invoices met ICE’s requirements for invoice elements and 

supporting documentation, and were managed in accordance with 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

7

To assess the extent to which the federal standards that govern 

conditions of confinement vary across different types of immigration 

detention facilities and reasons for any differences, we identified ICE 

detention standards, including the 2000 National Detention Standards 

(NDS), the 2008 Performance-Based National Detention Standards 

(PBNDS), and the 2011 PBNDS and analyzed the extent to which ICE 

We selected 

invoices from December 2013 because, according to ICE officials, 

invoices from December 2013 and later should adhere to ICE’s new 

invoice submission and review guidance. We analyzed 31 of the 158

invoices for detention services in December 2013 that ICE had received 

by February 2014. The selection included invoices from a range of facility 

types. Results of our analysis are not generalizable beyond the sample, 

but they provide insight into facility invoice adherence to the new 

guidance. To determine the extent to which ICE has processes to track 

and manage detention facility costs and plans for developing guidance 

related to detainee placements, we also interviewed cognizant agency 

officials.

 5

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

6

Pub. L. No. 107-300, 116 Stat. 2350; Pub. L. No. 111-204, 124 Stat. 2224; Pub. L. No. 

112-248, 126 Stat. 2390.

7

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

applied these different standards across detention facilities.8 We analyzed 

these three sets of standards to assess the similarities and differences 

among the standards in terms of the number, content, and application 

across facilities. To identify the standards to which each facility was held, 

we first analyzed the standards included in 166 facility contracts and 

agreements in place as of August 2013, the date that ICE had provided 

us a list of facilities that are authorized to house detainees for over 72 

hours when we began our analysis. Because ERO officials told us that 

facilities can be inspected to higher standards than those specified in the 

signed contract or agreement, we next analyzed ERO inspection data to 

identify the standards to which facilities were inspected in fiscal year 

2013, or the most recent year inspected. If a facility was inspected to a 

more rigorous set of standards than those identified in its contract or 

ERO’s facilities list, we categorized the facility by the standards to which it 

was inspected. Finally, we updated our analysis to incorporate facility 

standards updated by ERO in facility contracts or agreements as of 

January 2014, to capture all updates made during 2013. To determine the 

percentage of ICE detainees who were covered by each set of standards 

during fiscal year 2013, we analyzed the standards to which each facility 

was held against the ADP. In addition, we assessed the extent to which 

ICE documented its decision-making process for determining which 

standards to apply at which facilities in accordance with Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government.

9

 8

ICE has a fourth set of detention standards, the 2007 Residential Standards. We 

excluded these standards because at the time we conducted our work, the standards 

applied to two facilities that housed less than 2 percent of the average daily detention 

population in fiscal year 2013. Because one of these facilities did not, as of January 2014, 

house children, for the purposes of our review, we considered this facility to be a DIGSA. 

The remaining over-72-hour facility held less than 1 percent of ICE’s average daily 

detainee population during fiscal year 2013. 

Further, we analyzed 41 

waivers ICE had granted to detention facilities to exempt them from 

certain detention standards, and which were still in effect in August 2014, 

when we performed the analysis. These waivers were approved from 

fiscal year 2012 through August 2014. We assessed these waivers to 

identify the specific standards for which ICE has issued waivers. We also 

interviewed ICE officials to determine the reasons why standards vary by 

facility type and ERO’s plans to implement the most recent set of 

detention standards at facilities.

9

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

To assess how federal oversight compares across different types of 

immigration detention facilities, we identified the various oversight 

mechanisms ICE used at detention facilities in fiscal year 2013 and 

analyzed differences in their use and results. Specifically, we analyzed 

the extent to which ICE used (1) annual and biennial facility inspections

conducted by the ERO contractor, (2) annual facility self-inspections 

conducted under ERO’s Operational Review Self-Assessment (ORSA) 

process, (3) ERO’s detention service manager (DSM) on-site monitoring 

program, and (4) Office of Detention Oversight (ODO) risk-based facility 

inspections at 166 ICE facilities authorized to hold detainees for over 72 

hours as of August 2013. With respect to ERO’s inspection program, we 

analyzed ERO inspection data for fiscal year 2013, the most recent fiscal 

year for which inspection data were available. To determine the reliability 

of ERO’s inspection data, which are maintained in ERO’s Facility 

Performance Management System (FPMS), we conducted data testing to 

identify anomalies and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. We 

concluded that the FPMS data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 

of this report. We interviewed cognizant agency officials regarding these 

mechanisms and the reasons why different oversight mechanisms were 

used at different facilities. We compared the percentage of fiscal year 

2013 ADP in immigration detention facilities by facility type and oversight 

mechanisms used at facilities to determine what percentage of detainees 

are housed in facilities at which ICE uses the various oversight 

mechanisms. To determine the extent to which the results of oversight 

mechanisms vary, we compared the results of ICE ERO’s annual 

inspections and ICE ODO inspection results for the 35 facilities that 

received both an ERO and ODO inspection in fiscal year 2013. 

Specifically, we compared ERO and ODO inspection results across the 

35 facilities to determine differences in the overall number of deficiencies 

identified by each office. We also compared ERO and ODO facility 

inspection results for selected facilities across three standards that ICE 

has identified as high priority—medical care, special management unit, 

and use of force—to illustrate differences between ERO and ODO 

inspections of the same facilities. We also interviewed ICE ERO and 

ODO agency officials regarding the reasons for any differences in results 

between the two oversight mechanisms. We assessed the extent to which 

ICE addressed the differences in the results of the two oversight 

mechanisms and communicated these differences to management and 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

others within the agency in accordance with Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government.

10

We conducted this performance audit from March 2013 to October 2014, 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

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

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

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

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 10GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Appendix II: Comparison of U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 

Standards

Page 57 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement primarily uses three sets of 

national detention standards with varying requirements to govern the 

conditions of confinement in its detention facilities—the 2000 National 

Detention Standards (NDS), the 2008 Performance-Based National 

Detention Standards (PBNDS), and the 2011 PBNDS.1

Table 4: Comparison of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Standards

The 2000 NDS 

contains 38 standards related to aspects of detainee care and services 

and facility operation, while the 2008 PBNDS contains 41 standards, and 

the 2011 PBNDS contains 42 standards, as shown in table 4.

Detention standards

category and subcategory

2000 National Detention 

Standards (NDS)

2008 PerformanceBased National Detention 

Standards (PBNDS) 2011 PBNDS

Safety

Emergency plans ● ● ●

Environmental health and safety ● ● ●

Transportation by land ● ● ●

Security

Admission and release ● ● ●

Custody classification systema ● ● ●

Contraband ● ● ●

Facility security and controlb ● ● ●

Funds and personal property ● ● ●

Hold room in detention facilities ● ● ●

Key and lock control ● ● ●

Population counts ● ● ●

Post orders ● ● ●

Searches of detainees o ● ●

Sexual abuse and assault prevention 

and intervention ○ ● ●

Special management unitsc ● ● ●

Staff-detainee communications ● ● ●

 1

A fourth set of detention standards—the 2007 Family Residential Standards—pertains to 

facilities that house children and their families, and exclusively house ICE detainees. The 

Family Residential Standards are based on ICE analysis of family detention operations 

and state statutes that affect children. Less than 2 percent of ICE’s average daily 

detention population was held in residential facilities in fiscal year 2013. 

Appendix II: Comparison of U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 

Standards
Appendix II: Comparison of U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 

Standards

Page 58 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Detention standards

category and subcategory

2000 National Detention 

Standards (NDS)

2008 PerformanceBased National Detention 

Standards (PBNDS) 2011 PBNDS

Tool control ● ● ●

Use of force and restraintsd ● ● ●

Order

Disciplinary systeme ● ● ●

Care

Food service ● ● ●

Hunger strikes ● ● ●

Medical care ● ● ●

Medical care for women ○ ○ ●

Personal hygiene ○ ● ●

Significant self-harm and suicide 

prevention and intervention ● ● ●

Terminal illness, advance directives, 

and death ● ● ●

Activities

Correspondence and other mail ● ● ●

Trips for nonmedical emergencies ● ● ●

Marriage requests ● ● ●

Recreation ● ● ●

Religious practices ● ● ●

Telephone access ● ● ●

Visitation ● ● ●

Voluntary work program ● ● ●

Issuance and exchange of clothing, 

bedding, and towels ● ○ ○

Justice

Detainee handbook ● ● ●

Grievance system ● ● ●

Law libraries and legal materialf ● ● ●

Legal rights group presentations ● ● ●

Administration and management 

Detention files ● ● ●

Interviews and toursg ○ ● ●

Staff training ○ ● ●

Detainee transfers ● ● ●

Legend: ● = applicable standard ○ = standard not applicable

Source: GAO analysis of ICE data. | GAO-15-153
Appendix II: Comparison of U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention 

Standards

Page 59 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Notes: The 2000 NDS groups standards under four categories—Detainee Services, Security and 

Control, Health Services, and Terminology. For the purposes of comparison, we present the NDS 

standards using the seven categories published in the 2008 and 2011 PBNDS.

a

In the 2000 NDS, Custody Classification system is referred to as Detainee Classification System.

b

In the 2000 NDS, the Facility Security and Control standard is referred to as Security Inspections.

c

In the 2000 NDS, this standard consists of two separate standards—the Unit for Administrative 

Segregation and the Unit for Disciplinary Segregation.

d

In the 2000 NDS, this standard is referred to as Use of Force.

e

In the 2000 NDS, this standard is referred to as Disciplinary Policy. 

f

In the 2000 NDS, this standard is referred to as Access to Legal Material.

g

In the 2008 PBNDS, this standard is referred to as News Media Interview and Tours.
Appendix III: Example of an Italicized 

Requirement

Page 60 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

In addition to the procedures that all detention facilities are expected to 

meet, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention 

standards can require specific types of facilities to conform to more 

detailed procedures; however, all sets of standards identify these detailed

procedures in italicized text (referred to as “italicized requirements”). 

ICE’s 2000 National Detention Standards (NDS) and the 2008 

Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) require 

service processing centers (SPC) and contract detention facilities (CDF) 

to conform to the more detailed procedures; facilities operating under a 

nondedicated intergovernmental service agreement (IGSA), however, 

may either conform to the italicized procedures or adopt, adapt, or 

establish alternative procedures. The 2011 PBNDS require all dedicated 

facilities—SPCs, CDFs, and those dedicated facilities operating under an 

intergovernmental service agreement (DIGSA)—to conform to the more 

detailed procedures; nondedicated IGSAs may choose to conform to or 

adopt alternative procedures. According to ICE, the italicized procedures 

are intended to make conditions of confinement more uniform at facilities 

where only ICE detainees are housed. Table 5 presents an example of an 

italicized procedure from the 2011 PBNDS. For a complete list of 2011 

PBNDS italicized procedures, go to

http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2011/. 

Appendix III: Example of an Italicized 

Requirement
Appendix III: Example of an Italicized 

Requirement

Page 61 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Table 5: Example of an Italicized Procedure in the 2011 Performance-Based 

National Detention Standards (PBNDS)

Contraband

C. Destruction of Contraband

Expected practices

(All facility types)

Italicized requirement

(Dedicated facilities)

• The facility administrator 

shall establish a 

procedure for the

destruction of contraband 

items.

• Contraband may be destroyed when no longer 

needed for disciplinary action or criminal 

prosecution. It may also be kept for official use, 

such as use as a training tool, if secured in the 

facility armory when not in use.

1. The Chief of Security, or equivalent, shall determine

whether an item shall be destroyed.

2. The Chief of Security shall send the facility 

administrator a memorandum, through official

channels, describing what is to be destroyed and 

the rationale for destruction.

3. The facility administrator shall require that an item 

of questionable ownership be held for 120 days 

before its destruction can be considered, to afford 

the detainee ample opportunity to obtain proof of

ownership and appeal the decision in accordance 

with standard “6.2 Grievance System.”

4. Where disciplinary action is appropriate, the facility

administrator shall defer his/her decision about the 

property until the disciplinary case, including any 

appeals, is resolved.

5. The officer who physically destroys the property and 

at least one official observer shall attest, in writing, 

to having witnessed the property’s destruction.

6. A copy of the property disposal record shall be 

given to the detainee, and another copy shall be 

placed in the detainee’s detention file.

Source: 2011 PBNDS. | GAO-15-153
Appendix IV: Example of an Optimal Provision 

in U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement’s (ICE) 2011 Performance-Based 

Detention Standards (PBNDS)

Page 62 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

In the 2011 PBNDS, ICE introduced the concept of optimal provisions—

nonmandatory provisions that facilities may choose to implement, but are 

not required.1 According to ICE, implementation of these provisions 

furthers the effective operation of a facility at the level intended under the 

revised 2011 PBNDS.2

http://www.ice.gov/detention-standards/2011/

ICE reports that these optimal provisions allow for 

a range of compliance across its diverse facilities, which facilitates the 

immediate implementation of the revised standards—at minimal cost—

while ICE continues to lay the groundwork for future reform of the 

detention system. Table 6 provides an example of an optimal provision in 

the 2011 PBNDS. For a complete listing of all optimal provisions in the 

2011 PBNDS, go to .

 1

According to ICE officials, when a facility adopts one or more optimal standards, the 

standards are documented in the facility’s contract with ICE and the facility is contractually 

bound to meet the optimal provisions in ICE’s inspection of the facility. 

2

Not all standards in the 2011 PBNDS contain optimal provisions. Of the 42 standards in 

the 2011 PBNDS, the following 10 standards also include optimal provisions: Admission 

and Release; Special Management Units; Use of Force and Restraints; Medical Care; 

Medical Care (Women); Significant Self-harm and Suicide Prevention and Intervention; 

Terminal Illness, Advance Directives, and Death; Recreation; Telephone Access; and Law 

Libraries and Legal Material. 

Appendix IV: Example of an Optimal 

Provision in U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement’s (ICE) 2011 PerformanceBased Detention Standards (PBNDS)
Appendix IV: Example of an Optimal Provision 

in U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement’s (ICE) 2011 Performance-Based 

Detention Standards (PBNDS)

Page 63 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Table 6: Example of an Optimal Procedure in the 2011 Performance-Based National 

Detention Standards (PBNDS)

Recreation standard

B. Recreation schedule

Expected practices Optimal requirement

• If outdoor recreation is available, all 

general detention detainees shall have 

access for at least one hour, seven 

days a week, at a reasonable time of 

day, weather permitting.

• General population detainees shall 

have access at least four hours a day, 

seven days a week to outdoor 

recreation, weather and scheduling 

permitted. Daily indoor recreation shall 

also be available. During inclement 

weather detainees shall have access 

to indoor recreational opportunities, 

with access to natural light.

• Detainees shall have access to 

clothing appropriate for weather 

conditions. 

• If only indoor recreation is available, 

each general population detainee shall 

have access for no less than one hour, 

seven days a week and shall have 

access to natural light. 

• Recreation schedules shall be 

provided to detainees or posted in the 

facility.

• Under no circumstances shall the 

facility require detainees to forgo basic 

law library privileges for recreation 

privileges. 

Source: 2011 PBNDS. | GAO-15-153
Appendix V: Comments from the

Department of Homeland Security

Page 64 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Appendix V: Comments from the

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix V: Comments from the

Department of Homeland Security

Page 65 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention
Appendix V: Comments from the

Department of Homeland Security

Page 66 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention
Page 67 GAO-15-153 Immigration Detention

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Lacinda Ayers (Assistant 

Director), Pedro A. Almoguera, Carla D. Brown, Frances A. Cook, 

Michele Fejfar, Allyson R. Goldstein, Barbara A. Guffy, Melissa Hargy, 

Paul D. Kinney, Amanda K. Miller, Jessica S. Orr, James J. Ungvarsky, 

John Warner, and Eric M. Warren made significant contributions to this 

report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441139)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.