Alien Detention Standards: Telephone Access Problems Were Pervasive at Detention Facilities; Other Deficiencies Did Not Show a Pattern of Noncompliance
Published: 2007-07-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The total number of aliens detained per year by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) increased from about 95,000 in fiscal year 2001 to 283,000 in 2006. The care and treatment of these detained aliens is a significant challenge to ICE. GAO was asked to review ICE's implementation of its detention standards for aliens in its custody. GAO reviewed (1) detention facilities' compliance with ICE's detention standards, (2) ICE's compliance review process, and (3) how detainee complaints regarding conditions of confinement are handled. To conduct its work, GAO reviewed DHS documents, interviewed program officials, and visited 23 detention facilities of varying size, type, and geographic location.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's observations at 23 alien detention facilities showed systemic telephone system problems at 16 of 17 facilities that use the pro bono telephone system, but no pattern of noncompliance for other standards GAO reviewed. At facilities that use the ICE detainee pro bono telephone system, GAO encountered significant problems in making connections to consulates, pro bono legal providers, or the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) complaint hotline. Monthly performance data provided by the phone system contractor indicates the rate of successful connections through the detainee pro bono telephone system was never above 74 percent. ICE officials stated there was little oversight of the telephone contract. In June 2007, ICE requested an OIG audit of the contract,stating that the contractor did not comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. Other instances of deficiencies GAO observed varied across facilities visited but did not appear to show a pattern of noncompliance. These deficiencies involved medical care, use of hold rooms, use of force, food service, recreational opportunities, access to legal materials, facility grievance procedures, and overcrowding. ICE annual compliance reviews of detention facilities identified deficiencies similar to those found by GAO. However, insufficient internal controls and weaknesses in ICE's compliance review process resulted in ICE's failure to identify telephone system problems at most facilities GAO visited. ICE's inspection worksheet used by its detention facility reviewers did not require that a reviewer confirm that detainees are able to make successful connections through the detainee pro bono telephone system. Detainee complaints may be filed with several governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Detainee complaints mostly involved legal access, conditions of confinement, property issues, human and civil rights, medical care, and employee misconduct at the facility. The primary way for detainees to file complaints is to contact the OIG. OIG investigates the most serious complaints and refers the remainder to other DHS components.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 2006, a Pew Hispanic Center report estimated that there were   11.5 million to 12 million unauthorized aliens in the United States.  Moreover, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS)  2005 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the population of unauthorized  aliens in the United States will continue to grow at an average annual rate  of about 400,000 aliens per year. Through immigration enforcement  efforts such as workplace raids and other law enforcement activities,  some of these unauthorized aliens may be apprehended and placed in  detention pending civil administrative immigration removal proceedings.  The total number of aliens in administrative proceedings that spend some  time in detention per year increased from 95,214 in 2001 to 283,115 in  2006. Available detention bed space rose from 19,702 in fiscal year 2001 to  27,500 in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2007, DHS’s U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE) received $953 million in funding for detention  services. The care and treatment of these aliens while in detention is a  significant challenge to ICE, and concerns have been raised by members  of Congress and advocacy groups about the treatment of aliens while in  ICE custody.
According to ICE, its goal is to provide safe, secure, and humane  conditions for all detainees in ICE custody. Furthering the goal of ensuring  that alien detainees are housed under appropriate conditions of  confinement, in 2000, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service  implemented National Detention Standards that apply to alien adult  detention facilities. These standards are derived from the American  Correctional Association Third Edition, Standards for Adult Local  Detention Facilities, and were developed in consultation with the  American Bar Association (ABA), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ),  and other organizations involved in pro bono representation and advocacy  for immigration detainees. The standards encompass areas such as  telephone access, legal access, medical services, detainee grievance  procedures, food services, and recreation. Following the creation of DHS  in March 2003, ICE took over responsibility for the National Detention  Standards when the Immigration and Naturalization Service was  abolished. ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal (DRO) is responsible for  conducting reviews to ensure compliance with these standards, and  according to ICE policy, all detention facilities are required to be  inspected annually for this purpose.
The National Detention Standards apply to the 330 adult and 3 family  detention facilities that ICE uses to detain aliens. These standards are to  govern conditions relating to detainee telephone access, medical care, and  access to legal materials, among others. Alien detention facilities can use  various means to satisfy the requirements of the standards. For example,  the telephone access standard and grievance procedure standard require  that facilities provide a means for detainees to make calls at no charge to  themselves or to the recipients, to their consulates, pro bono legal  providers, and the DHS Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) complaint  line among others. Many facilities have adopted ICE’s contractor-provided  automated pro bono telephone system to satisfy the standard, while  others allow detainees to make the required calls using facility phones  with the assistance of facility personnel. As a second example, to fulfill the  standard for providing medical services, some facilities provide on-site  medical care, while others make use of local medical providers. As a third  example, some facilities provide legal search programs on computers to  meet the access to legal materials standard, while others provide hard- copy legal reference materials in a law library.
This report focuses on the following questions: (1) To what extent do  selected facilities comply with established detention standards? (2) To  what extent does ICE’s compliance review process identify deficiencies?  (3) What organizations external to the detention facilities receive alien  detainee complaints, and what types of complaints have been received?
To address our objectives we,    conducted visits to a nonprobability sample of detention facilities to  observe conditions of confinement, implementation of the standards,  and extent of compliance with alien detention standards;  interviewed DHS and ICE officials responsible for compliance with  alien detention standards and analyzed documentation on staffing  levels devoted to ensuring compliance with alien detention standards  and associated guidance and training provided to personnel to oversee  compliance with the standards;  interviewed DHS and ICE officials and analyzed DHS documentation  on efforts, methodologies, and internal controls used to evaluate  compliance with the standards;     analyzed data on pro bono telephone system performance provided by  the ICE telephone contractor; and     analyzed data on detention-related complaints filed by alien detainees  or their representatives with the OIG, and reviewed information on the  number and type of detainee complaints received by DHS and ICE  components, and nongovernmental organizations assisting alien  detainees.
On the basis of interviews with the United Nations High Commissioner for  Refugees (UNHCR), ABA, and OIG officials, we selected a nonprobability  sample of 8 of 38 ICE National Detention Standards to review at the  detention facilities we visited. The 8 standards we selected are telephone  access, medical care, hold rooms procedures, use of force, food services,  recreation, access to legal materials, and detainee grievance procedures.  According to the officials we interviewed, these standards pertained to the  basic treatment of detainees and were representative of areas of concern  and common complaints received in their organizations. We also observed  whether the population in the facilities we visited exceeded rated capacity.  We visited all 3 family detention facilities, 2 of 19 juvenile detention  facilities, and 18 of 330 adult detention facilities for our visits on the basis  of geographic diversity, facility type, and prior inspection ratings. Because  we did not randomly select our detention facilities, the results pertain only  to the facilities we visited and cannot be projected to the universe of  detention facilities. We also analyzed ICE annual facility compliance  reports for the detention sites we visited. Additionally, we analyzed the  most recently available detainee complaints compiled by the OIG and  reviewed information on the number and type of detainee complaints  received by ICE, UNHCR, and other sources. We did not independently  assess the merits of detainee complaints. Also, we did not determine if any  corrective actions suggested for the detention facilities as a result of DRO  reviews or detainee complaints were implemented.
We analyzed data on alien detention population statistics from DRO’s  Monthly Detention Reports, the number of authorized detention facilities  and their most current compliance ratings from DRO’s Detention  Inspection Unit’s compliance database, and available data on the number  and status of detainee complaint allegations received by the OIG. Further,  we reviewed and reported on the number and type of detainee complaints  received by ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), DHS Office  of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), the UNHCR, and the ABA. To  determine compliance with the telephone access standard, we also  analyzed contractor monthly telephone performance data related to the  detainee pro bono telephone system. Overall, we determined the data to  be sufficiently reliable for purposes of our review.
Our review focused on ICE, which has responsibility for custody of alien  detainees pending civil administrative removal proceedings and  accompanied juvenile aliens. We did not include alien detainees serving  criminal sentences in DOJ’s Bureau of Prisons facilities or unaccompanied  juvenile aliens in the custody of the Department of Health and Human  Services (HHS). See appendix I for more detailed information on our  scope and methodology.
Our work was conducted from May 2006 through May 2007 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DRO is responsible for the detention of aliens in its custody pending civil  administrative immigration removal proceedings. According to ICE, as of  the week ending December 31, 2006, there were 27,607 aliens detained in  ICE custody at 330 adult detention facilities nationwide.
The majority of ICE’s alien detainee population is housed with general  population inmates in about 300 state and local jails that have  intergovernmental service agreements with ICE. In addition to being  housed in these state and local facilities, alien detainees are also housed in  8 ICE-owned service processing centers and 6 contract detention facilities  operated by private contractors specifically for ICE alien detainees. In  addition to these adult detention facilities, ICE contracts for the operation  of 19 juvenile and 3 family detention facilities.
According to ICE officials, they maintain custody of one of the most highly  transient and diverse populations of any correctional or detention system  in the world. This diverse population includes individuals from different  countries; with varying security risks (criminal and noncriminal); with  varying medical conditions; and includes males, females, and families of  every age group. As of January 2007, the countries with the largest  numbers of alien detainees in ICE custody were Mexico, El Salvador,  Guatemala, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. See appendix II  for additional information on alien detention population statistics.
ICE’s National Detention Standards are derived from the American  Correctional Association Third Edition, Standards for Adult Local  Detention Facilities. ICE officials said that they were currently in the  process of revising the National Detention Standards based on American  Correctional Association Fourth Edition, Performance-Based Standards  for Adult Local Detention Facilities. In most cases ICE standards mirror  American Correctional Association (ACA) standards. However, in some  cases ICE standards exceed or provide more specificity than ACA  standards to address the unique needs of alien detainees. As an example,  ICE standards specify that a detainee should receive a tuberculosis test  upon intake, while ACA standards do not. Further, ICE standards require a  detailed list of immigration-related legal reference materials be made  available in law libraries, while ACA standards do not specify the type and  nature of legal materials to be made available. Also, exceeding ACA  standards, ICE standards specify that, when possible, use of force on  detainees be videotaped and that certain informational materials provided  to detainees, such as fire evacuation instructions and detainee handbooks,  be available in Spanish.
The ICE National Detention Standards are to apply to ICE-owned  detention facilities and those state and local facilities that house alien  detainees. The standards are not codified in law and thus represent  guidelines rather than binding regulations. According to ICE officials, ICE  has never technically terminated an agreement for noncompliance with its  detention standards. However, under ICE’s Detention Management  Control Program policies and procedures, ICE may terminate its use of a  detention facility and remove detainees or withhold payment from a  facility for lack of compliance with the standards.
Separate standards addressing the treatment of juvenile aliens are used for  juvenile secure detention and shelter facilities. Both adult and juvenile  detention facility standards are used at ICE’s family shelter facilities  because of the unique classification of family shelters. There are 38 ICE  National Detention Standards for adult detention facilities; 18 standards  are related to detainee services, 4 are related to detainee health services,  and 16 are related to security and control. More detailed information on  each of these standards is provided in appendix IV.
According to ICE officials, in addition to being required to comply with  ICE’s National Detention Standards, some ICE detention facilities are  accredited by ACA. For example, seven of eight ICE service processing  centers and five of six contract detention facilities are accredited by ACA.  In addition, according to ICE officials, some of the over 300  intergovernmental service agreement facilities are also accredited by ACA.  Moreover, some facilities are also accredited by the Joint Commission on  Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO), the predominant  standards-setting and accrediting body in health care, and the National  Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC), which offers a health  services accreditation program to determine whether correctional  institutions meet its standards in their provision of health services.
section_title: Field Visits at 23 Detention Facilities Showed Systemic Telephone Access Problems and Instances of Noncompliance with Other Standards
paragraphs: Our field observations at 23 alien detention facilities showed systemic  telephone system problems at 16 of 17 facilities that use the pro bono  telephone system, but no pattern of noncompliance for other standards we  reviewed. Problems with the pro bono telephone system restrict detainees’  abilities to reach their consulates, nongovernmental organizations, pro  bono legal assistance providers, and the OIG complaint hotline. ICE and  facility officials told us that they did not know the specific nature and  extent of the problem prior to our review. ICE’s lack of awareness and  insufficient internal controls appear to have perpetuated telephone system  problems for several years. Similarly, there were insufficient internal  controls at the facilities to ensure posted phone numbers were kept up to  date or otherwise accurate. For instance, one facility told us that the only  means to know if a posted phone list was out of date or inaccurate was if a  detainee complained. In addition to telephone problems, we also observed  a lack of compliance with one or more aspects of other individual  detention standards at 9 of the 23 sites we visited. These instances of  noncompliance varied across facilities that we visited, and unlike the  telephone system problems, did not appear to show a persistent pattern of  noncompliance. Other examples of deficiencies included food service  issues such as kitchen cleanliness and menu rotation, failure to follow  medical care policy at intake, hold room policy violations such as lack of  logbooks and overcrowding, and potential use of force violations such as  the potential for use of dogs and/or Tasers, since some facilities had the  use of Tasers either authorized in policy or facility officials stated they  used these methods. Last, we also observed detainees being housed in  numbers that exceeded the rated capacity at 4 of the 23 sites we visited.
subsections: section_title: Systemic Problems in Detainees’ Telephone Access Restrict Detainees’ Ability to Reach Pro Bono Services
paragraphs: ICE alien detention standards specify that detainees be provided the  ability to make telephone calls, at no charge to themselves or to the  recipients, to their respective consulates, designated pro bono legal  service providers, and the OIG complaint hotline, among others. The pro  bono telephone system is to ensure that detainees have access to  authorized legal representatives, that aliens who wish to retain counsel are  not prevented from doing so, and to allow detainees to contact their home  country consulates to seek assistance. The pro bono telephone system is  also to ensure that detainees can voice complaints regarding their  conditions of confinement to organizations with responsibility for  investigating or monitoring detainee treatment. In order to meet the  telephone access standard, ICE contracted with Public Communications  Services (PCS) to provide a pro bono telephone system to enable  detainees to contact the aforementioned parties at no charge. The term of  the contract is January 22, 2004, to January 21, 2009, and consists of a   12-month base period and four 12-month options.
subsections: section_title: Widespread Failures Found at Facilities We Visited in the Pro Bono Telephone System
paragraphs: Of the 23 detention facilities we visited, 17 facilities utilize the PCS  detainee telephone system. We performed telephone tests at all 17 of  these facilities. Our tests consisted of dialing the OIG’s complaint line,  consulates, nongovernmental organizations, and pro bono legal service  providers from the numbers posted next to the telephones to determine if  we could get a connection. All of the phones were in good working order,  and we observed that detainees could successfully place personally  funded phone calls using calling cards purchased from the facility.  However, we often could not connect to the telephone numbers for the  OIG, consulates, and pro bono legal providers. At 16 of 17 detention  facilities where we performed test calls through the pro bono telephone  system, we encountered numerous failures that ranged from incomplete  and inaccurate phone number postings to a variety of technical system  failures that would not permit the caller to make the desired connections.  For example, during our facility visits, we observed posters advertising the  OIG complaint hotline 1-800 number. However, we found that the OIG  number was blocked or otherwise restricted at 12 of the facilities that we  tested. Typical problems that we encountered when dialing the OIG’s  complaint line included getting a voice prompt stating that “this number is  restricted,” “this is an invalid number,” or “a call to this number has been  blocked by the telephone service provider.” Also, at 14 of the facilities  using the PCS detainee telephone system, we could not complete phone  connections to some consulates. We received messages such as a message  stating that “all circuits are busy, call back at a later time” and “this  number is restricted.” At the Pamunkey Regional Jail in Virginia we  requested that the on-site Systems Administrator call PCS to determine  why its pro bono telephone system was not working properly. The PCS  service department informed him that there was a problem with the PCS  system and it seemed to be at all facilities. Figure 1 shows a telephone  with posted pro bono numbers at the Denver Contract Detention Facility,  where we identified telephone system problems during our testing.
Further, we found the PCS detainee telephone system to be cumbersome  and complicated to use. For example, at Pamunkey Regional Jail, the  automated system required eight different actions by the user to place a  call. One of these actions added further confusion by instructing a  detainee to select “collect call” in order to make a pro bono telephone  system call. Similarly, at the Northwest Detention Center, detainees were  offered only two voice prompt options when attempting to place a call  using the pro bono telephone system: (1) to place a “collect call” and (2) to  place a “credit card call.”
In some cases, we found that the pro bono telephone system requires  detainees to input their Alien Registration Number (commonly referred to  as an “A” number) as part of the process for making a pro bono telephone  call. In at least one facility, however, this in itself provided enough  confusion among detainees to prevent them from making a successful call.  At Pamunkey Regional Jail, we asked a group of about 40 detainees in one  dorm if any of them could call any of the pro bono service numbers posted  on the wall. We found that most of the detainees were not familiar with  “A” numbers that would be required. In one case, when we asked a  detainee for his “A” number, he referred to an unrelated number labeled  “PIN” on his jail inmate wrist band. This may have been because the  detainee handbook at Pamunkey refers to an “A” number as “PIN.” This  problem was also recorded during a visit by UNHCR representatives at the  same facility in 2005. Nevertheless, we obtained an actual “A” number  from personal paperwork provided to us by one of the detainees. Using his  legitimate “A” number, and working our way through numerous voice  prompts, we could not make a connection using any of the pro bono legal  service or consulate numbers posted at the Pamunkey Regional Jail. The  facility compliance officer, the phone technician on site, and the ICE  phone system contract technical representative who accompanied us at  Pamunkey could offer no explanation for the pro bono telephone system  failure. The telephone technician told us that he oversees frequent  problems with the detainee phones at Pamunkey.
section_title: Insufficient Internal Controls Existed to Ensure Pro Bono Telephone Number Postings Are Kept Up to Date or That the Pro Bono Calling System Is Functioning Properly
paragraphs: At 16 of the 17 detention facilities we visited with the ICE pro bono  telephone system, we found insufficient internal controls to ensure that  telephone number postings are kept up to date and/or that the pro bono  telephone system is functioning properly. For example, the phone number  listings for pro bono legal providers and consulates were out of date and  inaccurate at the Elizabeth Detention Facility. When we visited this facility  in September 2006, the list of consulate numbers was 6 years old (dated  2000). We called 30 of the consulate numbers on the posted listing and  determined that 9 of the numbers were incorrect. When we asked the ICE  officer in charge on site why the consulate numbers were not up to date,  he said he had no way of knowing if the phone numbers posted for the  detainees were out of date unless someone complained. Additional  examples include Pamunkey and Hampton Roads Regional Jails, where we  found that consulate numbers were not listed for two countries with  detainees of those nationalities present. Inaccurate or missing telephone  numbers may preclude detainees from reaching consulates, pro bono legal  providers, and the OIG complaint hotline, as required in ICE’s National  Detention Standards.
Officials we interviewed at the Department of Justice’s Executive Office  for Immigration Review (EOIR) stated that their organization updates all  local pro bono legal services phone numbers every 3 months and provides  these updated phone numbers to all immigration courts. Some of these  immigration courts are located within the detention facilities themselves.  The EOIR officials stated that it is the responsibility of ICE staff to ensure  that copies of updated pro bono phone lists are regularly picked up at the  immigration courts and posted in the detainee dorms. Moreover, we did  not have any problem obtaining current phone number lists for local pro  bono legal services from the EOIR Web site. Current consulate phone  numbers are also available on the Department of State’s Web site. Despite  the availability of these numbers, ICE staff did not have procedures to  ensure that the updated numbers were posted and provided to the phone  system contractor to be programmed into the system on a regular basis.
We found that most facilities that we visited were not aware that the pro  bono telephone system was not operating properly because there were no  internal control procedures for regularly testing the system. At two of the  facilities we visited, the San Diego Correctional Facility and the Denver  Contract Detention Facility, ICE’s recent compliance inspection reports  cited facility officials for failing to properly monitor the pro bono phone  system. When we tested the pro bono telephone system at the T. Don  Hutto Family Shelter and found that we were unable to make most  connections successfully, the facility officials established a new logbook  and required the officer on duty in the detainee dorms to test the pro bono  telephone system three times daily (8 a.m., 12 noon, and 4:30 p.m.) and  record the results of these tests (satisfactory or unsatisfactory). We are  not aware of any other immediate corrective action taken by other  facilities that we visited. At Broward Transitional Center, facility officials  stated that if a detainee had difficulty connecting through the pro bono  call system, they provided an alternative means for a detainee to direct- dial these calls on a facility phone outside of the housing unit. Noting the  poor performance of the pro bono telephone system it is important for  facilities to post instructions for alternative means for detainees to  complete calls in the event that the ICE pro bono telephone system is not  functioning properly.
section_title: ICE Not Monitoring Contractor Telephone System Performance Reports
paragraphs: We reviewed monthly pro bono telephone system performance reports  provided to ICE by the pro bono phone system contractor for the last   5 years. The overall data show that over the 5-year period, 41 percent of  calls placed through the system were not successful. This was consistent  with problems we found during our site visits. These high failure rates  indicated a systemic problem with the detainee pro bono telephone  system. Figure 2 shows the monthly success rate for telephone calls  placed through the pro bono telephone system from November 2005 to  November 2006. Over this period, the rate of successful connections was  never above 74 percent. Further, during the period between May and July  2006, on average, 60 percent of all attempted calls by detainees were not  completed.
The contractor-provided performance data also contained information on  systemwide facility success rates for completed calls. When we reviewed  these data, we found that individual facilities showed a similar trend of  poor performance in completing calls when detainees attempted to use the  pro bono call system.
Our discussions with ICE contract administration officials, including  contract officials in the Office of Acquisition and the Contracting Officer  Technical Representative (COTR) in DRO, indicated that there was little  oversight of the telephone contract being performed. The ICE contracting  officer assigned responsibility for the PCS contract told us that the PCS  phone contract was operating essentially on “autopilot” in that there was  limited oversight being performed of the contract. The contracting official  also stated that he had not been informed of any performance-related  contract issues by the ICE COTR, who he said was responsible for  monitoring the technical performance of the contractor. When we  interviewed the COTR, he told us that he was assigned contract-related  duties on a collateral basis while serving as a full-time compliance  reviewer in the Detention Standards Compliance unit of DRO. A senior  official in ICE’s Office of Acquisition said that the office faced significant  challenges relating to turnover, understaffing, and loss of institutional  knowledge regarding contract oversight and management. After several  discussions with ICE contract and detention compliance officials  concerning our findings of systemic problems with the pro bono calling  system, the officials acknowledged that a lack of internal controls exists in  its present system for monitoring detainee telephone system contractor  performance and that greater contractor oversight is required. According  to ICE officials, their intent is to issue a new telephone contract  solicitation in the coming months. This contract for delivering pro bono  telephone services is projected to be awarded by December 31, 2007.
section_title: Some Telephone Contracts Provide for Commissions to Detention Facilities
paragraphs: We found that detainee complaints over the high costs of phone calls were  common. Under ICE’s pro bono telephone contract, PCS gains exclusive  rights to provide paid telephone access to detainees at Service Processing  Centers (SPC) and Contract Detention Facilities (CDF) to make paid  telephone calls through the purchase of calling cards in denominations of  $5, $10, or $20. The PCS rates range from $0.65 to $0.94 per minute for  international calls and $0.06 to $0.17 a minute for domestic calls.  Additionally, PCS contracts independently of ICE to provide paid  telephone access at some intergovernmental service agreement (IGSA)  facilities who determine their own rates apart from ICE. For instance, at  the Pamunkey Regional Jail, an IGSA facility, detainees are charged   $3.95 to connect and 89 cents a minute for long-distance calls. Under ICE’s  agreement with PCS, PCS provides the pro bono platform to any IGSA  facility that chooses to adopt it to meet the telephone access standard.  ICE officials stated that approximately 200 facilities currently use the PCS  pro bono telephone system. They also stated that some detention facilities  have revenue-sharing agreements with PCS for a portion of the revenue  resulting from the sale of the calling cards. ICE officials provided some  information at the end of our review indicating that telephone  commissions at some detention facilities range from 2 percent to   10 percent of calling card sales. According to ICE, revenue sharing is not a  part of its ICE-PCS contract; however, PCS has negotiated agreements  independently with detention facilities to make distribution to the  detainees of the phone cards, collect money, etc. We were unable to  examine the full extent of these contractual agreements across all ICE  detention facilities. However, on June 1, 2007, the ICE Assistant Secretary  requested a DHS Inspector General audit of the ICE pro bono telephone  system and contract to include activity relevant to the sale and use of  calling cards. Our review of correctional facility literature indicated that  commissions resulting from telephone card sales can be as high as   20 percent to 60 percent.
section_title: Compliance with Other Standards Varied but Did Not Show a Consistent Pattern of Noncompliance
paragraphs: In addition to reviewing compliance with the telephone access standard,  we focused on seven other detention standards. The standards we  reviewed included medical care, hold rooms, use of force, food service,  recreation, access to legal materials, and detainee grievance procedures.  While we found deficiencies regarding these other standards, unlike the  telephone system problems, these deficiencies did not show a systemic  pattern of noncompliance from facility to facility.
subsections: section_title: Medical Care
paragraphs: ICE standards state that detainees are to receive an initial medical  screening immediately upon admission and a full medical assessment  within 14 days. The policy also states that a health care specialist shall  determine needed medical treatment. Medical service providers used by  facilities include general medical, dental, and mental health care providers  and are licensed by state and local authorities. Some medical services are  provided by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), while other medical  service providers work on a contractual basis. Facilities that we visited  ranged from small clinics with contract staff to facilities with on-site  medical staff and diagnostic equipment such as X-ray machines. According  to ICE, when outside medical care appears warranted, then ICE will make  the determination through a Managed Care Coordinator provided by PHS.  Officials at some facilities told us that the special medical and mental  health needs of detainees can be challenging. Some also cited difficulties  in obtaining approval for outside medical and mental health care as also  presenting problems in caring for detainees.
We observed deficiencies in ICE’s Medical Care Standards at three  facilities we visited. These facilities consisted of one adult detention  facility, one family detention facility, and one juvenile detention facility.  Specifically, at the San Diego Correctional Facility, ICE reviewers that we  accompanied cited PHS staff for failing to administer the mandatory   14-day physical exam to approximately 260 detainees. PHS staff said the  problem was due to inadequate training on the medical records system  and technical errors in the records system. At a family detention center,  Casa de San Juan Family Shelter, the facility staff did not administer  medical screenings immediately upon admission, as required in ICE  medical care standards. Finally, at the Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention  Center, no medical screening was performed at admission and first aid kits  were not available, as required. Figures 3 and 4 show examples of medical  facilities at the Denver Contract Detention Facility and Berks County  Prison, which provide on-site medical care.
Hold rooms are used for temporary detention of individuals awaiting  removal, transfer, medical treatment, intrafacility movement, or other  processing into or out of the facility. ICE standards specify that detainees  not be held longer than 12 hours in a hold room, and that logs be  maintained documenting who is being held in hold rooms, how long they  have been held, and what food and services have been provided to them.  Deficiencies were observed in compliance with hold room standards at  three detention facilities we visited. As we accompanied ICE reviewers at  the San Diego Correctional Facility, the reviewers cited the facility for  placing detainees in holding cells for longer than the 12-hour limit. The San  Diego facility was also cited for failing to maintain an accurate hold room  log with custodial information about detainees arriving at and departing  from the facility.
During our visit to the Denver Contract Detention Facility, we observed  that the number of detainees in the hold rooms exceeded rated capacity  and that the logbook was not properly maintained for individuals housed  in the hold rooms. As a result, officers on duty could not determine how  many detainees were being kept in hold rooms and meals were not  recorded. In a compliance review closeout meeting with Denver facility  officials, ICE reviewers identified the following deficiencies with the  facility’s compliance with ICE’s hold room standards: hold rooms were  over capacity; the detainee hold room logbook was incomplete and  unreadable; and unsupervised detainees had placed wads of paper in hold  room air vents. We also observed the absence of a hold room log at the  North Las Vegas Detention Center.
section_title: Use of Force
paragraphs: ICE’s use of force standard specifies that facilities have policies on the use  of force that require documentation of the criteria for using force, the  filing of incident reports, and review and consultation with medical staff  before and after the use of force. If possible, service processing centers  and contract detention facilities are required to videotape situations where  it is anticipated that the use of force may occur. All facilities that we  visited, with the exception of Casa de San Juan Family Shelter, had  policies on the appropriate criteria for the use of force on inmates. ICE  policy on the use of force also prohibits a facility to use Tasers at any time  or dogs except when searching for contraband. However, we observed the  potential for the use of Tasers and/or dogs at four of the adult detention  facilities that we visited. At the Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office, we  observed officers armed with Tasers. We interviewed one of these officers,  who was not aware of ICE’s policy forbidding the use of Tasers on  detainees. Therefore, if an incident occurs where he felt use of his Taser  was warranted, it would be unlikely he would distinguish between an alien  detainee and a jail inmate. At the North Las Vegas Detention Facility,  officers told us that they use Tasers and the use of Tasers was noted in the  facility’s Use of Force continuum. At Pine Prairie Correctional Center and  York County Prison, the use of Tasers is authorized in policy. According to  officials at the North Las Vegas detention facility, dogs may be potentially  used in a “show of force” situation, but would not actually be deployed as  a “use of force” on detainees.
section_title: Food Service
paragraphs: ICE standards require that all facilities offer rotating 5-week menus,  special medical and religious meals when approved by medical staff or a  chaplain, and that menus be reviewed by a nutritionist to ensure adequate  caloric and nutritional intake. Further, ICE food service standards require  that facility food service employees be instructed in food safety and that  the facility be inspected by local, state, or ICE authorities. We observed  deficiencies regarding the ICE Food Service Standard at two adult  detention facilities and one juvenile detention facility that we visited. At  the Denver Contract Detention Facility, an adult facility, ICE reviewers  cited the facility for lack of cleanliness in its food service preparation and  a 4-week rotating menu instead of the required 5-week menu. The Denver  Contract Detention Facility received a deficient rating in sanitation from  ICE reviewers in October 2006 because the kitchen area was not properly  cleaned between meals. Figure 5 shows an unclean kitchen grill at the  Denver Contract Detention Facility.
At the San Diego Correctional Facility, an adult facility, PHS inspectors we  accompanied reviewed the files of the detainee food service workers and  found that two of the detainee workers had not been cleared to work in  the kitchen. These workers were immediately removed from food service  duty until such time as they receive the proper medical and security  clearances. At the Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention Center, juveniles  received only one hot meal per day rather than two hot meals per day as  required by the ICE Juvenile Food Standard. Some detainees we spoke  with expressed displeasure with the food, frequently citing that what they  were served was not what they were accustomed to or that meals were  served too early in the morning, and/or they did not have sufficient time to  eat their meals.
section_title: Recreation
paragraphs: ICE detention standards state that detainees are to be allowed at least   5 hours of recreation per week. At facilities that we visited, common  outdoor recreational activities included basketball and volleyball, and  common indoor recreation activities included board games and television.  The physical facilities for recreational activities varied, particularly the  outdoor recreation facilities. ICE detention standards do not specify that  outdoor recreation take place physically outside the detention facility. If  only indoor recreation is available, detainees shall have access for at least  1 hour each day and shall have access to natural light. Some facilities we  visited provided recreation through indoor areas with natural sunlight. For  example, figures 6 and 7 show indoor/outdoor recreational areas with  natural sunlight and fresh air ventilation for detainees at the Hampton  Roads Regional Jail and Denver Contract Detention Facility. Each of the  facilities we visited met the 5-hour-per-week recreation standard. ICE’s  recreation standard states that if outdoor recreation is available at the  facility, each detainee shall have access for at least 1 hour daily, at a  reasonable time of day, 5 days a week, weather permitting. However, the  Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office detainee handbook stated that detainees  were allowed 3 hours of outdoor recreation per week. In commenting on  our report, DHS stated, notwithstanding the handbook, that detainees  receive outdoor recreation at Wakulla 5 days a week for a 1-hour period  each day.
According to the ICE legal access standard, which applies only to adult  and family detention facilities, detainees shall be permitted access to a law  library for at least 5 hours per week, be furnished legal materials, and be  provided materials to facilitate detainees’ legal research and writing.  Although not required, 18 of the 21 adult and family detention facilities  visited provided detainees with at least one computer and legal software  as an option to conduct research on immigration law and cases.
Detainees at most facilities that we visited generally had access to legal  materials. However, we observed a law library deficiency at the North Las  Vegas Detention Center. At North Las Vegas, certain detainees did not  have direct access to its law library because of the law library’s location.  This is because low-risk detainees would have needed to pass through a  dorm that housed high-risk detainees, thus violating ICE’s policies against  comingling of risk levels. As a result, some detainees were required to  submit a research plan to a designated detainee law clerk, who researches  the information on their behalf. We discussed this policy with facility  officials and they said that the current system was adopted to prevent  commingling among detainees of different risk levels and reduce  overcrowding within the law library. In June 2007, ICE officials stated that  all detainees at this facility have access to computers loaded with a legal  research database, which according to an ICE law librarian meets ICE’s  requirements to provide legal research material. However, at the time of  our visit to the North Las Vegas Detention Center, facility officials told us  that they were only in the process of providing for a mobile law library  cart with a computer loaded with legal research software. At the time of  our visit to the facility, the cart/computer system was not available to the  detainees. Figure 8 shows the law library available at the San Diego  Correctional Facility law library.
ICE’s detainee grievance standard states that facilities shall establish and  implement procedures for informal and formal resolution of detainee  grievances. The detainee grievance standard advocates resolving detainee  grievances informally, before resorting to formal grievance processes. The  formal grievance process permits detainees to file written grievances with  the designated grievance officer, generally within 5 days of the event or  unsuccessful resolution of an informal grievance. The standard also states  that detainees must have the opportunity to file a complaint directly with  the OIG, which we discuss later in the report. The standard also requires  facilities to maintain a grievance log and outline grievance procedures in  the detainee handbook. Our review of available grievance data obtained  from facilities and discussions with facility management showed that the  types of grievances at the facilities we visited typically included the lack of  timely response to requests for medical treatment, missing property, high  commissary prices, poor food quality and/or insufficient food quantity,  high telephone costs, problems with telephones, and questions concerning  detention case management issues.
Four of the 23 facilities we visited did not comply with all aspects of ICE’s  detainee grievance standards. Specifically, Casa de San Juan Family  Shelter did not provide a handbook, the Cowlitz County Juvenile  Detention Center did not include grievance procedures in its handbook,  Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office did not have a grievance log, and the  Elizabeth Detention Center did not record all grievances that we observed  in their facility files.
section_title: Detainee Populations Exceeded Rated Capacity at 4 of 23 Facilities Visited
paragraphs: At 4 of the 23 detention facilities we visited, we observed that detainees  were sleeping in portable beds on the floor in between standard beds  and/or sleeping three persons to a two-person cell. These 4 detention  facilities were the Krome Service Processing Center, the Denver Contract  Detention Facility, the San Pedro Service Processing Center, and the San  Diego Correctional Facility. At the time of our visit, the Krome Service  Processing Center in Florida had a population of 750 detainees with a  rated capacity of 572 detainees. Officials told us that the facility’s  population had been as high as 1,000 detainees just 1 week prior to our  visit. An official at that facility expressed concern about the limited  amount of unencumbered space at the facility. Figure 9 shows the use of  portable beds on the left side of the picture used to accommodate excess  population at the Krome Service Processing Center.
At the San Diego Correctional Facility, we observed that detainees were  “triple-bunked”—three detainees in a cell built for two. For example, we  counted 110 women housed in a dorm designed to house only   68 detainees. ICE and facility officials stated that overcrowding was a  potential security and safety issue, and this concern was noted in ICE’s  inspection report. The officials later informed us that they had developed a  plan with recommendations to address overcrowding at the San Diego  facility. According to these officials, they had submitted the plan to ICE  headquarters officials for their approval. In January 2007, we contacted  ICE officials for an update on the overcapacity issues at the San Diego  Correctional Facility, and officials said that ICE had reduced the detainee  population and was no longer triple-bunking detainees. We requested  documentation in support of the San Diego facility’s new policy on  overcrowding, but ICE said that it could not respond to our request due to  pending litigation involving the San Diego facility.
During our October 2006 visit to the Denver Contract Detention Facility,  we also observed that detainees were sleeping in portable beds placed in  the aisles between standard beds. The ICE Denver Field Office Director  said that his field office has been requesting additional detention bed  space within the region for some time and that his office considers  overcrowding to be an issue of concern. He said that the portable beds  that we observed are a measure to address overcapacity and that the  Denver Contract Detention Facility needs to be expanded. Figure 10  shows the use of portable beds and overcapacity conditions at the Denver  Contract Detention Facility.
In addition to our observations, UNHCR officials, who monitor conditions  of confinement at alien detention facilities, told us that they had observed  overcrowded conditions at two facilities they visited in 2006. These  facilities were the South Texas Detention Complex, Pearsall, Texas, and  the Aguadilla Service Processing Center in Puerto Rico.
section_title: ICE’s Review Mechanism Identified Deficiencies in Most Areas, but Weaknesses Exist Regarding the Telephone System
paragraphs: ICE annual inspections of detention facilities are generally conducted on  time and with the exception of the pro bono telephone system have  identified deficiencies for corrective action. Weaknesses that we found in  ICE’s compliance review process have resulted in ICE’s failure to identify  telephone system problems at many facilities we visited. Specifically,  ICE’s Detention Inspection Worksheet used by reviewers does not require  that a reviewer check that detainees are able to make successful  connections through the pro bono telephone system. Further, there was  variation in how ICE reviewers addressed and reported telephone system  problems. Moreover, in at least one case, the Wakulla County Sheriff’s  Office, where phone system problems were identified by ICE reviewers,  we observed the same problems nearly a year after the facility’s telephone  standard compliance had been rated as “at risk.”
subsections: section_title: ICE Annual Compliance Inspection Reviews Have Identified Compliance Deficiencies Similar to Those That We Observed
paragraphs: We reviewed the most recently available ICE annual inspection reports for  20 of the 23 detention facilities that we visited. The 20 inspection reports  showed that ICE reviewers had identified a total of 59 deficiencies. Many  of the types of deficiencies noted in the ICE inspection reports were  similar to those that we observed. For example, deficiencies included  issues concerning staff-detainee communication, detainee transfers,  access to legal materials, admission and release, recreation, food service,  medical care, telephone access, special management unit, tool control,  detainee classification system, and performance of security inspections.  Additional information on these standards is included in appendix IV. The  ICE inspection reports are to be forwarded to the cognizant ICE field  office and the facility that was reviewed. For deficiencies that could take  longer than 45 days to correct, the facility management is to file a plan of  action documenting how the deficiency will be addressed.
According to ICE policy, all 330 adult detention facilities, as well as the   19 juvenile and 3 family detention facilities, are required to be inspected at  12-month intervals to determine that they are in compliance with  detention standards and to take corrective actions if necessary. As of  November 30, 2006, according to ICE data, ICE had reviewed  approximately 90 percent of detention facilities within the prescribed   12-month interval. To perform these compliance reviews, ICE  headquarters has a Detention Inspection Unit that has a Unit Chief of  Compliance, six staff officers, three support staff, and a private contractor  consultant. In addition, 298 ICE field staff serve as detention compliance  reviewers on a collateral basis. According to the Detention Management  Control Program Policy, reviewers are provided written guidance for  conducting compliance inspections. Subsequent to each annual inspection,  a compliance rating report is to be prepared and sent to the Director of the  Office of Detention and Removal or his representative within 14 days. The  Director of the Office of Detention and Removal has 21 days to transmit  the report to the field office directors and affected suboffices. Facilities  receive one of five final ratings in their compliance report—superior,  good, acceptable, deficient, or at risk. ICE officials reported that as of  June 1, 2007, 16 facilities were rated “superior,” 60 facilities were rated  “good,” 190 facilities were rated “acceptable,” 4 facilities were rated  “deficient,” and no facilities were rated “at risk.” ICE officials stated that  this information reflects completed reviews, and some reviews are  currently in process and pending completion. Therefore, ICE could not  provide information on the most current ratings for some facilities.
section_title: Weaknesses in Inspection Checklist Permit Pro Bono Telephone System Problems to Go Undetected at Some Facilities
paragraphs: The telephone access section of the review checklist guide that ICE teams  use to conduct their annual detention facility compliance reviews only  requires that the reviewer determine that detainees have access to  operable phones to make calls. This is an example of an insufficient  internal control because the checklist guide does not require the ICE  review teams to check that detainees are able to successfully make  connections through the pro bono telephone system. During our visits to  detention facilities, we found that the phones were fully functional for pay  calls but connections could not always be completed using the pro bono  call system. Because inspectors did not test the pro bono telephone  system during the review process to determine whether a call could  actually be completed using that system, facilities could be and, in some  instances were, certified as being in compliance with ICE’s telephone  access standard when in reality the pro bono call system was not  functioning and detainees were not able to make connections.
For example, at one facility where we had determined that the pro bono  telephone system would not allow us to make connections with  consulates, the OIG complaint hotline, or local pro bono legal services, the  senior ICE inspector on site considered the phone access standard had  been met because he had observed detainees talking on the phones. In this  instance, the ICE reviewer found that the facility was in compliance with  the telephone access standard without actually verifying that a successful  connection could be made through the pro bono telephone system. As a  result, it is possible that many phone system problems had not been  identified by ICE reviewers.
As discussed above, we found telephone access compliance deficiencies  to be pervasive at the detention facilities we visited. However, at 16 of   17 detention facilities that utilize the pro bono telephone system; the most  recently available ICE inspection reports for these same facilities  disclosed phone problems at only 5 of the 16 facilities. Of these 5 facilities,  3 were given a rating of “deficient” or “at risk” for compliance with the  telephone access standard that required the facility to submit a plan of  action to resolve the deficiency. For the other two facilities, the problems  were listed as a “concern” rather than a deficiency and as such, did not  require a plan of action. The examples below illustrate the variations in  how the ICE reviewer in charge reported telephone compliance problems.
Elizabeth Detention Facility: At this facility, our analysts accompanied  the ICE team during its annual compliance inspection. Although we  advised the ICE team, ICE facility staff, and contractor management that  the phone listings were out of date and the pro bono telephone system was  not operating properly, ICE’s final compliance report only addressed  problems with outdated phone numbers and not the larger concern of  telephone system problems.
San Diego Correctional Facility: At San Diego, we also accompanied ICE  reviewers who noted pro bono telephone system problems, including  inaccurate and outdated phone lists and detainees being unable to make  successful connections through the pro bono telephone system. In this  case, the ICE reviewers detected the full range of telephone problems and  reflected them in their final report, subsequently requiring the facility to a  file a plan of action.
Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office: We visited this facility in October 2006  and observed a full range of pro bono telephone system problems,  including an inability to connect to consulates. Some of these problems  were also cited during ICE’s 2005 compliance review at this facility. In this  review ICE rated the Telephone Access Standard at this facility as “at  risk,” requiring that a plan of action be filed within 30 days and that noted  deficiencies be addressed within 90 days. Despite these requirements, no  corrective action was evident during our visit nearly a year later.
According to ICE officials, the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility is  creating a Detention Facilities Inspection Group (DFIG) within its  Management Inspections Unit to independently validate detention  inspections conducted by DRO. ICE officials stated that DFIG will perform  quality assurance over the review process, ensure consistency in  application of detention standards, and verify corrective action. According  to these officials, experienced staff were assigned from other ICE  components to this unit in February 2007.
section_title: Alien Detainees Filed Complaints with Several External Organizations Concerning a Wide Range of Allegations
paragraphs: In addition to the detainee grievance procedures at the detention facilities,  external complaints may be filed by detainees or their representatives with  several governmental and nongovernmental organizations, as shown in  figure 11. The primary mechanism for detainees to file external complaints  is directly with the OIG, either in writing or by phone using the OIG  complaint hotline. Detainees may also file complaints with the DHS Office  for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which has statutory responsibility for  investigating complaints alleging violations of civil rights and civil  liberties. In addition, detainees may file complaints through the Joint  Intake Center (JIC), which is operated continuously by both ICE and U.S.  Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel, and is responsible for  receiving, classifying, and routing all misconduct allegations involving ICE  and CBP employees, including those pertaining to detainee treatment. ICE  officials told us that if the JIC were to receive an allegation from a  detainee, it would be referred to the OIG. OIG may investigate the  complaint or refer it to CRCL or DHS components such as the ICE Office  of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for review and possible action. In  turn, CRCL or OPR may retain the complaint or refer it to other DHS  offices, including DRO, for possible action. Further, detainees may also file  complaints with nongovernmental organizations such as ABA and UNHCR.  These external organizations said they generally forward detainee  complaints to DHS components for review and possible action.
Of the approximately 1,700 detainee complaints in the OIG database that  were filed in fiscal years 2003 through 2006, OIG investigated 173 and  referred the others to other DHS components as displayed in figure 11.   As discussed earlier, the OIG complaint hotline telephone number was  blocked or otherwise restricted at 12 of the facilities that we visited.  Therefore, while some detainees at these facilities may have filed written  complaints with the OIG, the number of reported allegations may not  reflect the universe of detainee complaints. OIG has a system to record the  type of complaint and its status (e.g., open investigation, closed due to  insufficient information, or referred). Our review of approximately   750 detainee complaints from fiscal years 2005 through 2006 showed that  the complaints in the OIG database mostly involved issues relating to  medical treatment; case management; mistreatment; protesting  detention or deportation; civil rights, human rights, or discrimination;  property issues; and employee misconduct at the facility. Other, less  common complaints involved physical abuse, use of force,  mismanagement, detainee-on-detainee violence, general abuse, food and  commissary issues, general environmental concerns, and general  harassment. One challenge faced by the OIG in investigating detainee  complaints is that generally detainees do not stay in facilities for long  periods of time, so the complainant may be relocated to another facility or  returned to his or her country of origin before an investigation is initiated  or completed.
OPR investigates allegations of corruption and other official misconduct  only upon formal declination to investigate and referral by the OIG. OPR  classifies allegations under four categories based on severity of the  allegation and may retain cases for investigation, or refer complaints to  DHS components including DRO. OPR stated that in fiscal years 2003  through 2006, they had received 409 allegations concerning the treatment  of detainees. Seven of these allegations were found to be substantiated,  26 unfounded, and 65 unsubstantiated. Three of the seven substantiated  cases resulted in employee terminations, one resulted in an employee  termination that is currently under appeal, and according to an OPR  official, three cases were still being adjudicated. Additionally, 200 of the  allegations were classified by OPR as either information only to facility  management, requiring no further action, or were referred to facility  management for action, requiring a response.
CRCL also receives complaints from the OIG, nongovernmental  organizations, and members of the public. It tracks this information in its  complaint management system. Officials stated that from the period March  2003 to August 2006 they received 46 complaints related to the treatment  of detainees. Of these 46 complaints, 14 were closed, 11 were referred to  ICE OPR, 12 were retained for investigation, and 9 were pending decision  about disposition. CRCL monitors the review of all referred complaints  until conclusion.
We could not determine the number of cases referred to DRO or their  disposition. On the basis of a limited review of DRO’s complaints database  and discussions with ICE officials knowledgeable about the database, we  concluded that DRO’s complaint database was not sufficiently reliable for  audit purposes. According to ICE, DRO’s complaints database is used as  an internal managerial information system and is not designed to be a  formal tracking mechanism. DRO is responsible for overseeing the  management and operation of detention facilities. Therefore, it is  important that DRO accurately document detainee complaints related to  conditions of confinement to, among other things, inform its review teams  and DRO management regarding the conditions at the facilities used to  detain aliens. Moreover, our standards for internal control in the federal  government call for clear documentation of transactions and events that is  readily available for examination. Documentation would allow for  analysis that may reflect potential systemic problems throughout the  detention system.
In addition to our fieldwork and interviews with DHS and ICE officials  regarding compliance efforts in place for alien detention facilities, we  reviewed 37 detention monitoring reports compiled by UNHCR from the  period 1993 to 2006. These reports were based on UNHCR’s site visits and  its discussions with ICE officials, facility staff, and detainee interviews,  especially with asylum seekers. Some of the issues noted in UNHCR  mission reports included inadequate access to legal materials, the lack of  timely response to requests for medical service, questions about case  management, the high cost of telephone calls, and problems connecting  through the ICE pro bono telephone system.
While ABA officials informed us that they do not keep statistics regarding  complaints, on the basis of a review of their correspondence as of August  2006, they compiled a list of common detainee complaints received.  Common complaints reported by ABA included the high cost of telephone  calls and problems with the ICE detainee telephone system, delayed or  nonarriving mail, insufficient or outdated law library materials and lack of  access to law libraries, detainees housed with criminals and treated like  criminals, lack of information about complaint and grievance procedures,  medical and dental treatment complaints, unsanitary conditions,  insufficient food, facility staff problems, and abuse by inmates or other  detainees. Further, ABA data from January 2003 to February 2007  indicated that of the 1,032 correspondences it received, 710 involved legal  issues, 226 involved conditions of confinement, 39 involved medical  access, and 57 involved miscellaneous issues or were not categorized.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While ICE annual inspection reviews of detention facilities noted various  deficiencies in compliance with ICE’s standards, insufficient internal  controls and weaknesses in ICE’s compliance review process resulted in  ICE’s failure to identify telephone system problems that we found to be  pervasive at most of the detention facilities we visited. The insufficient  internal controls and weaknesses in the telephone access section of the  review checklist contributed to ICE reviewers’ failure to identify these  telephone system problems. Amendments to the checklist to include  requirements to confirm that pro bono telephone call connections can be  made successfully may provide for more consistent reporting of telephone  problems. Also, insufficient internal controls at detention facilities for  ensuring that posted pro bono telephone numbers were accurate resulted  in some facilities having inaccurate or outdated number lists. Systemic  problems with the pro bono telephone system may preclude detainees  from reaching consulates, nongovernmental organizations, pro bono legal  providers, and the OIG complaint hotline, as required in ICE’s National  Detention Standards. Additionally, ICE’s limited monitoring of contractor  performance data that indicated poor system performance is evidence of  the need for improved internal controls and monitoring of the contract.  ICE confirmed that the contractor did not comply with the terms and  conditions of the contract and in June 2007 requested that the OIG review  the extent of noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the  contract. Given the problems with the current pro bono telephone system  we found at 16 facilities we tested, it is also prudent to ensure detainees  are aware of and have access to alternative means for completing calls to  consulates, pro bono legal providers, and the OIG’s complaint line as  required by ICE standards. Without sufficient internal control policies and  procedures in place, ICE is unable to offer assurance that detainees can  access legal services, file external grievances, and obtain assistance from  their consulates.
ICE’s lack of a formalized tracking process for documenting detainee  complaints hinders its ability to (1) identify potential patterns of  noncompliance that may be systemwide and (2) ensure that all detainee  complaints are reviewed and acted upon if necessary. Because DRO is  responsible for overseeing the management and operation of alien  detention facilities, it is important that DRO accurately document detainee  complaints related to conditions of confinement to, among other things,  inform its review teams and DRO management regarding the conditions at  the facilities and facilitate any required corrective action. Moreover, our  standards for internal control in the federal government call for clear  documentation of transactions and events that is readily available for  examination.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure that detainees can make telephone calls to access legal services,  report complaints, and obtain assistance from their respective consulates,  as specified in ICE National Detention Standards and that all detainee  complaints are reviewed and acted upon as necessary, we recommend that  the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Assistant Secretary for U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take the following actions:    Amend the DRO compliance inspection process relating to the detainee  telephone access standard to include:    measures to ensure that facility and/or ICE staff frequently test to  confirm that the ICE pro bono telephone system is functioning  properly;  revisions to ICE’s compliance review worksheet to require ICE  reviewers, while conducting annual reviews of the telephone access  standard at detention facilities, to test the detainee pro bono  telephone system by attempting to connect calls and record any  automated voice messages as to why the call is not being put  through.
Require the posting in detention facilities of instructions for alternative  means for detainees to complete calls in the event that the ICE pro  bono telephone system is not functioning properly.
Direct ICE staff to establish procedures for identifying any changes to  phone numbers available from EOIR, the Department of State, and the  OIG and for promptly updating the pro bono telephone numbers posted  in detention facilities.
Establish supervisory controls and procedures, including appropriate  staffing, to ensure that DRO and Office of Acquisitions staff are  properly monitoring contractor performance.
In regard to the contract with Public Communications Services,  explore what recourse the government has available to it for contractor  nonperformance.
In competing a new telephone contract, ensure that the new contract  contains adequate protections and recourse for the government in the  event of contractor nonperformance.
Develop a formal tracking system to ensure that all detainee  complaints referred to DRO are reviewed and the disposition, including  any corrective action, is recorded for later examination.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. DHS  provided written comments on June 25, 2007, which are presented in  appendix V. In commenting on the draft report, DHS stated it agreed with  our seven recommendations and identified corrective actions it has  planned or under way to address the problems. With regard to several of  our recommendations, DHS believed that its progress in implementing  corrective actions merited our closing them. For example, by memo of the  DRO Assistant Director for Management, effective immediately, ICE staff  are to verify serviceability of all telephones in detainee housing units by  conducting random calls to pre-programmed numbers posted on the pro  bono and consulate lists. ICE staff also are to interview a sampling of  detainees and review written detainee complaints regarding detainee  telephone access. The field office directors are to ensure that all phones in  all applicable facilities are tested on a weekly basis.  This appears to be a  step in the right direction; however, proper implementation and oversight  of this initiative will be needed to resolve the issues we identified. While  we are encouraged by DHS’s plans and actions designed to address the  problems we identified in our report, we have not reviewed these plans  and actions to determine whether they could resolve or have resolved the  problems and thus will keep the recommendations open until these  actions can be evaluated for sufficiency.
DHS’s official comments also raised three issues that require some  clarification of our findings. First, DHS stated that the deficiencies we  identified generally do not illustrate a pattern of noncompliance with ICE  National Detention Standards, but rather, are isolated incidents, the  exception being telephone access. While it is true that the only pervasive  problem we identified related to the telephone system—a problem later  confirmed by ICE’s testing—we cannot state that the other deficiencies we  identified in our visits were isolated. Our findings are based on a non- probability sample of 23 detention facilities that was not generalizable to  all alien detention facilities. Moreover, we observed facility conditions at a  point in time that could have been different before and after our visits.
Second, DHS commented that GAO personnel stated in discussions that  they did not test or validate the availability of some other means for  detainees to make telephone connections when the detainee phones are  unable to do so. This is not the case. We checked whether the facilities we  visited offered alternative means to make telephone connections when the  pro bono system was not working. With the exception of the Broward  Transitional Center, we were not able to satisfy ourselves through  interviews with facility officials and detainees that routine assistance was  available to detainees to make pro bono calls when they were unable to  make these calls on the telephones provided for this purpose.
Third, DHS stated that it believes that figure 2 in our report, which shows  low connection rates for the pro bono network, does not properly  represent the number of calls that are not connected due to problems with  the network or provider. DHS’s comments included contractor data that  point out that a detainee may input a wrong number, hang up before  completing the call process, or call a pro bono attorney after business  hours. We acknowledge there could be a variety of reasons why some calls  may not have been completed over the period we reported on. However,  these additional data do not explain our own test results in which we  could not complete calls using the pro bono calling system at 16 of the   17 facilities we tested. We also note that we invited detainees, facility  personnel, and on-site ICE officials to attempt to make the same calls, and  they confirmed the calls could not be completed. Further, after we brought  the telephone deficiencies to their attention, ICE officials concluded that  the telephone service contractor had not been in compliance with the  terms and conditions of the contract.
DHS also provided us with technical comments, which we considered and  incorporated in the report where appropriate.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-8777 or StanaR@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are acknowledged in  appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We used a combinations of approaches and methodologies to meet our  audit objectives to assess (1) the extent to which selected facilities comply  with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) National  Detention Standards, (2) how reviews are conducted to ensure compliance  with National Detention Standards, and (3) what pertinent complaints and  reports have been filed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)  and ICE and external organizations monitoring the treatment of alien  detainees.
To meet our audit objective on the extent to which selected facilities  comply with National Detention Standards, we visited a nonprobability  sample of 23 detention facilities from September to November 2006.  These facilities were selected on the basis of geographic diversity, facility  type, and a cross section of different types of facility ratings. Three of the  facilities were undergoing ICE headquarters compliance inspection  reviews during our visits, and included the Elizabeth Detention Facility,  the San Diego Correctional Facility, and the Denver Contract Detention  Facility. Site visits focused on several detention standards affecting basic  treatment of detainees, including telephone access, medical care, legal  access, food, grievance and complaint procedures, use of force policies,  recreation, and hold room policy. On the basis of our interviews with  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the American  Bar Association (ABA), and the DHS Officer Inspector General (OIG)  officials, we selected a nonprobability sample of these standards to reflect  areas of concern and common complaints cited by these organizations.
Our site visits ranged from 1 to 3 days. At each location, we collected  information and made independent observations using a data collection  instrument that we developed from the ICE reviewer checklist in  consultation with ICE and nongovernmental organizations monitoring the  treatment of alien detainees. Our data collection instrument was not the  ICE compliance reviewer checklist in its entirety, but instead included key  components drawn from the checklist that we believed to be relevant to  the standards we reviewed. We used this checklist to determine if there  were deficiencies in compliance with one or more aspects of selected ICE  standards. For our site visits, we first requested a tour of the key detention  facility operations, including housing unit areas, medical units, kitchens,  hold rooms, special management or disciplinary units, recreational areas,  law libraries, visitation areas, and educational classrooms when  applicable. During these tours, we interviewed facility staff and ICE  officers assigned to the facility. In addition, when presented with an  opportunity, we interviewed individual detainees concerning their  treatment at detention facilities. Due to the limited amount of time we had  available at each facility and our desire to visit as many facilities as  possible for this review, we did not conduct structured file reviews.  However, we did review policies and procedures pertaining to detainee  conditions of treatment and interviewed facility and ICE staff responsible  for compliance with the standards that we reviewed.
For those detention facility locations undergoing ICE compliance  inspection reviews at the time our visit, we made use of our data collection  instrument, but supplemented it by observing the compliance review  process. For juvenile detention facilities, in addition to our data collection  instrument, we also referred to ICE’s juvenile standards of treatment to  guide our reviews of those facilities. For family shelters included in our  review, our observations were based on both the juvenile standards and  National Detention Standards for adults because no specific standards for  family detention facilities exist. Once problems with detainee access to  pro bono numbers were identified, we developed a structured telephone  test instrument to provide uniformity with our observations across the  sites visited.
The detention sites visited are:     Berks County Prison    Berks County Youth Shelter    Berks Family Shelter    York County Prison    Elizabeth Detention Facility    Washington Field Office    Pamunkey Regional Jail    Hampton Roads Regional Jail    West Baton Rouge Parish Detention Center    Bureau of Prisons Oakdale Federal Detention Center    Pine Prairie Correctional Center     Krome Service Processing Center    Broward Transitional Center    Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office    Los Angeles Field Office    San Pedro Service Processing Center    North Las Vegas Detention Center    El Centro Service Processing Center    San Diego Correctional Facility    Casa De San Juan Family Shelter    Denver Contract Detention Facility    Seattle Field Office    Northwest Detention Center    Cowlitz County Juvenile Detention Center    T. Don Hutto Family Facility    Laredo Contract Detention Facility  To describe how reviews are conducted to ensure compliance with  National Detention Standards, we interviewed DHS and ICE officials and  analyzed documentation on staffing levels for ensuring compliance with  alien detention standards, training provided to staff to ensure compliance  with the standards, and processes in place to ensure compliance with the  standards. To assess what pertinent complaints and reports have been  filed with DHS and ICE and external organizations monitoring the  treatment of alien detainees, we analyzed data on detainee complaints  from the DHS OIG complaint database from fiscal years 2005 through 2006  using content analysis. For our content analysis, we reviewed about   750 detainee complaints and categorized them by type to be able to  characterize common types of detainee complaints received by the OIG.  We also obtained and reviewed information on the number and types of  detainee complaints received from components within DHS and ICE for  the period fiscal years 2003-2006 as well as UNHCR for the period 1993  through 2006 and the ABA for the period January 2003 through February  2007. We did not independently assess the merits of detainee complaints.  Also, we did not determine if any corrective actions suggested for the  detention facilities as a result of Office of Detention and Removal (DRO)  reviews or detainee complaints were implemented.
To assess the reliability of OIG detainee complaint data for the period  fiscal years 2005 through 2006, we reviewed existing information about the  data and the system that produced them and interviewed agency officials  knowledgeable about the data. On the basis of our review of this  information and these discussions, we determined the OIG data to be  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Regarding the DRO complaints  database, we reviewed existing information about the data and the system  that produced them and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about  the data. On the basis of our review of this information and these  discussions, we determined that this information was not sufficiently  reliable for audit purposes. In regard to other data sources that we  reviewed, on the basis of our discussions with agency officials  knowledgeable about the data, we also determined that these sources  were sufficiently reliable for purposes of our review. In the case of  contractor performance data, we could not independently verify the  accuracy of the data, but did corroborate these data with other sources  and determined they were reliable for our purposes. Our work was  conducted from May 2006 through May 2007 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
While we focused our review on DHS and ICE, we also contacted officials  at the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and State to  discuss other issues related to alien detention, such as the custody of ICE  alien detainees at the Bureau of Prisons facilities, the care of juvenile  aliens in Health and Human Services custody, and the treatment of  refugees and asylum seekers in detention.
section_title: Appendix II: Alien Detention Population Statistics
paragraphs: According to ICE data, the average length of stay in ICE adult detention  custody for fiscal year 2007 as of April 2007 was 37.6 days. As of April 30,  2007, ICE reported that 25 percent of all detained aliens are removed  within 4 days, 50 percent within 18 days, 75 percent within 44 days,   90 percent within 85 days, 95 percent within 126 days, and 98 percent  within 210 days. According to ICE officials, there are many variables in the  time equation for length of stay at a detention facility, including travel  document requirements, political conditions, and airline conditions to  country of origin.
Figure 12 shows the breakdown between criminal and noncriminal aliens  in detention.
Figure 13 shows the breakdown of criminal charges by criminal aliens.
In fiscal year 2006, ICE was funded at an authorized bed level of 20,800.  For fiscal year 2007, ICE received funding for 27,500 bed spaces. ICE has  requested appropriations to fund 28,450 detention bed spaces in fiscal year  2008. As noted in ICE’s ENDGAME: Office of Detention and Removal  Strategic Plan, 2003-2012, the demand for detention has grown much  faster than available federal bed space, causing an increased reliance on  local jails to house detainees. ICE stated that this factor is critical because  DRO has more stringent jail standards than other entities, limiting the  number of jails that it can use.
section_title: Appendix III: Juvenile and Family Detention Standards
paragraphs: The Office of the National Juvenile Coordination Unit within U.S.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Detention and Removal  provides oversight and policy guidance to ICE/DRO field offices and field  office juvenile coordinators nationwide on issues related to juveniles and  families in detention. Within DRO, there are separate standards governing  juvenile, family, and adult detention facilities. These standards were  developed to ensure proper and safe housing of juveniles and families.  Specifically, the family shelter standards are tailored to a unique  population and encompass both the Juvenile Detention Standards as well  as ICE National Detention Standards for adult aliens. Furthermore, the  Minimum Standards for ICE Secure and Shelter Juvenile Detention  Facilities are based on American Correctional Association standards and  were developed with input from ICE DRO and the American Bar  Association and include program requirements contained in the Flores  court case settlement. The Juvenile Detention Standards reflect the needs  of the juvenile population and include such areas as access to court and  legal counsel, educational and vocational training, and medical services  and visitation.
Currently, ICE has 19 juvenile facilities and 3 family shelters. According to  ICE policy, all juvenile secure detention and shelter facilities and family  shelter facilities are required to be inspected at 12-month intervals. As with  adult detention facilities, the Detention Management Control Program  policies and procedures govern the review of ICE juvenile and family  facilities. Reviews are conducted through the use of structured review  worksheets. Facilities receive one of five final ratings upon review— superior, good, acceptable, deficient, and at risk. According to the  National Juvenile Coordinator, juvenile facilities rated deficient and at-risk  are immediately reviewed by DRO headquarters to determine the  suitability of use for placement of ICE juveniles.
Our observations of deficiencies in compliance with ICE standards at  juvenile and family shelters are discussed in the body of the report.
Figures 14, 15, and 16 show examples of juvenile and family shelter  facilities.
section_title: Appendix IV: Explanation of the Standards
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact listed above, William W. Crocker III, Assistant  Director; Minty M. Abraham; Frances A. Cook; Katherine M. Davis;   Dorian R. Dunbar; Cindy K. Gilbert; Lemuel N. Jackson;   Robert D. Lowthian; Victoria E. Miller; and William T. Woods made   key contributions to this report.