UNACCOMPANIED 

CHILDREN

Agency Efforts to 

Reunify Children 

Separated from 

Parents at the Border

Accessible Version

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives

October 2018

GAO-19-163

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-19-163, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, House of Representatives

October 2018

UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN

Agency Efforts to Reunify Children Separated from 

Parents at the Border

What GAO Found

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) officials we interviewed said the agencies did not plan for the 

potential increase in the number of children separated from their parent or legal 

guardian as a result of the Attorney General’s April 2018 “zero tolerance” memo. 

These officials told GAO that they were unaware of the memo in advance of its 

public release. The memo directed Department of Justice prosecutors to accept 

for criminal prosecution all referrals from DHS of offenses related to improper 

entry into the United States, to the extent practicable. As a result, parents were 

placed in criminal detention, and their children were placed in the custody of 

HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). DHS and ORR treated separated 

children as unaccompanied alien children (UAC)—those under 18 years old with 

no lawful immigration status and no parent or legal guardian in the United States 

available to provide care and physical custody.

Prior to April 2018, DHS and HHS did not have a consistent way to indicate in 

their data systems children and parents separated at the border. In April and July 

2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and ORR, respectively, updated their 

databases to allow them to indicate whether a child was separated. However, it is 

too soon to know the extent to which these changes, if fully implemented, will 

consistently indicate when children have been separated from their parents, or 

will help reunify families, if appropriate. 

In response to a June 26, 2018 court order to quickly reunify children separated 

from their parents, HHS determined how many children in its care were subject to 

the order and developed procedures for reunifying these families. The 

government identified 2,654 children in ORR custody who potentially met 

reunification criteria. On July 10, 2018, the court approved reunification 

procedures for the parents covered by the June 2018 court order. This order 

noted that ORR’s standard procedures used to release UACs from its care to 

sponsors were not meant to apply to this case, in which parents and children who 

were apprehended together were separated by government officials. DHS and 

HHS officials and staff at the ORR shelters GAO visited noted some challenges 

to reunification, including arranging communication between parent and child and 

coordinating transportation. As of September 10, 2018, 437 children remained in 

ORR custody for various reasons, such as ineligibility for reunification. 

Number of Separated Children Potentially Eligible to Be Reunified with Parents as of 

September 10, 2018

Note: GAO did not independently verify the accuracy of these data.

View GAO-19-163. For more information, 

contact Kathryn A. Larin at (202) 512-7215 or 

larink@gao.gov or Rebecca Gambler at (202) 

512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

On April 6, 2018, the Attorney General 

issued a memorandum on criminal 

prosecutions of immigration offenses, 

which, according to HHS officials, 

resulted in a considerable increase in 

the number of minor children whom 

DHS separated from their parents after 

attempting to cross the U.S. border 

illegally. On June 20, 2018, the 

President issued an executive order 

directing that alien families generally 

be detained together, and on June 26, 

2018, a federal judge ordered the 

government to reunify separated 

families. DHS is responsible for the 

apprehension of individuals at the 

border, including families, and the 

transfer of UAC to HHS. HHS is

responsible for coordinating the 

placement and care of UAC. 

GAO was asked to examine processes 

for tracking and reunifying separated 

families. This report discusses DHS 

and HHS (1) planning efforts related to 

the Attorney General’s April 2018 

memo, (2) systems for indicating 

children were separated from parents, 

and (3) actions to reunify families in 

response to the June 2018 court order. 

GAO reviewed agency policies and 

procedures, filings in the relevant court 

case as of August 23, 2018, and 

interviewed DHS and HHS officials. 

GAO also visited four ORR shelters in 

July 2018 to interview staff responsible 

for the separated children. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations. 

GAO previously recommended that 

DHS and HHS improve their process 

for transferring UAC from DHS to HHS 

custody. DHS and HHS provided 

technical comments that were 

incorporated, as appropriate.
Page i GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Contents

Letter 1

Background 5

DHS and HHS Planning for Family Separations 13

DHS and HHS Systems for Indicating When Children Were 

Separated from Parents 17

DHS and HHS Actions to Reunify Families in Response to the 

June 2018 Court Order 22

Agency Comments 37

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 39

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 42

GAO Contacts 42

Staff Acknowledgments 42

Appendix III: Accessible Data 43

Data Tables 43

Agency Comment Letter 45

Tables

Table 1: Number of Children Separated from Potential Class 

Member Parents at the Border and Number Who Had 

Been Reunified in Response to the June 26, 2018 Court 

Order (as of September 10, 2018) 28

Table 2: Number and Reasons Children Identified by the 

Government as Covered by the June 26, 2018 Court 

Order Remain in Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) 

Custody (as of September 10, 2018) 36

Figures

Figure 1: Transfer, Care, and Release of Unaccompanied Alien 

Children in Federal Custody 8

Figure 2: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 

Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 
Process to Reunify Children with Parents in U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Custody, 

Developed in Response to the June 26, 2018 Court 

Order 33

Accessible Data for Number of Separated Children Potentially 

Eligible to Be Reunified with Parents as of September 10, 

2018 43

Accessible Data for Figure 1: Transfer, Care, and Release of 

Unaccompanied Alien Children in Federal Custody 43

Accessible Data for Figure 2: Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and Department of Health and Human Services’ 

(HHS) Process to Reunify Children with Parents in U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Custody, 

Developed in Response to the June 26, 2018 Court 

Order 44

Abbreviations

Page ii GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOJ Department of Justice

ERO Enforcement and Removal Operations

Flores Agreement Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

OFO Office of Field Operations

ORR Office of Refugee Resettlement

TVPRA William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection

Reauthorization Act of 2008

UAC unaccompanied alien child (or children)

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-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Letter

October 9, 2018

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr. 

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Pallone:

In April 2018, the Attorney General issued a memorandum on criminal 

prosecutions of immigration offenses (also referred to as the “zero 

tolerance” policy) that directed Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors 

to accept all referrals of all improper entry offenses from the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) for criminal prosecution, to the extent 

practicable.1 The April 2018 memo resulted in a considerable increase in 

the number of minor children who were separated from their parents or 

legal guardians after attempting to enter the United States illegally, 

according to DHS and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

 

1Memorandum for Prosecutors Along the Southwest Border. Zero-Tolerance for Offenses 

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a). Office of the Attorney General. April 6, 2018 (referred to in this 

report as the “April 2018 memo”). Specifically, the memo directed “each United States 

Attorney’s Office along the Southwest Border—to the extent practicable, and in 

consultation with DHS—to adopt immediately a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses 

referred for prosecution under section 1325(a).” 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) establishes criminal 

penalties for improper entry by alien for (1) entering or attempting to enter the U.S. at any 

time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eluding examination 

or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempting to enter or obtaining entry to the 

United States by willfully false or misleading misrepresentation or the willful concealment 

of a material fact. Generally, a first offense under section 1325(a) is a criminal 

misdemeanor, with a maximum sentence of 6 months. 
Letter

officials.

Page 2 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

2 According to DHS officials, in implementing the April 2018 

memo, DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began referring 

a greater number of individuals apprehended at the border to DOJ for 

criminal prosecution, including parents who were apprehended with 

children.3In these cases, referred parents were placed into U.S. Marshals 

Service custody and separated from their children because minors cannot 

remain with a parent who is arrested on criminal charges and detained by 

U.S. Marshals Service.4In cases where parents were referred to DOJ for 

criminal proceedings and separated from their children, DHS and HHS 

officials stated they treated those children as unaccompanied alien 

children (UAC)—a child who (1) has no lawful immigration status in the 

United States, (2) has not attained 18 years of age, and (3) has no parent 

or legal guardian in the United States or no parent or legal guardian in the 

United States available to provide care and physical custody.5In such 

 

2Prior to the April 2018 memo, DOJ had taken action in 2017 to prioritize the criminal 

prosecution of immigration-related offenses. Memorandum for All Federal Prosecutors. 

Renewed Commitment to Criminal Immigration Enforcement. Office of the Attorney 

General. April 11, 2017. Specifically, in April 2017, the Attorney General issued a 

memorandum prioritizing enforcement of a number of criminal immigration-related 

offenses, including misdemeanor improper entry. The memo prioritizes offenses under 

U.S. immigration law, which explicitly involve aliens (i.e., those who are not U.S. citizens 

or nationals), such as improper entry by alien (8 U.S.C. § 1325), illegal reentry of removed 

aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1326), and unlawfully bringing in and harboring certain removable 

aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1324), as well as offenses in relation to listed immigration offenses, 

such as aggravated identify theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A) and fraud and misuse of visas, 

permits, and other documents (18 U.S.C. § 1546). For the purposes of this report, we refer 

to all of these crimes involving U.S. immigration enforcement, as “immigration-related 

offenses.”

3When we use the term “children,” we are referring to minor children under the age of 18. 

When we use the term “parent,” we are referring to parents and legal guardians. 

4While DOJ and DHS have broad authority to detain adult aliens, children, whether 

accompanied or unaccompanied, must be detained according to standards established in 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

of 2008, and the 1997 Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement (Flores Agreement). See 

Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtit. D, § 441, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 ; Pub. L. No. 110-457, 

112 Stat. 5044; Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Reno, No. 85-4544 (C.D. Cal. 

Jan. 17, 1997). The Flores Settlement Agreement requires among other things, that 

children be placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the child’s age and special 

needs and that children generally be detained separate from unrelated adults. See also

Flores v. Reno, No. 85-4544 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) (in chambers-order). The U.S. 

Marshals Service houses and transports individuals arrested by federal agencies, relying 

on federal, state, local and private jails throughout the U.S. for detention space. These 

facilities are not equipped to detain children in accordance with the standards described 

above.

5

6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2).
Letter

cases, DHS transferred these children to the custody of HHS’s Office of 

Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and ORR placed them in one of their 

shelter facilities, as is the standard procedure the agencies use for UAC. 

Children traveling with related adults other than a parent or legal 

guardian—such as a grandparent or sibling—are also deemed UAC.

On June 20, 2018, the President issued an executive order that, among 

other things, directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to maintain

custody of alien families during any criminal improper entry or immigration 

proceedings involving their members, to the extent possible.

Page 3 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

6 This order 

stated that the policy of the administration is to maintain family unity, 

including by detaining alien families together where appropriate. In 

addition, on June 26, 2018, a federal judge ruled in the Ms. L. v. ICE case 

that certain separated parents must be reunited with their minor children 

(referred to in this report as the “June 2018 court order”).7In this case, the 

American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of certain 

parents (referred to as class members) who had been separated from 

their children.8 The government subsequently identified 2,654 children of 

potential class members in the Ms. L. v. ICE case, which we discuss in 

 

6Exec. Order No. 13841, 83 Fed. Reg. 29,435 (June 25, 2018). Although the executive 

order was announced on June 20, 2018, it was not published in the Federal Register until 

June 25, 2018.

7For parents covered by the June 2018 order, the court ruled that the government may not 

detain parents apart from their minor children, subject to certain exceptions; that parents

must be reunited with their minor children under 5 years of age within 14 days of the 

order; and parents must be reunited with their minor children age 5 and over within 30 

days of the order. The order required these reunifications unless there is a determination 

that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, or the parent affirmatively, 

knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child. Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration 

& Customs Enforcement (Ms. L. v. ICE), No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (order 

granting preliminary injunction).

8This case was filed as a class action—class referring to individuals with a shared legal 

claim who are covered by the lawsuit. Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. March 9, 

2018) (amended complaint). The court certified the following class: “All adult parents who 

enter the United States at or between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or 

will be detained in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or 

will be separated from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or 

DHS custody, absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the 

child.” Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (order granting in part 

plaintiffs’ motion for class certification). In that order, the court also noted that the class 

“does not include migrant parents with criminal history or communicable disease, or those 

who are in the interior of the United States or subject to the [June 20 executive order].”
Letter

greater detail later in this report.

Page 4 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

9 As of September 25, 2018, this litigation 

was ongoing. The Secretary of HHS directed HHS’s Assistant Secretary 

for Preparedness and Response to lead family reunification efforts. 

This report discusses (1) DHS and HHS planning efforts related to the 

Attorney General’s April 2018 memo, (2) DHS and HHS systems for 

indicating when children were separated from parents, and (3) DHS and 

HHS actions to reunify families in response to the June 2018 court order.

To address all three objectives, we interviewed DHS and HHS officials. 

Specifically, we interviewed CBP, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), and DHS’s Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans 

officials, as well as HHS officials from the offices of the Assistant 

Secretary for Preparedness and Response and ORR. In addition, we 

visited two ORR shelters in Arizona and two in Texas during the week of 

July 30, 2018, to interview staff responsible for the intake and release of 

separated children who had been in these shelters. We selected the 

shelters on the basis of various factors, including a range of shelter sizes, 

variation in shelter operator, and whether the shelters had at least 15 

percent of total bed capacity occupied by separated children as of July 

16, 2018. While our visits to four shelters are not generalizable to the 

about 100 ORR shelters, they provide examples of shelter staff 

experiences with children separated from parents at the border.

To describe DHS and HHS planning efforts, we reviewed agency 

documentation, such as relevant DHS memoranda. To examine DHS and 

HHS systems for indicating when children were separated from parents 

and for transferring custody between agencies, we reviewed DHS and 

HHS documentation related to these systems, including CBP’s U.S. 

Border Patrol’s training for referring UAC to HHS care and HHS’s UAC 

policy guide. To examine DHS and HHS actions to reunify families, we 

 

9ORR did not provide us with information on the demographic characteristics of all 2,654 

children they identified as being children of potential class members. However, ORR did 

provide us with data from its UAC Portal on 2,509 of the 2,654 children separated from 

their parents who were approved for an ORR placement from March 9, 2018, to June 27, 

2018, which accounts for about 95 percent of the children potentially covered by the court 

order. ORR provided this data in response to our initial request; ORR was unable to 

provide updated data by our reporting deadline. Based on our review of relevant 

documentation, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to describe the ages 

of children that were separated from parents at the border. Our analysis of the 2,509 

children separated from parents who were approved for an ORR placement from March 9, 

2018, to June 27, 2018, found that approximately 3 percent of these separated children 

were ages 0 to 4, 53 percent were age 5 to 12, and 44 percent were age 13 and over. 
Letter

reviewed relevant court filings in Ms. L. v. ICE as of August 23, 2018.

Page 5 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

10

These court filings included information provided to the court by DHS and 

HHS on the processes used to reunify separated children and parents 

subject to the court order. The court filings also include information 

provided to the court by DHS and HHS on the number of children reunited 

with parents and those remaining in HHS custody. We used that 

information to describe the number of children reunited with their parents 

and the number of children remaining in HHS custody. However, we did 

not independently verify the accuracy of the numbers reported by the 

agencies to the court.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2018 to October 2018 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.

Background

Care and Custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children 

(UAC)

Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, responsibility for the 

apprehension, temporary detention, transfer, and repatriation of UAC is 

delegated to DHS,11 and responsibility for coordinating and implementing 

the placement and care of UAC is delegated to HHS’s ORR.12 CBP’s U.S. 

Border Patrol (Border Patrol) and Office of Field Operations (OFO), as 

well as DHS’s ICE, apprehend, process, temporarily detain, and care for 

 

10Although the litigation is ongoing as of September 25, 2018, this report does not 

address any actions in the litigation beyond August 23, 2018, aside from providing 

information on the number of children reunited or remaining in HHS custody as reported in 

a September 13, 2018 court filing.

11Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtit. D, § 441, 116 Stat. 2135, 2192 (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 

251). Repatriation is defined as returning unaccompanied children to their country of 

nationality or last habitual residence.

12Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtit. D, § 462, 116 Stat. 2135, 2202 (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 

279).
Letter

UAC who enter the United States with no lawful immigration status.

Page 6 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

13

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

responsible for transferring UAC, as appropriate, to ORR, or repatriating 

them to their countries of nationality or last habitual residence. Under the 

William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 

2008 (TVPRA), UAC in the custody of any federal department or agency, 

including DHS, must be transferred to ORR within 72 hours after 

determining that they are UAC, except in exceptional circumstances.14 In 

addition, the 1997 Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement (Flores 

Agreement) sets standards of care for UAC while in DHS or ORR 

custody, including, among other things, providing drinking water, food, 

and proper physical care and shelter for children.

15

 

13Border Patrol agents apprehend UAC between official U.S. ports of entry, and Office of 

Field Operations officers encounter these children at ports of entry. ICE apprehends UAC 

within the United States at locations other than borders or ports of entry. 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, 

merchandise and other items, collect duties, and enforce customs laws; and where DHS 

officers inspect persons seeking to enter or depart, or applying for admission into the 

United States pursuant to U.S. immigration law and travel controls. 

148 U.S.C § 1232(b)(3). The TVPRA also provides special rules for UAC from Canada and 

Mexico who are apprehended at a land border or port of entry. On a case-by-case basis 

for UAC from Canada and Mexico, DHS may allow the child to withdraw his or her 

application for admission and return to his or her country of nationality or last habitual 

residence without further removal proceedings if the officers screen the UAC within 48 

hours of being apprehended and determine that (1) the UAC is not a victim of a “severe 

form of trafficking of persons” (as that term is defined by statute); (2) there is no credible 

evidence that the UAC is at risk of being trafficked if repatriated; (3) the UAC does not 

have a fear of returning to his or her country owing to a credible fear or persecution; and 

(4) the UAC is able to make an independent decision to withdraw the application for 

admission to the U.S. and voluntarily return to his or her country of nationality or last 

habitual residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(2)-(4). According to CBP, a UAC who meets the 

criteria to withdraw an application for admission or voluntarily return is generally returned 

by CBP with the close cooperation of the foreign government.

15The court-approved settlement agreement in the case of Flores v. Reno was the result 

of a class action lawsuit filed against the former Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS) challenging the agency’s arrest, processing, detention, and release of juveniles in its 

custody. The agreement sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and 

treatment of minors in the custody of legacy INS, the border security and immigrationrelated functions of which are now performed by CBP, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services. Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Reno, No. 85-4544 

(C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 1997). The Flores Agreement is currently the subject of ongoing 

litigation. See Flores v. Reno, No. 85-4544 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2018) (notice of appeal). 
Letter

ORR has cooperative agreements with residential care providers to 

house and care for UAC while they are in ORR custody. The aim is to 

provide housing and care in the least restrictive environment 

commensurate with the children’s safety and emotional and physical 

needs.

Page 7 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

16 In addition, these care providers are responsible for identifying 

and assessing the suitability of potential sponsors—generally a parent or 

other relative in the country—who can care for the child after the child 

leaves ORR custody.17 Release to a sponsor does not grant UAC legal 

immigration status. Children are scheduled for removal proceedings in 

immigration courts to determine whether they will be ordered removed 

from the United States or granted immigration relief.18

Prior to the Attorney General’s April 2018 memo, according to DHS 

officials, accompanied children at the border were generally held with 

their parents in CBP custody for a limited time before being transferred to 

ICE and released pending removal proceedings in immigration court. 

However, according to DHS and HHS officials, DHS has historically 

separated a small number of children from accompanying adults at the 

border and transferred them to ORR custody for reasons such as if the 

parental relationship could not be confirmed, there was reason to believe 

the adult was participating in human trafficking or otherwise a threat to the 

safety of the child, or if the child crossed the border with other family 

members such as grandparents without proof of legal guardianship. ORR 

has traditionally treated these children the same as other UAC.

Standard Processes and Procedures for the Transfer, 

Care, and Release of Unaccompanied Alien Children

In 2015 and 2016, we reported on DHS’s and HHS’s care and custody of 

UAC, including the standard procedures that DHS follows to transfer UAC 

 

16ORR is required to promptly place UAC in its custody in the least restrictive setting that 

is in the best interest of the child. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A).

17Qualified sponsors are adults who are suitable to provide for the child’s physical and 

mental well-being and have not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk 

to the child. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3). 

18There are several types of immigration relief that may be available to these children, for 

example, asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile status. For more information, see GAO, 

Unaccompanied Children: HHS Can Take Further Actions to Monitor Their Care, 

GAO-16-180 (Feb. 5, 2016: Washington, D.C.)
Letter

to ORR (see fig. 1).

Page 8 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

19 In general, DHS is to notify ORR that they have a 

child needing placement, and DHS is required to transfer the child to 

ORR custody within 72 hours of apprehension, except under exceptional 

circumstances.20 According to ORR’s UAC policy guide, ORR officials are 

to identify an appropriate shelter, based on the needs of the 

child, with available space, and DHS generally transports the children to 

the ORR shelter.21

Figure 1: Transfer, Care, and Release of Unaccompanied Alien Children in Federal Custody

aVoluntary return refers to (1) the process by which DHS evaluates the eligibility of a UAC from a 

contiguous country to withdraw his or her application for admission to the United States pursuant to 

section 8 U.S.C. § 1232(a)(2), or (2) in the case of UAC from non-contiguous countries, an 

immigration judge allowing an arriving alien to withdraw an application for admission during removal 

 

19GAO, Unaccompanied Alien Children: Actions Needed to Ensure Children Receive 

Required Care in DHS Custody, GAO-15-521 (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2015) and 

GAO-16-180. 

20See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b).

21Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR Guide: Children Entering the United States 

Unaccompanied, accessed August 23, 2018,

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied. 

ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations provides long-distance travel for UAC within 

the United States via commercial airlines, charter aircraft, or bus. In some areas, CBP 

transports UAC to shelters that are within the local commuting area. 
Letter

proceedings where certain requirements are met; followed, in both scenarios, by the unaccompanied 

child’s decision to voluntarily withdraw and their return to home country.

b

Immigration relief refers to various forms of relief or protection from removal that may be available to 

the children. There are several types of immigration relief that may be available to these children; for 

example, asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile status.

According to ORR’s UAC policy guide, the agency requests certain 

information from DHS when DHS refers children to ORR, including, for 

example, how DHS determined the child was unaccompanied.

Page 9 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

22

Depending on which DHS component or office is referring the child to 

ORR, DHS may provide information on the child in an automated manner 

directly into ORR’s UAC Portal—the official system of record for children 

in ORR’s care—or via email.23 As of August 2018, not all DHS offices 

were entering information directly into ORR’s UAC Portal. In cases in 

which the information is sent via email, the ORR Intakes Team must 

manually enter it into the UAC Portal.24

Once at the shelter, shelter staff typically conduct an intake assessment 

of the child within 24 hours, and then are to provide services such as 

health care and education.25 According to the policy guide, shelter staff 

are responsible for meeting with the child to begin identifying potential 

sponsors, which can include parents. Shelter staff ask the child to provide 

names and phone numbers of potential sponsors, where available.

 

22Other information that ORR requests from DHS includes: biographical information such 

as name, gender, and date of birth; health information; identifying information and contact 

information for a parent, legal guardian, or other related adult providing care for the child 

prior to apprehension, if known. ORR also requests information concerning whether the 

child or youth is a victim of trafficking or other crimes; the child or youth was apprehended 

with siblings or other relatives; the child or youth is an escape risk; the child or youth has a 

history of violence, juvenile or criminal background, gang involvement, or is a danger to 

themselves or others; and, any special needs or other information that would affect care 

and placement for the child.

23CBP officials also told us that its officials included biographical information and details 

regarding the apprehension of the alien, in packets provided to ORR when UAC are 

transferred to ORR custody.

24The ORR Intakes Team is made up of ORR headquarter staff who receive referrals of 

UAC from federal agencies and make the initial placement of these children in ORR 

facilities.

25As previously discussed, ORR has cooperative agreements with residential care 

providers. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the staff of these providers as 

“shelter staff” or “care providers.” By contrast, we refer to federal ORR officials as “ORR 

officials,” “ORR staff,” or “ORR field staff.”
Letter

To identify and assess the suitability of potential sponsors, including 

parents, ORR care providers collect information from potential sponsors 

to establish and identify their relationship to the child.

Page 10 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

26 As we reported in 

2016, the process begins during intake when staff ask children if there is 

someone in the United States they know or were planning to live with.27

Potential sponsors must complete a family reunification application, which 

includes basic questions about the sponsor and child and their 

relationship to each other, as well as questions about where the family 

will live, who else lives at the address, who will care for the child if the 

sponsor is no longer able to do so, and the sponsor’s financial 

information, among others. As part of the application, the potential 

sponsor must also provide other documents such as a sponsor care 

agreement that outlines the sponsor’s responsibilities such as providing 

for the child’s physical and mental well-being, education, medical care, 

and ensuring the child attends future immigration related hearings. 

Potential sponsors must also provide proof of identity, proof of address, 

and other documents and agree to be screened. The screening 

conducted on potential sponsors includes various background checks and 

the level of the background check depends on the relationship of the 

sponsor to the child. For example, public record checks are conducted on 

all potential sponsors. All potential sponsors who are not parents also 

receive a criminal history check through the Federal Bureau of 

Investigations database based on digital fingerprints; however, in certain 

cases, parents also receive this same check.28 Similarly, immigration 

status checks and child abuse and neglect checks are conducted 

depending on the sponsor’s relationship to the child and whether there 

are documented risks to the child.

In June 2018, ORR implemented increased background check 

requirements that were outlined in an April 2018 memorandum of 

 

26According to an HHS official, ORR’s process for placing UAC with sponsors is designed 

to comply with the 1997 Flores Agreement, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and 

TVPRA. 

27GAO-16-180. According to ORR’s UAC policy guide, if a child is either too young or 

there are other factors that prohibit the care provider from obtaining potential sponsor 

information from the unaccompanied alien child, the care provider may seek assistance 

from the child’s home country consulate in collaboration with the ORR Federal Field 

Specialist or from a reputable family tracing organization.

28These cases included where there was a documented risk to the safety of the 

unaccompanied child, the child was especially vulnerable, and/or the case was being 

referred for a mandatory home study. 
Letter

agreement with DHS. These changes require ORR staff to collect 

fingerprints from all potential sponsors, including parents, and all adults in 

the potential sponsor’s household. According to the April 2018 agreement 

between ORR and DHS, ORR is to transmit fingerprints of potential 

sponsors and others, as appropriate, to ICE to perform criminal and 

immigration status checks on ORR’s behalf. ICE is to submit the results to 

ORR, and ORR uses this information, along with information provided by, 

and interviews with, the potential sponsors, to assess their suitability.

Page 11 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

29

After reviewing results of all of the background checks, care providers 

make recommendations for release, which ORR officials approve or 

disapprove, according to ORR’s UAC policy guide.30 Sponsors are to sign 

a sponsor care agreement that acknowledges their responsibilities, 

including providing for the safety and education of the child and agreeing 

to ensure they appear at all immigration court hearings. ORR policy 

requires that home studies be conducted under certain circumstances, 

such as when releasing a child to a non-relative who is seeking to 

sponsor multiple children, and home studies may be recommended prior 

to placement in any case in which there are questions about the ability of 

the sponsor to meet the child’s needs and provide a safe environment. 

The TVPRA also requires home studies be conducted for certain children, 

such as special needs children or children who are victims of a severe 

form of trafficking in persons.31

Timeline of Key Actions

Since 2017, there have been several key actions related to DOJ’s 

prioritization of immigration offenses for criminal prosecution, DHS’s 

referral of individuals apprehended along the border to DOJ for criminal 

 

29ORR continues to conduct the additional background checks, such as the child abuse 

and neglect checks as part of its screening process.

30In addition to the information ORR receives from shelter staff, a third party contractor 

also reviews the case and provides input to ORR regarding release decisions. 

31Pursuant to the TVPRA, a home study is required to be conducted for (1) a child who is 

a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons (as that term is defined by statute); (2) a 

special needs child with a disability; (3) a child who has been a victim of physical or sexual 

abuse under circumstances that indicate that the child’s health or welfare has been 

significantly harmed or threatened, and (4) a child whose proposed sponsor clearly 

presents a risk of abuse, maltreatment, exploitation, or trafficking to the child based on all 

available objective evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(3)(B).
Letter

prosecution, and court orders affecting separated parents and children. 

The textbox below provides information on some of these key actions.

Page 12 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border
Letter

Page 13 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Key Actions Related to Prioritization of Immigration Offenses for Criminal Prosecution and Separation of Parents and 

Children Apprehended at the Border

· April 11, 2017: Attorney General directs federal prosecutors along the southwest border to prioritize prosecutions of 

immigration-related offenses.

· March 9, 2018: The American Civil Liberties Union files an amended complaint in federal court on behalf of a class of alien 

parents who have been separated from their children by the government and whose children are detained in Office of Refugee 

Resettlement custody, asking the court to prohibit separation and require reunification of class members with their children.

· April 6, 2018: Attorney General directs federal prosecutors along the southwest border to adopt a “zero-tolerance policy” for 

improper entry immigration-related offenses.

· April 6, 2018: President Trump issues a memorandum titled ‘Ending “Catch and Release” at the Border of the United States 

and Directing Other Enhancements to Immigration Enforcement.’

· May 4, 2018: The Secretary of Homeland Security approves prosecuting all adults apprehended crossing the border illegally, 

including those apprehended with minors, at the recommendation of leaders from three Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) agencies.

· June 20, 2018: President Trump signed Executive Order 13841 directing DHS to maintain custody of alien families during any 

criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members, to the extent possible.

· June 26, 2018: A federal court order prohibits the government from detaining class members in DHS custody apart from their 

minor children and orders the government to reunite class members with their children, absent a determination that the parent is 

unfit or presents a danger to the child, or the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunified with the 

child.

· June 27, 2018: According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials, CBP issued guidance halting referrals of 

parents who enter the country illegally as part of a family unit to the Department of Justice for “zero-tolerance” prosecutions and 

outlines the situations in which children and parents may still be separated.a 

· July 10, 2018: Court-ordered deadline for the reunification of class members and children aged 0-4. 

· July 26, 2018: Court-ordered deadline for the reunification of class members and children aged 5-17. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Justice memos, Executive Order 13841, and federal court documents from Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018). | GAO-19-163

aCBP officials stated that a parent may still be separated from his or her child in certain 

circumstances, such as if the parent has a criminal history or communicable disease, or if the parent 

is unfit or presents a danger to the child.

DHS and HHS Planning for Family Separations

According to DHS and HHS officials we interviewed, the departments did 

not take specific steps in advance of the April 2018 memo to plan for the 

separation of parents and children or potential increase in the number of 

children who would be referred to ORR. DHS and HHS officials told us 

that the agencies did not take specific planning steps because they did 

not have advance notice of the Attorney General’s April 2018 memo. 

Specifically, CBP, ICE, and ORR officials we interviewed stated that they 

became aware of the April 2018 memo when it was announced publicly. 

Though they did not receive advance notice of the April 2018 memo, 

ORR officials stated that they were aware that increased separations of 

parents and children were occurring prior to the April 2018 memo, and 
Letter

one Border Patrol sector

Page 14 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

32 launched an initiative aimed at addressing 

increasing apprehensions of families in that sector.33

Specifically, during 2017, ORR officials noted an increase in the 

percentage of children in ORR’s care who were separated from their 

parents, and ORR officials stated that they discussed this trend with DHS 

officials in November 2017. Specifically, according to ORR officials, the 

percentage of children referred to ORR who were known to be separated 

from their parents rose by more than a tenfold increase, from 0.3 percent 

in November 2016 to 2.6 percent by March 2017, and then to 3.6 percent 

by August 2017. In addition, the ORR shelter and field staff we 

interviewed at four ORR facilities in Arizona and Texas told us they 

started noticing an increase in the number of children separated from 

their parents in late 2017 and early 2018, prior to the introduction of the 

April 2018 memo. The DHS officials we interviewed stated that, in some 

locations across the southwest border, there was an increase in the 

number of aliens CBP referred to DOJ for prosecution of immigrationrelated offenses after the Attorney General’s April 2017 memo34, and CBP 

officials we interviewed stated that historically some separations have 

always occurred if a parent is referred for criminal prosecution. In 

addition, CBP officials stated that there may have been an increase in 

children separated from non-parent relatives or other adults fraudulently 

posing as the child’s parents.35

 

32Border Patrol divides responsibility for border security operations geographically among 

sectors.

33As noted previously, Border Patrol officials stated that some family separations not 

related to prosecutions of violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) have always occurred, such as 

in cases in which the parent could be a threat to the health and safety of the child or the 

adult may not be the child’s parent. Depending on the circumstances of the case, some 

parents and children may be reunited prior to leaving DHS custody, or the child could be 

transferred to ORR’s care.

34As noted previously in this report, in April 2017, the Attorney General issued a 

memorandum prioritizing enforcement of a number of criminal immigration-related 

offenses, including misdemeanor improper entry. Historically, parents referred for 

prosecution were placed into U.S. Marshals Service custody and separated from their 

children because minors cannot remain with a parent who is arrested on criminal charges 

and detained by U.S. Marshals Service.

35In June 2018, DHS issued a press release noting an increase in the number of aliens 

using children to pose as family units to gain entry into the United States in 2017 and 

2018. CBP officials we interviewed reported that, since 2017, Border Patrol agents and 

CBP officers have been focusing increased attention on the documents used to support 

the relationship of the parent and child.
Letter

According to ORR officials, in November 2017, ORR officials asked DHS 

officials to provide information about the increase. In response, DHS 

officials stated that DHS did not have an official policy to separate 

families, according to ORR officials. A few months prior to April 2018 

memo, ORR officials said they saw a continued increase in separated 

children in their care. ORR officials noted that they considered planning 

for continued increases in separated children, but HHS leadership 

advised ORR not to engage in such planning since DHS officials told 

them that DHS did not have an official policy of separating parents and 

children.

From July to November 2017, one Border Patrol sector on the U.S. 

southwest border conducted an initiative to address an increase in 

apprehensions of families that sector officials had noted in early fiscal 

year 2017. Specifically, Border Patrol officials in the El Paso, Texas, 

sector reached an agreement with the District of New Mexico U.S. 

Attorney’s Office to refer more individuals who had been apprehended, 

including parents who arrived with minor children, for criminal 

prosecution. Prior to this initiative, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this district 

had placed limits on the number of referrals it would accept from Border 

Patrol for prosecution of immigration offenses.

Page 15 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

36 According to Border 

Patrol officials, under this initiative, the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed to 

accept all referrals from Border Patrol in the El Paso sector for individuals 

with violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 (improper entry by alien) and § 1326 

(reentry of removed aliens), consistent with the Attorney General’s 2017 

memo directing federal prosecutors to prioritize such prosecutions.37 For 

those parents placed into criminal custody, Border Patrol referred their 

children to ORR’s care as UAC. According to a Border Patrol report on 

the initiative, the El Paso sector processed approximately 1,800 

 

36According to a November 2017 Border Patrol memo, on July 6, 2017, the District of New 

Mexico, Acting United States Attorney removed all restrictions imposed on referrals from 

Border Patrol’s El Paso Sector, which had previously been limited to 25 referrals for 8 

U.S.C. § 1325 misdemeanor cases per month and 150 referrals for 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) 

felony cases per month.

37According to Border Patrol, all individuals apprehended, referred, and accepted for 

prosecution were generally prosecuted for criminal immigration violations such as 

improper entry by alien (8 U.S.C. § 1325), illegal reentry of removed aliens (8 U.S.C. § 

1326). According to a DHS press release issued on June 15, 2018, parents prosecuted for 

illegal entry were transferred to DOJ custody for criminal proceedings, then subsequently 

transferred to ICE for immigration proceedings. The press release states that any 

individual subject to removal from the United States may seek asylum or other protections 

available under the law, including children who, depending on the circumstances, may 

undergo separate immigration proceedings.
Letter

individuals in families and 281 individuals in families were separated 

under this initiative. Border Patrol headquarters directed the sector to end 

this initiative in November 2017, and Border Patrol officials stated that 

there were no other similar local initiatives that occurred prior to the 

Attorney General’s 2018 memo.

In an April 23, 2018, memo, CBP’s Commissioner, U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ Director, and ICE’s then-Acting Director sought 

guidance from the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding various 

approaches for implementing DOJ’s April 2018 memo. In the April 23 

memo, these officials recommended that DHS refer all adults who are 

apprehended between ports of entry to DOJ for prosecution for violations 

of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), including those arriving with minor children. The 

Secretary of Homeland Security approved the recommended approach 

on May 4, 2018, and on May 11, 2018 issued a memo directing DHS law 

enforcement officers at the U.S. southwest border to refer to DOJ for 

criminal prosecution all such individuals to the extent practicable.

Although ORR officials told us that they had not received advanced notice 

of the April 2018 memo, ORR field and shelter staff stated they made 

changes to daily operations as a result of the increased number of 

separated children being transferred to their care.

Page 16 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

38 For example:

· HHS officials reported that their coordination calls with ORR field staff 

increased over time with daily calls starting in July 2018. ORR field 

staff also increased their coordination with ICE’s Field Office Juvenile 

Coordinators to obtain information about the parents of separated 

children.39

· Staff in the two shelters we visited in Arizona told us that they 

modified their space to accommodate an increase in younger children. 

For example, the shelters converted space previously used for 

classrooms for older children to be space for children under age 5, 

with one shelter adding cribs, smaller tables and chairs, and toys 

appropriate for younger children. One shelter also provided additional 

training to staff to adequately care for the increased number of 

children under age 12. In past years, the majority of children in ORR 

 

38According to HHS officials, ORR continually monitors its internal bed capacity for UAC 

as demand for bed capacity fluctuates seasonally and at times in unpredictable ways. 

39ICE’s Field Office Juvenile Coordinators are responsible for coordinating the placement 

of UAC with ORR. 
Letter

care have been 13 to 17 years old, according to ORR data.

Page 17 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

40 For 

example, ORR reported that in fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017, 82 

percent of unaccompanied children in its care were ages 13 to 17.

DHS and HHS Systems for Indicating When 

Children Were Separated from Parents

Prior to the Attorney General’s April 2018 memo, DHS and HHS data 

systems did not systematically collect and maintain information to indicate 

when a child was separated from his or her parents, and ORR officials 

stated that such information was not always provided when children were 

transferred from DHS to HHS custody. Specifically, prior to April 2018, 

CBP’s and ORR’s data systems did not include a designated field to

indicate that a child was unaccompanied as a result of being separated 

from his or her parent.41 According to agency officials, between April and 

August 2018, the agencies made changes to their data systems to help 

notate in their records when children are separated from parents.42

Regarding DHS, CBP agencies Border Patrol and OFO made changes to 

their data systems to allow them to better indicate cases in which children 

were separated from their parents; however, ORR officials stated, as of 

early September 2018, they were unaware that DHS made these systems 

changes.43

· Border Patrol’s data system automatically populates a referral form 

from the information agents entered into their data system, which 

 

40Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR Facts and Data, accessed August 22, 2018,

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts-and-data.

41ORR officials told us that this information might be recorded in various text box fields in 

the UAC Portal, but that there was no specific, searchable field specifically for this 

information.

42Throughout the remainder of this report, we use “unaccompanied children” rather than 

UAC, because this is the term used by HHS.

43DHS and ORR officials told us that DHS components provide information on children 

referred to ORR through various mechanisms such as via email to ORR’s Intakes Team or 

by entering the information into the ORR’s UAC Portal directly. According to ORR officials, 

Border Patrol can automatically push referral data into the UAC Portal; ICE ERO has 

access to enter data directly into the Portal and should include information about 

separation in its referral notes; and OFO generally submits referrals via email and the 

ORR Intakes Team enters the information into the Portal. 
Letter

agents then send to ORR when referring an unaccompanied child.

Page 18 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

44

According to Border Patrol officials, Border Patrol modified its system 

on April 19, 2018, to include yes/no check boxes to allow agents to 

indicate that a child was separated from their parent(s).45 Prior to this 

system modification, Border Patrol agents typically categorized a 

separated child as an unaccompanied child in its system, but did not 

include information to indicate the child had been separated from a 

parent. However, Border Patrol officials told us that information on 

whether a child had been separated is not automatically included in 

the referral form sent to ORR. Rather, agents may indicate a 

separation in the referral notes sent electronically to ORR, but they 

are not required to do so, according to Border Patrol officials. 

Therefore, while the changes to the system may make it easier for 

Border Patrol to identify children separated from their parents, ORR 

officials stated ORR may not receive information through this 

mechanism to help it identify or track separated children.

· CBP’s OFO, which encounters families presenting themselves at 

ports of entry, also modified its data system46 and issued guidance to 

its officers on June 29, 2018, to track children separated from their 

parents.47 According to OFO officials, prior to that time, OFO 

designated children separated from their parents as unaccompanied. 

As of August 2018, OFO officials stated that while OFO has access to 

the UAC Portal, not all field staff input referrals directly in the UAC 

Portal. Rather, OFO officials typically email the referral request to 

ORR. OFO officials stated they have taken a phased approach to 

training OFO officers on the UAC Portal, and that they have ongoing 

efforts to ensure OFO officers make referrals to ORR directly in the 

 

44According to Border Patrol officials, ORR’s UAC Portal automatically uploaded the 

information transmitted by Border Patrol upon receipt. The Border Patrol referral form 

includes information such as a parent’s name, phone number, and address, if known.

45Border Patrol maintains the E3 data system, which Border Patrol agents use to transmit 

and store data collected when processing and identifying individuals apprehended at the 

border, including children who are unaccompanied due to separation from a parent. 

46OFO uses the Secure Integrated Government Mainframe Access system to collect 

information about individuals in its custody.

47Families presenting themselves at ports of entry would typically not be in violation 8 

U.S.C. § 1325(a), which establishes criminal penalties for improper entry into the United 

States. Rather, OFO officials stated that, both before and after the April 2018 memo, they 

separated parents and children due to circumstances such as a parent’s criminal history 

or if the parent presents a potential danger to the child. 
Letter

UAC Portal.

Regarding HHS, ORR made changes to the UAC Portal for indicating that 

a child was separated from his or her parents.

· ORR updated the UAC Portal to include a check box to indicate a 

child was separated from a parent. According to ORR officials, ORR 

made these changes on July 6, 2018, after the June 20 executive 

order and June 2018 court order to reunify families. According to ORR 

officials, prior to July 6, 2018, the UAC Portal did not have a 

systematic way to indicate whether a child was designated as 

unaccompanied as a result of being separated from a parent at the 

border. The updates allow those Border Patrol agents with direct 

access to the UAC Portal to check this box if a child was separated 

from a parent.

Page 19 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

48

Border Patrol issued guidance on July 5, 2018, directing its agents to use 

the new indicator for separated children in the UAC Portal and provide the 

parent’s alien number in the UAC Portal when making referrals to ORR as 

of July 6, 2018. Border Patrol officials told us that agents began adding 

that information at that time. However, ORR officials also said that DHS 

components with access to the UAC Portal are not yet utilizing the new 

check box consistently and the ORR Intakes Team completes the box 

based on information in DHS’s referral email, if DHS has not entered the 

information. Furthermore, staff at two ORR shelters we visited were not 

aware of these changes to the UAC Portal.

ORR officials stated that the amount of information provided by DHS 

about a child’s separation from his or her parents varied from child to 

child. CBP officials stated that, in addition to the referral, Border Patrol 

agents and CBP officers provide packets of information to ORR when 

unaccompanied children are transferred to ORR custody that includes 

information about separation from a parent; however, ORR officials told 

us that ORR rarely receives some of the forms in the packets to which 

 

48Border Patrol officials told us that most Border Patrol agents do not have access to 

ORR’s UAC Portal, but that Border Patrol’s Juvenile Coordinators do and they are

responsible for entering this information directly into the Portal. 
Letter

CBP officials referred. In addition, the forms themselves do not contain 

specific fields to indicate such a separation.

Page 20 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

49

Staff at three of the four shelters we visited in Arizona and Texas said that 

in most, but not all cases during the spring of 2018 DHS indicated in the 

custody transfer information that a child had been separated. For 

example, staff at one shelter said that, in most cases, custody transfer 

information it received from DHS for children separated from their parents 

indicated that separation, but estimated that for approximately 5 percent 

of the separated children in its care there was no information from DHS 

indicating parental separation. In these cases, shelter staff said they 

learned about the separation from the child during the shelter’s intake 

assessment. Staff at the same shelter, which cares for children ages 0 to 

4, noted that intake assessments for younger children are different from 

intake for older children, as younger children are unable to provide 

detailed information on such issues as parental separation. According to 

staff at three shelters we visited, if staff learned that any child was 

separated from a parent at the border and it was not already recorded by 

DHS, they completed a significant incident report. The significant incident 

report is uploaded to the UAC Portal and routed to ORR field staff so that 

they are aware that the shelter has a separated child in its care.

We have previously identified weaknesses in DHS and HHS’s process for 

the referral of unaccompanied children. In 2015, we reported that the 

interagency process to refer and transfer unaccompanied children from 

DHS to HHS was inefficient and vulnerable to errors because it relied on 

emails and manual data entry, and documented standard procedures, 

including defined roles and responsibilities, did not exist.50 As we 

reported, best practices of high-performing organizations include, among 

 

49Specifically, the CBP officials said the packets may have included, among other forms, 

Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien. The Form I-213 documents an 

alien’s biographical information, such as the alien’s and parents’ names, nationality, and 

contact information, if known; details regarding the apprehension of the alien; and key 

information Border Patrol agents and OFO officers learned while interviewing the alien. 

CBP officials reported that prior to May 5, 2018, the Form I-213 was provided to ORR on a 

case-by-case basis and CBP did not require agents to include this form in its transfer 

packet. However, in the weeks after the April 2018 memo, CBP heard from HHS and other

DHS offices that the lack of a Form I-213 was, in some cases, an impediment to 

reunification. Border Patrol issued reminders to include this form in the transfer packet to 

its agents on May 31 and June 14, 2018 and OFO did the same on June 22, 2018, 

according to CBP officials.

50GAO-15-521.
Letter

other things, ensuring the compatibility of the standards, policies, 

procedures, and data systems to be used.

Page 21 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

51 To increase the efficiency 

and improve the accuracy of the interagency unaccompanied children 

referral and placement process, we recommended that the Secretaries of 

DHS and HHS jointly develop and implement a documented interagency 

process with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, as well as 

procedures to disseminate placement decisions, for all agencies involved 

in the referral and placement of unaccompanied children in HHS shelters. 

In response, DHS and HHS agreed to establish a joint collaborative 

process for the referral and transfer of unaccompanied children from DHS 

to ORR shelters.

As noted, beginning in April 2018, Border Patrol, OFO, and ORR have 

made updates to their data systems to better identify children who are 

unaccompanied as a result of being separated from parents at the border. 

However, it is too soon to know the extent to which these changes, if fully 

implemented, will consistently indicate when children have been 

separated from their parents, or will help reunify families, if appropriate. 

Furthermore, while these data system updates are a positive step, they 

do not fully address the broader coordination issues we identified in our 

previous work. In addition, officials from DHS’s Office of Strategy, Policy, 

and Plans told us that DHS delivered a Joint Concept of Operations 

between DHS and HHS to Congress on July 31, 2018, which provides 

field guidance on interagency policies, procedures, and guidelines related 

to the processing of unaccompanied children transferred from DHS to 

HHS. DHS submitted the Joint Concept of Operations to us on 

September 26, 2018, in response to our recommendation. We are 

reviewing the extent to which the Joint Concept of Operations includes a 

documented interagency process with clearly defined roles and 

responsibilities, as well as procedures to disseminate placement 

decisions, for all agencies involved in the referral and placement of 

unaccompanied children, including those separated from parents at the 

border, in HHS shelters. Moreover, to fully address our recommendation, 

DHS and HHS should implement such interagency processes.

 

51GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: October 2005).
Letter

DHS and HHS Actions to Reunify Families in 

Page 22 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Response to the June 2018 Court Order

DHS and HHS took various actions in response to the June 26, 2018, 

court order to identify and reunify children separated from their parents. 

As previously discussed, the June 2018 court order required the 

government to reunite class member parents with their children under 5 

years of age within 14 days of the order, and for children age 5 and over, 

within 30 days of the order.52 The actions taken by DHS and HHS 

included (1) identifying the children and their parents to be reunited per 

the court order and (2) developing and implementing plans for reunifying 

children with parents in ICE custody and parents no longer in ICE 

custody. HHS officials told us that there were no specific procedures to 

reunite children with parents from whom they were separated at the 

border prior to the June 2018 court order. Rather, the agency used its 

standard processes and procedures, developed to comply with the 

TVPRA, to consider potential sponsors for unaccompanied children in 

their custody; if a parent was available to become a sponsor, reunification 

with that parent was a possible outcome.53

DHS and HHS Efforts to Identify Potential Class Members. To create 

the list of potential class members (that is, those parents of a separated 

child covered under the lawsuit) eligible for reunification per the June 

2018 court order, DHS and HHS officials told us that they generated the 

list based on children who were in DHS or HHS custody on that date. 

 

52Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (order granting preliminary 

injunction). The court certified the following class: “All adult parents who enter the United 

States at or between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained 

in immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated 

from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, 

absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.” Ms. L. v. 

ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (order granting in part plaintiffs’ motion for 

class certification).” In that order, the court also noted that the class “does not include 

migrant parents with criminal history or communicable disease, or those who are in the 

interior of the United States or subject to the [June 20 executive order].”

53As noted previously, on June 20, 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order 13841, 

which stated that “[i]t is the policy of this Administration to rigorously enforce our 

immigration laws...It is also the policy of this Administration to maintain family unity, 

including by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law 

and available resources.” The executive order directed DHS to maintain custody of alien 

families during any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their 

members, to the extent possible. 
Letter

According to officials, this process was used because the class 

certification order limits membership to adult parents who have been or 

will be detained in immigration custody and who have a minor child who 

“is detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody.”

Page 23 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

54 As a 

result, DHS and HHS officials told us that a parent of a separated child 

would only be a class member if his or her child was detained in DHS or 

HHS custody on June 26, 2018. After developing the class list, DHS and 

HHS officials told us that they next determined whether class members 

were eligible for reunification. In accordance with the June 2018 court 

order, a class member could be determined ineligible for reunification if it 

was determined that the parent was unfit or presented a danger to the 

child.55 According to the June 2018 court order, “fitness” is an important 

factor in determining whether to separate parent from child and, in this 

context, could include “a class member’s mental health, or potential 

criminal involvement in matters other than ‘improper entry’ under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1325(a), among other matters.”

56

Parents of children who were separated at the border but whose children 

were released by ORR to sponsors prior to the June 2018 court order 

were not considered class members, and according to HHS officials, the 

department was not obligated to reunite them with the parent or parents 

from whom they were separated. Further, HHS officials told us that they 

do not know how many such children separated from parents at the 

border were released to sponsors prior to the order and that the court 

order does not require the department to know this information. HHS 

officials stated that HHS policy has been that once ORR releases a minor 

 

54Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (order granting preliminary 

injunction). In addition to ORR shelters, children in ORR custody may also be placed in 

ORR foster care. There are different types of ORR foster care placements, depending on 

the circumstances, including transitional (short-term) foster care, long-term foster care, 

and therapeutic foster care. ORR’s system for foster care placements is separate from 

state-run child welfare and foster care systems. See GAO-16-180 for more information.

55Id.; Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (order granting in part plaintiffs’

motion for class certification).

56Id. The court certified the following class: “All adult parents who enter the United States 

at or between designated ports of entry who (1) have been, are, or will be detained in 

immigration custody by the DHS, and (2) have a minor child who is or will be separated 

from them by DHS and detained in ORR custody, ORR foster care, or DHS custody, 

absent a determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child.” In that 

order, the court also noted that the class “does not include migrant parents with criminal 

history or communicable disease, or those who are in the interior of the United States or

subject to the [June 20 executive order].”
Letter

to a sponsor, HHS’s custodial relationship to that minor ends.

Anecdotally, ORR field staff in Texas and staff at the two shelters we 

visited in Arizona said they had released children separated from parents 

during the spring of 2018 to sponsors prior to the court order through their 

standard procedures for releasing children to sponsors. Staff at one 

shelter said they had released a few children to a grandparent, aunt, and 

uncle during that time period.

Because there was no single database with easily extractable, reliable 

information on family separations, HHS officials reported using three 

methods to determine which children in ORR’s custody as of June 26, 

2018, had been separated from parents at the border:

1. Data Reviewed by an Interagency Data Team. An interagency team 

of data scientists and analysts—led by HHS’s Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Preparedness and Response with participation from 

CBP, ICE, and ORR—used data provided by DHS and HHS, as well 

as other information on separated children provided by ORR field and 

shelter staff, to identify the locations of separated children and 

parents, according to HHS officials.

Page 24 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

57 Specifically, agency officials told 

us the team compared records in multiple data sets, most notably 

ICE’s Enforcement Integrated Database, which has information on 

adults apprehended at the border, and HHS’s UAC portal, which has 

information on unaccompanied children, including children separated 

from their parents at the border.58 Team members told us their goal 

was to identify patterns that could connect adults and children with 

records in the different datasets. According to officials, one example 

of a pattern officials identified that could indicate a possible separation 

was if an adult and child with the same last name were detained in the 

same location at the same time. Officials told us that ORR 

headquarters, field, and shelter staff provided manually tracked lists of 

children and parents that were possibly separated, and that they used 

those lists to supplement their review of the data. They told us that if 

there were discrepancies among data points, for example, if a piece of 

 

57HHS officials said the Interagency Data Team was initially formed after the June 20, 

2018 executive order, but shifted its focus to respond to the June 26, 2018, court order.

58The Enforcement Integrated Database is a shared common database repository for 

several DHS law enforcement and homeland security applications. The database captures 

and maintains information related to the investigation, arrest, booking, detention, and 

removal of persons encountered during immigration and criminal law enforcement 

investigations and operations conducted by certain DHS components.
Letter

data was missing, they would work with agency personnel to resolve 

the conflict.

2. Case File Review. In response to the June 2018 court order, HHS 

reported that staff reviewed about 12,000 electronic case files of all 

children in its care as of June 26, 2018. HHS officials told us that for 

about 4 days, more than 100 HHS staff from across the agency—

including ORR and the Public Health Service—reviewed electronic 

case files in ORR’s UAC Portal. According to ORR officials, staff 

members conducting case file reviews were provided verbal training 

and a point of contact for questions, but there were no written training 

materials. The training instructed staff to look for indications of 

separation in specific UAC Portal sections of each child’s case file. 

According to HHS officials, HHS staff were instructed to look for words 

such as “zero tolerance,” “separated from [parent/mother/father/legal 

guardian],” and “family separation.” Also, HHS staff were instructed to 

examine an intake question that specifically asks children “who did 

you travel with?” and a field that asks children to describe their 

parent’s current whereabouts. HHS officials said if any of the case file 

materials contained indications of family separation, then staff flagged 

the case, and it was further investigated by other ORR staff.

ORR field staff in Texas (who participated in the manual case file 

review) confirmed that they were instructed to review UAC Portal 

information. First, they looked to see if DHS identified the child as 

separated. If not, they reviewed intake information, significant incident 

reports, and case notes for indications of separation. The field staff 

said that because of their familiarity with the UAC Portal, they could 

look for indications of separation fairly quickly. However, for HHS staff 

not familiar with the UAC Portal, the review likely required more 

searching, according to the field staff. The field staff added that the 

UAC Portal does not allow for keyword searches so if the information 

was in a significant incident report or case note, staff would have to 

read through the notes or significant incident report to find the 

information.

3. Review of Information Provided by Shelters. According to HHS 

officials, shelter staff were asked to provide lists of children in their 

care who were known to be separated from parents based on the 

shelter’s records. As previously noted, shelters may know that a child 

is separated if (1) that information is included in the UAC Portal at the 

time the child is placed or (2) the child tells shelter staff that he or she 

was separated from their parent at the border. Staff in the four 

shelters we visited told us that they provided information to ORR on 

children the shelters identified as potentially having been separated 

Page 25 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border
Letter

from their parents. There was a lot of back and forth with ORR 

headquarters to confirm which children were separated, according to 

staff at two shelters. In addition, HHS officials and staff at two shelters 

said that during this process, shelter staff were required to certify the 

number of separated children in their care.

On the basis of its reviews, as of September 10, 2018, the government 

had identified 2,654 children of potential class members in the Ms. L. v. 

ICE case.

Page 26 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

59 Of the 2,654 children, 103 were age 0 to 4 and 2,551 were 

age 5 to 17.60 As described above, the number of children of potential 

class members does not include all children who were separated from 

parents at the border by DHS. For example, the 2,654 count of children 

does not include those who were separated from parents but released to 

sponsors prior to the June 2018 court order. This number also does not 

include more than 500 children who were reunified with parents by CBP 

in late June 2018 because these children were never transferred to ORR 

custody.61 As of September 10, 2018, 2,217 of the 2,654 identified 

children had been released from ORR custody, according to a joint status 

report filed in the Ms. L. v. ICE case (see table 1).62 About 90 percent of 

the released children were reunited with the parent from whom they were 

separated and the remaining children were released under other 

circumstances, such as to another suitable sponsor.

 

59Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) (joint status report). According to 

the status report, filed September 13, 2018, the data presented reflects approximate 

numbers maintained by ORR as of at least September 10, 2018. We did not 

independently verify the accuracy of these data. For the purposes of this report, we use 

the term “government” to refer to the defendants in the Ms. L. v. ICE case. 

60Children were grouped into two groups by age (0-4 years old and 5-17 years old), 

because the June 2018 court order required HHS to reunify children ages 0-4 years old 

before reunifying children ages 5-17 years old.

61According to CBP, following issuance of the June 20, 2018, executive order (directing 

DHS to maintain custody of alien families during any criminal improper entry or 

immigration proceedings involving their members, to the extent possible), the agency 

began reunifying children in its custody with parents, and by June 23, 2018, the agency 

had completed reunification of 522 children with parents. CBP officials also reported that 

the agency had reunified children and parents in its custody after the April 2018 memo 

and before the June executive order. According to officials, these reunifications occurred 

when parents completed court proceedings and returned to Border Patrol stations where 

children were still located because HHS had not yet been able to place them.

62Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) (joint status report). According to 

the status report, the data presented reflects approximate numbers maintained by ORR as 

of at least September 10, 2018.
Letter

Page 27 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border
Letter

Table 1: Number of Children Separated from Potential Class Member Parents at the Border and Number Who Had Been 

Page 28 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Reunified in Response to the June 26, 2018 Court Order (as of September 10, 2018)

Children age 0 to 4 Children age 5 to 17 Total children

Number of children separated from class 

member parentsa

103 2,551 2,654

Number of children reunified with separated 

parent

72 1,913 1,985

Number of children released from Office of 

Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody under 

other circumstancesb

12 220 232

Number of children that remain in ORR 

custody, as of September 10, 2018c

19 418 437

Source: Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) (joint status report). | GAO-19-163

Note: The “June 26, 2018 court order” refers to the order in the Ms. L. v. ICE class action lawsuit that 

required the government to reunite class member parents with their children under 5 years of age 

within 14 days of the order, and for children age 5 and over, within 30 days of the order, absent a 

determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, or the parent affirmatively, 

knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunified with the child. Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. 

June 26, 2018) (order granting preliminary injunction).We did not independently verify the accuracy of 

these data. According to the September 13, 2018 status report, the data presented reflects 

approximate numbers maintained by ORR as of at least September 10, 2018.

aChildren separated from class member parents represents the total number of possibly separated 

children of potential class member parents originally identified by the government as being subject to 

the court order in the Ms. L. v. ICE case.

bChildren released from ORR under other circumstances include discharges to other sponsors and 

children who turned age 18.

cAccording to the September 13, 2018 joint status report, this category includes children remaining in 

ORR care where the parent is in the class but not eligible for reunification or is not available for 

discharge at this time, including cases in which the parent is presently outside the United States; the 

parent is in other federal, state, or local custody; or there is an ongoing case review of a “red flag”

related to safety and well-being. This category also includes cases in which the parent is not in the 

class, including cases in which: further review shows the child was not separated from parents by the 

Department of Homeland Security; a final determination has been made that the child cannot be 

reunified because the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child; the parent is presently 

departed from the United States and the parent’s intent not to be reunified has been confirmed by the 

American Civil Liberties Union; or the parent is in the United States and has indicated an intent not to 

reunify.

Plan for Reunifying Children with Class Member Parents Within and 

Outside ICE’s Custody. The process used to reunify separated children 

with their class member parents in the Ms. L. v. ICE case evolved over 

time based on multiple court hearings and orders, according to HHS 

officials. After the June 2018 court order, HHS officials said the agency 

planned to reunify children using a process similar to their standard 

procedures for placing unaccompanied children with sponsors. However, 

according to agency officials, the agency realized that it would be difficult 

to meet the court’s reunification deadlines using its standard procedures 

and began developing a process for court approval that would expedite 

reunification for class members. As a result, from June 26, 2018 to July 

10, 2018, the reunification process was refined and evolved iteratively 
Letter

based on court status conferences, according to HHS officials. ORR field 

and shelter staff we interviewed noted the impact of the continually 

changing reunification process; for example, staff at one shelter told us 

there were times when she would be following one process in the 

morning but a different one in the afternoon.

On July 10, 2018, the court approved reunification procedures for the 

class members covered by the June 2018 court order.

Page 29 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

63 In the July 10, 

2018 order that outlined these procedures, the court noted that the 

standard procedures developed by ORR pursuant to the TVPRA were 

meant to address “a different situation, namely, what to do with alien 

children who were apprehended without their parents at the border or 

otherwise” and that the agency’s standard procedures were not meant to 

apply to the situation presented in this case, which involves parents and 

children who were apprehended together and then separated by 

government officials.64 The reunification procedures approved in the Ms. 

L. v. ICE case apply only to reunification of class members with their 

children and included the following general steps: (1) determining 

parentage and (2) determining whether the parent is fit to take care of the 

child or presents any danger to the child. Specifically:

1. Determining Parentage. Before July 10, 2018, to determine 

parentage for children ages 0 to 4, HHS officials said they initially 

used DNA swab testing instead of requiring documentation, such as 

birth certificates, stating that DNA swab testing was a prompt and 

efficient method for determining biological parentage in a significant 

number of cases. HHS officials told us that there were occasions in 

which they interacted with an individual claiming to be a parent who 

withdrew their claim of parentage when they learned they would be 

required to submit DNA. On July 10, 2018, the court approved the use 

of DNA testing “only when necessary to verify a legitimate, good-faith 

 

63See Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2018) (order following status 

conference); see also Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. July 13, 2018) (defendants’

status report regarding plan for compliance and order following status conference); Ms. L. 

v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2018) (notice from defendants).

64 See Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2018) (order following status 

conference). As previously discussed, the June 2018 court order required the government 

to reunite class member parents with their children under 5 years of age within 14 days of 

the order, and for children age 5 and over, within 30 days of the order, absent a 

determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, or the parent 

affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child. Ms. L. v. 

ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (order granting preliminary injunction).
Letter

concern about parentage or to meet a reunification deadline.”

Page 30 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

65 HHS 

officials told us that at that point, to determine parentage, ORR relied 

on the determinations made by DHS when the family was separated 

and information ORR shelter staff had already collected through 

assessments of the children in their care. Unless there were specific 

doubts about the relationship, ORR did not collect additional 

information or DNA to confirm parentage, according to HHS officials.

2. Determining Fitness and Danger. To reunify class members, HHS 

also followed the procedures approved by the court on July 10, 2018 

for determining whether a parent is fit and whether a parent presents

a danger to the child. HHS used the fingerprints and criminal 

background check of the parent conducted by DHS when the 

individual was first taken into DHS custody rather than requiring the 

parent to submit fingerprints to ORR, as potential sponsors are 

typically required to do for unaccompanied children. HHS did not 

require fingerprints of other adults living in household where the 

parent and child will live. According to HHS officials, ORR personnel 

reviewed each child’s case file for any indication of a safety concern, 

such as allegations of abuse by the child. HHS did not require parents 

to complete an ORR family reunification application as potential 

sponsors are typically required to do for unaccompanied children.

Class Member Parents in ICE custody. DHS and HHS took steps to 

coordinate their efforts to reunify children with parents who remained in 

ICE custody, but experienced some challenges. For example, DHS and 

HHS officials told us that they facilitated telephone conversations 

between parents and their children. However, even though a call had 

been scheduled, DHS and HHS officials said there were instances when 

either the parent or the child was unavailable to talk. In addition, ORR 

shelter staff told us it was difficult contacting ICE detention centers and 

reaching the detained parents, especially when trying to establish the first 

contact. ICE officials said that they compiled a list of detention center 

contacts and distributed it to HHS to help ORR field and shelter staff 

 

65 Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2018) (order following status conference).

According to agency officials, in general, the DNA testing process HHS used took about a 

week from when the DNA was collected to when the results were used to determine 

parentage. In its ordinary operations, HHS uses documentary evidence (e.g., birth 

certificates), but that process can take months, and would have been too long to comply 

with the reunification deadline in the June 2018 court order, according to the government. 

In limited instances for children 5-17, HHS also used DNA testing to affirmatively verify 

that an adult is a biological parent, as it did with the group of children ages 0-4. 
Letter

arrange communication between children and parents; however, ICE 

officials later learned that not all ORR field and shelter staff were using 

the provided contact list. Also, during phone calls between the parent and 

the child, one ORR field staff person we interviewed said initially she was 

able to speak to the parent, but then the practice changed. Specifically, 

she told us that ICE personnel monitoring the phone calls between 

parents and children began terminating calls when they heard her 

speaking, explaining that the call was supposed to be between the child 

and the parent only. She said this was problematic because it inhibited 

her ability to determine if there were questions regarding parentage, 

parental fitness, or any possible danger to the child. According to ICE 

officials, they were concerned that ORR staff were consuming too much 

of the 10 minutes allotted for parents and children to speak and were also 

going over the allotted time. As a result, there was less time available for 

other parents to speak with their children in ORR custody.

DHS and HHS also coordinated the transportation of parents and children 

so they could be reunified. According to DHS officials, the agency was 

responsible for transportation to reunify parents with children ages 0-4. 

For children ages 5-17 who were reunified with their parents at 

reunification facilities, DHS was responsible for transporting parents and 

HHS was responsible for transporting children. HHS officials said there 

were challenges related to the transport and physical reunification of 

families, including children having to wait for parents for unreasonably 

long amounts of time and parents transported to the wrong facilities.

However, an ICE official told us that ICE was unaware of any instances in 

which a parent had been transported to the wrong facility. Shelter staff we 

interviewed also told us there were times when the parent was not 

available because the parent was in transit, resulting in long waits for the 

children and the accompanying shelter staff. In one case, staff at one 

shelter told us that they had to stay two nights in a hotel with the child 

before reunification could occur.

According to agency officials, to facilitate reunification, DHS moved 

detained parents to a detention facility close to their children.

Page 31 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

66 Prior to 

transporting the child, ORR personnel conducted additional interviews 

with the parent to obtain verbal confirmation of parentage and the 

parent’s desire to reunify with the child. After the interviews, HHS 

 

66ORR’s standard procedures for placing unaccompanied children with sponsors do not 

consider adults in ICE detention to be an available sponsor, according to ORR officials. 
Letter

transferred custody of the child to ICE and provided ICE with 

documentation confirming parentage and that the parent did not present a 

danger to the child. ICE coordinated with a contractor to transport the 

family to a pre-identified release site. Finally, if an adult used a courtapproved form to make an election to be removed without the child from 

whom they were separated, ICE was to notify HHS immediately.

Page 32 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

67 In such 

cases, all supporting paperwork was to be sent to HHS or be made 

immediately available electronically between HHS and ICE. See figure 2, 

which shows the reunification process DHS and HHS developed to 

reunify children with parents in ICE custody, in response to the court 

order.

 

67See Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2018) (Exhibit Notice and Election 

Form). The form, entitled “Notice of Potential Rights for Certain Detained Alien Parents 

Separated from their Minor Children,” provides notice of the Ms. L. v. ICE case to potential 

class members and outlines class membership eligibility and the rights of class members. 

On page 2 of the form, the form provides the following notice: “You DO NOT have to 

agree to removal from the United States in order to be reunified with your child. Even if 

you continue to fight your case, the government must still reunify you. IF YOU LOSE 

YOUR CASE AND THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO REMOVE YOU FROM THE 

UNITED STATES, you must decide at that time whether you want your child to leave the 

United States with you.” The form then directs the parent to choose one option from the 

following: (1) If I lose my case and am going to be removed, I would like to take my child 

with me; (2) If I lose my case and am going to be removed, I do NOT want to take my child 

with me; (3) I do not have a lawyer, and I want to talk with a lawyer before deciding 

whether I want my child removed with me.
Letter

Figure 2: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Process to Reunify 

Page 33 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Children with Parents in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Custody, Developed in Response to the June 26, 

2018 Court Order

Note: The “June 26, 2018 court order” refers to an order in the Ms. L. v. ICE class action lawsuit that 

required the government to reunite class member parents with their children under 5 years of age 

within 14 days of the order, and for children age 5 and over, within 30 days of the order, absent a 

determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, or the parent affirmatively, 

knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunited with the child. Ms. L v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (C.D. Cal. 

June 26, 2018) (order granting preliminary injunction). This process documented steps to reunify 

children ages 5-17 with their class member parents; in general, aspects of the process were also 

used to reunify children ages 0-4 with their class member parents. A “red flag” refers to a concern 

regarding the safety of the child if he or she is reunified with the parent. Red flags include the child’s 

claim that the parent is abusive or if the parent has a criminal history involving child abuse, the sexual 

exploitation of children, human trafficking, or crimes of violence. According to HHS, while these 

offenses are among the clearest cases, most cases require more investigation to determine whether 

the parent’s criminal history makes reunification unsafe.

aOn July 10, 2018, the court approved the use of DNA testing “only when necessary to verify a 

legitimate, good-faith concern about parentage or to meet a reunification deadline.” Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 

18-0428 (S.D. Cal. July 10, 2018) (order following status conference). Prior to that date, according to 

agency officials, DNA testing was performed on many children ages 0 to 4 years old and their parents 

in order to help determine parentage.

Class Member Parents outside ICE custody. DHS and HHS efforts to 

reunify children with parents who were not in ICE custody differed based 

on whether or not the parents were in the United States. According to 
Letter

HHS officials, for families in which the parent was released into the 

interior of the United States, the reunification process involves the 

following steps:

· ORR and its shelter staff attempt to establish contact with the parents. 

HHS officials told us they have two resources to help determine the 

parent’s location. One resource is the ORR Helpline for 

Unaccompanied Alien Children or Sponsors, which is a call center 

that collects information from separated parents, including their name 

and contact information. Also, HHS can contact ICE which may have 

the parent’s contact information.

· ORR is to determine whether parents have “red flags” for parentage 

or child safety, based on DHS-provided criminal background check 

summary information and case review of the child’s UAC Portal 

records. For those parents without red flags, ORR reunifies the family 

either by ORR transporting the minor to the parent or the parent 

picking up the child at the ORR care provider facility. For those with 

red flags, ORR will conduct further review to determine parentage or if 

it is safe for the child to be reunited with the parent.

For class member parents who are outside the United States, the 

government proposed a reunification plan, which includes the following 

steps: identify and resolve any concerns regarding parentage or the 

child’s safety; establish contact with parents; determine parent’s intention 

for child (whether to reunite with the child or waive reunification and have 

a relative or other individual in the United States to serve as the child’s 

sponsor); resolve immigration status of minors to allow reunification; and 

transport minors to their respective countries of origin.

Page 34 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

68 In September 

2018, DHS officials told us that the plan has been provisionally approved 

by the court, and DHS has begun working on implementation plans.

 

68Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2018) (notice regarding implementation 

of plan for reunifications abroad). The Interagency Plan for Reunification of Separated 

Minors with Removed Parents filed on August 16, 2018 outlines the roles and 

responsibilities for the “UAC Reunification Coordination Group,” which consists of 

individuals from DHS, DOJ, Department of State, and HHS. The plan also outlines 

coordination with the American Civil Liberties Union Steering Committee (ACLU/Steering 

Committee) throughout the process, such as the ACLU/Steering Committee’s involvement 

in outreach to parents, establishing and maintaining a hotline phone number for removed 

parents, and determining and conveying the parents’ wishes with regard to reunification to 

the government. Id.
Letter

Some separated children subject to Ms. L. v ICE have not been reunified 

with their parents and remain in ORR custody. As of September 10, 2018, 

437 of the 2,654 children identified by the government as potentially 

covered by the June 2018 court order remain in ORR custody for various 

reasons, according to a joint status report filed in the Ms. L. v. ICE case 

(see table 2).

Page 35 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

69 For example, about 64 percent of these children remain in 

ORR custody because their parent is presently outside the United States. 

According to ICE officials, in some circumstances, parents may have 

chosen to have their children remain in the United States, or some 

parents may have been excluded from class membership due to 

suitability determinations, criminal history, or parentage issues.

 

69Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) (joint status report). According to 

the September 13, 2018 status report, the data presented reflects approximate numbers 

maintained by ORR as of at least September 10, 2018.
Letter

Table 2: Number and Reasons Children Identified by the Government as Covered by the June 26, 2018 Court Order Remain in 

Page 36 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Custody (as of September 10, 2018) 

Children 

age 0 to 4

Children 

age 5 to 17

Total 

children

Number of children that remain in ORR custody, as of September 10, 

2018

19 418 437

Reasons children remain in ORR custody: Parent in class: 

Parent presently outside the U.S.

5 160 165

Reasons children remain in ORR custody: Parent in class:

Parent presently inside the U.S.

1 45 46

Reasons children remain in ORR custody: Parent not in class: 

Children in care where further review shows they were not separated 

from parents by the Department of Homeland Security

5 50 55

Reasons children remain in ORR custody: Parent not in class: 

Children in care where a final determination has been made that they 

cannot be reunified because the parent is unfit or presents a danger 

to the child

7 22 29

Reasons children remain in ORR custody: Parent not in class: 

Children in care with parent presently departed from the United 

States whose intent not to reunify has been confirmed by the 

American Civil Liberties Union

1 113 114

Reasons children remain in ORR custody: Parent not in class: 

Children in care with parent in the United States; parent has indicated 

an intent not to reunify

0 28 28

Source: Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2018) (joint status report). | GAO-19-163

Note: The “June 26, 2018 court order” refers to an order in the Ms. L. v. ICE class action lawsuit that 

required the government to reunite class member parents with their children under 5 years of age 

within 14 days of the order, and for children age 5 and over, within 30 days of the order, absent a 

determination that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, or the parent affirmatively, 

knowingly, and voluntarily declines to be reunified with the child. Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. 

June 26, 2018) (order granting preliminary injunction).We did not independently verify the accuracy of 

these data. According to the September 13, 2018 status report, the data presented reflects 

approximate numbers maintained by ORR as of at least September 10, 2018.

Procedures for Children and Parents Separated after the June 2018 

Court Order. The reunification procedures described above only apply to 

Ms. L. v. ICE class members. According to HHS officials, for those 

children separated from parents at the border after the June 2018 court 

order, ORR would use its standard procedures for placing that child with a 

sponsor since those parents would not be class members. As noted 

previously, according to CBP officials, on June 27, 2018, CBP issued 

guidance that halted referrals of adults entering the United States illegally 

as part of a family unit to the Department of Justice for prosecutions for 

misdemeanor improper entry offenses and outlined the situations in which 

children and parents may be separated moving forward. CBP officials 

stated that a parent may still be separated from his or her child in certain 

circumstances, such as if the parent has a criminal history or 
Letter

communicable disease, or the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the 

child.

Page 37 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

70 In September 2018, HHS officials stated that they will continue to 

use their standard process to determine potential sponsors for 

unaccompanied children in their custody, including those who had been 

separated from their parents.

Agency Comments 

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

comment. We received written comments from DHS, which are 

reproduced in Appendix I. In its comments, DHS said that, in recent 

months, the department has identified further areas for interagency 

process improvement and coordination and the department plans to 

continue efforts to improve processes. HHS did not provide written 

comments. DHS and HHS provided technical comments that we have 

incorporated in the report as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of 

Homeland Security and Health and Human Services and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov.

 

70As previously discussed, the Attorney General’s April 2017 memorandum prioritized 

enforcement of a number of criminal immigration-related offenses, including offenses that 

would generally be felony offenses, such as illegal reentry of removed aliens (8 U.S.C. § 

1326), unlawfully bringing in and harboring certain removable aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1324), 

and assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers or employees (18 U.S.C. § 111).
Letter

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

us at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov or (202) 512-8777 or 

gamblerr@gao.gov. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn A. Larin, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Rebecca Gambler, Director

Homeland Security and Justice

Page 38 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 39 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Appendix I: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 40 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 41 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 42 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and 

Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Kathryn A. Larin, (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Kathryn Bernet (Assistant Director),

Elizabeth Morrison (Assistant Director), Andrea Dawson (Analyst-in-Charge), 

David Barish, Jason Palmer, and Leslie Sarapu made key contributions to 

this report. In addition, key support was provided by

 James Bennett, Linda Collins, Sarah Cornetto, Joel Green, Marissa

 Jones, Michael Kniss, Sheila McCoy, Jean McSween, Jan Montgomery,

 Heidi Nielson, David Reed, Minette Richardson, Almeta Spencer, and

 Kathleen van Gelder.
Appendix III: Accessible Data

Page 43 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Appendix III: Accessible Data

Data Tables

Accessible Data for Number of Separated Children Potentially Eligible to Be Reunified with 

Parents as of September 10, 2018

Up to age 4 Age 5 to 17 Total

Identified by the 

Administration

103 2,551 2,654

Released from ORR 

custody

84 2,133 2,217

Remaining in ORR 

custody

19 418 437

ORR= Office of Refugee Resettlement

Source: Ms. L. v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018) (joint status report). | GAO-18-163

Accessible Data for Figure 1: Transfer, Care, and Release of Unaccompanied Alien Children in 

Federal Custody

1. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) apprehends unaccompanied alien child 

(UAC)

2. DHS starts immigration processing of UAC

3. If child is from Canada/Mexico found at a land border or port of entry, DHS 

evaluates UAC’s eligibility for “voluntary return”ato Canada/Mexico

a. If child is eligible and agrees, UAC repatriated to Canada/Mexico

4. If child is not from Canada/Mexico or is ineligible or refuses, DHS issues Notice 

to Appear to UAC and informs U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for 

Immigration Review

5. DHS begins removal proceedings and refers UAC to the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement’s (ORR) care

6. ORR places UAC in a shelter
Appendix III: Accessible Data

7. Shelter staff identify and screen potential sponsors

8. UAC released to a sponsor (typically a relative)

9. UAC is to appear for immigration court hearing to determine whether they will be 

removed from the United States or granted immigration reliefb

Sources: GAO analysis of DHS and ORR documents and interviews of officials from these agencies as previously 

shown in GAO-16-180. | GAO-19-163

Accessible Data for Figure 2: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health 

Page 44 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

and Human Services’ (HHS) Process to Reunify Children with Parents in U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) Custody, Developed in Response to the June 26, 2018 Court Order

1. HHS reviews a summary of the criminal background check that DHS performed 

on the adult

a. If the review finds “red flags,” ICE reviews any charges or convictions

b. If the adult is not cleared by ICE, the child remains in HHS custody until 

placement with parent or other sponsor

2. If no “red flags” found by review or if the ICE review is clear, HHS reviews child’s 

case file to determine if adult is his/her parent and if there is evidence of 

trafficking

a. If parental ties in doubt, adult and child given DNA testa

b. If DNA does not match, the child remains in HHS custody until placement 

with parent or other sponsor

3. If no “red flags” found by HHS review, HHS makes initial determination regarding 

child’s safety with parent

a. If the adult is not cleared by HHS, the child remains in HHS custody until 

placement with parent or other sponsor

4. If the adult is cleared by HHS, the HHS conducts an in-person interview with 

parent in DHS custody and makes a reunification decision

a. If the adult is not cleared by the in-person interview, the child remains in 

HHS custody until placement with parent or other sponsor
Appendix III: Accessible Data

5. Parent and child transferred to the same ICE facility where ICE agents complete 

reunification

DHS= U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

HHS= U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

ICE= U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and HHS process to reunify children separated from class member parents at the 

border. | GAO-19-163

Agency Comment Letter

Page 45 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Accessible Text for Appendix I Comments from the Department of 

Homeland Security

Page 1

October 2, 2018

Kathryn A. Larin

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20548

Rebecca Gambler

Director, Homeland Security and Justice

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20548
Appendix III: Accessible Data

Re: Management Response to Draft Report GAO-19-163, "UNACCOMPANIED 

CHILDREN: Agency Efforts to Reunify Children Separated from Parents at the 

Border"

Dear Ms. Larin and Ms. Gambler:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. The U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office's (GAO) work in planning and conducting its review and issuing 

this report.

DHS performs an essential role in securing our Nation's borders at and between 

ports of entry and enforcing U.S. immigration law in the interior of the country. In the 

course of securing our borders and enforcing immigration laws, DHS is committed to 

treating all people we encounter with dignity and respect. DHS officers and agents 

uphold the utmost professionalism while maintaining efficient operations.

In April 2018, the President directed several Federal agencies, including DHS, to 

report on their efforts to end a practice developed under prior administrations of 

releasing certain aliens who violated U.S. immigration law into the United States 

pending resolution of their immigration proceedings. On the same day, the Attorney 

General issued a memorandum on criminal prosecutions of immigration offenses that 

directed Department of Justice prosecutors to accept referrals of all aliens 

apprehended after

Page 2

Page 46 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

illegally crossing the border, including those accompanied by children, for criminal 

prosecution for improper entry offenses, to the extent practicable. As noted in the 

draft report, this resulted in an increase during May and June 2018 in the number of 

minor children who were separated from their parents or legal guardians after 

attempting to enter the United States illegally.

On June 20, 2018, President Trump issued Executive Order 13841, mandating 

family unity during any improper entry criminal prosecution or immigration 

proceedings involving their members, to the extent permitted by law. On June 26, 

2018, a Federal court ordered the Government to reunify certain children and 

parents separated under the policy within 30 days. In partnership with the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), DHS has made significant 

progress reunifying families. Additionally, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

continues to provide a safe, clean, and healthy temporary environment for arrived 

unaccompanied alien children who are in CBP's custody awaiting transfer to HHS. 

Furthermore, CBP complies with all requirements of the court-approved Flores 
Appendix III: Accessible Data

Page 47 GAO-19-163 Family Separations at the Border

Settlement Agreement, and takes many actions to document such compliance, 

including internal inspections and automated reporting via the electronic systems of 

record.

It is also important to highlight that during recent months we have identified further 

areas for interagency process improvement and coordination. For example, CBP has 

enhanced data fields within its own electronic systems of record to better account for 

separations of family units for child welfare and the time in custody of 

unaccompanied alien children, as well as transfer to U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement and HHS. We are pleased with GAO's recognition of DHS's 

comprehensive efforts to increase communication and standardized information 

sharing with HHS. DHS will continue efforts to improve its processes and maintain 

the high standards expected of our agency.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft report. 

Technical comments were previously provided under separate cover. Please feel 

free to contact me if you have any questions. We look forward to working with you 

again in the future.

Sincerely,

JIM H. CRUMPACKER, CIA, CFE

Director

Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office

(102891)
GAO’s Mission

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.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://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 https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone

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, https://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

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 https://www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal 

Programs

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700
Congressional Relations

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

Strategic Planning and External Liaison

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.