IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION

Additional Actions 

Needed to Strengthen 

DHS Management of 

Short-Term Holding 

Facilities

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives

May 2016

GAO-16-514

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-514, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives

May 2016

IMMIGRATION DETENTION

Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen DHS

Management of Short-Term Holding Facilities

Why GAO Did This Study

DHS is responsible for providing safe, 

secure, and humane confinement for 

detained aliens who may be subject to 

removal or have been ordered 

removed from the United States. For 

example, during fiscal years 2014 and 

2015, Border Patrol apprehended 

823,768 aliens and held them 

temporarily in holding facilities. GAO 

was asked to examine DHS’s 

management and oversight of holding 

facilities. This report examines the 

extent to which DHS has (1) standards 

in place for the short-term custody of 

aliens and monitors compliance with 

established standards and (2) 

processes in place for obtaining and 

addressing complaints from aliens in 

holding facilities.

GAO reviewed CBP and ICE data on 

time in custody and complaints. GAO 

also interviewed agency officials and 

visited 32 holding facilities selected 

based on geographical location and 

facility type, among other factors. The 

visit results are not generalizable, but 

provided insight to the oversight of 

holding facilities and management of 

complaints.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DHS establish 

a process to assess time in custody 

data for all individuals in holding 

facilities; issue guidance on how and 

which complaint mechanisms should 

be communicated to individuals in 

short-term custody; include a 

classification code in all complaint 

tracking systems related to DHS 

holding facilities; and develop a 

process for analyzing trends related to 

holding facility complaints. DHS 

concurred with the recommendations 

and identified planned actions.

What GAO Found

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have 

standards for short-term holding facilities—which are generally designed to keep 

individuals in custody for 24 hours or less—and some processes to monitor 

compliance with the standards. For example, each component has policies 

governing the operation of holding facilities, and CBP has an annual SelfInspection Program, which is designed to assess internal controls in all CBP 

operations, including holding facilities. However, U.S. Border Patrol, within CBP,

and ICE do not have a process to fully assess data on the amount of time 

individuals are held in custody. Such a process could help these agencies in 

better understanding issues that GAO identified, such as data quality, level of 

compliance with agency standards, and factors impacting time in custody. For 

example, GAO identified potential irregularities with Border Patrol’s fiscal year 

2014 to 2015 time in custody data, due to, among other things, delays in agents 

recording individuals’ “book-out” from holding facilities. In addition, although 

Border Patrol officials from 10 holding facilities GAO visited stated that time in 

custody rarely exceeds 72 hours, GAO noted that approximately 16 percent of 

Border Patrol’s cases with complete data in fiscal years 2014 to 2015 exceeded

this threshold. Developing and implementing a process to assess time in custody 

data, consistent with internal control standards, would provide Border Patrol and 

ICE with more visibility into the quality of their data, facility compliance with time 

in custody guidelines, and the factors impacting time in custody.

DHS has various mechanisms to obtain and address complaints related to 

holding facilities. Specifically, individuals can submit complaints directly to 

holding facilities or to one of various DHS entities, including the DHS Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) and Joint Intake Center (JIC). However, DHS and its 

components have not consistently communicated information to individuals in 

CBP and ICE holding facilities on these mechanisms. For example, during site 

visits to DHS holding facilities, GAO observed that the posters used to 

communicate DHS complaint mechanisms varied in their coverage. Providing 

guidance to holding facilities on which of DHS’s various complaint mechanisms 

they should communicate to individuals in custody, consistent with internal 

control standards, would help DHS have better assurance that individuals in 

custody within holding facilities have received information on how to submit a 

complaint. DHS complaint mechanisms maintain data in various systems; 

however, most of these systems do not have a classification code for holding 

facilities to would allow users to readily identify the universe of complaints 

involving holding facilities and conduct trend analysis. For example, the JIC’s 

complaint tracking system does not include a facility, facility type, or issue code 

related to holding facilities. GAO found that information identifying whether a 

complaint involved a holding facility may be located within narrative fields. 

Creating a classification code and conducting trend analysis on holding facility 

complaints, consistent with internal control standards, would provide DHS with 

useful information for management decisions, including targeting areas for 

compliance monitoring. View GAO-16-514. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 

or gamblerr@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

Letter 1

Background 5

DHS Has Established Standards and Monitoring Processes for the 

Short-Term Custody of Aliens, but Could Better Assess Time in 

Custody Data 9

DHS Has Complaint Mechanisms for Individuals in Holding 

Facilities, but Could Better Communicate the Mechanisms and 

Classify and Analyze Complaint Data 18

Conclusions 26

Recommendations for Executive Action 27

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29

Appendix II Comments from Department of Homeland Security 33

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 36

Tables

Table 1: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Complaint 

Mechanisms Available for Obtaining and Addressing 

Complaints from Individuals in Holding Facilities 19

Figures

Figure 1: Border Patrol Apprehensions along the Southwest 

Border, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2015 7

Figure 2: Example of a Holding Cell at DHS Holding Facilities, July 

and November 2015 8

Figure 3: Complaint Poster Observed in Border Patrol Holding 

Facility, September 2015 22

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

Abbreviations

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

CRCL Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

ERO Enforcement and Removal Operations 

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

JIC Joint Intake Center 

JICMS Joint Integrity Case Management System

OFO Office of Field Operations

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility 

POE port of entry

PREA Prison Rape Elimination Act

SIP Self-Inspection Program 

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-16-514 Immigration Detention

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 26, 2016

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Thompson,

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

Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) inspect and apprehend aliens based on their authorities, including 

immigration and customs-related law enforcement and investigative 

responsibilities.1 CBP is the lead federal agency charged with keeping 

terrorists and their weapons, criminals and their contraband, and 

inadmissible aliens out of the country. Within CBP, the Office of Field 

Operations (OFO) inspects individuals at designated U.S. ports of entry 

(POE) to determine their admissibility to the country and U.S. Border 

Patrol interdicts and apprehends aliens between POEs.2 For example, 

during fiscal year 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 337,117 aliens 

nationwide. ICE is responsible for apprehending aliens who may be 

removable from the United States for various reasons, including entering 

the country illegally or being convicted of certain crimes. Within ICE, 

Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) identifies, apprehends, 

detains, and removes aliens as appropriate.

After inspecting an individual for admissibility into the United States or 

while making an apprehension, DHS components may hold aliens at 

short-term holding facilities nationwide, which are located at OFO ports of 

entry, Border Patrol stations, and ICE ERO field offices, among other 

 1

Under U.S. immigration law, an “alien” is any person that is not a U.S. citizen or national. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).

2

Ports of entry are facilities that provide for the controlled entry into or departure from the 

United States. Specifically, a port of entry is any officially designated location (seaport, 

airport, or land border location) where DHS officers or employees are assigned to clear 

passengers and merchandise, collect duties, and enforce customs laws, and where DHS 

officers inspect persons applying for admission into the United States pursuant to U.S. 

immigration law.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

locations.3 DHS components may hold aliens at holding facilities in order 

to complete general processing and determine the appropriate course of 

action, such as transferring them to or from a court, jail, prison, other 

agency or other unit of the facility or agency, relocating such aliens into 

ICE detention facilities, removing them from the country, or releasing 

them, among other scenarios.4 The population of individuals in holding 

facilities may include single adults, family units, and unaccompanied alien 

children, among other demographic groups.5 Holding facilities are 

generally designed to keep individuals in custody for 24 hours or less and 

typically contain basic features, such as a concrete bench and a 

combination sink/toilet unit. Both DHS entities and immigration advocacy 

organizations have raised concerns about the conditions and overall time 

in custody at DHS short-term holding facilities. For example, in 2012, 

DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) conducted an 

investigation of holding facilities located within Border Patrol’s Tucson 

Sector and identified a number of issues, such as inadequate medical 

care and inconsistencies regarding the amount of food provided to 

individuals. In 2009, advocacy organizations, including the American Civil 

Liberties Union, filed a since-settled lawsuit against DHS in regards to an 

ICE holding facility in Southern California, alleging that individuals were 

 3

The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 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, as well as aliens ordered removed, and 

mandates that DHS detain certain categories of aliens. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226, 

1226a, 1231.

4

While our review is focused on short-term holding facilities, we have previously reported 

on detention facilities in a number of other reports, including GAO, Immigration Detention: 

Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and Oversight of Facility Costs and 

Standards, GAO-15-153 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10, 2014). Specifically, 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. 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 facilities routinely hold aliens for over 24 hours.

5

Our review is focused on holding facilities in general and all populations of aliens held at 

these facilities. For additional information on holding facility standards and care for 

unaccompanied alien children, see GAO, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Actions Needed 

to Ensure Children Receive Required Care in DHS Custody, GAO-15-521 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 14, 2015).
Page 3 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

held in overcrowded and unsanitary cells for weeks beyond agency 

guidelines.6

You asked us to review DHS’s management and oversight of holding 

facilities and its processes to address complaints filed by aliens in shortterm custody. This report addresses the following questions: To what 

extent does DHS have (1) standards in place for the short-term custody of 

aliens and monitors compliance with established standards and (2) 

processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in 

holding facilities?

To address these questions, we visited a nongeneralizable sample of 32 

CBP and ICE holding facilities in California, Florida, Texas, and Virginia. 

Specifically, we visited 17 Border Patrol facilities, 7 OFO facilities, and 8 

ICE facilities.7 We selected these facilities based on a mix of factors, such 

as facility type, differences in geographical location, number of 

apprehensions, and recommendations from DHS and advocacy 

organizations that work with individuals held in DHS’s custody. We 

conducted semistructured interviews with holding facility personnel and 

senior officials with Border Patrol sectors, OFO field offices and ICE field 

offices regarding holding facility standards, compliance mechanisms and 

avenues for individuals to make complaints. The information we obtained 

from our holding facility visits cannot be generalized to all facilities, but 

provided us insights into the implementation of policies and procedures 

used by DHS to oversee holding facilities and manage complaints.

To determine the extent to which DHS has standards in place for the 

short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established 

standards, we reviewed agency documentation, including holding facility 

policies and procedures and self-inspection results. We also interviewed 

Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE officials at the headquarters level who 

oversee holding facilities, as well as holding facility personnel and 

sector/field office officials. During these interviews, among other things, 

we determined the extent to which agencies use and analyze data, such 

 6

Castellano v. Napolitano, Case No. 2:09-cv-2281 (C.D. Cal. Filed April 1, 2009).

7

We focused our site visits on OFO holding facilities at land POEs, rather than airport and 

seaport-based POEs, because the environment is more similar to Border Patrol and ICE 

holding facilities.
Page 4 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

as time in custody, for oversight purposes and discussed the various 

factors that could impact time in custody. In addition, we collected and 

analyzed fiscal year 2014 through 2015 Border Patrol data on 

apprehensions and time in custody—the most recent data maintained by 

Border Patrol at the time of our review—to determine the population and 

time in custody for individuals in holding facilities. To determine the 

reliability of these data, we reviewed Border Patrol documentation and 

interviewed agency officials responsible for ensuring data quality about 

e3—the system that Border Patrol uses to track information on aliens held 

in short-term custody. We determined that the apprehension data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives; however, 

we could not determine the reliability of the time in custody data because 

of potential irregularities, such as individuals indicated as having many 

months in custody. We also collected data from ICE on number of aliens 

in custody at ERO holding facilities; however, based on a review of ICE 

documentation and interviews with ICE officials responsible for ensuring 

data quality, we determined that the data were not reliable for our 

purposes because of missing and inaccurate data. Moreover, we were 

unable to analyze or determine the reliability of ICE data on time in 

custody because the agency does not include hours in custody in its 

standard reports or OFO time in custody data because the agency does 

not currently capture it nationwide. We discuss agency time in custody 

data, including reliability issues, in more detail in the report. We assessed 

DHS practices for monitoring holding facilities against Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government.

8

To determine the extent to which DHS has processes in place for 

obtaining and addressing complaints from individuals in holding facilities, 

we analyzed documentation on DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), 

DHS CRCL, ICE/CBP Joint Intake Center (JIC), CBP INFO Center and 

ICE Detention and Reporting Information Line processes for managing 

complaints and interviewed officials from these complaint mechanisms. 

To better understand the characteristics of DHS complaint tracking 

systems, we analyzed fiscal years 2012 to 2014 data maintained in the 

Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS)—the system ICE and 

 8

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00.21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). GAO recently revised and reissued Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government, with the new revision effective beginning with 

fiscal year 2016. See GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Page 5 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

CBP use to track complaints reported to the JIC, including those related 

to holding facilities. We selected JICMS data to evaluate since it contains 

information on both ICE and CBP complaints. We could not use JICMS 

data or report on the universe of holding facility complaints because 

JICMS does not categorize holding facility complaints, as discussed in 

more detail later in this report. We also interviewed holding facility officials 

on their local processes for obtaining and addressing complaints and 

evaluated how holding facilities communicated available complaint 

mechanisms. Specifically, we observed whether holding facilities posted 

information on available complaint mechanisms, such as the DHS OIG, in 

holding cells/rooms or the processing area. We assessed DHS’s 

processes for obtaining and addressing complaints against Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government.

9 Additional details on our 

scope and methodology are contained in Appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to May 2016 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.

DHS components operate holding facilities at various locations 

nationwide. Border Patrol has approximately 203 holding facilities that are 

located at stations, checkpoints and forward operating bases.10 OFO has

approximately 129 holding facilities located at land POEs. ICE has 137 

holding facilities that are located at ERO field offices and sub-offices. The 

reasons why individuals are taken into short-term custody vary by 

component.

• Border Patrol apprehends aliens along the land borders and between 

POEs due to suspected criminal activity or violations of U.S. 

 9

GAO/AIMD-00.21.3.1.

10We estimated the number of holding facilities based on Border Patrol data showing 

aliens held in custody by Border Patrol location (e.g., station). According to Border Patrol 

officials, the number of holding facilities can fluctuate since some of them are located in 

non-permanent structures.

Background
Page 6 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

immigration law, such as illegal entry into the United States or 

presence in the country without lawful immigration status, and

transports them to Border Patrol holding facilities, where they undergo 

processing before being removed, released, or transferred to ICE for 

long-term detention, among other scenarios.

• OFO inspects all arriving persons to the United States to determine 

their citizenship or nationality, immigration status, and admissibility. 

This inspection can lead to persons being taken into temporary 

custody at POE holding facilities while awaiting repatriation to a 

foreign country; transfer or referral to another agency, such as ICE; or 

completion of inspection and associated processing.

• ICE takes aliens into custody upon their release from jails and prisons 

through the Criminal Alien Program and other efforts or apprehends 

aliens for various reasons, including through the National Fugitive 

Operations Program, and transports them to ICE holding facilities.11

During fiscal years 2014 and 2015, Border Patrol apprehended 823,768 

aliens and held them temporarily in holding facilities.12 Approximately 98 

percent of aliens apprehended by Border Patrol during those fiscal years 

were apprehended along the southwest border of the United States with 

Mexico. Of the 810,704 aliens whom Border Patrol apprehended along 

the southwest border, about 49 percent were apprehended in the Rio 

Grande Valley sector in Texas. Figure 1 shows the locations of aliens 

apprehended by Border Patrol along the southwest border during fiscal 

years 2014 through 2015.

 11In 2014, DHS outlined that its enforcement and removal priorities include the removal of 

aliens who pose a threat to national security, border security, and public safety. ICE’s 

Criminal Alien Program is designed to identify, process, and remove criminal aliens from 

jails and prisons across the United States, while the focus of the National Fugitive 

Operation Program is on pursuing known at-large criminal aliens and fugitive aliens.

12We are not able to report on the number of aliens in short-term custody at ICE holding 

facilities because of limitations with ICE’s data or the number of aliens at OFO holding 

facilities because at the time of our review OFO did not collect nationwide data.
Page 7 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

Figure 1: Border Patrol Apprehensions along the Southwest Border, Fiscal Years 2014 through 2015

DHS officials at holding facilities conduct a number of activities in 

managing the short-term custody of aliens, including (1) processing, (2) 

care, and (3) monitoring.

Processing. During processing, holding facility officials gather and record 

information from aliens. Specifically, holding facility officials collect and 

record information on aliens in agency databases; take fingerprints, if 

applicable; conduct records checks; and collect and maintain personal 

belongings. Holding facility personnel typically conduct these processing 

activities in a general area outside of the actual holding cells.

Care. Once processing is complete, holding facility officials typically place 

individuals in a secure holding cell or room and provide them with various 
Page 8 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

types of care, including meals and water, restrooms, hygienic supplies 

and medical care.13 Holding facilities maintain written or electronic 

custody logs to document care provided to individuals. Telephone access 

varies by holding facility; some facilities include a telephone in the holding 

cells, while other facilities maintain a telephone only in the processing 

area. Holding facilities and the conditions of confinement may vary by 

component, among other factors. For example, while all three 

components maintain secure cells, OFO sometimes places individuals in 

general waiting areas at POEs based on a risk assessment of individuals 

and facility space limitations. In addition, holding facility officials typically 

segment the population based on age, gender and other characteristics, 

such as risk. Figure 2 depicts a typical cell at DHS holding facilities.

Figure 2: Example of a Holding Cell at DHS Holding Facilities, July and November 2015

Monitoring. Holding facility officials monitor holding facilities primarily 

through video cameras and physical checks to help ensure that cells are 

kept clear of contraband and other potentially dangerous materials. For 

example, holding facility officials might conduct physical checks at various 

intervals throughout the day, which are designed for a number of 

purposes, including overseeing individuals in short-term custody, 

providing a deterrent for misconduct, and affording individuals the 

opportunity to communicate potential issues regarding their health or 

 13We learned during our review that individuals in DHS’s short-term custody may have 

injuries or medical issues that require treatment at off-site facilities, such as hospitals. For 

example, aliens apprehended by Border Patrol may have become injured during their 

journey across the border.
Page 9 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

safety. Holding facility personnel may conduct more frequent monitoring 

activities for high risk individuals who might show signs of distress, 

hostility, or other unusual behavior.

CBP and ICE have issued standards for the short-term custody of aliens 

that apply to their holding facilities nationwide. For example, CBP has 

established minimum standards that apply to both Border Patrol and OFO 

holding facilities, and each component also maintains a holding facility 

policy.14 In addition, ICE has a policy that governs the operation of ERO 

holding facilities.15 The Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE standards contain 

common requirements for holding facilities, including:

• Limiting aliens’ total time in custody: Process and then transfer, 

remove, or release aliens as soon as is appropriate and operationally 

feasible.

 14CBP issued the National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention and Search (TEDS) 

in October 2015, while Border Patrol issued the Hold Rooms and Short Term Custody

policy in January 2008 and OFO issued the Secure Detention, Transport, and Escort 

Procedures at Ports of Entry in August 2008. The TEDS policy is intended as a 

foundational document, while the component-level policies generally contain more detail. 

TEDS does include specific requirements related to personal property, care of at-risk 

individual in custody, and sexual abuse and assault. According to CBP officials, Border 

Patrol and OFO holding facility policies would override TEDS if they contain more 

stringent requirements.

15ICE issued the Operations of ERO Holding Facilities policy in September 2014.

DHS Has Established 

Standards and 

Monitoring Processes 

for the Short-Term 

Custody of Aliens, but 

Could Better Assess 

Time in Custody Data

DHS Has Established 

Standards and Monitoring 

Processes for the Short 

Term Custody of Aliens
Page 10 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

• Conducting periodic physical checks of holding cells: Monitor holding 

cells directly and regularly when individuals are in custody.

• Maintaining a detention log: Collect and preserve in written or 

electronic form general information from all individuals.

• Providing various accommodations to individuals: Offer meals and 

snacks at specified intervals, as well as access to drinking water and 

restrooms at all times to individuals.

• Safeguarding of individuals’ personal property while in custody: 

Collect, inventory, and safeguard funds, valuables, and baggage, and 

other personal property.

Within these common elements, however, the Border Patrol, OFO and 

ICE standards for the short-term custody of aliens vary. For example, the 

Border Patrol and ICE holding facility policies state that, whenever 

possible, an individual should not be held for more than 12 hours while 

the OFO holding facility policy states that the detention of a person in a 

holding facility at POEs shall be for the “least amount of time necessary”

to complete processing but generally less than 24 hours.16 The policies 

also vary with respect to conducting physical checks of cells. The OFO 

and ICE holding facility policies require that personnel conduct physical 

checks of individuals placed inside of holding cells at least every 15 

minutes, while the Border Patrol policy states that personnel must 

physically check holding cells on a regular basis for all individuals and 

every 15 minutes for individuals deemed to be high risk (e.g., an 

individual exhibiting unusual behavior such as signs of distress). Border 

Patrol, OFO, and ICE holding facilities may also use local standard 

operating procedures to augment agency standards for holding facilities. 

For example, an ICE holding facility that we visited maintained four local 

standard operating procedures on areas such as controlling and 

safeguarding personal property. Similarly, we learned during our site 

visits that other Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE holding facilities have local 

standard operating procedures.

 16The TEDS policy states that an alien should generally not be held for longer than 72 

hours in CBP holding facilities.
Page 11 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

Agencies have also established processes for monitoring holding facilities 

for compliance with standards. Within CBP, the Management Inspections 

Division and designated officials from Border Patrol and OFO 

headquarters manage the annual Self-Inspection Program (SIP), which is 

designed to assess internal controls in all CBP operations, including 

holding facilities. The SIP varies from year-to-year and typically 

incorporates elements of holding facility policies. For example, the 2015 

Border Patrol SIP covered the extent to which holding facilities 

maintained detention logs on aliens, including meal service, medical care, 

and other pertinent information. Border Patrol and OFO holding facilities 

reported in the SIP results for 2015 that they were generally compliant 

with holding facility standards.17 Besides the SIP, Border Patrol and OFO 

officials told us that holding facilities monitor compliance with holding 

facility standards through daily activities. We learned from discussions 

with agency officials and observations during our site visits that these 

daily activities include: maintaining continuous surveillance of individuals 

through video cameras, conducting periodic physical checks of 

individuals, and having shifts overlap to allow independent personnel to 

review and verify actions taken to care for individuals. Moreover, regional 

Border Patrol sectors or OFO field offices may also undertake monitoring 

activities. For example, a senior OFO official stated that his field office 

conducts periodic spot-checks of holding facilities in its jurisdiction to 

verify compliance with holding facility standards.

Within ICE, holding facilities monitor compliance through daily activities. 

According to ICE officials, some of these daily activities include 

maintaining continuous surveillance of individuals through video cameras, 

as well as conducting periodic and end of day physical checks of 

detainees. During our site visits to ICE holding facilities, we also observed 

video cameras and written logbooks that notated the date and time ICE 

personnel inspected individual holding cells. In addition, ICE 

headquarters is currently developing a holding facility self-assessment 

tool intended to capture the level of compliance in ICE holding facilities 

nationwide with ICE’s holding facility policy, such as standards related to 

 17Although Border Patrol and OFO holding facilities reported in the SIP results for 2015 

that they were generally compliant with hold room policies, there were some instances of 

non-compliance, such as several Border Patrol holding facilities reporting that they did not 

document meals provided to adults in Border Patrol’s data system because they were not 

familiar with the policy requirement. 
Page 12 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

providing meals and water and managing personal property. ICE 

headquarters provided us with the draft self-assessment tool and a

project plan for its completion. ICE is currently in the final stages of 

reviewing the tool and expects to begin using it by June 2016.

CBP and ICE do not have a process or processes in place to fully assess 

their time in custody data, including the quality of the data, and the extent 

to which holding facilities are adhering to agency standards for time in 

custody and the factors affecting the length. CBP and ICE maintain data 

systems that record information on various elements for short-term 

custody of individuals, including time in custody.18 Time in custody 

represents the time between when an individual is “booked in” and 

“booked out” of a holding facility.19 CBP and ICE holding facility policies 

include standards for the number of hours that an individual should be 

held in short-term custody. According to agency officials, these standards 

are in place because holding facilities are not designed to hold individuals 

for long periods of time and thus generally do not have features such as 

beds and showers. However, based on our review of time in custody 

data, Border Patrol and ICE do not have a process to completely assess 

time in custody data and OFO has only recently initiated efforts to collect 

such data.

• Border Patrol has taken some steps to monitor time in custody data. 

For example, we learned during our site visits that a Border Patrol 

sector in Texas generates a detention dashboard report that tracks 

aliens’ total time in custody by station and a Border Patrol sector in 

Florida disseminates a regular report to stations with time in custody 

information on individuals. In addition, Border Patrol incorporated time 

in custody as an inspection item for individual stations in the 2015

SIP.20 Further, Border Patrol officials responsible for managing the 

agency’s data told us that they address individual irregularities in time 

 18Border Patrol maintains the e3 system, OFO uses the Secure Integrated Government 

Mainframe Access system and ICE maintains the ENFORCE system to track information 

on aliens, including time in custody.

19For the purposes of our review, this definition of time in custody does not include the 

time between an apprehension and book-in to a holding facility.

20For the 2015 Border Patrol SIP, Border Patrol stations reviewed a random sample of up 

to 15 aliens recorded in e3 to determine if time in custody exceeded 24 hours in any 

cases. 

CBP and ICE Could 

Improve Oversight by 

Better Assessing Time in 

Custody Data
Page 13 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

in custody data as they discover them, such as incomplete or 

duplicative information. However, these Border Patrol headquarters 

officials told us that the agency is currently only tracking and 

producing regular reports for Border Patrol leadership about the time 

in custody for unaccompanied alien children and families but not for 

the rest of the detainee population. Border Patrol headquarters 

officials responsible for overseeing holding facilities told us that 

Border Patrol has not directed an entity at the headquarters level to 

assess time in custody data for all types of aliens in Border Patrol’s 

custody.

• ICE produces various reports that include time in custody data for 

both detention and holding facilities; however, the information in these 

reports is limited. Specifically, the reports do not include total hours in 

custody by alien, despite ICE’s holding facility policy specifying that 

individuals should not be held for longer than 12 hours absent 

exceptional circumstances. ICE headquarters officials indicated that 

ICE does not use time in custody data to monitor holding facilities, 

and ICE officials in the field stated that the agency is more focused on 

monitoring longer term detention facilities.

• OFO maintains fields in its automated database to track aliens’ time in 

custody in holding facilities, although, according to OFO officials, most 

land POEs have not been consistently recording that information, with 

the exception of seven land POEs in California and Texas.21 We 

previously reported in July 2015 that OFO did not yet have a policy 

requiring officers to use an automated database to record care 

provided to unaccompanied alien children, including book out dates 

and times, and most POEs did not use an automated database to 

track custody care actions.22 In November 2015, OFO began piloting 

the mandatory automated collection of time in custody data for holding 

facilities at selected POEs. According to OFO headquarters officials, 

 21While OFO does not capture time in custody data for all land POEs, officials from OFO 

holding facilities that we visited told us that they notify their POE’s Port Director when 

individuals’ time in custody exceeds a specified length (e.g., 12 hours in custody). 

Similarly, officials from Border Patrol holding facilities that we visited stated that they notify 

the Patrol Agent in Charge of individuals in custody for 24 hours or more and notify the 

sector when custody reaches or exceeds 72 hours.

22GAO-15-521.
Page 14 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

OFO expects to expand the pilot program to all POEs in calendar year 

2016.23

While Border Patrol and ICE produce some reports with time in custody 

data, more fully monitoring time in custody data could allow the agencies 

to identify potential trends and differences across all field locations. 

Specifically, Border Patrol and ICE could better understand (1) the quality 

of time in custody data, such as determining the sources of irregularities

and uncovering missing or inaccurate data, and (2) the extent to which 

holding facilities are adhering to agency standards for time in custody and 

the factors affecting the overall length.

Determining quality of time in custody data. Our discussions with 

Border Patrol officials and analysis of Border Patrol’s time in custody data 

for fiscal years 2014 to 2015 raised questions about the quality of the 

data. Specifically, we could not determine the reliability of Border Patrol’s 

time in custody data for two reasons. First, Border Patrol expanded use of 

its e3 system to capture additional custody care information, including 

time in custody, and we identified challenges associated with entry of 

these data by Border Patrol personnel. According to Border Patrol 

officials, since fiscal year 2014 was the first full year that the agency 

collected electronic time in custody data across all facilities nationwide, 

agents in the field are still learning how to accurately and consistently 

record time in custody information. Second, we analyzed the Border 

Patrol’s fiscal years 2014 and 2015 time in custody data from the e3 

system and found irregularities, such as individuals with multiple months 

or negative hours in custody. Officials from Border Patrol headquarters 

could not fully explain the irregularities we found. Specifically, they told us 

that lengthy times in custody might result from officials in the field not 

temporarily booking out aliens for a hospital visit or court appearance or 

failing to record book-out dates and times in a timely manner.

We also identified issues involving the recording of book-out information 

during our site visits. For example, Border Patrol holding facility officials in 

three locations stated that agents forgetting to input book-out times into 

the e3 system could explain some lengthy times in custody. In particular, 

 23Since OFO, as of March 2016, was in the process of piloting the mandatory collection of 

time in custody data for holding facilities, our finding in this section is directed at Border 

Patrol and ICE.
Page 15 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

a Patrol Agent in Charge at one Border Patrol holding facility stated that 

fiscal year 2014 data for his facility were likely inaccurate because there 

may have been delays, in some cases spanning weeks or months, in 

agents recording aliens’ book-out times. While the data indicated that the 

facility held over 100 aliens for more than 24 hours, the official stated that 

it is extremely rare to hold aliens for 24 hours since the facility’s operating 

hours are limited. Officials from Border Patrol headquarters said that they 

would not know if lengthy times in custody were either accurate or 

inaccurate due to data issues unless Border Patrol personnel conducted 

a more comprehensive analysis. Because of these reasons, we were 

unable to determine the reliability of Border Patrol’s time in custody data.

Further, we could not assess the reliability of data on the number of hours 

individuals were in ICE holding facilities because ICE includes days, but 

not hours, in the year-end reports it produces with time in custody data. 

ICE provided a report for us with the time in custody by individual; 

however, this information was limited to number of days in custody, and 

for many individuals, the report included a “zero” for the overall duration.

Based on findings from our audit work, an ICE data management official 

told us that ICE would include “book-in time” and “book-out time” in fiscal 

year 2016 reports to allow the reporting of hours in custody by individual. 

This is a positive step, which should help strengthen ICE’s monitoring of 

time in custody data. However, this action does not address other 

reliability concerns we identified with ICE’s time in custody data. 

Specifically, our analysis of ICE’s data showed that one ICE holding 

facility was not electronically recording time in custody data in ENFORCE 

and another ICE holding facility was recording aliens in ENFORCE that 

were never in ICE’s custody; rather the aliens were in custody at a Border 

Patrol holding facility where ICE ERO contributes resources. In response 

to the issues, ICE officials stated that, in 2016, these locations plan to 

modify standard operating procedures to strengthen the completeness or 

accuracy of their data in ENFORCE. While these are positive steps, 

without a process to fully monitor time in custody data, ICE is not 

positioned to address data reliability issues in a systematic manner.

Determining level of compliance with agency guidelines and factors 

affecting time in custody. While Border Patrol and ICE maintain specific 

guidelines regarding time in custody for individuals in short-term holding 

facilities, these agencies could better understand the level of compliance 

with the guidelines and factors impacting time in custody. Agency officials 

expressed concerns about individuals’ time in custody at holding facilities. 

For example, Border Patrol officials in nine holding facilities we visited in 

California, Florida, and Texas told us that Border Patrol’s twelve-hour 
Page 16 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

guideline for time in custody is sometimes challenging to meet. They 

stated that a variety of factors could extend time in custody for individuals 

at holding facilities. First, Border Patrol sometimes has to process a large 

group of individuals simultaneously, such as when Border Patrol agents 

encounter a possible smuggling operation. Second, Border Patrol holding 

facilities may experience delays in transferring individuals to ICE custody 

due to ICE not having detention capacity and based on ICE offices not 

operating 24 hours/7 days per week to accommodate Border Patrol 

transfer requests. Third, Border Patrol may need to seek treatment for 

individuals with medical issues (e.g., dehydration, sprained ankle) prior to 

transferring them to ICE. An analysis of time in custody data would help 

Border Patrol understand the extent to which these factors might be 

impacting the agency’s level of compliance with guidelines or whether 

data issues are skewing the numbers. For example, although Border 

Patrol officials from 10 holding facilities we visited stated that time in 

custody rarely exceeds 72 hours, we noted that approximately 16 percent 

of cases with complete data in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 exceeded this 

threshold.

Border Patrol and ICE provided various reasons why they are not more 

fully assessing time in custody data. For example, Border Patrol 

headquarters officials told us that they prioritize assessing time in custody 

data for unaccompanied alien children and families due to the legal 

requirements related to those populations, but that they generally rely on 

the field to monitor time in custody data for the rest of the population in 

short-term holding facilities.24 An ICE data management official told us 

that the agency has the ability to report on hours in custody for aliens in 

holding facilities but has not done so in the past because ICE 

headquarters or external stakeholders have not been interested in these 

data. Additionally, an ICE headquarters official responsible for overseeing 

holding facilities stated that ICE does not currently use time in custody 

data to monitor holding facilities because the duration of custody is short 

 24In particular, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) 

requires that, barring exceptional circumstances, any federal department or agency that 

has unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in custody must transfer custody of such 

children to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services not later than 72 hours 

after determining that such children are UAC. TVPRA § 235(b)(3) (8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3)). 

This provision does not apply to UAC from contiguous countries who meet certain 

determinations and who are thus allowed to withdraw their applications for admission and 

voluntarily return to those countries.
Page 17 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

and ICE field offices understand how to appropriately monitor time in 

custody. However, by not fully monitoring time in custody, agency officials 

at the headquarters level do not have visibility into data across holding 

facilities. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government 

recommend that entities process obtained data into quality information to 

support the internal control system and to achieve its objectives. The 

Standards also recommend that management entities should establish 

and operate monitoring activities to monitor the internal control system 

and evaluate the results.25

By developing and implementing a process to assess time in custody 

data, Border Patrol and ICE would have reasonable assurance about the 

quality of the data and the level of compliance with their own standards 

for time in custody. Border Patrol and ICE could also better understand 

the factors affecting time in custody in holding facilities. For example, 

Border Patrol would be better able to determine more accurately the 

extent to which agents at holding facilities may not be entering temporary 

or permanent book-out information for individuals and thus inadvertently 

increasing time in custody data. Additionally, Border Patrol would be 

better positioned to assess the impact that operational considerations, 

such as challenges in processing a large group of individuals 

simultaneously or coordinating transfers with ICE, have on time in 

custody at holding facilities nationwide. Similarly, ICE would be better 

positioned to assess the actual hours in custody for individuals in custody 

at its holding facilities to ensure that they are meeting the guidelines in its 

holding facility policy.

 25GAO/AIMD-00.21.3.1.
Page 18 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

DHS and its components have multiple mechanisms at the holding facility 

and headquarters levels to obtain and address individuals’ complaints 

regarding CBP and ICE holding facilities or personnel.26 The types of 

complaints submitted through these mechanisms could relate to such 

issues as: (1) conditions of confinement, including the temperature of the 

hold rooms, the amount of noise or light in the facility, or the quality of the 

food; and (2) employee misconduct, including alleged use of force or 

verbal abuse by Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE employees.

DHS provides individuals in short-term holding facilities the opportunity to 

submit their complaints directly to CBP or ICE officials at the local holding 

facility. DHS headquarters and holding facility officials we spoke with told 

us that generally it is DHS’s practice to address complaints immediately 

and at the lowest level possible through oral communication with Border 

Patrol, OFO, and ICE facility staff. Generally an individual would submit a 

complaint to a supervisor at a holding facility, who would try to resolve the 

complaint as quickly as possible, especially if a complaint related to the 

conditions of confinement. For example, according to CBP and ICE 

officials responsible for holding facilities, individuals make complaints, 

such as being cold or hungry and request that officers provide them a 

 26According to DHS officials, complaints are sometimes submitted by other parties 

representing aliens, such as family members, attorneys, and advocacy organizations. 

DHS Has Complaint 

Mechanisms for 

Individuals in Holding 

Facilities, but Could 

Better Communicate 

the Mechanisms and 

Classify and Analyze 

Complaint Data

DHS Has Multiple 

Mechanisms for Obtaining 

and Addressing 

Complaints Related to 

Holding Facilities
Page 19 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

blanket or food. Officers will attempt to resolve such complaints as quickly 

as possible by supplying a blanket or providing a meal or a snack.

In addition to making complaints directly to officials at holding facilities, 

individuals in holding facilities can submit complaints through various 

mechanisms at the DHS or component headquarters level.27 These 

mechanisms include: (1) DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG); (2) DHS 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL); (3) CBP INFO Center; 

(4) ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line (DRIL); and (5) Joint 

Intake Center (JIC). Complaints can be submitted by telephone, e-mail, 

mail, or fax. For example, the DHS OIG operates a toll free hotline to 

receive complaints. Each of the five complaint mechanisms has a 

different purpose and is designed to address different issues, including 

alleged violations of civil rights and civil liberties and other types of 

grievances. According to DHS officials, complaints can be reported 

through any of these different mechanisms and the same complaint may 

be reported through multiple mechanisms. For example, according to an 

ICE official, the same complaint may be submitted to DHS OIG, DHS 

CRCL, and the JIC; however, only one investigation into the complaint 

may be conducted. Table 1 summarizes the different DHS mechanisms 

through which individuals can submit complaints, including the 

responsible DHS entity and the purpose of each mechanism.

Table 1: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Complaint Mechanisms Available for Obtaining and Addressing Complaints 

from Individuals in Holding Facilities

Complaint mechanism and responsible 

entity Purpose

DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG)

DHS OIG Office of Investigations

Receive and investigate complaints of criminal and non-criminal misconduct by DHS 

employees and contractors, including holding facility complaints. DHS OIG also reviews 

and investigates allegations related to potential fraud, waste, abuse and 

mismanagement.

DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties (CRCL)

DHS CRCL Compliance Branch

Receive and investigate complaints alleging civil rights and liberties violations related to 

actions taken by DHS officials, employees or contractors, or as a result of DHS programs 

or activities, which may include allegations related to holding facility conditions. CRCL 

also works with the DHS components, including the DHS OIG to review and resolve 

complaints.

 27These mechanisms are not specifically designed to address complaints from individuals 

in custody at holding facilities, but rather are available for anyone seeking to make a 

complaint related to DHS or its components.
Page 20 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

Complaint mechanism and responsible 

entity Purpose

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) INFO Center

CBP Office of Public Affairs

Receive, manage and track general complaints submitted by the public related to, among 

other things, their experience with the inspection process at ports of entry. Complaints 

may be related to OFO or Border Patrol employees and the CBP INFO Center may refer 

complaints, as appropriate, to component management or investigative agencies.

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) Detention Reporting 

and Information Line

ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal 

Operations

Receive a wide range of inquiries, such as requests for basic immigration case 

information, and complaints from stakeholders, including aliens in ICE custody. Refer 

complaints that cannot be immediately resolved to the appropriate ICE headquarters or 

field office for resolution. 

Joint Intake Center

ICE Office of Professional Responsibility 

and CBP Office of Internal Affairs

Receive, process, investigate and refer misconduct complaints involving ICE and CBP 

employees and contractors. In addition, coordinate misconduct complaints with the DHS 

OIG and refer them to the appropriate office for investigation, fact-finding or immediate 

management action.

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. | GAO-16-514

While DHS and its components make information publicly available on the 

various complaint mechanisms, they have not consistently communicated 

information to individuals in CBP and ICE holding facilities on 

mechanisms that are available for them to submit a complaint. DHS 

primarily advertises available complaint mechanisms through 

organizational websites. For example, ICE ERO includes information on 

its website advertising the DRIL, and the CBP website communicates 

information regarding the CBP INFO Center. In addition, DHS CRCL has 

a public guide available on its website listing the various DHS complaint 

mechanisms; however, this information is not consistently communicated 

in holding facilities. During our visits to Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE 

holding facilities we observed that the posters used to communicate DHS 

complaint mechanisms varied in their coverage. For example, while all 32 

ICE and CBP holding facilities we visited included at least one poster on 

how to file a complaint with the DHS OIG or a component involving a 

potential incident of sexual abuse or assault related to the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act (PREA), the facilities differed in the extent to which they 

DHS Components Could 

Better Communicate 

Available Complaint 

Mechanisms
Page 21 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

communicated how to submit a non-PREA complaint through DHS 

complaint mechanisms.28 Specifically:

• ICE. We observed that most ICE holding facilities (six out of eight) 

posted information on how individuals can contact the DHS OIG to file 

non-PREA complaints, while half of the facilities (4 out of 8) posted 

information on the DRIL and a couple of facilities (2 out of 8) posted 

information on the JIC.29 Half of the ICE holding facilities (4 out of 8) 

included a “speed dial” poster with phone numbers on external 

resources (e.g., “Mexican Consulate” or “Joint Intake Center”); 

however, the posters do not provide any information on these 

resources, including their purpose.

• Border Patrol. We observed that 4 of 17 Border Patrol holding 

facilities posted information on how individuals can contact the DHS 

OIG to file general complaints, but the remaining facilities did not have 

information posted on any complaint mechanisms, such as the JIC or 

CBP INFO Center.

• OFO. We observed that one OFO holding facility (one out of six) 

posted information on both the DHS OIG and CBP INFO Center; 

however, at the remaining facilities we did not see posted information 

on any reporting mechanisms.

Figure 3 shows an example of a PREA poster that we observed in a 

Border Patrol holding facility.

 28On March 7, 2014, DHS issued a final rule adopting its Standards to Prevent, Detect, 

and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities, 79 Fed. Reg. 13,100 

(March 7, 2014) (codified at 6 C.F.R. pt. 115). These standards satisfy the requirements of 

PREA which was enacted to, among other things, establish a zero-tolerance standard for 

rape in U.S. prisons and make the prevention of prison rape a top priority in each prison 

system. See Pub. L. No. 108-79, § 3, 117 Stat. 972, 974-75 (2003). DHS’s PREA 

standards generally apply to both holding facilities and detention facilities and require DHS 

to make public its zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and ensure this 

information is visible or continuously and readily available to detainees. Posters 

publicizing DHS’s zero tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and assault include the 

DHS OIG hotline phone number that individuals can use to report sexual abuse and 

assault.

29ICE ERO has issued broadcast guidance to field offices directing them to ensure DRIL 

posters are easily visible and accessible to individuals in holding facilities.
Page 22 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

Figure 3: Complaint Poster Observed in Border Patrol Holding Facility, September 2015

DHS components have undertaken some efforts to review complaintsrelated signage in holding facilities. For example, in 2015, the CBP 

Commissioner’s Office directed OFO and Border Patrol to review 

complaints-related signage in holding facilities because of concerns that it 

might be outdated and not consistently in place. As part of that effort, the 

components issued guidance to the field; however, the guidance has 

been limited to ensuring PREA posters are in place and removing 

outdated signage. For example, the Border Patrol instructed all Border 

Patrol sectors to ensure that signage in holding facilities complied with 

PREA standards and remove any outdated signage related to the former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. Similarly, OFO instructed holding 

facilities to ensure that proper signage, such as PREA information, is 

displayed in the detention areas. While OFO and Border Patrol took steps 

to evaluate complaints-related signage in holding facilities and clarify that 

PREA posters should be in place, they have not provided guidance to the 

field concerning how and which complaint mechanisms should be 

communicated to individuals in the holding facilities.
Page 23 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

According to DHS headquarters and holding facility officials, DHS has not 

placed an emphasis on which complaint mechanisms should be 

communicated because individuals are encouraged to submit complaints 

to holding facility personnel and an individual may be more likely to 

submit a complaint while in longer-term detention. For example, 

according to a Border Patrol official in the field, the majority of all 

complaints made by individuals are not made while they are in Border 

Patrol custody, but rather after they have been transferred to ICE custody 

in a detention facility. However, individuals in holding facilities may have a 

concern that they do not communicate because they may not be aware of 

the available complaint mechanisms. In addition, while CBP and ICE may 

encourage individuals to submit complaints to holding facility personnel 

rather than through external complaint mechanisms, individuals who need 

to file a complaint may not necessarily: (1) be able to get their complaint 

addressed at the field level, or (2) feel comfortable lodging a complaint to 

a local official, such as due to fear of retribution.30 An ICE holding facility 

official shared this view, stating that it is important to inform individuals of 

external mechanisms like the DRIL since they may not be comfortable 

making a complaint locally or the local office may not properly resolve the 

issue. Furthermore, agency officials and advocacy organizations have 

expressed concerns about the transparency of DHS’s processes for 

obtaining holding facility complaints. For example, during our review, both 

headquarters and field officials within the components stated that 

individuals may not understand the different avenues to file a complaint. 

In addition, in 2014, an advocacy organization expressed written 

concerns to DHS, noting that there are many different complaint 

mechanisms in place and the public is confused about where and how to 

submit complaints related to holding facilities.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

management should document each unit’s responsibilities through policy 

to allow management to effectively monitor the control activity. The 

standards also state that management should communicate quality 

information down and across reporting lines to enable personnel to 

perform key roles in achieving objectives, addressing risks, and 

 30Among other scenarios, an individual might not be able to get their complaint addressed 

at the field level if it relates to employee misconduct rather than a condition of 

confinement. CBP and ICE officials are required to report potential employee misconduct 

to the JIC.
Page 24 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

supporting the internal control system.31 By providing guidance to the field 

that specifies how and which complaint mechanisms should be 

communicated in holding facilities, Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE could 

better ensure that individuals have full recourse to the mechanisms 

available to them should they need to file a complaint about facility 

conditions, misconduct, abuse, or other issues.

Most of the complaint tracking systems that DHS and its components 

employ do not have classification codes for holding facilities that would 

allow agencies to readily identify which complaints are related to holding 

facilities and to analyze these complaints for potential trends.32 DHS OIG, 

CRCL, CBP INFO Center, DRIL, and JIC maintain tracking systems for 

complaints; however, information on holding facilities is typically 

subsumed within a narrative field. In order to better understand the 

capabilities of DHS complaint tracking systems, we gathered data from 

JICMS because it contains information on both ICE and CBP complaints 

that may have originated from holding facilities. In reviewing the JICMS 

data, we found that it does not include a facility, facility type, or issue 

code related to holding facilities that would allow users to readily identify 

the universe of complaints involving holding facilities. Rather, we found 

that information identifying whether a complaint involved a holding facility 

may be located within narrative fields. We searched the database using 

potentially relevant issue codes and terms that would potentially uncover 

complaints in the narrative field, however, it was not always clear, even 

when reviewing the narrative field, whether a complaint was related to a 

holding facility.33 For example, we identified complaints that alleged an 

individual’s money was not returned to him or an individual was injured 

due to potential use of force. However it was unclear if these complaints 

related to ICE holding facilities or detention facilities.

 31GAO/AIMD-00.21.3.1.

32These databases include the Enterprise Data System (DHS OIG); Entellitrak Database 

(CRCL); Compliment/Complaint Management System (CBP INFO Center); Custody 

Assistance and Inquiry Resolution System (DRIL) and Joint Integrity Case Management 

System (JIC).

33We searched the database using a number of terms associated with “hold” and “shortterm.”

DHS Does Not Maintain 

Classification Codes for 

Holding Facility 

Complaints in All Tracking 

Systems or Conduct Trend 

Analysis
Page 25 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

Upon our request, the CBP Office of Internal Affairs produced a report 

from JICMS showing potential holding facility complaints; however, 

officials from that office noted that it was a time consuming and labor 

intensive process, and that the report would not necessarily account for 

all holding facility complaints. According to DHS officials, with the 

exception of CRCL’s database, the complaint tracking systems for the 

other mechanisms DHS OIG, DRIL, and CBP INFO Center—present 

similar limitations. Similarly, in February 2016, we reported that CRCL, 

DRIL, and JIC maintain medical-related complaint data in their respective 

tracking systems; however, the data, in most cases, is not tracked or 

analyzed for trending purposes.34 Specifically, we found that while DHS 

provides various avenues for detainees to file medical care complaints 

related to immigration detention, DHS does not have a mechanism to 

readily determine the overall volume of medical-related complaints it 

receives, their status, or outcome.

DHS and component officials stated that there are not many complaints 

related to holding facilities, so they have not prioritized creating a specific 

classification code for holding facilities or conducted trend analyses on 

complaints related to holding facilities. However, without creating a 

classification code for holding facilities and conducting trend analysis, 

DHS does not have a way of knowing the number and types of 

complaints individuals may be submitting related to their short-term 

custody at CBP and ICE holding facilities. Moreover, CBP officials 

responsible for the CBP INFO Center indicated that trend analysis of 

complaints information would help CBP understand where there are 

potential operational issues and help the agency mitigate these issues. 

Additionally, a recent review of use-of-force incidents by the DHS OIG 

found that CBP should better analyze use-of-force data—which could be 

determined by complaints of employee misconduct—to inform 

departmental decision-making.35

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

management should process the data it collects into quality information 

 34GAO, Immigration Detention: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen Management 

and Oversight of Detainee Medical Care, GAO-16-231 (Washington D.C.: Feb. 29, 2016).

35DHS Office of Inspector General, “CBP Use of Force Training and Actions To Address 

Use of Force Incidents,” OIG-13-114 (September 2013).
Page 26 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

that can be used to support the internal control system. The Standards 

also call for management to develop procedures to monitor the 

performance of regular operations over time and that there be effective 

communication within and across agencies to help ensure appropriate 

decisions are made.36 Creating a classification code for holding facilities 

within the various DHS complaint tracking systems would allow DHS to 

more readily access data on complaints related to individuals’ short-term 

custody at CBP and ICE holding facilities. Such data could help DHS 

maintain greater visibility on the complaints, including complaint volume, 

facilities where complaints are filed, and differences across facility type—

all of which could better position DHS to analyze and identify potential 

trends and use this information to inform management decisions. 

Additionally, analyzing this type of data for trends could help guide DHS’s 

efforts during annual compliance monitoring, such as including inspection 

areas related to common complaints filed in holding facilities.

CBP and ICE maintain holding facilities across the nation, which contain 

basic features and are designed specifically for the short-term custody of 

individuals. CBP and ICE have standards and monitoring processes in 

place at the headquarters and field levels—including the amount of time 

an individual generally may be held—to help ensure that holding facilities 

are providing the appropriate care. While Border Patrol and ICE maintain 

systems to track time in custody, assessing the data to ensure its quality 

would improve its utility in accurately informing Border Patrol and ICE’s 

operations. Furthermore, fully assessing their time in custody data would 

help the components better understand the various factors impacting time 

in custody, and would better position them to identify steps, if needed, to 

address the amount of time individuals are held in custody. In addition, 

DHS and its components have a number of complaint mechanisms in 

place. However, providing guidance to holding facilities on which of 

DHS’s various complaint mechanisms they should communicate to 

individuals in custody would help CBP and ICE have better assurance 

that individuals in custody within holding facilities have received 

information on how to submit a complaint. In addition, developing a 

process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints would 

 36GAO/AIMD-00.21.3.1.

Conclusions
Page 27 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

provide CBP and ICE with more information to oversee such facilities and 

aid in management decision-making.

To enhance the monitoring of holding facilities, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security should direct Border Patrol and ICE to develop and 

implement a process to assess their time in custody data for all 

individuals in holding facilities, including:

• identifying and addressing potential data quality issues; and

• identifying cases where time in custody exceeded guidelines and 

assessing the factors impacting time in custody.

To strengthen the transparency of the complaints process, the Secretary 

of Homeland Security should direct CBP and ICE to develop and issue 

guidance on how and which complaint mechanisms should be 

communicated to individuals in custody at holding facilities.

To facilitate the tracking of holding facility complaints, we recommend that 

the Secretary of Homeland Security include a classification code in all 

complaint tracking systems related to DHS holding facilities.

To provide useful information for compliance monitoring, the Secretary of 

Homeland Security should direct CBP and ICE to develop and implement 

a process for analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints across 

their respective component.

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS 

provided written comments, which are noted below and reproduced in full 

in appendix II, and technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

DHS concurred with all four recommendations in the report and described 

actions underway or planned to address them. With regard to the first 

recommendation related to assessing time in custody data, DHS 

concurred and stated that Border Patrol and ICE will develop processes 

to assess time in custody data for all individuals in holding facilities. For 

example, ICE will take steps to validate length of stay data and identify 

potential data quality issues. With regard to the second recommendation 

that CBP and ICE develop and issue guidance on how and which 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 28 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

complaint mechanisms should be communicated to individuals in holding 

facilities, DHS concurred and stated that CBP and ICE will develop and 

issue such guidance. For example, CBP plans to leverage an existing 

working group to develop and coordinate guidance on complaint 

mechanisms. With regard to the third recommendation that DHS include a 

classification code in all complaint tracking systems related to DHS 

holding facilities, DHS concurred and stated that the agency will take 

measures to add a code to tracking systems. Specifically, DHS plans to 

explore the feasibility of adding a source location code specific to holding 

facilities within tracking systems. With regard to the fourth 

recommendation that CBP and ICE develop and implement a process for 

analyzing trends related to holding facility complaints across their 

respective component, DHS concurred and stated that each component 

will institute a process. For example, CBP plans to develop reports on 

trends and patterns related to holding facilities. To the extent that CBP 

and ICE analyze trends in all complaint tracking systems, including 

JICMS, these steps should meet the intent of the recommendation. These 

planned actions, if fully implemented, should address the intent of the four 

recommendations contained in the report.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 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 III.

Sincerely yours,

Rebecca Gambler 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 29 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

Our objectives were to determine the extent to which the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) has (1) standards in place for the short-term 

custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established standards 

and (2) processes in place for obtaining and addressing complaints from 

aliens in holding facilities.

For this report, our scope covered holding facilities operated by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specifically, we included in our review 

holding facilities managed by CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol and Office of Field 

Operations (OFO), as well as ICE’s Enforcement and Removal 

Operations (ERO). Within OFO, we focused on holding facilities at land 

Ports of Entry (POE) and excluded air and maritime POEs since the 

environment at land POEs, including time in custody, is more similar to 

Border Patrol and ICE ERO holding facilities.

To address these questions, we visited a nongeneralizable sample of 32 

CBP and ICE holding facilities in California (July 2015), Florida 

(August/September 2015), Texas (November 2015) and Virginia (January 

2016)—to, among other things, observe holding facility conditions and 

conduct semistructured interviews with holding facility personnel and 

senior officials with Border Patrol sectors, OFO field offices and ICE ERO 

field offices. Specifically, we visited 17 Border Patrol facilities, 7 OFO 

facilities, and 8 ICE facilities. We selected these facilities based on a mix 

of factors, such as facility type, differences in geographical location, 

number of apprehensions and recommendations made by DHS and 

advocacy organizations that work with individuals held in DHS’s custody. 

We focused the site visit interviews on holding facility standards, 

compliance mechanisms, and avenues for individuals to make 

complaints. The information we obtained from our holding facility visits 

cannot be generalized to all facilities, but provided us insights into the 

implementation of policies and procedures used by DHS to oversee 

holding facilities and manage complaints. Prior to our site visits, we 

interviewed five advocacy organizations to obtain their perspective on 

DHS’s management of holding facilities. We identified these organizations 

through similar GAO work and the recommendations of officials with 

advocacy organizations. While not generalizable, this sample of 

organizations provided us with insights into the perspectives of advocacy 

organizations regarding DHS’s short-term custody of aliens.

To determine the extent to which DHS has standards in place for the 

short-term custody of aliens and monitors compliance with established 

standards, we reviewed agency documentation, including holding facility 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

policies and procedures and self-inspection results. Specifically, we 

analyzed national standards for holding facilities covering, among other 

things, the conditions of confinement, such as the provision of meals and 

water, and time in custody. These standards include CBP’s October 2015 

National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention and Search; Border 

Patrol’s January 2008 Hold Rooms and Short Term Custody policy; 

OFO’s August 2008 Secure Detention, Transport, and Escort Procedures 

at Ports of Entry; and ICE’s September 2014 Operations of ERO Holding 

Facilities policy. To better understand the standards and monitoring 

processes in place, we interviewed Border Patrol, OFO, and ICE officials 

at the headquarters level that have responsibility for overseeing holding 

facilities, as well as holding facility personnel and sector/field office 

officials. During these interviews, among other things, we determined the 

extent to which agencies use and analyze data, such as time in custody, 

for oversight purposes and discussed the various factors that might 

impact time in custody. We assessed DHS practices for monitoring 

holding facilities against relevant standards in Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government.

1

In addition, we collected and analyzed fiscal year 2014 through 2015 

Border Patrol data on apprehensions and alien time in custody—the most 

recent data maintained by Border Patrol at the time of our review—to 

determine the population and time in custody for aliens in holding 

facilities. To determine the reliability of this data, we reviewed Border 

Patrol documentation and interviewed agency officials responsible for 

ensuring data quality about e3—the system that Border Patrol uses to 

track information on aliens held in short-term custody. We determined 

that the apprehension data was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

our reporting objectives; however, we could not determine the reliability of 

the time in custody data because of potential irregularities, such as 

individuals indicated as having many months in custody, which we 

discuss in the report. We also collected data from ICE on the number of 

aliens in custody at ERO holding facilities; however, based on a review of 

ICE documentation and interviews with ICE officials responsible for 

ensuring data quality, we determined that the data was not reliable 

because of missing and inaccurate data, including a potentially significant 

 1

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00.21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

over-count in the number of aliens in custody at one holding facility. 

Moreover, we were unable to analyze or determine the reliability of ICE 

data on time in custody because the agency does not include hours in 

custody in its standard reports. We were unable to obtain OFO data on 

number of aliens and their time of custody at holding facilities because 

the agency does not currently collect it nationwide.

To determine the extent to which DHS has processes in place for 

obtaining and addressing complaints from aliens in holding facilities, we 

analyzed documentation on DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), DHS 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, ICE/CBP Joint Intake Center 

(JIC), CBP INFO Center, and ICE Detention and Reporting Information 

Line processes for managing complaints and interviewed officials from 

these complaint mechanisms. We learned from our review of 

documentation and interviews with agency officials that DHS complaint 

tracking systems generally do not have a classification code for holding 

facility complaints. To better understand the characteristics of these 

tracking systems, we analyzed fiscal year 2012-2014 data maintained in 

the Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS)—the system ICE 

and CBP use to track complaints reported to the JIC, including those 

related to holding facilities. We selected JICMS data to evaluate since it 

contains information on both ICE and CBP complaints. Based on this 

analysis, we confirmed that it was not possible to identify the universe of 

holding facility complaints in JICMS since the tracking system does not 

have a facility or issues type code associated with holding facilities. In 

addition, during our site visits, we interviewed holding facility officials on 

their local processes for obtaining and addressing complaints and 

evaluated how holding facilities communicated available complaint 

mechanisms. Specifically, we observed whether holding facilities posted 

information on available complaint mechanisms, such as the DHS OIG, in 

holding cells/rooms or in the processing area and we summarized the 

results of these observations by holding facility and complaint 

mechanism. We assessed DHS’s processes for obtaining and addressing 

complaints against relevant standards in Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government.

2

 2

GAO/AIMD-00.21.3.1.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-16-514 Immigration Detention

We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to May 2016 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.
Appendix II: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 33 GAO-16-514 

Appendix II: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security
Appendix II: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 34 GAO-16-514 
Appendix II: Comments from Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 35 GAO-16-514 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 36 GAO-16-514 

Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 or GamblerR@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kirk Kiester (Assistant Director), 

Anthony Fernandez, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Brian Lipman, Jon 

Najmi, Steven Rocker, and Mike Silver made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441291)
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 and read The Watchblog.

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.