RESTRICTIVE HOUSING

Actions Needed to 

Enhance BOP and ICE 

Management and 

Oversight

Statement of Gretta L. Goodwin, Director, 

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony 

Before the Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET

Tuesday, April 16, 2024 

GAO-24-107494

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-24-107494, a testimony 

before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 

Senate

April 16, 2024

RESTRICTIVE HOUSING

Actions Needed to Enhance BOP and ICE

Management and Oversight

What GAO Found

Federal correctional and immigration detention facilities can place individuals in 

restrictive housing settings in certain circumstances. Restrictive housing 

generally consists of one- or two-person cells that isolate individuals from the 

general population. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) have policies and processes that govern their use of 

restrictive housing. Two prior studies examined restrictive housing at BOP, both 

of which identified ways for BOP to improve oversight. The first was a 2014 

contracted assessment and the second was a 2016 Department of Justice report. 

In February 2024, GAO reported that BOP had not fully implemented 54 of 87

recommendations from these two studies. BOP had fully implemented 33, 

partially addressed 42, and had not taken any steps to address the remaining 12 

recommendations. This was due in part to BOP not assigning responsibility for 

recommendation implementation to appropriate officials and not establishing a 

time frame for completion. GAO recommended that BOP develop and execute an 

approach to fully implement recommendations from these prior studies. This

would include assigning implementation responsibility, establishing a time frame 

for completion, and monitoring progress. BOP concurred and described its 

planned steps. 

BOP and ICE have not consistently collected or used information needed for

restrictive housing oversight. In reports from 2020–2024, GAO recommended 

actions to improve both BOP’s processes for monitoring restrictive housing 

operations and BOP and ICE’s analysis of complaints data. For example:

• In February 2024, GAO found that BOP was not monitoring key aspects 

of restrictive housing operations. Specifically, it did not examine the 

cause behind substantial racial disparity in a restrictive housing unit 

designed for individuals with heightened security concerns. GAO 

recommended that BOP conduct an evaluation to determine and address 

the cause of the racial disparity. BOP concurred and as of February 

2024, said it would take steps to implement it.

• In August 2020 and February 2024, GAO found that neither ICE nor BOP 

was analyzing complaint data from those in its custody to identify areas 

for improvement, such as concerns over restrictive housing conditions. 

GAO made recommendations to ICE and BOP to analyze complaint 

data, which could help each agency identify trends and ultimately 

enhance oversight. As of December 2023, ICE has taken some steps, 

including integrating several data systems that store detention-related 

information into a new system to provide enhanced analysis capabilities.

As of February 2024, BOP agreed to take steps toward implementation.

View GAO-24-107494. For more information, 

contact Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777 

or GoodwinG@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

ICE recorded 14,581 restrictive 

housing placements of detained 

noncitizens from fiscal years 2017 

through 2021. Those placements 

increased by 18 percent from fiscal 

year 2017 to 2020 before declining in 

2021. As of October 2023, BOP 

housed about 8 percent of all

incarcerated individuals (approximately 

11,600) in restrictive housing. Studies 

have shown some potentially harmful 

mental and physical impacts of such 

placements.

This statement discusses the extent to 

which (1) BOP has addressed 

recommendations from two prior 

restrictive housing studies and (2) BOP 

and ICE have information needed to 

manage and oversee use of restrictive 

housing.

This statement is based on three prior 

GAO reports published from August 

2020 through February 2024, along 

with selected updates on ICE efforts to 

address previous GAO 

recommendations. To produce those 

reports, GAO reviewed ICE and BOP 

documentation, analyzed data, and 

interviewed agency officials. For 

selected recommendation updates, 

GAO reviewed documents and 

interviewed ICE officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO made eight recommendations to 

BOP and four recommendations to ICE 

that relate to restrictive housing in the 

reports covered by this statement. 

Although BOP and ICE agreed with the 

recommendations, as of April 2024 

none of the 12 have been fully 

implemented. GAO will continue to 

monitor the agencies’ implementation 

status. 
Letter

Page 1 GAO-24-107494 

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to discuss our prior work concerning the use of restrictive 

housing in federal correctional and immigration detention facilities.1 U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for providing safe, secure, and 

humane confinement for detained noncitizens in the U.S. who are 

charged as removable while they wait for resolution of their immigration 

cases or removal from the U.S. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP), within the 

Department of Justice (DOJ), is responsible for ensuring that individuals 

convicted of federal crimes serve their sentences of imprisonment in 

facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure.

ICE recorded 14,581 restrictive housing placements from fiscal years 

2017 through 2021. Those placements increased by 18 percent from 

fiscal year 2017 to 2020 before declining in 2021. As of October 2023, 

BOP housed about 8 percent of incarcerated individuals (approximately 

11,600) in restrictive housing. Figures 1 and 2 each illustrate a restrictive 

housing setting from the two entities.

1For the purposes of this testimony, we are using the term “restrictive housing” to address 

any type of detention in ICE or BOP facilities that generally involves removing individuals 

from the general population and placing them into one- or two-person cells for up to 24 

hours per day. BOP defines restrictive housing as: (1) removal from the general 

population, whether voluntary or involuntary; (2) placement in a locked cell, whether alone 

or with another inmate; and (3) inability to leave the cell for typically 22 hours or more 

each day. ICE uses the term segregated housing to refer to placement of noncitizens in 

one- or two-person cells separate from the general population for up to 24 hours per day. 

For more details on each of these settings characteristics, see GAO, Immigration 

Detention: Actions Needed to Collect Consistent Information for Segregated Housing 

Oversight, GAO-23-105366 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 26, 2022) and GAO, Bureau of 

Prisons: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Restrictive Housing Practices, 

GAO-24-105737 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6, 2024).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-24-107494 

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

Restrictive Housing Unit and Cell

Figure 2: Examples of Two Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Restrictive Housing Unit 

Types

Numerous studies have reported that time spent in isolation can cause 

detrimental health impacts, even after leaving isolation.2 This can include 

anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and self-harm or 

2Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 

325 (2006); Kaba F, Lewis A, et al. Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-harm Among 

Jail Inmates. Am. J. Public Health. 2014 Mar;104(3):442–7; Interim Report of the Special 

Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 

U.N. Doc. A/68/295 (Oct. 7, 2013) (by Juan E. Mendez); and Vera Institute of Justice. The 

Impacts of Solitary Confinement (Brooklyn, NY, April 2021), 

https://www.vera.org/publications/the-impacts-of-solitary-confinement; DHS Office of the 

Inspector General, ICE Needs to Improve Its Oversight of Segregation Use in Detention 

Facilities, OIG-22-01 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 13, 2021). 
Page 3 GAO-24-107494 

suicide. In its response to our February 2024 report on restrictive housing, 

BOP stated that it recognizes that restrictive housing is not an effective 

deterrent and can increase future recidivism.

In April 2023, we added the area of Strengthening Management of the 

Federal Prison System to GAO’s biennial high-risk list.3 This biennial 

update describes the status of high-risk areas, outlines actions that are 

needed to assure further progress, and identifies new high-risk areas 

needing attention by the executive branch and Congress. The prison 

system area was added, in part, due to BOP’s long-standing challenges 

in managing staff and resources and in planning and evaluating programs 

that help incarcerated people successfully return to the community.

My statement today will focus on the findings and recommendations from 

three ICE and BOP reports on restrictive housing that we published 

between 2020 and 2024.4 Specifically, it will address the extent to which 

(1) BOP has addressed recommendations from two prior restrictive 

housing studies and (2) BOP and ICE have information to manage and 

oversee use of restrictive housing.

To produce the three prior reports, we reviewed ICE and BOP 

documentation, analyzed data, and interviewed agency officials. More 

detailed information on the objectives, scope, and methodology for that 

work can be found in the issued reports. For the selected 

recommendation updates, we reviewed documents and interviewed ICE 

officials. Our work was performed in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

In February 2024, we reported that BOP’s total number of restrictive 

housing placements generally increased from fiscal years 2018 to 2022. 

We also found that BOP had not implemented a majority of 

recommendations (54 of 87) from two prior studies that examined BOP’s 

3GAO, High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to Achieve Progress Need to Be Maintained and 

Expanded to Fully Address All Areas, GAO-23-106203 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2023). 

4In addition to GAO-23-105366 and GAO-24-105737, see GAO, Immigration Detention:

ICE Should Enhance Its Use of Facility Oversight Data and Management of Detainee 

Complaints, GAO-20-596 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 19, 2020).

BOP Has Not Fully 

Implemented 

Recommendations 

from Prior Restrictive 

Housing Studies
Page 4 GAO-24-107494 

use of restrictive housing and ways to improve its oversight.5 The first 

was a 2014 contracted assessment and the second was a 2016 DOJ 

report. Specifically, we determined that BOP fully implemented 33, 

partially addressed 42, and had not taken any steps to address the 

remaining 12 recommendations from both studies as of September 

2023.6 For example, we determined that BOP had partially addressed 

recommendations related to protective custody and serious mental 

illness.

• Protective custody. Both the 2014 contracted assessment and 2016 

DOJ report stated that, generally, individuals who require protective 

custody should not be placed in restrictive housing and recommended 

that BOP expand housing alternatives for this population.7 BOP took 

some, but not all, steps necessary to address this recommendation. It 

expanded the capacity of certain types of alternative housing units 

intended to divert incarcerated individuals in protective custody away 

from restrictive housing units. These alternative units have fewer 

restrictions, protect individuals from threats to their safety, and provide 

programming opportunities, according to the 2016 DOJ report. 

However, our analysis of BOP’s data indicated that the number of 

individuals placed in restrictive housing for protective custody had 

increased rather than decreased.8 For example, the number of 

individuals in protective custody status increased from 481 in April 

2022 to 700 in October 2023. The 2016 DOJ report states the goal of 

5CNA Analysis and Solutions, Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review 

and Assessment, a report prepared at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Prisons, December 2014. U.S. Department of Justice, Report and 

Recommendations Concerning the Use of Restrictive Housing, Final Report (Washington, 

D.C.: January 2016). In 2015, the President directed the Attorney General to conduct a 

review of “the overuse of solitary confinement across American prisons.” 

6We used three categories to describe the status of BOP’s implementation efforts: (1) fully 

implemented, (2) partially implemented, and (3) not implemented. See GAO-24-105737

for more information on these categories. 

7Protective custody is a type of administrative detention status for individuals who require 

protection from real or perceived threats to their safety. Individuals may request to be 

placed in protective custody if they feel threatened or they may be placed in protective 

custody involuntarily if BOP staff determine they need protection from verified threats.

8BOP does not maintain these records in a format that allows for it to analyze changes in 

this population over time. Therefore, we relied on the operational information reported on 

BOP’s website to determine the number of individuals who were placed in protective 

custody (either voluntarily or involuntarily). This statistic included individuals who 

requested to be placed in protective custody as well as those who were involuntarily 

placed in protective custody. See BOP, “Restricted Housing Statistics,” Inmate Statistics, 

accessed on April 6, 2022, and October 3, 2023, 

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_shu.jsp. 
Page 5 GAO-24-107494 

its recommendation was to eventually house all individuals who 

require protective custody in alternative housing units rather than 

placing them in restrictive housing.9 While BOP has expanded the 

capacity of alternative housing units, it has not taken actions to fully 

address this recommendation because it continues to house 

individuals in need of protective custody in restrictive housing units.

• Serious mental illness. BOP classifies serious mental illness as an 

individual’s condition that requires weekly outpatient mental health 

interventions, placement in a residential psychology treatment 

program, or acute care in a psychiatric hospital. BOP took some steps 

necessary to address recommendations related to individuals with 

serious mental illness in restrictive housing. For example, it updated 

relevant policies to state that BOP should generally avoid placement 

of these individuals in certain types of restrictive housing units. BOP 

policy also states that individuals with serious mental illness are 

generally only allowed to be placed in restrictive housing if 

“extraordinary security needs” are identified. However, we found that 

BOP continued to place individuals with serious mental illness in 

restrictive housing settings.

Although BOP has not fully implemented these prior recommendations, a 

May 2022 Executive Order on criminal justice practices generally required 

the Attorney General to ensure DOJ’s full implementation of the 

recommendations from its January 2016 report and the Attorney General 

reiterated the importance of BOP doing so in a subsequent report.10

Specifically, in a November 2022 report, the Attorney General stated that 

BOP and DOJ are committed to further addressing and reducing the use 

of restrictive housing and described efforts underway to achieve this. 

According to BOP officials, this will include an internal working group 

9Alternative housing units include Reintegration Units, which BOP uses for any 

incarcerated individuals in protective custody status who have had verified or unverified 

threats to their safety, and Security Threat Group Drop-Out Units, which BOP uses for 

individuals who want to “disassociate from” or “quit” a gang.

10Exec. Order No. 14,074, Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice 

Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety, 87 Fed. Reg. 32,945 (May 25, 

2022). 
Page 6 GAO-24-107494 

tasked with reviewing and updating the prior restrictive housing 

recommendations.11

Despite recent efforts, we noted that BOP had not developed an 

approach to ensure the full implementation of the 2014 and 2016 studies’

recommendations. This impacted BOP’s ability to reduce its use of 

restrictive housing and effectively manage its restrictive housing 

operations. We recommended that the Director of BOP develop and 

execute an approach to fully implement all the 2014 and 2016 restrictive 

housing reports recommendations. Further, we noted that for each 

recommendation that has not yet been implemented, the approach should 

include assigning implementation responsibility to appropriate officials, 

establishing a time frame for completion, and monitoring progress. In 

addition, we acknowledged instances where BOP did not concur with a 

2014 recommendation or deemed it impractical and stated that BOP 

should document its rationale and the alternative steps, if any, it plans to 

take.

As of February 2024, BOP concurred with this recommendation. 

Specifically, it stated that for those recommendations that BOP believes 

have already been implemented or disagrees with, it will continue to 

document the rationale for its position and any alternative steps. It also 

stated that for each recommendation that has not yet been implemented, 

it will develop and execute an approach to include assigning 

implementation and responsibility to appropriate officials, establishing a 

time frame for completion, and monitoring progress. Taking these steps, if

done effectively, would better position BOP to achieve its goal of reducing 

its use of restrictive housing.

11U.S. Department of Justice, The Report of the Attorney General Pursuant to Section 

16(b)(i) of Executive Order 14074: Department of Justice Efforts to Ensure that Restrictive 

Housing in Federal Detention Facilities is Used Rarely, Applied Fairly, and Subject to 

Reasonable Constraints, and to Implement Other Legal Requirements and Policy 

Recommendations, (Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2023). According to BOP, the report 

was completed pursuant to the Executive Order in November 2022 but was not publicly 

available until February 1, 2023.
Page 7 GAO-24-107494 

Both BOP and ICE can benefit from improving their processes to enhance 

overall restrictive housing operations. Below, we highlight selected 

findings and 11 recommendations from our prior work that aim to improve 

(1) BOP’s processes for monitoring restrictive housing operations, (2) 

ICE’s use of information for overseeing restrictive housing, and (3) BOP 

and ICE’s analysis of complaints data.

In February 2024, we reported that BOP was not fully leveraging 

information it collects from its program review process and was not 

monitoring key aspects of restrictive housing operations. This resulted in 

missed opportunities to ensure compliance and enhance operations.

Program review deficiencies. We found that BOP was not ensuring 

resolution of deficiencies after program reviews. We reported that BOP’s 

program review process identifies deficiencies, repeat deficiencies, and 

“repeat repeat” deficiencies at facilities but does not ensure that facilities 

implement the planned corrective actions before the next review.12

Examples of most frequently repeated deficiencies related to restrictive 

housing documentation not properly completed and restrictive housing 

procedures not in compliance with policy.

BOP does not have an oversight process to verify that the wardens 

implement the plans or document that they corrected the deficiencies 

before subsequent program reviews. By enhancing its oversight to verify 

and document that facilities have implemented corrective actions that fully 

address all deficiencies, BOP would be in a better position to ensure that 

identified deficiencies are not repeated in multiple years during 

subsequent program reviews. We recommended that the Director of BOP 

enhance oversight by developing and implementing a process to verify 

and document that facilities have implemented corrective actions that fully 

address all deficiencies. We also recommended that the Director of BOP 

develop and implement a mechanism to identify causes of common 

deficiencies that recur across multiple facilities and take steps to address 

12Deficiencies generally reflect a deviation from policy or a weakness in internal controls. 

A repeat deficiency is the result of the failure of internal controls that were developed to 

correct a previously identified deficiency. A ‘repeat repeat’ deficiency indicates a problem 

has occurred in the program area at least three times. 

BOP and ICE Have 

Not Consistently 

Collected or Used 

Information Needed 

for Overseeing 

Restrictive Housing

BOP’s Processes for 

Monitoring Restrictive 

Housing Operations
Page 8 GAO-24-107494 

those causes. BOP concurred with these recommendations and said it 

would take steps to implement them.

SMU Operations. We found that BOP was not examining the cause 

behind the substantial racial disparity in the special management unit 

(SMU)—a type of restrictive housing unit designed for individuals with 

heightened security concerns. During the 2014 contracted assessment, 

reviewers found inconsistencies in the application of subjective criteria 

used to place individuals in this unit. The reviewers noted that 

demonstrable inconsistencies in placement decisions created equity 

issues in application of the SMU placement criteria. Our analysis of 2022 

data appeared to confirm that inconsistencies continued, resulting in 

equity concerns. Black individuals were 38 percent of the total BOP 

population but 59 percent of the SMU placements.13 In comparison, White 

individuals were 58 percent of the total BOP population and 35 percent of 

the SMU placements.

Six of the seven individuals we interviewed who had been housed in the 

SMU discussed incidents of discrimination or poor treatment that they 

perceived were based on race. This included one individual who 

expressed the view that placement in the SMU for a Black individual was 

due to a single violation and noted that White individuals with seemingly 

repeated instances of the same violation had never been referred to the 

SMU. We recommended that the Director of BOP conduct an evaluation 

of previous SMU placements to determine and address the cause of 

disproportionate representation of individuals in certain racial groups in 

the SMU population. In February 2024 BOP concurred with this 

recommendation and said it will take steps to implement it.

We also found that BOP did not monitor other key aspects of SMU 

operations. We reported that BOP’s program review process did not 

include mechanisms for monitoring SMU program level progression.14 We 

further reported that BOP closed its only SMU to address significant 

concerns, including the lack of compliance with SMU policy related to 

13Total BOP population included the number of incarcerated individuals who spent at least 

1 day of the year in BOP custody, and SMU placements included the number who spent 

at least 1 day of the year in the SMU. Individuals may be counted more than once if they 

have more than one restrictive housing placement in a given fiscal year.

14According to the SMU policy, BOP generally expects all incarcerated individuals in the 

SMU to complete the three program levels within 9 to 13 months, and the maximum time 

an incarcerated individual may spend in SMU is 24 consecutive months. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Prisons, Special Management Units, 5217.02 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 

9, 2016).
Page 9 GAO-24-107494 

program level progression. We noted that as of September 2023, officials 

were still considering the operating status of this program. If BOP decides 

to reinstate the SMU at a different facility or replace it with a similar 

program, we recommended that the Director of BOP develop and 

implement a mechanism for routinely monitoring the extent to which 

facilities apply the SMU placement criteria consistently and equitably. We 

also recommended that the Director of BOP develop and implement a 

mechanism for routinely evaluating SMU documentation to ensure that 

incarcerated individuals progress through the program levels in 

accordance with SMU policy. BOP concurred with these 

recommendations and reiterated that it had suspended the SMU program 

and was working to identify an appropriate replacement. Implementing 

these recommendations once a replacement has been identified will 

enable BOP to better ensure the consistency and equity of its placement 

decisions and policy compliance.

In October 2022, we reported that ICE has policies and processes for 

managing and overseeing detention facilities’ use of restrictive housing, 

but information used for oversight was inconsistent.

Restrictive housing placement information. We found an inconsistent 

level of detail explaining incidents and circumstances leading to restrictive 

housing placements. Detention facilities are to send to ICE field offices 

supporting documentation of restrictive housing placements, such as 

forms outlining circumstances leading to such placements, disciplinary 

hearing documentation, and medical information. Field offices are then to 

review and upload those documents into ICE’s data system for tracking

restrictive housing placements for headquarters’ oversight. ICE 

headquarters officials told us they use supporting documentation as a 

primary source to oversee and determine the appropriateness of 

restrictive housing placements. However, this supporting documentation 

did not always contain sufficient detail explaining the circumstances 

leading to placements.

In our review of supporting documentation for a random sample of 147 

restrictive housing placements in fiscal years 2019 and 2021, we found 

that the documentation for 61 of those placements (about 41 percent) did 

not provide a detailed explanation of the incidents or circumstances 

leading to the placement. Further, 96 of 147 restrictive housing 

placements we reviewed involved a detained noncitizen with a mental 

health condition. However, the supporting documentation for 81 of these 

96 records did not identify the mental health condition. Officials from ICE 

headquarters told us that supporting documentation for segregated 

ICE’s Use of Information 

for Overseeing Restrictive 

Housing
Page 10 GAO-24-107494 

housing placements should include an identification of a mental health 

condition if one exists.

We found that ICE policy does not specify the level of detail to include in 

documentation required to support restrictive housing placements. We 

recommended that the Director of ICE provide specific guidance to its 

field offices on the level of detail needed in the documentation supporting 

restrictive housing placements. ICE concurred with this recommendation. 

As of February 2024, ICE reported that it is taking steps to determine the 

level of detail required in documentation supporting restrictive housing 

placements. This includes recently participating in several site visits to 

further develop requirements and inform the policy revision process. ICE 

estimated that any revised policy would be issued in the fourth quarter of 

fiscal year 2024.

Vulnerable populations information. We reported that ICE requires 

field offices to report any placement involving individuals identified as 

vulnerable, such as those with medical or mental health conditions, those 

with a disability, those who identify as transgender, and those who were 

victims of sexual assault. However, we found that ICE’s data system for 

tracking restrictive housing placements did not always identify these 

vulnerable populations. ICE headquarters relies on its data system to 

conduct oversight of restrictive housing placements and to identify what 

placements involve vulnerable individuals, which require additional 

oversight. Without identifying all known detained noncitizens ICE 

considers vulnerable in its data system, ICE is limited in its ability to 

conduct oversight of the treatment and care of these individuals.

We recommended that the Director of ICE identify all known detained 

noncitizens ICE considers vulnerable in the agency’s data system for 

restrictive housing placements. ICE concurred with this recommendation. 

In April 2023, ICE reported that the agency is migrating disparate data 

systems onto a shared platform to improve its overall data quality and 

reporting capabilities. As of February 2024, ICE reported that it is 

continuing this work. At that time, ICE expected to release an update to 

its data system in March 2024. As of April 2024, we are awaiting updates 

from ICE about the status of its actions in response to this 

recommendation. We will continue to coordinate with ICE to obtain 

updates on its efforts.

Our prior work showed that both BOP and ICE could take steps to 

improve analysis of complaints-related data. For example, in February 

2024, we reported that BOP was not routinely analyzing complaint data, 

BOP and ICE’s Analysis of 

Complaints Data
Page 11 GAO-24-107494 

which had resulted in a missed opportunity to identify potential patterns of 

restrictive housing policy noncompliance. In August 2020, we reported 

that ICE did not comprehensively analyze detention-related complaint 

data, which could help it identify areas for improvement. It also did not 

take steps to ensure that detention-related complaints were resolved in a 

timely manner.

BOP complaint data. In February 2024, we reported that BOP did not 

have a process to routinely analyze data from its administrative remedy 

program—BOP’s complaint process—to identify broad trends or potential 

patterns of noncompliance related to BOP’s grievance policy for 

incarcerated individuals.15 Our analysis of summary information for over 

1,000 complaints submitted by individuals in restrictive housing units 

showed a wide range of issues, including complaints about BOP staff 

misconduct, complaints about being denied access to recreation time, 

and about being denied or provided inadequate amounts of food and 

hygiene products, such as toilet paper and soap. Our interviews with 35 

incarcerated individuals whom BOP had placed in restrictive housing 

units across five facilities provided insights into similar issues raised in the 

complaint data we reviewed, which may indicate possible patterns of 

noncompliance with BOP policy. For example, many of the individuals we 

interviewed told us they were denied access to recreation or 

psychological services or were provided inadequate amounts of basic 

necessities such as food, toilet paper, and hygiene products, which was 

inconsistent with BOP policy.

We recommended that the Director of BOP develop and implement a 

process to routinely analyze administrative remedy program data. We 

also recommended that the Director of BOP develop and implement a 

process to address any identified patterns of noncompliance related to 

restrictive housing policies and other areas of program weaknesses. BOP 

concurred with these recommendations and said it will take steps to 

implement them.

ICE complaint data. In August 2020, we reported that ICE and DHS 

offices maintain data on detention-related complaints, but ICE did not 

comprehensively analyze these data. Doing so could help ICE identify 

areas for improvement and implement solutions to improve conditions of 

confinement in its detention facilities. In our analysis of detention-related 

15BOP refers to its complaint process as the administrative remedy program. Under this 

program, incarcerated individuals, including those in restrictive housing, can seek formal 

review of any grievances relating to their own confinement. 
Page 12 GAO-24-107494 

complaint data, we found trends over time and across regions. For 

example, from fiscal years 2017 through 2019, complaints related to 

sexual abuse were among the five most common categories of detentionrelated complaints. We recommended that the Director of ICE regularly 

conduct analyses of detention-related complaint data from relevant 

offices, including analyses of data over time, within and across facilities 

and regions, and at a level necessary to identify and address potentially 

recurring complaints. ICE concurred with our recommendation.

In May 2023, ICE reported that the agency was in the process of

integrating several data systems that store detention-related information 

into a new system to provide enhanced analysis capabilities, including the 

ability to produce reports with analysis of detention-related complaint 

data. As of December 2023, ICE reported that the new system was 

operational and included detention-related complaint data from several 

ICE sources, such as telephone hotlines. ICE plans to integrate data from 

additional complaint channels into the system by spring 2024. To meet 

the intent of this recommendation, ICE should regularly conduct analyses, 

through the new system or otherwise, of detention-related complaint data 

from relevant offices.

In August 2020, we also reported that ICE did not have reasonable 

assurance that its field offices are investigating or resolving detentionrelated complaints in a timely manner. For example, our analysis of data 

from one unit responsible for referring complaints to ICE field offices 

indicated that for certain noncriminal complaints, field offices did not 

provide resolutions back to that unit for 99 percent of referrals. Without 

requiring that its field offices record any actions or resolutions to address 

complaints, ICE did not have reasonable assurance that field offices are 

addressing them.

We recommended that the Director of ICE require that field offices record 

any actions taken on, and the resolutions of, detention-related complaints 

in a timely manner. This includes restrictive housing related complaints 

since they are a subset of detention-related complaints. ICE concurred 

with our recommendation and has taken steps toward addressing it. For 

example, in September 2021 ICE awarded a contract to integrate multiple 

data systems, intended to enable field office officials to enter any actions 

taken on, or resolutions of, certain detention-related complaints referred 

to them directly into the data system. ICE also plans to notify field offices 

that they are required to record any actions they take on, and the 

resolutions of, complaints referred to them in the system once those 

system capabilities are in place.
Page 13 GAO-24-107494 

In summary, BOP and ICE concurred with our recommendations, and we 

believe that implementation of these recommendations is essential. BOP 

has acknowledged the importance of implementing the recommendations 

from the prior studies to reduce its use of restrictive housing. ICE has 

made some progress as noted. However, full implementation will help 

BOP and ICE improve oversight of restrictive housing operations and 

ensure compliance with relevant policies.

Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions you may have at this time.

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact Gretta L. Goodwin, Director, Homeland Security and Justice at 

(202)-512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony 

are Joy A. Booth (Assistant Director), Carissa Bryant (Analyst-in-Charge), 

Billy Commons, Ben Crossley, Dominick Dale, Michele Fejfar, Rebecca 

Gambler, Miriam Hill, Alison Knowles, Taylor Matheson, Brian Pegram, 

and Meg Ullengren. Key contributors for the previous reports on which 

this testimony is based are listed in each product.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments
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.

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through our website. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly 

released reports, testimony, and correspondence. You can also subscribe to 

GAO’s email updates to receive notification of newly posted products.

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 on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or Email Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov. 

Contact FraudNet:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/about/what-gao-does/fraudnet

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, ClowersA@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington, 

DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

Stephen J. Sanford, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.